Not me. I detest paperwork and policy with a "passion". So work hard at reducing it at every opportunity.

Matt you raise a very good question. And one I am sure many don't want to answer.

I don't want to get into the "Covid is just a flu" debate. However if you look at the steps companies have taken to prevent covid harm (essentially for all intents and purposes either nothing to a few days in bed) then it stands to reason exactly the same steps should have been taken years ago for seasonal flu and other severe respiratory type diseases such as RSV. We didn't - other than token Free Flu Jab sessions.

And now we have set the standard for preventing a few few days off work its seems to me we have to keep maintaining that standard for years to come. Which will no doubt keep OSH practitioners employed for some time yet.

No.

It is very unhealthy to take the consequences of actions taken by others on your own shoulders.

Every night I go to sleep very easy knowing I have done the right thing.

RAT's are unreliable. There are people turning up in hospital who had negative RAT's but subsequently tested positive.

Payment is where it gets tricky.

An employee cannot be made to stay at home if they only have 'flu like symptoms". If an employer insists then this would likely be treated like a "suspension" and employees can't be disadvantaged while suspended. So the time off work would likely be on the employers account - not out of the employees leave entitlement.

And "flu like symptoms" does not mean a person has flu, or covid.

As for the Covid Leave Support Payment your employer is going to need an instruction from Min of Health that the employee must self isolate. An employee going "I'm a bit crook with flu like symptoms so going to have a week off work" isn't going to cut it. So total period of absence wil come out of employees leave entitlement.

Also worth noting is the Leave Support Payment is $600 for two weeks - not per week. Unlike the wage subsidy in previous years. So expect employees to want to be at work.

As an aside I am still astounded how many "crook people" are still desperate to get a RAT given their unreliability. I suppose its a first world problem when you have the worried well lining up for such things.

A word of caution on RAT's. Don't just read the efficacy on the label.

The RAT we have pre-orderd had a stated success rate of 97.5% positives and 100% negatives. Amazing I thought - this is super accurate! Maybe too good to be true.

Interestingly (or not) the packaging didn't give a clear citation of where they got their data from. But with a bit of digging I found that the trial group had 98% of the positive participants had mild to severe symptoms. So it seems the test is very good at picking up covid with those who are symptomatic.

But I dug further and looked for more independent data on evaluation trials published in medical journals and the like. You know the stuff - something that might be valid and reliable. Not just marketing fluff

To my surprise one evaluation found that out of 170 PCR negative people the RAT returned 40 positives.

Now we are in whatever new phase the govt has concocted today we are obviously at risk of closing our workforce down if we mass screen non-symptomatic people on a regular basis. If you have 170 staff you have a risk of sending 40 perfectly healthy people, and their families into self isolation for 10 days. And what happens when you run the tests next time. Another 40 healthy people gone. In a couple of weeks you may have literally no workers left.

Before implementing routine mass "without cause" screening, I suggest you hunt out independent evaluations of the RAT you plan on using

The next issue I am trying to get my head around is who pays for this absence. If the person is for all intents healthy, willing and able to work they can't take sick leave. If we as the employer have instructed them to stay away from work it seems we are likely to be the ones liable to pay for the absence. So its money out the door for no productivity. I'll come back on this one.

We've all probably got P2's lying around. They are nearly as good as N95's

Latest paper on this issue released by CDC. It is a given mask wearers get covid. So what are the odds of not getting infected if you wear different masks?

Best mask = N95 type respirators

Next best = medical masks.

Odds a bit better than 50/50 (not statistically significant) = cloth masks.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm?s_cid=mm7106e1_w%20%5bcdc.gov%5d#T3_down

How is this different for the overall "covid" response?

I'm a bit confused on just what your question is.

WINZ won't accept a txt from you the employer. You'll have to go online and fill the form in. And you will sign and say your employee meets the criteria

From a cashflow perspective you will pay out, say $600 as an allowance (not wages because its not related to work - so doesn't impact Annual Leave payments) in the employees pay, apply to WINZ who will at some point somewhere down the track put the money in your business bank account.

Hope this helps. Its generally a painless process.

Lots to unpack there tracy so I'll try

"As the covid-19 vaccinations are governments sanctioned, will they bear the cost of medical expenses of the individuals that suffer from myocarditis, allergic reactions, shingles and bells palsy?"

I'm not sure if you mean "mandated" or "sanctioned" but ACC will cover, in the normal manner, injuries that are not a usual consequence of having a vaccine. Eg if a person has a red mark injury around the puncture site this would not get ACC cover as it is a usual consequence. By if there was an injury coming from a reaction to the jab then it would be.

"There is a portal for reporting, but what of the investigation process and potential outcomes?"
If you have required the employee to get a jab and there has been a subsequent injury I would expect your usual incident reporting and investigation processes to kick in. I'd also note an employee can't "sue" an employer where ACC provides cover. But the employer can't rely on that if ACC doesn't provide cover.

"Will ACC cover any costs if there are long term health effects, hospitalization or payout to family members in the event of a death?"
Most likely yes - if the injury is not a normal consequence of the vaccine.

"What about the people, who have had a bad reaction to the second covid-19 vaccination and do not want the third, or any booster shots that follows? What are workplaces to do then?"
I hope you are asking why you are requiring vaccination in the first place. But if you have decided to go down that track then your test will more likely be a requirement for a person to be "fully vaccinated" rather than just receiving a certain number of jabs. If a person isn't / can't be fully vaccinated then you apply your protocol as if they were not vaccinated in the first place. That is, presumably the person may lose their job.

"What medical monitoring is proposed for staff that do not want to get the vaccinations, for the workplaces who do not want to let their staff go, due to current staff shortage issue? Where are the guidelines available around this topic?"
First issue is why do you want to medically monitor? And who are you going to medically monitor. Don't assume it is only the un-jabbed who can bring covid into your workplace. Very tricky question - no easy answer because you are going to have to look at health monitoring protocols, managing health information etc etc. With RAT (Rapid AntogenTests) it may be simpler to set up a protocol that requires a suspect person to bring in a negative test result from a pharmacy or other such RAT provider. Anyone with covid type symptoms shouldnt be at work.

Hmm. I might die but can't be bothered getting the vax. But $100 will do it. Smart workers at the Warehouse!

As for the OP, while we have the right to freedom of expression that does not apply in full in the workplace. Many opinions are best left at the fort door.

The last line of defence

I would like to contribute to this thread. However there has been no covid in Christchurch for 339 days.

Should it arrive my first point of call will be S11 of the Bill of Rights Act "Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment."

It was a very long time ago I took anything in the media seriously. Every thing you see or hear needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.

And on The Block - its just one long advertorial. If worksafe wants a spot on it they'll have to pay the bucks.

We just use a bulk txt messaging service

As a suggestion, don't do their tasks for them. If turning on their ventilation is for their own good get them to do it. If they don't then take action that ensure they do their job. If you can't get them to do a simple task you won't get them able to follow instruction on a LAV.

What about a switch that turns lights and ventilation on at the same time.

We went with the 3M G 5- o1's. Not "Air Purifying welding helmets. "Positive Air Pressure Respirator." It sucks air in at the waist, passes it through a filter and then expels air out into the helmet so outside air around helmet does enter welders breathing space.

Feedback from welders so far is very positive. Surprisingly no complaints. Comfortable to wear and enjoying the light breeze that flows past their faces.

Has a P2 filter - so its filtered air hitting their faces. Will be nice in summer with a bit of a breeze going by.

Also a reported productivity increase as they wear them all day long. No more taking bits of gear on and off for different tasks.

We've just given our Welders PAPR. With existing air extraction we are hoping this will do away with the need for local extraction. PAPR expensive - but probably not as expensive as additional ventilation.

My long held position is I am against Drug and Alcohol testing and I still haven't seen anything to sway my view (high risk work areas aside)

1 employee and 20 contractors. A D&A policy sounds like a job creation programme to me.

Bottom line is and should always be, in my view, evidence of impairment.