UKC

My partner works in a private medical facility (something along the lines of a plastic surgery clinic) and the manager of the company has decided there is enough evidence for them to return to work, based on some guidelines they have seen on an American website surrounding their industry, as long as everyone wears PPE.

The procedures they carry out involve placing their faces in proximity to the patient, in a small room of roughly 7 people. The company have said if anyone has any issues then they are free to express them, but no one has. All "clinical" staff (bar the lead surgeon, who refused to volunteer to help the NHS and has admitted breaking social distancing guidelines daily) have been furloughed until now.

I understand that companies need to start operating again to produce some revenue for the tax system, etc, but given the intimate procedures they carry out and no mention of staff being returned to their pre-furlough salaries, can my partner simply 'refuse to work' on the grounds of this being an unimportant sector of work?

P.S. They have only decided to re-open at short notice due to a "VIP" requesting surgery, and they are worried a competitor will take the job...

If lockdown doesn’t apply or current restrictions ease then anyone is free to refuse to show up for work and the company is free to refuse to pay them. At which point you’ll be free to seek the services of an employment lawyer, doubt that’ll turn out to be free though.

Your partner could consider being signed off ill.  Or could consider the company's health and safety obligations and speak to a solicitor.  Presumably the company is going to remove the furlough?  It isnt legal to ask them to work on furlough.  Does the PPE provided seem adequate?  

Tricky situation.  

A situation we are going to see more and more as companies come back to work. Some won't have adequate protection in place and some will, some employees will think their employer isn't doing enough and others will think they are going over the top, some employees will be desperate to come back to work and others would rather be paid to stay home, especially if restrictions are lifted a bit. Then there is visiting customers sites, what protection to they have in place to protect the people visiting their sites? 

The coming weeks and months are just going to be a mess of working stuff out. 

Only if they actually are ill.  Pulling a sickie is gross misconduct.

Only if they can prove it.  

Fraud isn't OK. If you don't like your employers or their policies, seek different employers. It's what most people would do/have done, myself included.

I suspect that this and other relaxations are going to be directing lots of traffic at the HSE.

Ultimately I guess they are the organisation that can determine if the environment is safe and in compliance with law.

In the current environment, with the precedents already operating? LOL

Edit: just out of interest, how many disposable respirators are you getting per shift in your area. Round here your colleagues were getting one per shift and being instructed to reuse it (against manufacturers recommendations). That info is a couple of weeks old though and I haven't noticed any police wearing respirators or masks recently, including the 3 sat on top of a 136 in the back of my truck just last week.

I wonder when we are going to get the second wave and how big it's going to be. Not that we appear to be exiting the first wave very fast.

No they can't. There is no legal basis for doing that. 

However, they might have some sort of case under "health and safety at work" regulations. But for that you'd have to ask an expert in such things.

No treatment, and no vaccine on the horizon, this year and maybe next year, and people need to work for all sorts of reasons not least to put food on the table then options are limited.

Everybody is eventually going to get this virus. Do you prolong the inevitable or embrace the full force of the pandemic run through the country as fast and efficiently as possible like Trump is allegedly doing, and quite possibly Boris to a less subtle extent?

R is reported as 0.5 to 0.9.

London has declined significantly from high level and no longer even the worst in the UK. R=0.5??? No second wave???

Other places not much declined from peak. R=0.9??? Second wave if R creeps up just a little during relaxation of lockdown???

Anybody got any idea why the difference in R? 

That's a great solution, assuming you have a good chance of finding a different employer.  In the current environment I think many people are going to struggle to do this.  Note that this doesn't mean I think people should start throwing sickies.

Population density, adherence to social distancing, bad luck, transmission via people not showing symptoms blah blah blah... take your pick..

I wouldn't say it's a great solution but it's a great solution compared with defrauding your employers and negatively impacting the jobs of your colleagues.

Current guidelines are FFP3 masks aren't required. We may have some for attending deaths, but the COVID19 packs have bog standard masks (with ties to go round head). We do have COVID19 sudden death teams who may have better PPE, but they don't always get deployed.

Latest guidance I think is maintain 2m social distancing, if required wear one of those masks.  I think they've said change if they get wet, or after a number of hours (might be 8 - can't recall)

Reality is that few are wearing them. Combination of lack of time, resignation and possibly lack of enforcement.

Fair amount of handwashing going on though. 

I'm not saying it is a good idea, or the right thing to do, but realistically getting another job right now isn't an option for most people.   I'd like to think that the HSE could sort it out, and that the employer would do the right thing and so on.  But we live in the real world. Personally I'm in the fortunate position that I am an agency worker and as such can turn down work (in the unlikely event there is any) if I don't feel it is safe to go back to work.  I'm in the even more fortunate position that I have some savings that will just about tide me over.  For those not in my position, morals don't pay bills, and employers that don't treat their staff well get what they deserve.  Plastic surgery is not worth the risk in my opinion.  It's hardly essential and can wait.  But  rich people don't want to wait.  They can buy anything they want while the rest of us stay home.  

Probably various reasons.

If a significant fraction of people in an area, say, London, have already had the infection and have some level of immunity, the spread will slow there.

If more people in an area live in close proximity (e.g. poorer areas, especially tenements), it'll spread faster than it will in well spread out suburbs.

Unreliable stats - how much testing is actually being done in the area in question?

I'm not convinced we have an accurate value of R.  We aren't testing enough.   

Sadly, deaths are probably the most reliable measure of progress, or otherwise. Assuming treatment methods haven't improved.

It was the people in hospital graphs that shows London as declining (half from peak), NW England still rising with the rest in between that made me wonder about the difference.

Slide 5 of
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

That's pretty shocking. You should at least have an FFP3 on you that you can wear, or not, according to the risk assessment of the officers on scene. Personally speaking, I'd feel more at risk of infection going nose to nose with someone shouting and spluttering than I would inspecting a corpse.

Can you refuse to go back to work?

Of course you can.

And they can refuse to employ you if you don't...

 I think the other complication is that young members of staff may be much more confident returning to work than someone more elderly. ( If they happen to be black, obese and with diabetes they may well be keen to stay on furlough although under normal circumstances, they can carry out their duties perfectly well.)

I think your partner needs to put his/her concerns to the employer and see what they say as a first step.

Is your partner in a union? If so, what’s their advice? 
I’ll be following the advice of my union, and only returning to school when deemed absolutely safe for all involved. The gov’t can go swivel if they think that my colleagues & I are going to risk ourselves & our families just so that a few parents can go back to work. 

Oddly, the BBC have removed the hospitalised cases graph from their covid-19 stats page. I found it rather useful.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

That day has long gone. It's risk management, to balance deaths against risk of economic collapse. 

I’d rather a few people lose their jobs than even more lose their lives. 

I think those advocating loosening the lockdown would get a more sympathetic reaction if they argued about the benefits to those currently ' denied' access to healthcare for cancer, diabetes etc. rather than the economic benefits.

I would suggest if she is unhappy, she makes a complaint to her local HSE area office.  They are going to be central to any return to work, and clearly any concerns re exposure to Covid 19 will should part of her employers risk assessment.

Have a look at Section 44 in the 1996 Employment act.

E

Unless there is a miracle there is a depression coming the likes of which no one alive has experienced. Health services in the future will be challenged for funding, income in households will plummet, mental illness from stress caused by financial worries and being unemployed will rocket. There are 50 plus year olds who might never work again and youngsters who might get their first job aged 30 plus (especially in Southern  Med countries). Crime will likely increase as a consequence. 

There is quite a lot at stake whilst considering the risk of a disease with under 1% mortality rate. 

It isn’t simply producing tax revenue for HMRC, it’s also producing income to keep businesses going (who have ongoing costs even during lockdown).  

Someone above suggested it’s illegal to being furloughed staff back into work.  It isn’t.  The company simply can’t claim the government grant and, if they have not been furloughed for three weeks minimum, they can’t even claim it for the period up to coming back into work.  It’s a business decision for the company.

I don’t blame your partner for being nervous but, with appropriate protection, eventually such employees will need to go back to work as, presumably, they can’t work from home.  Other options will be to leave their job or ultimately to be made redundant if they continue to refuse to work once it is generally deemed safe to return.  Of course there will be a transitional grey area for many.
 

My business, along with most, will face similar issues even if not so closely involved with close face to face contact.  It is also quite likely some people will refuse to put children back into school / nursery and hence be unable to go back into work.  Employment lawyers are already in high demand and that will probably increase.  

R is higher amongst pirates

R you sure?

I agree that the economic damage is now exceeding the risk (or in a more nuanced sense, I think we could protect the health of those most likely to becoming severely ill and keep the disease below the capacity of the NHS to treat it with more intelligent measures which affect people’s likelihood’s far less). However, let’s say for sake of argument a vaccine is found and 80% of people in the UK have it by December, what’s stopping the economy bouncing back quickly in 2021? 

To be clear it is illegal to keep workers on furlough and have them work.  Some companies are trying it on.  

R

1 in 100 is a pretty high risk when you can catch it from an asymptomatic case who you've had to work with because your work can't implement social distancing.

Even worse if you've got a vulnerable child or family member, and now your employer is telling you to work....

Tough call.Ask them for the risk assessment on Covid. You are perfectly entitled to see it and then ask questions. 

That's the miracle I cited which I think could prevent a depression. The scale of debt and vastly reduced spending will still likely lead to a recession. I'd argue we would need a working vaccine sooner though. 

The number of people currently paid to stay home or who are now unemployed in the West is collosal. Furlough is just a posh unemployment scheme. Many companies won't recover and workers will eventually be sacked when furlough ends. 

Not redundancy. If they refuse to work they will have their employment terminated.

I'd agree. Protect the vulnerable, there is no requirement for needless risk. But there are also a great number of folk who fall into the lowest risk brackets sitting idle at vast expense in all respects, with no logical exit plan, simply because there is not a right answer. Every route is a risk and it's something in our comfortable western lives we've not had to consider since ww2. 

It is indeed illegal to claim the grant if employees are working whilst furloughed.

I am aware of companies which have decided to bring staff back in for commercial reasons, before the 3 weeks minimum is up, and that is fine provided they don’t then claim the grant.

There are two distinct sides to this arrangement.  Firstly the employee accepts a change to their terms of employment - to cease work for a period and normally be paid a reduced amount (sometimes topped up so far).  Secondly and quite separately the employer claims the government grant provided all the conditions have been met.  If they claim the grant but knowingly break the conditions, that’s fraud.

I’m not defending employers breaking the law, just pointing out there is possibly more flexibility about when to put staff on furlough, bring them back in, setting level of pay, than is perhaps widely understood.  

Despite the name of the scheme, there’s still a very real possibility many furloughed staff will eventually be made redundant.  No business has a reliable crystal ball and could know where we may eventually end up. 

It depends on the full circumstances but yes it could amount to a breach of contract. 

Well done Sir!

Thanks , no worries

Only someone who doesn't have a basic grasp of economics could come out with this statement. 

Children are not really vulnerable to covid19.  A grand total of 12 have died (after a positive test for covid) so far, and most of those had prior health conditions. 

Elderly relatives would be a more valid concern. 

In Britain that may be where we end up, in most of the rest of the developed world they'll be looking on in horror from semi normal lives having taken the steps to get and keep infections down. 

Most of us can work safely if the disease is well under control, those who can't we'll have to help for a while. 

Jk

Hence why I said "vulnerable child", I have one colleague whose child has severe and chronic asthma.

Or any household member with a relevant health condition.

Edit to add: I don't think anything has changed regarding mixing with other households, ie don't do it. Especially not elderly (or other ) relatives...

So I should put myself at risk for the sake of the economy? No thanks. 

Under the HSAW Act, 1974 an Employer is duty bound to provide a safe working environment (eqpt, access, egress, etc.).

They need to demonstrate that a proper risk assessment has been carried out as per the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, 1999, which says:

The law states that a risk assessment must be 'suitable and sufficient', ie it should show that:

- a proper check was made

- you asked who might be affected

- you dealt with all the obvious significant risks, taking into account the number of people who could be involved

- the precautions are reasonable, and the remaining risk is low

- you involved your workers or their representatives in the process

The level of detail in a risk assessment should be proportionate to the risk and appropriate to the nature of the work.

None of that changes due to covid-19, so they need to factor managing the risk from covid into that risk assessment.

Sorry, ladies, I'm taken.

Currently people are (rightly IMO) experiencing restrictions on their freedoms for the good of public health. Gradually and eventually those restrictions will be lifted. Nobody will make you put yourself at risk  - you’ll need to decide what to do and deal with the consequences either way. 

The danger is that all sorts of powers will be handed to the executive to manage the exit out of lockdown, and won’t be given back any time soon.

Ok. Just don't expect to be paid.

That's a danger that's been singularly lacking in the legislation over the initial 6 weeks.

That's likely what the West will need to do by September, otherwise we'll be third world nations, sweating it out building stuff in factories for £1/hr for Asian companies! The tables could turn so quick and easily. 

I would not be to concerned I am sure there will be plenty of unemployed people who will take over the role in time..........

Ignore the "well fine but someone else will" brigade. The answer is "No". No you shouldn't put your self at risk for the sake of the economy, and it's for your employer to demonstrate that they've mitigated the risk to where it is low.

Under the Employment Rights Act, 1996, if *you reasonably believe* there to be a serious and imminent risk to your health, then you should take appropriate steps to remove yourself from danger, including refusing to work or even go in to work. Again, it's your employer's responsibility to convince you that they've mitigated any risk to low. There's a general responsibility on you to keep yourself safe, so this isn't you being "allowed" to refuse work, but a "duty" to keep yourself safe.

But it all depends on what "low" risk means.     A world during a coronavirus pandemic simply is a more dangerous place than a world in normal times. There's no getting round that.  Collectively, we have no choice but to accept a somewhat increased risk. We can't just stop all economic activity for 18 months or more until a vaccine. 

So, employers will have to do what they can to reduce risk, but beyond that we'll all just need to accept it. (And risk assessments are not about reducing risk to zero, they're about assessing the risks that there are and taking appropriate action, where "appropriate" does not necessarily mean "reduce risk to zero".) 

It would be unreasonable for those who are not in the highest risk groups (e.g. elderly) to demand zero risk otherwise they're not going to contribute to economic activity, if they still expect a pay packet from other people's economic activity.   If they're happy not to be paid then ok.

That's not what the law says.

If your employer can't show that they have assessed, consulted on and mitigated the risk to where you yourself are convinced that it is low then you have a duty to keep yourself safe and have recourse under the law to remove yourself from the danger.

No you shouldn't put yourself at risk for "the economy", but how about for the kids it's your job to teach? for your local community? for wider society?

Thank Christ the millions that are keeping food on the shelves, taps running, bins emptied, sick treated and streets safe aren't all insisting that they have a "duty" to keep themselves safe.

Then it's for employers to demonstrate that they have a working environment that an employee would reasonably believe to be safe.

Don't guilt trip people into risking their safety.

Don't get me wrong, I can understand why people are against the positively Bolshevik legislation introduced by *checks notes* John Major's government.

Not all economic activity has stopped, far from it.

As long as people don’t feel safe, as long as they fear for their future, the economy will be severely depressed.
The health problem feeds the economic problem, you can’t solve one without solving the other. 

You can force people to take more risks and return workings in hotels, restaurants and bars, but economically this will do more harm than good unless these places have customers. 

I forgot to say, absolutely "thank Christ" (although he wouldn't be my choice), but it's an absolute disgrace that anyone should have to make a choice to work in unsafe conditions for the greater good and wouldn't criticise anyone who decided that they weren't prepared to put themselves at risk (as I believe a number of nurses and care home workers have done).

Disgrace!?... we've moved into different times. Life's not so fluffy and comfortable anymore. In some respects we aren't any more able now than we were hundreds of years ago when the plagues struck. 

Tough choices indeed to come. You think it's bad here, how would you fancy living in Africa or South America just now... 

It's not a disgrace that we're killing doctors and nurses whereas other countries have managed to kill none?

So we're to use the worst examples as the yardstick to measure our wellbeing rather than aspire to the best? That's always a shit argument and still is now.

Edit: I forgot to mention, none of your "We're in different times now, sonny Jim" platitudes changes the law. Safe working environments are to be provided by the employer. Should we change that law, so that's no longer the case?

What other inconvenient laws should we ignore and how will we know which ones to follow and which ones not to?

You're quite welcome to take the stance that the rights of the individual always take preeminence over responsibilities to wider society. Politically, that's a position somewhere to the right of Thatcher, but whatever, each to their own. It does place you in something of a paradox though, as presumably you also expect society to provide you with the basic necessities of life and you expect others to take risks you yourself aren't prepared to stomach in order to provide them for you?

Perhaps a compromise position then. You can insist on your right to absolute safety from the small individual risk presented by going back to work for the good of your community, but in return your community no longer has any responsibility to accept the small individual risks presented by providing you with all those services that keep you safe, warm and fed. 

How have you possibly gleaned that from what I've written above? Genuinely? The law states, and I agree, that everyone has a right to a safe working environment. That comes from H&S legislation hard fought and won by, amongst other things, collectivist trade union pressure over many years. I've been saying that if others feel at risk then they should stop work until their employer could mitigate it. Nothing to do with me, so unless you can find where I've said that, perhaps an apology for putting a vile opinion in my mouth for me would be nice.

Again, I think you're arguing with what you want me to have written rather than anything I have.

But otherwise, same question to you: What laws should we ignore , which ones should we follow and how will we know which is which?

No you don't get an apology. You've said several times that individuals should have the right to refuse to accept the small individual risk presented by returning to work during this pandemic. You don't accept that people have a duty beyond themselves. You don't accept that individuals have responsibilities to wider society.

Those on the far right of the Tory party might agree with you but they'd be on the lunatic fringe end of the spectrum.

Edit: Sorry you didn't say "should have the right to refuse to accept the small individual risk presented by returning to work", you wrote that an individual has "a "duty" to keep yourself safe."

No I haven't. I've quoted the law, which says that an employer needs to be able to demonstrate that the risk to an employee is low. You don't get to tell me what else I believe regarding duty to others, because you can't even accurately read what I've written, let alone analyse me based on what I haven't.

That H&S Law is applicable even in the times if coronavirus? Weird, because I thought it was the right of the Tory party that was trying to get everyone back to work no matter the cost.

Weird because you argue that an individual has a "duty" to keep yourself safe".  This is where fluffy bollocks comes up against hard reality. If everybody followed your "duty" to keep yourself safe." The lights would go out, the taps would stop running, food would disappear from the shelves and those with the highest facility for violence would be the only ones eating.

The reality is that if everyone was currently following your advice that we had a "duty" to keep yourself safe." we'd currently be seeing a recreation of Mad Max on our streets and everyone would be in far, far more danger.

Funny you should mention "lights would go out", as I work for National Grid and was back on site last week, following several weeks of writing and re-writing risk assessments to show that we could carry out the work safely and reviewing RAs from our contractors and assuring them that we could provide them with a safe working environment. There is no 100% safe environment, but we've shown that we can mitigate the risk level to low, to the acceptance of the people carrying out the work.

But carry on, I believe you saying something funny about Mad Max.

and before you'd rewritten those vital RAs were you advising your coworkers not to turn up for work? I'm guessing not as despite those vital RAs not being in place I didn't notice the lights flicker. So in your workplace you can actually recognise reality while on an Internet forum you'll argue for some fantasy version of real life? 

Seems you're twisting yourself in considerable knots to spout a load of bollocks.

I guess it's personal choice. 

Work, earn, eat, pay the mortgage and keep a roof over your head. Or the opposite. 

Any government can't continue with lock down much longer. It's financially and economically impossible. 

I presume you grow all your own food? I'd hate to think you are hypocritical expecting shop staff to work to feed you? And supply chain workers? And all the state workers who are administering the furlough scheme? Etc etc. 

Yes. All work was halted subject to re-written and accepted risk assessments. All non-essential work remains halted.

So again you've made an incorrect assumption and insulted me based upon that incorrect assumption. Nice habit.

I've been consistent in arguing that the law should be respected until it's changed, and you'v been saying I'm happy to have other people risk themselves for my selfish benefit and then something about Mad Max.

A simple apology would've been easier.

I work for National Grid. I'm going to work. We've risk assessed, put in place mitigation to reduce the risk to low and resumed work. So unless people have started growing their own mains electricity, I'm happy to consider myself alongside food growers and shop workers.

Glad we agree. It'll never be completely risk free and that folk must get back to work soon. 

We agree on that much, but do you agree that an employee has a right to a safe place of work and a right to remove themselves from danger if one is not provided to them?

Not to mention that while he was at home writing RAs for a few weeks, millions were dutifully turning up at work with no modified RAs in place, just the certain knowledge that if they didn't turn up to work millions would die of disease, starvation and the violence of others.

Yes, working on RAs to provide a safe workplace so that more people didn't have to put themselves at unnecessary risk.

What's your argument here? That I shouldn't? That everyone should put themselves at more risk because some people have been put in that position? Is the official NHS advice now to put yourself at risk to show solidarity with others?

You've consistently made the worst assumptions about me, my intentions, what kind of job I must do, the actions I must have taken in my own job and been shown to be wrong on each and every one, but you're intent on continuing to insult me.

The only thing I've taken issue with is your statement that  "There's a general responsibility on you to keep yourself safe, so this isn't you being "allowed" to refuse work, but a "duty" to keep yourself safe." and the inherent implication that this trumps any wider duties and responsibilities you might have to everyone else. I've made no other assumptions about your job, intentions or actions and since you haven't volunteered any information beyond the very broadest brush strokes, it's hard to see how you've shown me anything.

I very much appreciate you turning up to work. Same for those working to keep us fed and so on.

Personally I'd prefer you all to have risk assessments and PPE in place.  

Having spent time in the classroom before the lockdown with mainstream 11-16 year olds I can tell you that it was like wrestling cats to get them to follow even the most basic of common sense measures. I asked my form (all 15 or 16 years old) one morning if they had used the gel on their hands.  Our school (unlike others) had bothered to get some and installed it by every entrance.  The children were told repeatedly to use it first thing on arrival and every time they changed classes.  Only 4 of them had bothered.  I sent the rest back.  This was before we attempted 2m distance.  I had a child cough in my face and hair (not particularly deliberate just poor manners) I had him sent home and he came back in the next day anyway.  

My duty is to keep myself and the children safe.  This will not be straightforward when  the children generally can't be trusted to follow a simple instruction. 

Without proper safety in place we will end up with a second peak.  

That's not my statement, that's the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974 and the Managing Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The Employment Rights Act, 1996, Section 44 gives the right to refuse to work in unsafe conditions and a case for constructive dismissal if an employer fails to do so. There is no inherent implication in anything that I've said, it is an answer to the question "Can you refuse to go back to work?" and to Fozzy's later comment about working unsafe conditions for the benefit of the economy.

You had my position as the "individual always take preeminence over responsibilities to wider society" - What I said was it was a disgrace that we were forcing people to choose between their own safety at work and the greater good

You assumed I was happy to let others risk themselves whilst I did not - My advice was that anyone was entitled to a safe workplace, and that I actually have been going to work as an essential worker.

You bizarrely positioned me as a right wing hawk "to the right of Thatcher" because of my support of employment and H&S legislation and support of people withdrawing their labour in an unsafe work environment - I'm a Labour party and trade union member.

You thought that I was advocating taking zero risk and that the lights wouldn't stay on if everyone had that attitude - I said in my first post that the law says the risk should be low and that I literally keep the lights on for a living.

You assumed that I had people carry on working before properly assessing and mitigating risk, i.e. accusing me of being a hypocrite - I pointed out that we'd actually stopped all work.

Then you criticised me for writing risk assessments whilst millions were out there putting themselves at risk.

Anyone reading the thread can clearly see that, so why can't you?

I really f*cking resent being painted as a selfish, individualistic hawk, when I've simply been telling people what their rights are, and I don't mind saying you've properly pissed me off.

I'd add to that that Fozzy is a teacher and responsible for keeping children safe as well which is not going to be easy as I already described.  

I can't even begin to imagine the nightmare. It's hard enough to get some 40-year old fitters to follow clear, obvious and straightforward instructions sometimes, so you have my sympathies.

Easier said than done in the current climate, simply having a headache might be a sign you should self isolate.

I'm lucky.  I don't have to go back anytime soon. 

Soon as in now, or soon as in when we can monitor and test people, or soon when we might reasonably consider it safe to get back to work?

"There's a general responsibility on you to keep yourself safe, so this isn't you being "allowed" to refuse work, but a "duty" to keep yourself safe."

That's the only statement I've referred to. I'm assuming it's your own?

I'll refer you to your own statement above. In your posts you've consistently referred to the individuals responsibility to themselves and their own safety with no regard for wider responsibilities. If this is a misrepresentation of your position then perhaps you'd like to clarify by stating whether or not wider responsibilities apply? Without such clarification I can only go off what you've actually written.

Entitled is an awfully big word. You might imagine we're entitled not to be wading through a Global pandemic, yet here we are.

No, what I actually wrote was: "You're quite welcome to take the stance that the rights of the individual always take preeminence over responsibilities to wider society. Politically, that's a position somewhere to the right of Thatcher, but whatever, each to their own."

If everyone at the National Grid remained at home for several weeks while RAs were updated then power would have been unaffected? Excuse me if I don't believe you. And I have no idea what you do for a living beyond who you work for, or are you also telling us that everyone who works for the national grid is actively engaged in keeping the lights on?

No. I'd pointed out that the national grid had continued functioning throughout, with or without your RAs. Are you also telling us that the national grids entire workforce were home working until you went back in last week?

If you could quote any criticism?

Dunno?

Oops

At the end of a very short paragraph beginning "Under the Employment Rights Act...". Thanks for shearing the context from the quote; that really gives me hope for the rest...

I've not referred to wider responsibilities because I was talking about the law. So go off what I've written instead of making assumptions about what I haven't.

Legally entitled, yes. The law stands and has not been amended by the coronvirus bill, so yes, entitled. Does that law not apply? If not, how would we know.

You want to convince me or anyone else that wasn't you saying that's what my statement represented?

That didn't happen and neither did I say it had. Before lockdown was even announced, the control room introduced measures to maintain social distancing and all the operational substations were stood down to essential repairs and maintenance only, subject to either loan working or acceptable risk assessment. There isn't an army of people turning handles, but a shit-ton of mostly electronic automated protection and control equipment that operates at need.

See above.

If you don't even have the honesty to admit to obvious scorn in that statement then you're even more pathetic than you've been so far, which is really quite some going.

I don't know what happened from your first assumption to then double and triple down by taking the absolute least generous take of everything I've written in this thread, but it's clear as day to anyone who cares to read through this shit. I'm done conversing. Go and f*ck yourself.

As I said, it all depends on what is "low" risk.  Low risk is not zero risk.  Thus it all comes down to what level or risk would be considered acceptable.  In current circumstances, that level might be regarded as higher than in normal circumstances.

As per ERA 1996, it's down to what the employee reasonably feels is safe, based on all the information made available to them. If there's a thorough risk assessment that's been carried out with an H&S rep and signed off by the union, then it would be hard for an employee to argue, without further info, that they reasonably believed it to be unsafe. If the employer has just said "Nah mate, you'll be grand", then obviously there's more risk of an employee not deeming that sufficient and the HSE would probably agree.

Yes, so long as "safe" means "within some level of risk".  There's no such thing as zero risk. 

A good example would be the job of AA patrol person.  If they stop on a motorway hard-shoulder to fix a car, there's always some possibility of being ploughed down by a truck whose driver had fallen asleep or was on their mobile.  That job cannot be made as safe as sitting in an office. 

For the next 18 months or so, society needs a conversation about what level of risk of coronavirus is considered acceptable at work.    An attitude of "zero risk or I refuse to work" is not reasonable, and not actually what the law says. 

Soon.. as before the point at which the economy is so wrecked 99% of the population will suffer for at least the next decade. It is of course a balancing act. 

There are clear ways the AA mitigate that particular risk.  

No, not quite, the law says (added emphasis):

"... in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left (or proposed to leave) or (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work or any dangerous part of his place of work, ..." 

As I've said, it really does come down to an assessment of the level of risk, and it is unreasonable to expect zero risk.

Having a right to something.... rights.. great word. But I'd replace 'rights' with desirable for the time being. 

Yes, agreed, and "mitigating" a risk means doing what one reasonably can to reduce the risk.  It does not mean eliminating the risk.

Of course. Agreed.

Agreed, so the employer will have to show what procedures are in place to reduce the level of risk, usually to that which is "reasonably practicable" (I don't make up these words, sorry). If a job is unjustifiable at the level of risk taken to perform it, then the job doesn't get done, or the controls need to be improved. I work in 400kV substations, 110v battery rooms, with and near hazardous materials and around moving heavy machinery, but all managed to a level where people with training and awareness can work in those environments relatively safely. Like climbing, driving to work is the most dangerous bit of the day for me.

Nor what I've been suggesting. Law to one side, we need to convince people that it's safe enough for them to come to work. If we can put in controls to make construction or other high risk activities safe enough, then we should stand a good chance in most other environments as well. For once, one of the riskier (from a COVID perspective) environments will be, sat in a small office all day in close proximity to other people. My sometime office for instance is four banks of desks probably 1.5m between you and the person next to and opposite you. 32 hot desk work stations would realistically have to become 16 or fewer personally allocated work stations to maintain a safe distance. 

It is a legal requirement. So you can't just say you'll do away with it whilst it's difficult! Accepting an unsafe workplace is a breach of the legislation by the employer and the employee. You and I going to the shops or stood in a queue, or going for jog on a busy path can choose to accept that additional risk if we want, but places of work do not have that discretion.

Yes.  But the risk is necessary and minimised. The AA employee is on the motorway for a reason.  

If random employees started wandering on the motorway without good reason the appropriate approach would be different.  

The OP is referring to a situation which is unnecessary.  If hairdressers are not permitted to be open then why would cosmetic surgery be talking place?  Is it appropriate to attempt to mitigate the risks, or is it more appropriate right now to wait?  Is it ok to expect someone to be right next to several other people unable to keep a distance because someone rich wants it now?  If so why can't I get a haircut?  

The problem is the population expects definitives, when in reality every politician, economist and virologist in the world can only speculate how things will look in 6 to 12 months time. It's best guess territory. People need to become more accustomed to low level risks and uncertainty. 

A Hi Vis vest?

I had no issue with you quoting the employment rights act (I'm assuming you're not also claiming a hand in drafting it as well as your other duties "keeping the lights on"). I quoted the bit I took issue with. That's why I quoted it.

In other words, you can't further clarify what you'd written as asked, because my initial assumption was correct?

You're continually hiding behind the law. I was asking what you thought.

You could convince me if you'd just state your position on the matter rather than the legal position.

So you get all offended at "implied scorn" (shudder!) and me questioning your political stance, but you're quite happy to call another poster pathetic and to tell him to go f*ck himself?  

I'm quite clear about answering any questions put to me, whether that's what I do, what I base my assumptions on or what I mean by something. I note you've failed on all three counts.

Well this has all got rather nasty!

Indeed, not where I thought this thread was going to go at all!