Daily review 13/11/2020

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 8 comments
Categories: Daily review

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

8 comments on “Daily review 13/11/2020”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

    1. 1.1

      odds are both story lines are correct.

      first, she was told to not call in sick (presumably when she started), and thus she did not call in sick. Retail. It's a hard working environment with many casual and hourly workers.

    2. 1.2

      Seems the employers signed a statutory declaration saying they didn't ask her to work, and she was unhappy about the resulting translation of her interview.

  2. 2
    • Did wonder that Bwagon.
    • however it may help other employers do the right thing with unwell staff which would be a good thing
  3. 3

    The legal statement does appear to skirt around the fact that the young woman went for a Covid test presenting with symptoms, and as such, would as a matter of routine, have been told to self isolate until the test results were returned (as I was when I went to get tested with cold-like symptoms).

    So either that requirement wasn’t communicated by the health officials (oversight or language difficulties or whatever) or the student ignored the instruction and went to work or she told her employer and they ignored it and told her to report for work wearing a mask.

    1. 3.1

      so, officials have to do the testing, the language interpretation, AND the thinking for these people, who seem only able to converse with lawyers and media.

Comments are closed.