yikes.
well, thankfully pb is pb.
nobody over thirty posts yet.
that's not anime, you filtered gay anime pedo muhjoooshill loser.
no matter. in either case it's invalid. an unjust law is no law. and it would never stand an objective constitutional test (kek - as if it would ever happen).
anon thinks the board has been infiltrated by a counterfeit Mr. Pig.
Sounds like Mafioso-speak
Prime Minister Scott Morrison says states will be able to provide "protection" for businesses which are concerned about choosing not to impose a vaccination mandate.
"The advice I have received is that workplace health and safety regulators in the states can provide a statement of regulation intent that a business that does not mandate is not in breach of workplace health and safety laws," he said.
"So, a protection can be provided to businesses through that process that may be concerned that by not putting in a mandatory requirement that they might otherwise be liable for any action that might be brought against them."
Mr Morrison also said public health orders have been applied within NSW for construction and the LGAs of concern, and the same in WA and SA for aged care workers where residents are more vulnerable.
Although the premise is a bit dodgy cause he's talking about protection for businesses if they get sued by an employee who gets COVID, however he clearly says its NOT mandatory…show your employer!!!
‘Protection’ for businesses which choose not to impose a vaccine mandate
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/protection-for-businesses-which-choose-not-to-impose-a-vaccine-mandate/video/ba317afcdfedb3ff5d61294a6da92902
later, crackheads