Pflegeheim does not respect ruling to stop mandatory covid tests

18 posts in this topic

Dear all, 

 

recently the Verwaltungshof (I assume supreme court for Bavaria) has ruled that it is unconstitutional for Atenheime (elderly homes) and similar to make mandatory covid tests (3 tiems for week) for their employees. You can read more about this case online or by clicking on the link below, but basically the logic behind this decision was that if most residents (Bewohner) that are cared for in such facilities have been vaccinated, there is no longer such a high risk of all of them contacting the virus, so the workers working there should not be required by law to get tested 3 times per week (which, until now, has been the law). Fair enough. 

 

https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/verwaltungsgerichtshof-kippt-testpflicht-fuer-altenpfleger,SQVV1hF

 

I work in a similar facility that cares for people with special needs which falls under the label of "Pflegeheime". This facility has decided not to follow this ruling, and continues to require its workers to get tested, despite similar conditions (almost all of the patients living there having had the second vaccine already, as well as many workers as well). I work during the night, so in order for me to take the test, I need to go to my faimily doctor, which is time consuming and unnecessary. I agree with the ruling. 

 

If there a way that i can file a complaint about this without having to hire a lawyer and sue this business? 

 

Regards, 

 

Anita

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Anita,

 

1.) imagine <someone> works for a parcel service and also imagine that the state recently has made a law that all parcel couriers must wear brown shirts and brown pants during work.

 

2.) Now, there comes the day when some judge sacks that law, pointing out that the state has no say what people have to wear during work. This ain't North Korea after all.

 

3.) However, <someone>'s employer UPS still insists that <someone> has to wear brown pants and brown shirts during work.

 

4.) Now, <someone> contemplates not to follow the employer's order to wear brown shirts and brown pants during work, because a judge has ruled that the state's order to wear brown shirts and brown pants at work is void. 

 

Do you see the (logic) falacy in Position 4.)?

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit off topic but whatever. In the UK wearing masks in schools is optional.  Some of the UK press ranted today, that children refusing to wear masks were asked to sit at the back.  Horror!  From the schools where you are sent into isolation or home, for wearing the wrong socks.  UK is mad.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know where to start with this so I won't bother.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anita_anita said:

most residents (Bewohner) that are cared for in such facilities have been vaccinated

 

My 96 yr. old father in law has not been vaccinated. I hope his carers are tested regularly and that they all get vaccinated soon.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, franklan said:

Do you see the (logic) falacy in Position 4.)?

You`re right.

However she says it was ruled unconstitutional for homes to make tests mandatory which using your analogy would be like the govt saying delivery firms are not allowed to make their drivers wear brown shirts and trousers and UPS still making their drivers wear them.

I`m not sure if she understood the ruling or whether she`s posted wrong on here but she does have a point.

 

Edit..Ok just seen her link and she does have a point.

Although the ruling was only brought in today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, franklan said:

Dear Anita,

 

1.) imagine <someone> works for a parcel service and also imagine that the state recently has made a law that all parcel couriers must wear brown shirts and brown pants during work.

 

2.) Now, there comes the day when some judge sacks that law, pointing out that the state has no say what people have to wear during work. This ain't North Korea after all.

 

3.) However, <someone>'s employer UPS still insists that <someone> has to wear brown pants and brown shirts during work.

 

4.) Now, <someone> contemplates not to follow the employer's order to wear brown shirts and brown pants during work, because a judge has ruled that the state's order to wear brown shirts and brown pants at work is void. 

 

Do you see the (logic) falacy in Position 4.)?

 

 

 

This goes a bit beyond just wearing whatever one wants or not. Say there is a reason that a certain type of uniform is chosen (it is too cod outside, so a thick uniform is chosen), and then the judge rules this unconstitutional, saying that the original reason (cold) does not apply anymore. The ruling goes to say that now everyone can wear whatever uniform he or she wants. One can still wear the thick uniform, but it should no longer be made mandatory. I do see a logic in the ruling. 

 

However, my request was the following: I want to make a formal complain against my employer. Is there any way I can do that without having to hire a lawyer and suing them? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Keleth said:

You`re right.

However she says it was ruled unconstitutional for homes to make tests mandatory which using your analogy would be like the govt saying delivery firms are not allowed to make their drivers wear brown shirts and trousers and UPS still making their drivers wear them.

I`m not sure if she understood the ruling or whether she`s posted wrong on here but she does have a point.

 

Edit..Ok just seen her link and she does have a point.

Although the ruling was only brought in today.

 

The ruling was passed in Tuesday and it went into effect today. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Anita_anita said:

However, my request was the following: I want to make a formal complain against my employer. Is there any way I can do that without having to hire a lawyer and suing them? 

The easiest way is to address the children of those people living in that place. Tell them that you're taking care of their fragile and elderly loved ones and that you find it absolutely shite that the management of that place demands a regular covid-test from you. That will definitely rock the boat, as these people usually are the ones who pay that place, so they've got a very long lever in their hands... 

 

Just make sure you don't accidentally fall out of that boat when it rocks. 

 

You aren't vaccinated yet, are you?  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, franklan said:

The easiest way is to address the children of those people living in that place. Tell them that you're taking care of their fragile and elderly loved ones and that you find it absolutely shite that the management of that place demands a regular covid-test from you. That will definitely rock the boat, as these people usually are the ones who pay that place, so they've got a very long lever in their hands... 

 

Just make sure you don't accidentally fall out of that boat when it rocks. 

 

You aren't vaccinated yet, are you?  

 

90% of all staff and patients have been vaccinated. Only 3 patients, all young and quite fit, have refused the vaccine. So why the fear? Why don;t we use the money to p[ay for all these tests to help out the struggling businesses? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Anita_anita said:

yes. 2nd vaccine done 2 weeks ago, first done feb 1

Then I can understand that you find it annoying to be regularly tested. Certainly. Still, I do not see a way to overrule that decision of your employer, even if it sounds to be a "belt *and* suspenders" demand...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really need to see your doctor to get the test this should be paid work time as it´s something demanded by your employer, not by the state. Just my layman´s guess though.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anita_anita said:

should not be required by law

 

Sounds like the facility is saying, "we are not breaking any laws by requiring tests".  In fact, the law seems to be saying  "the law no longer requires tests,,,,,,,,, but as a private enterprise, you may do as you wish".  

 

Companies can 'require' many things that are not illegal and this seems to be one of them. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jeba said:

If you really need to see your doctor to get the test this should be paid work time as it´s something demanded by your employer, not by the state. Just my layman´s guess though.

 Because I work in the nigh and when I finish the person responsiblenfor the tests is not there just yet, I need to get tested in my free time. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anita_anita said:

 Because I work in the nigh and when I finish the person responsiblenfor the tests is not there just yet, I need to get tested in my free time. 

That there is nobody there when you need to be tested shouldn't be your problem. If I was you I'd talk to e.g. the Betriebsrat about whether the employer needs to pay you for the time you need to spend on getting a test.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't the official tester leave one for you to do yourself or have a nurse do it if you aren't one?

 

It can't be that complicated. Soon we can buy them in Aldi.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now