unsympathetic approach towards employers

[murdock]

the goverment is to impose legal action and use the full force of the law against employers...

my daughter fell at school and cut her head open...my wife rushed across to the school to find the child covered in blood...not one person had gloves on.

what if one of the employees at the school have aids...can i sue the school if she contracts HIV or aids...or would i be able to sue the employee for not disclosing her status...and then toching my daughter without gloves.

if i come home and find my domestic worker attending to my child bleeding without gloves on,,,would i be able to sue her for attempted murder if she has aids and if i am not allowed to know her status?

or rather just not take a chance and have the dometic worker who i have tested for aids and know she is clear?

[Dave A]

I believe DOL is about to make testing employees for AIDS by employers a criminal offence.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

Not to get side tracked - but if your daughter was bleeding, it would require the person attending her to be bleeding or having an open wound in order for a possibility of transfer of the HIV virus. The mere handling of blood can not transfer the virus.

As to testing an employee - even if a test was positive you may not, not employ the person, that would be discrimination.
You could of course have parameters of care, failing which the employee is negligient. However you cannot say that when ever you touch my child, or when my child is bleeding you must wear gloves. That is discrimination, impugnes dignity and a host of others. A condition that when a person has an open wound they need to take precaution, would be reasonable.

[daveob]

However you cannot say that when ever you touch my child, or when my child is bleeding you must wear gloves. That is discrimination, impugnes dignity and a host of others.

Jeepers. Whatever happened to calling a spade a spade ? Now we have to pussy-foot around the (unfortunate, probably not self-inflicted) carrier of a potentially deadly virus, that can infect your own precious angel child, and all because we're told we can't say you must wear gloves if the child is bleeding !!

What's more important - the persons feelings or the child's life ?

OK. Just re-read the paragraph - are you saying you can say they can't be in the same room without wearing gloves, or are you saying they can't treat the wound without wearing gloves ?

Anyway, screw the impugned dignity - my childs' life and well-being is above all other feelings ( only parents would understand, so if you're not one, please don't even try to comment on this bit ).

[daveob]

ps ... sorry Mr Anthony. My comments not an attack towards you - just towards the system.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

HIV is not something that only affects black people, or poor people, or gay people, or those in dodgy activities such as prostitution or drugs, or certain professions. It does not discriminate.

If we insist on employees being tested, lets ask ourselves honestly -
If your childs school said all children must be tested, how would you feel?
And if we want to insist that an employee must wear gloves when dealing with our child that is bleeding - how would you feel if the school phoned you and said, Sir, your child is bleeding and YOU must come and attend because our staff can't becuase of the risk and maybe your child has HIV.
Be honest - how would you feel?

[Dave A]

Trying to stay somewhere near close to the theme on a thread that could (and probably will) go all over the park -

can i sue the school if she contracts HIV or aids...

Well, the first problem would seem to be a lack of training at the school on how to handle wounds in the AIDS era. Frankly I'm a little surprised and I'd raise the issue with the school.

But on suing - how would you know (and prove) this incident as the source?

[tec0]

A simple policy and training system can prevent this scenario. The policy is that all classrooms will be equipped with a proper first aid kid. All teachers and staff members will be trained to administer first aid safely using the first aid kid. No acceptations.

Secondly testing for HIV becoming illegal? Well, if that is ever to happen and it probably will, then it will take a big company and a lot of lawyers to sue the government for forcing anonymity and allow for a very dangerous scenario. As far as I know it is expensive but laws can be challenged.

Discrimination against HIV people can be controlled with education, information and simple company policies. If someone is HIV positive then the safety policy apply. If someone is not HIV positive the same safety policy applies.

Even drug testing is becoming a difficult thing to administer. But what the government and law don’t understand is if that person is intoxicated then by default he/ she is endangering others. Right now most drug testing is voluntary accept if you are driving, then it seems the police can have you tested...

Honestly there is thin line between safety and discrimination but sometimes its just necessary to know if a person presents a possible danger to another person.

[murdock]

HIV is not something that only affects black people, or poor people, or gay people, or those in dodgy activities such as prostitution or drugs, or certain professions. It does not discriminate.

If we insist on employees being tested, lets ask ourselves honestly -
If your childs school said all children must be tested, how would you feel?
And if we want to insist that an employee must wear gloves when dealing with our child that is bleeding - how would you feel if the school phoned you and said, Sir, your child is bleeding and YOU must come and attend because our staff can't becuase of the risk and maybe your child has HIV.
Be honest - how would you feel?

just so that you know my older sister has HIV and full blown aids...contracted from her husband who has died from illenesses related to it...and by the way she is a white women...when i see her and what she is going thru...i get extrmely angry with selfish people who dont know their status and carry on with their lives without a care for anyone else...and believe they should be punished severly...i supose they will be eventually.

honestly i would feel a lot better knowing my child is not in a group of children with aids or being looked after by people who have aids...my wife and i have both been for aids test...i personally i have had it done on numerous occasion due to my wicked ways of my past and operations i have undergone...i felt it was my duty to do it...

when i was single i had a test done every six months at the clinic...at which time i found out that there are a lot more people than you think who have aids.

if you feel comfortable that your maid has aids and is looking after your child thats your choice.

when my daughter was in hospital...and she had to have blood transfusions...i was prepared to let them drain all the blood out my body to give her the chance to live...unfortunalty i couldnt because they needed the blood the same day...and it would have taken 2 weeks to prepare my blood for the transfer...i would sacrifice my life to give my children anything they needed to survive...and i am sure most parents would do the same thing.

it doesnt discriminate...so why put me or any person in my family in a position that could cause them not just harm but death...

if you were single and were gona do the deed with a women are you saying it is okay if she doent tell you she has aids... or as a single person do you carry on without being tested because its your right...all i can say if this is your attitude then shame on you you selfish person...oh well i suppose you could always just have a shower afterwards...

this is just my opinion on the subject...everyone to their own opinion.

[daveob]

If we insist on employees being tested, lets ask ourselves honestly -
If your childs school said all children must be tested, how would you feel?
And if we want to insist that an employee must wear gloves when dealing with our child that is bleeding - how would you feel if the school phoned you and said, Sir, your child is bleeding and YOU must come and attend because our staff can't becuase of the risk and maybe your child has HIV.
Be honest - how would you feel?

Quite honestly, if they wanted to draw blood for testing from my 2 & 4 year olds at their pre-primary school, as long as I was present, I would be all for the idea - and they can do me at the same time. As much as my kids need protecting from the dangers out there, so do the teachers and care givers that are with all these kids every day. And YES, I do want gloves worn when attending to a bleeding child - and in fact that is exactly what is done. I have seen, on every occasion that a scrape or cut on the jungle gym is attended to, disposable gloves are worn be the staff.

And the school has a policy - if your child's bleeding, you come fetch that child immediately - no exceptions. That makes sense to me. Take the child home and let that cut scab and dry. Less chance of any transmission of anything between kids (in either direction) that way (kids would love to touch and feel the others' cut or scrape ).

Protection from HIV is a 2 way street - if you're going to be in contact with someone and there's blood around, be protective - for your sake and theirs.

[murdock]

by the way...the aids is not the only problem its all the sores and other sicknesses that come from the aids and hiv which are the problem...my sister gets sores all over her body...which turn into welts which ooz puss and liquid...and the coughing etc...all the time.

My 17 month old daughter has had an aids test.

the bottom line is we should have the choice not be told by some law that we cannot make a choice who we want around our children.

My domestic worker should know her staus and the people who look after my daughter at school should also know their status...so that i can choose whether or not i want to keep my child in the class...or if i want the domestic worker to be around my child...my daughter should also have rights...and as she is still too young i will take the responsebility of making those choices for her until she is old enough to make them...my choice i dont want people with aids or any other sickness for that matter around her...including my sister...after the 3 month battle with her in hospital...i will stand by my decision.

what people need to do is go visit one of the hospital like dave did and see how people suffer...then make a decision...watching people suffering in hospital form smoke related illneses helped me give up smoking...8 years now havent touched a cigarette.

[Dave A]

A core issue...

so that i can choose whether or not i want to keep my child in the class...or if i want the domestic worker to be around my child...

That's exactly what gov. doesn't seem to want...

my daughter should also have rights...and as she is still too young i will take the responsebility of making those choices for her until she is old enough to make them...my choice i dont want people with aids or any other sickness for that matter around her...including my sister...after the 3 month battle with her in hospital...i will stand by my decision.

So is Murdock* a criminal? Would this type of discrimination merit being legislated as a criminal offence?

* purely quoted as example - I'm sure many, many people feel the same way.

[tec0]

Scenario

There is actually no right or wrong here. A child needs to be protected at all times. People have the right not to be infected by HIV. Also yes, people with HIV have a right to life, dignity and work.

Now it comes down to acceptance, will you accept an HIV person to work with your children? No you will not because there will always be a risk. Would you allow an employee with HIV to work at your shop, business or home? No because there will always be a risk.

Is this discriminating against the person with HIV? No, It is "being afraid" of what might happen. Now the law tells you different because if the law points to discrimination then you can be hold responsible. But! It was not discrimination It was fear.

But what about the person with HIV? Because of the fear associated with HIV he/she may found themselves in a situation where work would be impossible to find and then there is the fear of isolation. And again because of this fear they don’t tell people...

Now the true question is can you as a HIV negative person OR as a HIV positive person introduce a compromise?

The answer is simple; it comes down to fear.

[murdock]

a sad fact about this country...you are not allowed to discriminate against anyone in this country...except white people.

everyone else in south africa is regarded as black...be it indian...coloured...even chinese you name it...except white people.

hello am i missing something here?

you have a right to refuse smokers but not hiv positive people?

smoking is a heal risk...then what is aids?

[murdock]

Scenario

There is actually no right or wrong here. A child needs to be protected at all times. People have the right not to be infected by HIV. Also yes, people with HIV have a right to life, dignity and work.

Now it comes down to acceptance, will you accept an HIV person to work with your children? No you will not because there will always be a risk. Would you allow an employee with HIV to work at your shop, business or home? No because there will always be a risk.

Is this discriminating against the person with HIV? No, It is "being afraid" of what might happen. Now the law tells you different because if the law points to discrimination then you can be hold responsible. But! It was not discrimination It was fear.

But what about the person with HIV? Because of the fear associated with HIV he/she may found themselves in a situation where work would be impossible to find and then there is the fear of isolation. And again because of this fear they don’t tell people...

Now the true question is can you as a HIV negative person OR as a HIV positive person introduce a compromise?

The answer is simple; it comes down to fear.

i have no fear for people with aids...i have a family member who has aids...i just feel it is my responsiblity to keep my daughter safe...the pool for example has a 9 ft fence around it and i have sent her for swimming lessons...i have taken precaution...i never leave my daughter with the dogs...he is an 86 kg boer bull chances are he will never harm her...i take the precaution never to leave her with the dog on her own...we all play together but never on her own...my daughter has a car seat which she travels in at ALL times..a precaution...and not having people or other children near her who have aids...just a precaution...so by taking precaution i will now be come a crimminal... only in africa

if she grows up and decides to marry a man with aids or employ people with aids then it becomes her choice...but for as long as she is in my care i will take precautions...and protect her with my life what ever it takes.