Why Don’t Nurses’ Unions Back Their Members re Vax?

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Where do unions fit in today’s tension between a government that mandates a worthless (or harmful) vaccination and the minority of its members who resist the vaccination?

I see unions as well-established parts of civil society. The term “civil society” can mean any grouping of people that is not formal government. Trade unions, charities, religions, sports clubs, chambers of commerce, and local orchestras are examples. Individual artists and public intellectuals also figure into the totality of civil society.

Trade unions developed a specific role, early in the twentieth century, as protectors of workers. They would stand up for their members, against the owners of an industry, in matters of wages, safety, or any improper demand being placed on them. A large union had clout with legislators, to obtain laws favorable to workers.

During the last two and a half years of “Covid,” the civil society group that should have acted against the bad motives of Big Pharma was the medical profession, plus related scientists. But the Australian Medical Association, the AMA, did not play that role. On the contrary, it acted against those of its members who valiantly spoke out. You could say it aligned itself with the powerful.

This is going on everywhere. I can recall a time in my life, say, before 1990, when there were “do-gooders” whom you could approach for help against an injustice, or against a stupid public policy. You could expect to get the attention of sympathetic individuals in cultural institutions, such as in academia — both among faculty and students, and naturally in any rights groups, such as women’s health-rights groups. Believe it or not people turned to media, whose editorial class proudly called themselves The Fourth Estate.

That activity has strangely disappeared.  Part of the problem may be that the powerful have inserted their lackeys into those groups. Thus, a group still operates under its old name, but it no longer means what it used to mean.  To name two official-type groups that are surely bought off in the US — the AMA and the ABA.

Another explanation for silence is that folks everywhere are less inclined to fight against wrongs because they feel worn down by losing numerous battles against big government and, even more so, against big business. As individuals, we adjust to the new cultural reality.  We cave in. It has become awkward to bring up the subject of right and wrong. “Why bother?”

Underneath that, there is, I believe, a tendency to follow the government’s lead — which is now indistinguishable from the media’s lead — out of fear.  Most fearful people do not know that they are in a state of fear, as this is covered up by “majoritarianism.”  “I’m only being normal; the protestors are kooks.” But an inspection of motives, even just in the vax matter, will show that persons are afraid to lose their jobs. And everyone can see that whistle blowers get bumped off.

I’m a person who sometimes gets complimented for being fearless. What a joke! I am not fearless. I fully expect to get punished for speaking out, hence I do plenty of tip-toeing around. They can’t get me by getting my children as I have no children, and they can’t get me by taking my job as I have no job. Maybe this gives me a bit of leeway. Plus, I grew up in the days when, as mentioned, it was normal to fight for a cause — so my upbringing has made me somewhat immune to feeling embarrassed if I speak out. But don’t worry, I’m plenty scared.

Nurses’ and Doctors’ Initial Acceptance of the Emergency

When the Covid Emergency was first announced, it was seen as coming from the part of the United Nations Organization known as the World Health Organization, the WHO. In retrospect, it may be said to have come from “The Who?” as we still don’t know the mechanism by which leaders of almost every nation fell prey to it.  At the time, however, such a declaration about a pandemic would have struck most people as very legitimate and well-intentioned.

Therefore, we would expect both medical associations and nursing associations to implement the rules enthusiastically. Plus, they had a special need to cater to their own vulnerability, being exposed to so many sick patients.  My late husband, George Maxwell (MD, Edinburgh 1954), told me that doctors were scared to death to walk into the polio wards during the polio epidemic, and a substantial number of them died.

In 2020, the WHO rules caused nurses, and the public, to accept certain “facts” without question:

1. that Covid was a new disease (within the category of SARS illnesses identified in 2003)
2. that paper masks would prevent the illness from being transmitted
3. that the public should go into quarantine, expressed as “stay at home”
4. that the elderly, if symptomatic, should be sent to hospital and put on ventilators
5. that people should practice social distancing, staying six feet apart
6. that governments should act urgently to sponsor development of a Covid vaccine.

All of the above can now be seen as unwarranted or untrue. Alert physicians would have seen, on the face of it, that some of it went against their education and training. For example, a paper mask does not protect you against breathing harmful air, six feet is not a sufficient barrier to the passage of aerosol particles, ventilators are only a last-resort mode of getting a person to breathe, and quarantine is for the ill, not the well.

Still, the overall approach of taking some action to help society did look appropriate.  I imagine that any doctor or nurse who expressed doubt would be seen as selfish or poorly informed.

Ah, nurses! You would expect their unions to be not only protective of members’ rights, but to incorporate the altruistic ideals that we associate with a good, kind nurse. She is caring for you at a time when you are in need of a helper. (I’m using the pronoun “she” as nursing was traditionally a female occupation.) Nurses serving with military on the battlefield won especially high marks as they braved enemy fire themselves to help the wounded.

I am not aware of any nurses’ associations that have come to the real aid of the public in regard to the crimes committed by the WHO in its overseeing of the Covid pandemic. That is not to say that individual nurses did not try.  Many did.  They were all squelched.  Perhaps someday society will laud them, but so far they have not been rewarded. After all, they are whistle blowers and it’s rare for a whistle blower to be honored openly.

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation

The intent of this article is to look at one union of nurses in Australia, the ANMF — Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, particularly its South Australian Branch, and analyze its response to nurses who sought its help. The state of South Australia had legislated mandatory Covid vaccination, which first became available in 2021. Some nurses refused it and consequently lost their jobs.  Australia has legal protections against unfair dismissal — you can sue the employer.

Nurses who sought help from the union (I am assuming that the ANMF is a union or a guild) were given the runaround, in my opinion, by that organization’s use of a position statement that sounds like an admonishment to workers, rather than an attempt to assist them.  Here is an abridged quote (450 words) about “professional rights and obligations.” Per federal law, nurses get and maintain their licenses from the NMBA — the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia.

ANMF POSITION STATEMENT: COVID-19 Vaccination, 27 August 2021.  The NMBA’s Position statement … makes it clear that registered nurses … who are promoting anti-vaccination statements to patients and the public via social media which contradict the best available scientific evidence are in breach of their professional obligations and may be subject to regulatory action…. [Wow]

The National Boards also state that all regulated practitioners have a responsibility to participate in efforts … including vaccination, health screening and the reporting of notifiable diseases.  The National Boards recognise that while some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection [?] to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures….

INDUSTRIAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

Mandatory vaccination of workers in certain workplaces is not a new feature…. Some of these are legal requirements. Others are requirements established by the employer themselves on the premise that they are in the best interests [ahem] and protective of the worker and those in their care.

Although there is no national law requiring vaccination … there are many well-established vaccination requirements for staff via state public health orders and health policy directives. Many private hospital providers have developed similar expectations of their staff….

If a worker is dismissed for refusing or being unable to be vaccinated … Any application for unfair dismissal would need to be assessed against the legislative criteria established in the Fair Work Act 2009 to determine if a dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable…. There have been two recent decisions by the Federal Workers Commission regarding dismissals related to refusal of mandatory vaccinations, one in the childcare sector and one in aged care. In both cases the FWC considered that it was a valid reason for the employers to dismiss the workers for refusing to have an influenza vaccination.

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (WHS) RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

In terms of WHS, the following principles are relevant: Employers must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others…. Workers must ensure that they take reasonable care for their own health and safety, ensure that their acts and omissions do not adversely affect the health and safety of others, comply with reasonable instruction of their employer and cooperate with reasonable policies and procedures (WHS Act, s28)…. The best way to eliminate exposure is to ensure people are not bringing the virus into the workplace and vaccination is the most practicable way to do this.[???] … There is existing case law to say that vaccination is a reasonable requirement when working with vulnerable persons.

[Emphasis Added]

In answer to a question about the right to free speech. this union replied:

“Whilst the High Court has recognised the right to political expression, which may involve

expressing views about medical aspects of vaccination (including inaccurate views), state

level human rights instruments, where they exist, and Commonwealth constitutional

provisions are unlikely to invalidate a policy, regulation or public health order mandating

compulsory vaccination for high-risk workers.”

In answer to a question as to whether a suit for unfair dismissal could be won, the reply from ANMF was:

In Australia, public health legislation is primarily the responsibility of states and territories.

Mandatory vaccination programs are … generally, but not always, implemented using Public Health Orders. The Emergency Management (Healthcare Setting Workers Vaccination) (COVID-19) Direction 2021 is a Public Health Order….It is important to note that a number of recent Fair Work Commission matters that have considered the question of dismissal for refusing vaccination have pointed to at least a preliminary view that these dismissals are unlikely to be found to be unfair….

I opine that the men and women who make the legislation would have to be moved by the true role of law. In this case they would have to look into the motives of the industries who are lobbying for the legislation. They would have to be strong enough, intelligent enough, and confident enough about right and wrong, to see that the motives are bad and should not be accommodated.

In my opinion, the final sentence from ANMF contains the nub: “these dismissals are UNLIKELY to be found unfair.”  That could mean “Judge will give it their best wisdom and find against the plaintiffs, and since we trust them to use good judgment you can take that to mean that the complaints of unfairness had no merit.”

Or it could mean “Lawsuits about vax-related dismissals have little or no chance of winning, full stop.” I take the latter to be an observation of the facts of power, as in “The poor have little or no chance of winning against the rich.” Or, to quote Thucydides, “The strong exact what they can and the weak grant what they must.” Please note that such an observation may be true, but it is the exact opposite of the ideal of law: the poor can win by use of good law.

Good law is currently in abeyance. Going by, for example, the number of very valid complaints against CPS by protective parents, it’s not true to say that “the law can prevail.”  The law depends on good men and women to sign honest rulings.  They do not do so; they participate in crime. And, as mentioned, all parts of civil society have undergone a strange transformation whereby governmental orders are taken as the final word. The Catholic Pope has explicitly promoted the Covid vaccination.

Having Faith in a Bureaucracy

I quote again: “The ANMF-SA has confidence in the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).” Yet the plaintiffs are asking the union to NOT have confidence in TGA. As with the Bench, it would take good men and women on the union’s board to do the right thing, which would be to doubt the TGA’s honesty.

The TGA, like the FDA in US, has acted criminally in matters relating to the vaccines. I filed a lawsuit at a US District Court as soon as President Trump announced Operation Warp Speed, an effort to get a Covid vaccine as quickly as possible.  My request was to be given a restraining order against mandatory vax.  The suit is Maxwell v US Secretary of Defense.  The main point I made is that the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantees non-invasion of a person’s home, person, or privacy. I particularly sought an update of the Us Supreme Court’s 1905 precedent in Jacobson v Massachusetts. My appeal included the following:

“In her 2020 pleadings, Plaintiff Maxwell offered eight grounds on which a citizen may question the push for a Covid vaccination. Some sound felonious; this strengthens her resolve to avoid taking the vaccination:

(1)  that the testing for Covid is unreliable,

(2) that Covid cases aren’t being accurately reported,

(3) that the purpose of the Lockdown is apparently not for health but to terminate national economies,

(4) that the emergency vaccines have evaded standard safety testing,

(5) that there is a little-understood connection between vaccination and DNA,

(6) that successful cures for Covid, such as Ivermectin, are withheld, casting doubt on the sincerity of the race for a Covid vaccine,

(7) that a vaccine tattoo may be used as a ‘passport,’ and

(8) that scientific debate is being forbidden by censors.”

I included, in my Exhibit E, some “Questions in the Australian Federal Parliament about Covid and Vaccines. Published in Hansard, 1 June 2021 and 5 February 2021, at aph.gov.au” which deals with the ridiculous work of the TGA as follows:

[At a parliamentary hearing on 5 February 2021 the following question was put by Tony Zappia, MP, Labor Party, of Makin South Australia.  The person answering is Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation, which is related to the TGA.]:

Q — Once you get vaccinated, will you have to be vaccinated in, say, 12 months time?

A — Dr Skerritt:  If you know the answer to that, could you tell us!  That’s the $64 billion question. And that, of course, is one of the primary questions that people following this epidemic are asking. We hope not….

[The following questions were put by Senator Malcolm Roberts and answered by Mr Edwards]:

Q — The vaccine only has provisional approval. Is it true that provisional approval is only possible where there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments available?

A — The provisional approval is possible where there is not a similar treatment available in that, for that group of patients. … indeed we have provisionally designated the Novavax vaccine as well and the Johnson & Johnson or Janssen vaccine, it is possible to provisionally designate and potentially provisionally approve those vaccines.

Q — How long before we know the intergenerational effects?

A — There’s no evidence at all from animal or human studies that the RNA vaccines, if you’re talking about them, incorporate into the genetic material of human beings. They wouldn’t have been approved for regulatory approval and that includes by much bigger regulators such as the FDA, if these bits of mRNA incorporated into the human genetic material. In fact, medicines that incorporate into human genetic material and are inherited are currently not permitted in most major countries, including Australia.

… [The following question was put by Mr Tony Zappia, MP and answered by Dr Skerritt]:

Q — Have there been any concerns raised, in respect to pregnancy and the vaccine?

A — Dr Skerritt: Again, it’s more a lack of data rather than any evidence of miscarriages and the like. … Some clinical groups are recommending that, if you’re not in a high-risk or high-exposure group and if you’re pregnant, you hold off until you have the kid. However, there are the examples of the US and the UK, where you’ve got a number of pregnant healthcare workers and both systems are under such strain. If you took every pregnant doctor and nurse out of the UK at the moment and told them to stay at home for nine months, you’d put the system even under more stress….”

Conclusion

The nurses’ union in Australia will not take up a civil-society type response to the problem of the Covid vaccine. It appears to me that this union has a conflict of interest. It seemingly helps its members by advising them what to do to maintain their job by obeying health directives, yet refuses to take part in conveying its nurse-type opinion to the lawmakers or the courts.  In regard to the Covid vaccine issue, it has totally copped out.

Nurse need to rethink their way of organizing as workers.

Matthew 6: 24 — “No man can serve two masters.”