The line between legitimacy and inequality in mandatory vaccination for all is narrow, according to your Claude Gravel, a lawyer who specializes in labor law going to TVA Novels on Friday.
“It’s like a balance between the obligatory benefits of a mandatory vaccine and the opposite; we’re talking about individual law and collective law here,” said Claude Gravel.
Governments therefore need to study the file very carefully, as there are many loopholes lurking in the horizon, the lawyer said.
“It looks like a field of roses, with a lot of thorns,” Mr. Gravel said.
According to him, it may be more justifiable for some people in the community or for those in a particular job because it would be easier to prove that it is necessary to ensure the safety of the individual.
In the private sector, the responsibility of maintaining a safe work environment for everyone rests with the employer, but in an epidemic, work is very difficult.
“Employers have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their employees, so how can they deal with employees who are committed to the vaccine, but not those who do not go with the flow,” Gravel said.
Challenges in court
In the United States, many large companies have begun vaccinating their employees. CNN also fired three people for refusing to take a single dose.
According to the lawyer, employers may be tempted to ask for proof of vaccination as a condition to perform the job. Measurement, however, can be seen as an indirect way to ask its employees to be vaccinated.
“The choice to be vaccinated is free and voluntary and it should be.
All citizens have the right to refuse vaccinations for personal, medical or religious reasons.