Mandate WorkAround Jedlet

great doc Marty - i too have been pondering this..........especially the silence as compliance.

Thanks Marty,

Some good points to ponder. Looking forward to this morning's discussion.

Hi I have uploaded attached document to the work around the mandate Jedlet Risk Jedi 2022 folder

It was decided that another meeting was required to define the purpose of this Jedlet. For those that came, you will receive a calendar invite. If anyone else wants to join, please join here or let me know and I will add you in.

Wednesday 01.06.2022 at 9am

Microsoft Teams meeting

Join on your computer or mobile app

Click here to join the meeting

Learn More | Meeting options

@Kerri-Anne Hawkins this is the one we discussed

Unfortunately I am unable to attend this session as I would be interested in hearing and discussing this matter. However I would like to add my take on this. I am totally for personal choice on the vaccination issue and respect each individuals decision. And if through exploration and discussion possible resolution and/or outcomes which ensures that Jeder and/or any member are not at risk of facing any legal or ethical repercussion while still supporting the rights of those who choose not to vaccinate then isn't that a win - win for all.

I agree that we should all be kind, respectful, and compassionate to each others different view points.

Thanks Lynn and Alex for summing up what I have struggled to put down. We need to be open to varies options / choices, that is the Jeder way.

Also, there's nothing like an infectious disease to get us all worked up and divided. Check out Parasite Stress Theory. Longitudinal studies about the impact on societal values correlating to infectious disease rates: The more infectious diseases prevalent in a society, the more conservative values, more fear of 'foreign' or 'other', more 'in-group/dominant group' alignment, more extreme positions. It's a minefield. I agree with Lynn that we need to be gentle and considerate of each other's world views whilst we navigate this.

I like your thinking Aleks. Legal doesn't always mean moral or right. But we somehow need to find a way to be human-centred for our members and our participants whilst not copping any fines 'from above' due to a top heavy mandate. A really tough one. I'm 100% pro choice in this matter and the mandate unfortunately takes choice away. Weirdly the current death rate in Australia due to Covid is 0.2% - that's encompassing all demographics - the most vulnerable and the least vulnerable. The vax doesn't stop infection or transmission, and now the NSW Public Health orders (don't know about other states) say that if a family member has an active Covid infection, you don't need to isolate. You can go out and spread it around??!! No protection for vulnerable community members there.

So as far as I see it the vax is a personal decision to reduce the risk of developing severe disease for oneself. If this virus was more deadly, I'd understand a top heavy mandate. Currently this mandated vax takes personal choice away and the accompanying public health orders don't reflect care for the community at large. I just don't understand the juxtaposition between a mandated vaccination 'to protect the community' and public health orders changing to allow easy transmission. Rules aren't always supportive of our communities. Maybe we need to question this.

Bottom line - Pro choice and a human centred approach are in line with Jeder principals. That's why I'm here. Would we follow anything just because it was 'mandated?' But we also need to protect our org from top heavy fines. So tough.

I have sat to write many times and find myself hesitating, even now as I type I am hesitating. When I have spoken out there was no open conversation, no deep listening practice, it was a one sided narrative with a clear and ridged line in the sand. It is a challenging conversation based on control and fear, may I suggest that Jeder the co-creators of change could perhaps seek some other advice/direction/alternatives.

I disagree with the endorsement, any group of members can form a Jedlet to discuss anything, why should it need to be endorsed. Decisions to be made is a different thing.

I agree, Lynn! My only comments have been about process; a Jedlet is a piece of work that is identified, endorsed and developed by a Jedi and ALL of this discussion should have happened at the Risk Jedi before announcing anything... which is why I commented about "creating the conditions for success" and used another Jedlet as an example! Yes, it's another process glitch which needs strengthening...

I've gone to respond to this thread on several occasions, and stopped...why? Because I felt that there were some strong opinions being voiced, often with dis-respectful language towards others opinions/thoughts so figured why would I stick my head up only to be shot down.

If we aren't able to have respectful, open and transparent conversations with each other (no matter what the topic) then I fear we will create a culture where many will simply stay silent.

I always believed that within Jeder if you had a passion, interest, thought, etc on anything relating to Jeder we were able to call a Jedi/Jedlet, etc to discuss further to then decide where to next.

After reading through this thread, again, I believe others are not wanting to step into this space for fear of being questioned in an inappropriate way, instead of through constructive discussions.

I'm actually pretty disappointed in much of this thread, it does not align with Jeder's pillars. Where is our generosity of spirit in this thread, when did we decide that we would no longer be co-creators of change, why is it that a group of people who want to self organize themselves around a discussion are being scrutinized so minutely, and since when did we stop being participatory leaders.

Oh and just for the record I am vaccinated, so my comments are not in relation to this Jedlet being formed, the discussions that may or may not take place, but simply in my thoughts and feelings around the discomfort that this conversation has caused and they way that members have approached this.

I believe as a whole we can all do a lot better 🙂

Thanks Aleks, love this - funny flying a kite in Victoria is still illegal. So no-one in Victoria fly's a kite, hmmmm. LOL

Thinking about minority groups: I can't help but think about the question: "Just because it's legal, does that make it right". Thought the readers of this post may find these laws interesting: 40 Unusual Laws in History (historycollection.com)

I've just read through all comments in this thread. I'm still keen to hear different views from my own before I comment with any confidence. 🙂 "Be a realist, dream the impossible" - Che Guevara

Thanks Aleks, we'll keep everyone informed about where it goes to from here.

Thanks Mic, I'm interested in being involved in this discussion. I like "This is not a conversation about whether the Mandates are right or wrong.' Unfortunatelly, I'm busy on Wednesday morning.

Appreciate you saving comments for the Jedlet, thank you.

I disagree about you and other contributions being respectful, they certainly made me feel disrespected for my perspective and uncomfortable in sharing my views. I am well aware that the conversations here are one sided that is the reason for starting this Jedlet so 'we' can get some purpose and pieces of work going as I don't feel these perspectives are well represented in other areas of Jeder.

I hope you have the clarity you seek and look forward to further discussions.

Thanks Mic, I will save any further comments for the Jedlet and any other Jedi/Jedlet (i.e. process stuff).

I feel I have respected members different points of views and disagree with your comments here- unfortunately there has only been a few comments made (which favour one side/view/perspective). I feel all that is trying to be achieved is clarity. Looking forward to listening and discussing more at the Jedlet.

Thanks for the post and sharing your perspective. Always good to have your input.

I'm not sure of the purpose of this contribution and I'm a bit tired of feeling like I have to defend this Jedlet. If you feel there is something missing in the process of forming a Jedlet, please take it to the Governance Jedi or CI Jedi for a review.

Otherwise can you please respect that some members have a different point of view about the mandates and trust that the conversations they have and suggestions they have to make will be bought to the membership for consideration.

Apologies for the long post. I had some thoughts and time to reflect on this thread- trying to make sense of the thread/comments/purpose/intentions. This is what has come to me (and some future ponderings):

• Supporting members to be heard- we have practices, processes and frameworks to assist individuals to have a collective voice (four fold, pillars, circle practice etc). I see it is our collective responsibility to assist all our membership to feel confident and comfortable to have conversations and their voices heard- even if they are difficult conversations. I feel talking between each other and one/two people representing those discussions is not useful, productive or helpful- I feel this creates an environment for rumours, assumptions and divides. How do we create an environment or container for everyone to be heard- we have feedback that we are a Psychologically Safe organisation and members feel heard- why are we not encouraging members to talk up? Have we successfully done this for this tread or leading up to this topic being put up on Loomio (my feeling is no- from both perspectives)?

• Emotions v's facts- this is a very emotive space for everyone- no matter what side of the fence you sit on. There are also very clear facts. Both of these are important and need equal weight in a exploring possibilities. This thread has certainly surfaced the polar opposites but not the grey.

• Transparency (going back to some of our fundamental practices/process and pillars)- this links to my first reflection. When there is ambiguity and not enough open discussion prior to a Jedlet forming, this can create suspicion around intentions (either explicit or implicit). I see this thread as attempting to gain clarity of purpose (which has not been defined)- the solution I see here is that all those members who were having these discussions could have brought the topic to the Risk Jedi for further exploration and conversation- then a Jedlet formed when it was ripe.

• We are developing the Ethical Considerations Framework (through the Jedlet at the Governance Jedi) which will provide us a framework to start exploring some of these topics and challenges. In the absence of this, we are all doing the best we can. I am going to propose (in another proposal but after discussions at the Risk/Governance Jedi first) that I host a space where we can openly discuss the Mandate topic (I have been open that I have some questions I want to pose to the membership but they are not ripe yet). If anyone is interested in helping to develop these questions, please contact me or attend the Risk Jedi.

That's all for now.

Actually Jason the topic came up at the Nest where, when I said I have discussed this option with a number of members that were interested in forming a Jedlet. I was advised to take it through the risk Jedi. I'm not sure how much more can be discussed seeing the group has not come together to define a purpose or what it wants to do. Just to be clear, there is no agenda for Challenging the Mandate at this point. The purpose of the Jedlet needs to be defined by the members that join it, not in these discussions. This Loomio post was to invite people into a discussion about what is possible in Working Around the Mandates. I think I was clear about that in that in the description. The purpose and the piece of work will be clarified in the first few meetings of the Jedlet. It is still important that only members that are interested in discussion possible work arounds attend as this is not a space to discuss the ethics or the right or wrong of the mandates or vaccinations.

If you feel there is another conversation needed for starting a Jedlet process then that maybe a Jedlet in itself or sit under another Jedi, your decision.

Thank you for your perspectives, I hope my contribution has given some clarity to you and others.

Yes, the Jedlet is under the Risk Jedi but the way it came around could be explored more. The piece of work did not come from the Risk Jedi itself it came from Michaela (via Nest discussion). Michaela attended the last Risk Jedi for the purpose of informing the Risk Jedi she is calling a Jedlet around Challenging the Mandate- I felt there was no room for discussion to clarify purpose or the piece of work. Maybe this is also in the learning about the "how".

Thanks Dee, yes this Jedlet is doing it's work under the Risk Jedi, that is why the thread is here. How it does it's work and where it goes from here is yet to be determined and we will keep everyone posted and informed.

The only constructive thing I will add here is that Jedlets, by definition, are a "piece of work" within a Jedi so, I'm assuming this was developed at the Risk Jedi?

Snapshot Definition:

·       Jedi – a working group for members to collaborate and share around an organisational function for growth

·       Jedlet – a space for Jedi members to work on a specific “piece of work” within a broader Jedi

·       Pod – the Leads of a working group, role or function

·       Team – geographically or interest based member groups

The group will decide how it will share the conversations.

@Michaela Kennedy do you plan on recording the Jedlet so others can watch it later if they cant attend? It would be good to get some clarity on the groups purpose and mission.

No problem Jason, I will add amendments instead of changing anything. I thought when someone else harvest what a person is saying and it is harvested incorrectly, that person has the right to change it. Either way is fine, for transparencies sake I will only add an amendment.

Thank you for stating no one needs permission. I'm sorry you don't understand my perspective. If there is anything I can do to help your understanding please let me know.

Thanks Mic,

I appreciate your response but changing a harvest without a discussion/conversation is a worry- is this transparent, acceptable practice or accountable? It worries me you have said this (but this is not for this conversation thread).

Also, I still don't get where you are coming from in terms of the permission but I will leave this- I have said what I said..... that no one needs permission to start a Jedlet.

Thanks Jason, I'm happy to make the adjustments on the Risk harvest to represent what I said. I'm sorry I can't attend the next risk meeting.

The permission came from your words of putting a request on Loomio to start this Jedlet - implied permission is needed.

Thanks Mic,

I agree we need to approach this with kindness, compassion and inclusivity from all perspectives- even if its difficult and confronting.

To answer a couple of questions you raised-

• Risk Harvest- I took the minutes for this and tend to write verbatim with actions following. If the harvest is not completely correct (or captured correct) can you please attend the next Risk Jedi to correct them?

• There was nothing about asking for permission to start a Jedlet- I agree no one needs to ask permission. I am not sure where this comment originated?

  I look forward to defining its purpose so this is clear for everyone (maybe that is what is not clear- the purpose).

Thanks Jason, I look forward to getting the advice from the HR Lawyer and for that to be discussed at the appropriate Jedi's, Pods, Nests and Bored. Please note again this is not a Jedlet to discuss the right or wrong of the mandate. This is a Jedlet to discuss pro-choice options and strategies that maybe possible.

I hope many more members will be a part of the decision making process of mandate implementation approaches at Jeder.

I'm not sure who took the harvest at the Risk Jedi but it is not completely correct.

I don't think anyone needs to ask permission to start a Jedlet as long as a number of members want to discuss it and it fits under our Evolutionary Purpose - At the Heart of Change and Pillars - which we think this topic does. So I wasn't putting it on Loomio to request to start this Jedlet. We have a small group of people who are interested in discussing this topic.

Yes the focus is on a strategic approach for Jeder to promote pro choice regarding the mandate but that is yet to be defined by the group. Anything this group comes up with will then inform a proposal that will then come to Loomio for feedback and voting on suggested actions. At that point all members will be invited into providing feedback. It is not yet clear if the strategy will include challenging the mandate. The group in the Jedlet will make that decision.

I look forward to the Ethics Jedlet forming it's processes so that the topic of the mandates can be discussed there.

I hope this clears up the interim purpose of this Jedlet until it is formed and develops it's own purpose.

The link for the meeting is in the details of this Loomio, please feel free to put it in your diary.

I look forward to many more conversations around this topic and agree it is sensitive and uncomfortable for many members. Let's continue to be kind, compassionate and inclusive of all perspectives, opinions and sensitivities.

Thanks for putting this up Mic. Are you able to please send a calendar invite to all our members so its in our calendars?

We have been discussing the updated Covid Mandates/Strategies in a number of Jedi's/Pods (Risk Jedi, Nest, Bored) and are currently waiting advice from the Lawyer we originally engaged to provide the facts per jurisdiction (states). We have not received this advice yet but I will follow this up- its a task of mine in the above mentioned Jedi/Pods. I don't think we can really discuss this (and that is what the feedback was at the last Risk Jedi) until we have this information back from the lawyer.

I will acknowledge, upfront, this is a difficult and sensitive subject from both perspectives and tend to agree with Meredith- we should also consider this in terms of the Ethical Considerations Jedi (which is forming but not at the ripe stage of having questions explored further- the framework is almost developed so I don't feel its far away). I am waiting for the information from the Lawyer to also pose a question to the membership (which was discussed at the last Risk Jedi)- it was felt the proposed question was not quite ripe due to information not being received from the lawyer.

To be completely transparent, it is a little different to what was proposed/discussed at the Risk Jedi, discussion/action below:

New Jedlet happening to do with Covid- initiated by Mic. To do with challenging the mandate.  1st meeting Wed fortnight (18th)- focus is on strategic approach for Jeder Institute to promote pro choice regarding the vaccine mandate (the purpose will be defined). Action: Mic to put request on Loomio regarding starting the Jedlet.

I'm happy to join this discussion.

These are useful questions. I'm sure they will be useful at this Jedlet too. It is clear to me that Michaela wants to start a conversation and in her introduction has not suggested any outcomes apart from exploring the potential for a 'win/win' strategy. It may and it may not eventuate. It's way too early to assume an outcome.

I'm not anti vaccinne. However this headline would certainly grab my attention. Purely to discover what I know I don't know - from others perspectives.

Thanks for sharing this history.

Thanks Jason for supporting Meredith, I understand your perspectives on this topic are aligned and I hope that will be helpful for you both. I agree that we need diversity in conversations but when we get into polarised 'right / wrong' conversations about a topic it is not helpful to anyone and everyone withdraws from the conversation. I hope we can create a safe space for the minority members in Jeder to talk about this subject that they feel passionate about. Please be assured that all purposes, proposals and actions will be posted on Loomio for all members to contribute to.

I'm sorry you feel like that @Meredith Baylis unfortunately your perspective makes the minority members feel unsafe. Yes Covid does polarise us and has done for many in society. These conversations in this thread are a reflection of what is happening in society and I feel that those in the membership that support the mandates have the opportunity to discuss how they are implemented through the How To Jedlet. The minority have not been well represented in these groups and do not feel safe or welcome to attend them. This is a Jedlet for the minority to discuss what is possible. If you don't feel that these conversations should be happening, which is what it seems like from your posts, then I don't think it is appropriate you attend. Curiosity is one thing, influencing with your perspective is another.

Thanks @Meredith Baylis.... I am happy to talk with you before hand so you are supported to attend the Jedlet, if this is something you would like to do. I think different perspectives are critical.

Well said @Michelle Dunscombe , I would have liked to attend the Jedlet as i am curious about what is being discussed but i no longer feel welcome or that its safe for me to do so. Unfortuantely, i fear it will be heavily biased towards a minority with their own personal beliefs that don't align with Jeder processes and other guidelines and legislation we need to follow in our work which in turn, puts us all at risk. As @Dee Brooks has said its now a very polarising and unsafe environment, particularly for me.

Thanks Mic, this provides some more clarity. Before starting the Jedlet around what was needed to implement the mandates, there were lots of discussion at the Risk Jedi. As a result of those discussions, the Jedlet was formed to cover three perspectives. This was about sharing information.

We have had conversations around how to work around mandates- the Win/Win strategy is a great example. This has been at the Bored/Nest level due to the implications from an organisational perspective (to protect the org, our members and the community through the pandemic). We recognised this was an Orange Space right up front (we may not have named it Orange at the time but were open to say this is what we know).

Possibly, thanks Michelle. Yes agree we need diversity in all conversations. I guess I have a concern that the contributions that have been made in this thread are questioning the reason for this Jedlet where I want a wider conversation to support the minority of members in the org that are choosing not to vaccinate and / or don’t want boosters, an opportunity to find ways to still work. We have a Jedlet that works on what is needed to implement mandates. We don’t have any conversations going about how to work around them. Putting the invitation to the discussion here on Loomio is our attempt to invite diversity. Unfortunately the initial comments made some people feel like it was turning into a debate about the mandates which is not the intention of this Jedlet. Please know that all members who want to work on finding ways for members to continue to work while making different choices for their own health. I understand this is challenging for all perspectives and I think it is still important to have them.

My early morning thoughts:

Yes, a very polarised environment has been created here... I would suggest that if there are a number of people that have not made any comments here is because a safe space has not been created and I think this points back to the importance of a "piece of work" emerging through a Jedi and being discussed before it's launched... e.g. a lot of discussions were had before an Audit Jedlet was created and the conditions were created for it to be successful...

I am curious if the lack contribution to this thread is the potential polarising impact of the chosen Jedlet name and the real fear people have in contributing given the discourse in the thread to date. I am also curious as to why this Jedlet would discourage members who agree with the mandate from joining, is it not important to include diverse voices in the conversation.

I agree it is sad that people cannot have discussions about something that others perceive to be 'wrong' - there are a number of people that have not made any comments here due to the polarisation of the comments made to date. This is also very sad. We all need to work on accepting the unacceptable or allowing something to flow that doesn't meet our way of thinking. I don't think that has happened here very well. I hope we get others commenting.

Happy to discuss with you further the learning that you think is available for ripeness of a calling question and how we call Jedlets. Not something that needs to be discussed here and belongs in another forum. I look forward to seeing your changes to documents and having the opportunity to contribute.

Agree, the purpose will become clearer when the Jedlet meets. There have not been any group conversations to date. This is the first one, the purpose and possible work that the Jedlet will do will become clearer. As that becomes clearer it will become evident what other Jedlet's or Jedi's need to be involved in the conversations, maybe Ethics, maybe Risk, maybe both.

I hope it is more clear now that the Mandate WorkAround Jedlet will be in discussions about understanding the facts and grey areas of the mandates and how members might be able to work around them (safely and legally). So far we have stated all people not complying with the mandates have to continue working non face to face. With some of the other rules around Covid mandate compliances possibly coming in, the group of people not meeting these compliances need an opportunity to discuss possibilities that can be presented to the membership about how they will continue to work. Something I don't feel is very well represented in conversations happening in the org. This is why I say, if you agree with the Mandates this is not the group for you. We don't want to get bogged down in the right or wrong of the mandates and I believe that is more an ethical conversation and I'm more than happy to have these conversations under the ethics jedlet.

I hope this clears up some of the perceived ambiguity for you. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss further.

It saddens me that we are not able to share our perspectives and thoughts (or feeling they cannot comment further). There is learning from this which I will definitely raise at the Jedlet (and also add to our documents when the time is right). The learning is around the ripeness of a calling question and how we call Jedlets.

Thank you for your apology @Meredith Baylis I really appreciate that and understand that your intentions are not to harass or disrespect. Your priority is making sure we do the 'right' thing. Please note the purpose of this Jedlet has not yet been collaboratively agreed and developed. We will continue to inform the membership through this thread as things develop.

Thank you for providing clarity and helping me to understand the purpose of this Jedlet and your perspective. Your initial post was very unclear, hence my questions seeking clarity & understanding. Its re-assuring to know that all Members are complying with the mandate.

I'm sorry you feel harassed & disrespected. I wont be commenting again.

Thanks again Meredith, I think these links belong in the Covid Jedlet under the Risk Jedi, not here. This Jedlet will do research and collaborate with the appropriate Jedlet / Jedi. It is not appropriate here and if you choose to keep going with this barrage of posts I will take this down and report what this Jedlet does in another way. I find this barrage of posts harassment and disrespectful of the minority's perspective in this organisation.

All members in this organisation are complying with current mandates.

You are implying this group is looking for workarounds that are against the law or rules, that is a big assumption of an outcome when conversations haven't even started yet. Please note - no action to date has been taken and when the Jedlet meets it will go through the regular process of defining purpose, making proposal/s, which will go to the membership for feedback and consideration. I'm sorry these conversations are making you uncomfortable. I do not like to assume what the members of Jeder support and don't support, I hope our values and principles are similar. As stated the right or wrong about the mandates is not a part of this topic, that belongs to the Ethics Jedlet. It will not be discussed here. Thank you for sharing your perspective and I appreciate the time you have taken to do so. I look forward to further conversations of this nature in the Ethics Jedlet.

Hi @Jason Emmins , i agree! I think when i first read the post i was shocked and after reading Michaela's comments i'm even more confused as to the purpose of this Jedlet?

For those Not complying with the mandate there are heafty fines , not to mention the Organisations reputational damage.

QLD - Any person found in breach of the Public Health Directions and/or Public Health Act 2005, i.e. to whom a Direction/Act applies, without a reasonable excuse, could face a penalty of up to a maximum of 100 penalty units or 6 months' imprisonment.

On the spot fines can also be issued. https://www.covid19.qld.gov.au/government-actions/covid-safe-businesses

NSW- Breach of orders made under the Public Health Act 2010launch is a criminal offence and attracts heavy penalties.

In the case of an individual, the maximum penalty is $11,000, or imprisonment for 6 months, or both and a further $5500 penalty may apply for each day the offence continues. In the case of any corporation, the maximum penalty is $55,000 and a further $27,500 penalty may apply for each day the offence continues.

https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/stay-safe/rules/legislation-penalties#toc-penalties-for-breaching-public-health-orders

So, If reported and found to be in breach of Public Health Orders Im not sure how Jeder will sustain itself with fines like the above being a possibility or recover its reputation if damaged. We could all be at risk of losing of our jobs and our Organisation.

Hi @Michaela Kennedy , the heading says 'Mandate workaround' which implies that you are wanting to find a way around the mandate but by doing so, doesn't that place you and every other Member who feels the same way, at risk of being fined and possible further penalties? As you work for an Organisation of 70+ Members, that also places the whole organisation and all its Members at risk of being penalised, so i feel that the ethical questions i shared are very appropriate. I think everyone in Jeder supports choice & control and we all want to do our jobs well & with kindness & respect for everyone. Unfortunately, this post makes me feel very uncomfortable & feels like my job (and the Organisation i work within) is at risk if there are Members who are not complying with Mandates or any other regulations we have to comply with to do the work we do.

Maybe the purpose will be clearer/clarified once the Jedlet meets and discusses it.

From my perspective, its difficult to work from an ambiguous premise. On one hand you say its not to discuss the right/wrong of the mandates, but then state if you think the mandates are appropriate this Jedlet is not for you- this is the ambiguous and confusing for me.

Looking forward to the discussions and defining the purpose.

Thank you for the effort of the News Headlines, I actually find this a bit offensive and disrespectful to other people's point of view. As stated in the previous comment, this Jedlet is a group for people that want to discuss and develop pro-choice strategies and not a place to debate the mandates. As stated with previous comment I look forward to further discussions in the Ethics Jedlet should you wish to discuss it there.

Thank you for your contribution and opinion. As I stated in the description this is not a Jedlet to discuss the right or wrong about the mandate and your comments are better suited to the Ethical Jedlet not here. This is for the people in Jeder that would like to support choice and control. If you think the mandates are appropriate rules then this is not the Jedlet for you. Thanks anyway and I look forward to discussions in the Ethical Jedlet should you wish to take it there.

Thanks for your comment

hey meredith I really resonated with your statement especially as in particular in the ethics space there was much discussion on the concept of using your willingness to be a headline as the barometer of your actions - so would we as an organisation be comfortable to see the byline below on a facebook NDIS page tomorrow or as a headline in a major newspaper??

Mandate workaround?? Why does there need to be a Mandate workaround? A mandate is a mandate and if we want to work in this environment we need to comply with those mandates. They are put in place to keep people safe. I think the ethical questions should be considered before a jedlet about this is created. 😕

Questions to guide our decision making: 

1.       Would I be Happy for this decision to be headlining the news tomorrow? 

2.       Is there an ethical non-negotiable at play? 

3.       Will my action make the world a better place? 

4.       What would happen if everybody did this? 

5.       What will this do to my character or the character of my organisation? Is this consistent with my values and principles? 

I know that I wouldn't be happy, nor would any of the Participants I work with, be happy if Jeder made the headlines tomorrow about this matter so my answers would be no, yes, no, implosion and destruction. 😕