National Employers' Association of South Africa

NEASA applauds Canadian truckers for standing for what they believe in. #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy #antimandateprotest #freedomofchoice Gerhard Papenfus is the Chief Executive of the National Employers' Association of South Africa (NEASA).

Gerhard Papenfus is the chief executive of the National Employers’ Association of South Africa (NEASA). How did it come about that we don’t fight for our employees, allowing them to become mere medical objects, rather than citizens living and sharing in society together? Also: - what has become of the established medical principle of not forcing a person in respect of a medical intervention? - how did it come about that we have stooped so low that we are prepared to dish out vouchers in order to coerce people, the needy and the poor, into accepting this intervention, seduced for a R100?

Gerhard Papenfus, chief executive of NEASA, invites monopolies to debate the forcing of their employees to subject themselves to mandatory Covid-treatment. #freespeech #freedomofchoice NEASA is the National Employers' Association of South Africa. https://neasa.co.za/ Today, I am addressing the ignorant super-bullies. The chief executives of mighty corporates, or rather monopolies. Once again, I am doing this in my capacity as a leader of a large business constituency. We know that the special medical treatment to protect you against the virus, is no longer of any help. Not even receiving the full treatment protects you from contracting the virus, nor spreading it. Even worse, those who have received the full treatment, are more likely to contract the current variant of the virus, than those who haven't received the treatment. By the way, in view of the risk of being cancelled, I am not using the popular terminology. I trust you will understand. Back to the bullies. Why are you persisting with this, while the evidence suggests that you stop? I can think of three reasons: One: ignorance. That, however, is unlikely. Surely you cannot be that ignorant. Two: Peer pressure. You do that because the other monopolies, the other bullies, are doing it. If that is so, well, then you are a weakling. Bullies are not bullies because they are strong, but because they are weak. Three: Financial interest. If that is so, you are prepared to sacrifice the personal constitutional guaranteed rights of your people for financial gain. There might be other reasons. If there are, come and tell me what they are. In fact, if this annoys you Mr Monopoly, call me, so we can debate the issue publicly. I look forward to hearing from you. In the meantime, I invite those employees who you bully to reach out to us for help and guidance. See our latest newsletters on this matter: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS: NEASA puts Minister on notice: Will defend business and individuals in Constitutional Court https://neasa.co.za/mandatory-vaccinations-neasa-puts-minister-on- notice-will-defend-business-and-individual-in-constitutional-court/ Mandatory Vaccinations: NEDLAC’s Recommendation: Unfortunate and Ill-Advised https://neasa.co.za/mandatory-vaccinations-nedlacs-recommendation-unfortunate-and-ill-advised/

How is the current intolerant insistence by some employers to subject their employees to a mandatory medical intervention, with the threat of being economically exterminated if they don't, different from that of Nazi Germany, where Jews were excluded from the world of work, on the basis of their ethnicity - that is before they were ultimately physically eradicated. Gerhard Papenfus is the chief executive of the National Employers’ Association of South Africa.

The current popular narrative wants you to believe that all you have to do is to get a particular injection now, in exchange for securing your contract, your job, the privilege to continue your studies and entertainment benefits. Gerhard Papenfus is the Chief Executive of the National Employers' Association of South Africa (NEASA) https://neasa.co.za/ What will happen if you enter into a transaction with your toddler along the following lines: You can have this piece of candy now or You can have one million rand in twenty years time What will the toddler’s response be? Of course he will choose the candy now. I compare this with the narrative currently overwhelming many parts of the world. I’m talking about the narrative that in exchange for securing your contract, your job, the privilege to continue your studies and entertainment benefits, all you have to do is to get a particular injection now. Of course, this is a false and very dangerous proposition If you are one of those who see through this, whether you are a businessman, a worker or a student, remember this: Be true to your conviction If it requires sacrifice of certain apparent benefits now, then sacrifice! Do what is right Follow your conscience Think of this: It is better to fail in a course that will ultimately succeed, than to succeed in a course that will ultimately fail. The current narrative will eventually fail And those who drive it will go down with it

NEASA applauds Canadian truckers for standing for what they believe in. #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy #antimandateprotest #freedomofchoice Gerhard Papenfus is the Chief Executive of the National Employers' Association of South Africa (NEASA).

Gerhard Papenfus, CE of the National Employers' Association of South Africa, was interviewed on Etv News and Sport , 6 December 2021. #vaccinemandates #mandatoryvaccinations The employer has an almost insurmountable mountain to climb should it wish to introduce a policy of mandatory vaccinations in the workplace. The overwhelming regulatory requirements are seemingly disregarded by some employers (following the example of various corporates) announcing that they will simply be enforcing mandatory vaccinations on all their employees. Before dealing with the obstacles which an employer needs to overcome, it is necessary to, once again, state NEASA’s position regarding this very contentious issue: 1. NEASA is unequivocally opposed to any policy aimed at forcing an employee to be subjected to mandatory vaccination, against his or her will; 2. NEASA’s position in this regard is based on: the constitutional right to bodily integrity and freedom of religion, opinion and belief; moral, ethical and legal grounds; and fundamentally, the individual’s uncompromised right of freedom of choice. More on NEASA’s view here: Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccinations in the Workplace: Compensation for injuries, illness or Death; Mandatory Vaccinations in the Workplace: Freedom of Choice; Mandatory Vaccinations in the Workplace: Directive does not envisage a blanket approach NEASA does not support Infringing Mandatory Vaccinations WATCH: “Stand up to bullies” – In Response To The Current Global Health Predicament The directions issued by the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL), which seemingly permit the implementation of mandatory vaccinations in the workplace, as well as the notice by the Compensation Fund Commissioner (‘the notice’), regarding compensation for employees who suffer injury, illness or death as a result of receiving a mandatory vaccine, impose stringent regulatory requirements on employers. As it currently stands, the implementation of a mandatory vaccine policy in a workplace may well be an unjustifiable infringement of the constitutional rights to bodily integrity and freedom of religion, opinion and belief. So where does this leave an employer? The abovementioned issues require an employer, contemplating the implementation of a mandatory vaccination policy, to answer a number of questions it may be faced with and which, if not answered satisfactorily, may well expose the employer to a number of claims by employees. The first question an employer should be asking may not be a legal one, as it deals with the morality of imposing a vaccine on a person against their will. It is clear from the directions from DEL, as well as the notice, that an employer may not force an employee to receive a vaccine against their will. However, the fact that an employee is forced to elect between receiving a vaccine or potentially being dismissed, effectively constitutes the enforcement of a vaccine. Each employer should therefore answer the question as to whether it believes that it is necessary, required and morally justifiable to interfere with the freedom of choice of an individual by imposing a mandatory vaccination policy? The second question an employer should ask is whether it has complied with the requirements of the direction for the implementation of a mandatory vaccination policy. This question has to be answered within the broader context of the original Consolidated Direction on Occupational Health and Safety Measures in Certain Workplaces, as the introduction of mandatory vaccination policies is simply an amplification of these directions, as well as the requirements of the Labour Relations Act, Employment Equity Act and the notice.

It deserves a response when a worker is forced to do something against their religious/moral/ethical/convictions. Denying anyone their freedom of choice impacts on business/individuals/society. Dear business owner Today, I am addressing you on the severe erosion of the most fundamental freedom of all freedoms – the freedom of choice. The forceful introduction of a particular treatment, for a global health hazard, under the pretence to protect us, is currently a dominant global predicament. However, in this message I will not deal with the merit of this treatment. What is at stake here, is the very serious matter of denying people, among them millions of workers, worldwide, their basic human right to form their own opinion and to take a decision for themselves on this matter. I speak to you in my capacity as a representative of a large, organised business constituency. Incidentally, within this constituency, less than 0.1% of businesses, less than one in a thousand, has adopted this approach. The fact that a few very big corporates have opted to implement a compulsory approach, and in doing so, through their example, have led other businesses on this mistaken path, demands this response. Any approach where, under a business owner’s care, a worker is forced to do something that goes against that worker’s religious, moral, or ethical conviction, is unethical. It is a betrayal of the trust that the worker is supposed to have in the business owner, the guardian of the employment relationship. This is simply wrong. Businesses are supposed to treasure the attributes of strong opinion and integrity of workers, and not suppress it. The impact of denying workers, or anyone else for that matter, their freedom of choice, will turn out to be disastrous, not only for the business or the worker, but also for society. It will set society, all societies, on a path which will eventually undermine all freedoms. Can you imagine a society where this kind of intolerance prevails? Is this not the type of intolerance which is typical of dictatorial dispensations? Do we really want to tolerate, in any shape or form, such a dispensation? In all questions of life, big or small, every individual must ask him-/herself the question: ‘Is this right?’ This is fundamental in the all-important matter of character and integrity. Every individual has to be true to him-/herself. And disobeying the call of conscience, is a most fundamental offense; it is a sin towards oneself. As a business owner, the guardian of the work environment, you cannot deny workers this most fundamental right, this personal obligation - to be true to themselves. This issue is currently causing huge division in society, in business, between businesses, between employers and employees, and even in families. This plays perfectly into the hands of those who want to divide and divert attention away from the real issues that severely undermine societal stability. I wish to remind, not only every individual affected by this, but also businesses which will in future be subjected to institutionalised bullying, of an important personal leadership principle: “Stand up to bullies”. We are faced with a fundamental test to our society: our response will indicate the extent to which we value our freedom and will illustrate to what extent we are prepared to fight for the sake of our freedom. A person who does not value freedom, and is not prepared to fight for freedom, does not deserve freedom. It’s easy to lose it, but extremely hard to regain it.