I WAS sadly disappointed with your article which didn’t answer the question.
Instead, you entertained your readers with a list of programs to attract new labour from out-of-towners through increased housing options, funding this with our hard earned taxes.
You could have answered the question with the following:
1. Laid off by businesses that were shut down by the ‘lock downs’ (enforced rigorously by OUR shire) who couldn’t afford to continue paying them.
2. Sacked for refusing to take ‘mandated’ vaxes that were only advisory (not legal), and neither safe, nor effective against transmission.
3. Many were so hurt by their mistreatment that they will never return to their previous positions - they’ve found other forms of income, independent of government or corporate dictates.
4. Others left the most ‘locked-up’, ‘shut-up’ and mandated state in the world, to take up residence elsewhere.
5. Some were adversely affected by the vaxes (physically, mentally, emotionally), which were promised to be ‘safe’, and some may even have lost their lives as a result.
I’m aware those outlined above aren’t all the workers in Mansfield (or any other community in Australia), but we couldn’t miss the lack of labour, and I think it is amiss of your article to not propose any reasonable explanation to your readers.
Mark Shelling
Mansfield
