No EI for the unvaccinated

[rustled]

I think it's more likely people were behind the rapid increase in votes.

I think so too. 3x the voters because this is an important emotional topic where peoples livelihoods and careers and lifetime of training are potentially at stake.

For quite a while the "yes" votes were greater than the "no" votes by a much larger margin.

Statistically, it seems highly unlikely the gap would have closed to that extent over the course of a short period of time that late in the polling opportunity.

So I don't think it was 3x the voters - more likely a smaller number of people who know how to game the Castanet polls.

[Bsuds]

I agree, Jlabute. The job's requirements have changed from what the original employment contract required - the employee didn't ask for that.

No one asked for any of this but the majority have been vaccinated.

Right or wrong it's still their choice to not get the shot and lose their job.

[Jlabute]

Ohhhh, ok. I noticed when the poll began that NO votes were significantly higher than YES votes and as I am seeing today YES votes won by a small margin which surprised me. Hard to say if any important poll means anything on castanet lol.

[rustled]

Ohhhh, ok. I noticed when the poll began that NO votes were significantly higher than YES votes and as I am seeing today YES votes won by a small margin which surprised me. Hard to say if any important poll means anything on castanet lol.

I may have it backwards! What struck me most was how considerably the gap had shrunk that far into the duration of the poll, and that's when I started refreshing my screen every few seconds and saw the tallies jumping by several votes with each refresh. It seemed to me to be people who know how to game online polls, having a battle.

[rustled]

I agree, Jlabute. The job's requirements have changed from what the original employment contract required - the employee didn't ask for that.

No one asked for any of this but the majority have been vaccinated.

Right or wrong it's still their choice to not get the shot and lose their job.

This shouldn't be decided by what the majority is doing.

The majority will do many things a minority object to doing and won't take a job that requires they do it. We already accommodate the objections of the minority in our society: pharmacists don't have to give out the morning after pill to keep their jobs, GPs don't have to refer women who want their tubes tied, doctors and nurses didn't have to participate in abortions to keep their jobs.

The requirements of the insured person's job have changed - that should be the bottom line. When the requirements of a job exclude the person who was insured while doing the job, does their insurance apply? These decisions shouldn't be subjective.

[Jlabute]

I think so. Particularity with the more politically oriented polls. Leftist fiddling is the only grapple hold. Seeing YES votes at the end was a ‘nice’ surprise to previously being shocked by the number of heartless voters that sprinted out of the starting gate. I use the term ‘voters’ loosely, lol.

[sobrohusfat]

People are happy to deny EI to the Unvaxed Lepers among us who are going to need it ? - another short-sighted move - or maybe another strategic one .

Either way, a move that highlights just how little any of this has to to with protecting public health.





...let it burn...

[hobbyguy]

Ohhhh, ok. I noticed when the poll began that NO votes were significantly higher than YES votes and as I am seeing today YES votes won by a small margin which surprised me. Hard to say if any important poll means anything on castanet lol.

I may have it backwards! What struck me most was how considerably the gap had shrunk that far into the duration of the poll, and that's when I started refreshing my screen every few seconds and saw the tallies jumping by several votes with each refresh. It seemed to me to be people who know how to game online polls, having a battle.

Yup, and the "poll" has many, many more responses than the average question. By at least 50%. IF I wanted to, I could vote time and time again in their polls, and it isn't hard or tricky. I suspect the anti-vaxxer minority - whom we know are real diehards, packed the poll - and I would bet they use screenshots in their echo chamber of the bogus result.

If you look at previous polls, the responses normally run in the 9-12,000 or so range, not the 32,000 in this particular poll. So it is obvious that poll was packed - even the poll on which party you would vote for in the election only got 19,000 responses.

[rustled]

I may have it backwards! What struck me most was how considerably the gap had shrunk that far into the duration of the poll, and that's when I started refreshing my screen every few seconds and saw the tallies jumping by several votes with each refresh. It seemed to me to be people who know how to game online polls, having a battle.

Yup, and the "poll" has many, many more responses than the average question. By at least 50%. IF I wanted to, I could vote time and time again in their polls, and it isn't hard or tricky. I suspect the anti-vaxxer minority - whom we know are real diehards, packed the poll - and I would bet they use screenshots in their echo chamber of the bogus result.

If you look at previous polls, the responses normally run in the 9-12,000 or so range, not the 32,000 in this particular poll. So it is obvious that poll was packed - even the poll on which party you would vote for in the election only got 19,000 responses.

Poll-packing was happening with both the "yes" and "no" votes while I watched. It seems silly to pretend only anti-vax diehards were participating.

[Bsuds]

even the poll on which party you would vote for in the election only got 19,000 responses.

That's about how many actually voted in the election.

[Jlabute]

Yup, and the "poll" has many, many more responses than the average question. By at least 50%. IF I wanted to, I could vote time and time again in their polls, and it isn't hard or tricky. I suspect the anti-vaxxer minority - whom we know are real diehards, packed the poll - and I would bet they use screenshots in their echo chamber of the bogus result.

If you look at previous polls, the responses normally run in the 9-12,000 or so range, not the 32,000 in this particular poll. So it is obvious that poll was packed - even the poll on which party you would vote for in the election only got 19,000 responses.

Poll-packing was happening with both the "yes" and "no" votes while I watched. It seems silly to pretend only anti-vax diehards were participating.

Yup. It started with NO packing IMO. It flew from the gates when the bell rang.

[crookedmember]

I've seen right-wing subs on reddit send people to vote on castanet polls. Obviously these online polls are not serious random samples, they're click bait.

[The Green Barbarian]

I've seen right-wing subs on reddit send people to vote on castanet polls.

LOL - no you haven't.

[rustled]

People are happy to deny EI to the Unvaxed Lepers among us who are going to need it ? - another short-sighted move - or maybe another strategic one .

Either way, a move that highlights just how little any of this has to to with protecting public health.





...let it burn...

Yup.

[hobbyguy]

I agree, Jlabute. The job's requirements have changed from what the original employment contract required - the employee didn't ask for that.

No one asked for any of this but the majority have been vaccinated.

Right or wrong it's still their choice to not get the shot and lose their job.

Changes in the implied contract between employers/employees happen all the time. The standards applied by the courts/labor boards etc. essentially look at "what a reasonable person would do" type of thing in that regard.

And that works both ways, in favor of and against what what individual employees/employers might want.

Many many employers now require that employees take safety training, harassment training, etc. as conditions of employment, and comply with myriad rules surrounding those issues. ALL of those are changes to to implied contract. IF you choose to refuse the training and follow the rules, then indeed you are out the door - and with cause, and therefore up the creek with EI.

Vaccine mandates are no different. What a "reasonable person" as a manager must do is protect the health and safety of employees as far as is possible - and by adopting best practices. Management has no choice in the matter, and furthermore if a manager as an individual does not take such steps, then they are individually liable for prosecution and can go to jail.

Best practices in this case is that employees be vaccinated - and therefore employers have little choice. Federal, provincial and municipal governments are indeed employers.

IF testing were as accurate a predictor as being vaccinated, then that might be an alternative (although a dang expensive one). Unfortunately that is not the case, as rapid tests are notoriously unreliable (only 40-50% accurate at picking up infections) and PCR tests are not as accurate a predictor as vaccination - as well as being a practical impossibility as they are not available on the required scale. All of that means that employers "duty to accommodate" does not include testing as an option.

And so vaccine mandates become what a "reasonable person" would do, and a requirement of employment. Failure to comply becomes a reason for "just cause" dismissal - and EI status for the individual is "fired for cause" with all the ramifications that brings.