No EI for the unvaccinated

[rustled]

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.

Hard to say. It seems to me most people go with their subjective gut reaction on these polls. It does not seem to me that they consider the greater context of whether or not these decisions should be made based on popular opinion. Other insurance doesn't work that way.

If we collectively agree people who have paid for employment insurance ought to be considered uninsured when the expectations of the job change to force them to go against a moral conviction - seems to me that's a problem with significant implications.

[rustled]

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.

You're assuming the vaccinated aren't spreading the virus in their workplaces.

Those of us who know vaccinated people who brought home the virus to other members of their families know that's not the case.

Who decides what a reasonable person would do - is it what the majority chooses to do?

We'd likely find that in the opinion of the majority, it's unreasonable for the small-town pharmacist to be able to deny a woman the morning after pill based on his own moral preferences. The repercussions for that woman are significant. The pharmacist is allowed to make a moral determination that has nothing to do with his own physical well-being and everything to do with someone else's, and doesn't lose his job. He doesn't risk being dismissed for "just cause". He isn't scapegoated for acting on his own moral beliefs, regardless of how they impact someone else.

This mandate isn't about the health and safety of fellow employees.

[Terris]

No EI for the unvaxxed?

Too easy... Stop deducting EI from their paychecks.

Also... Get ready for an increase in workplace covid outbreaks as these people decide to hide their illness and go to work sick, because they won't be able to support themselves otherwise...

I'm not vaxxed, just tested positive for covid last week and am still under quarantine. The symptoms I have are chills and body aches. I can still smell and taste food, still have an appetite, no coughing, sneezing or chest congestion, so it would be no problem for me to just go to work and fake my way through the day and no one there would be the wiser.

On the plus side, I will now have natural immunity, which in my mind is far better than being injected with unknown poisons which are only vaccinations and NOT immunization.

If people here want to deny others EI even after they've paid for it, than they should also consider that they may be contributing to an even bigger problem of spreading this virus, as infected workers decide that personal survival trumps community protections.

Good luck with your punishing attitudes...

[fluffy]

If we collectively agree people who have paid for employment insurance ought to be considered uninsured when the expectations of the job change to force them to go against a moral conviction - seems to me that's a problem with significant implications.

I think the strength of a "moral conviction" has to be weighed realistically in this case. The vax-resistant are on shaky moral ground to start with, claiming their personal liberty overrides the general health of all.

[fluffy]

You're assuming the vaccinated aren't spreading the virus in their workplaces.

A safe assumption given the available evidence. Vaccinations, while not eliminating risk, are proven to reduce it.

This mandate isn't about the health and safety of fellow employees.

Yes, it is. That's all it's about.

[rustled]

If we collectively agree people who have paid for employment insurance ought to be considered uninsured when the expectations of the job change to force them to go against a moral conviction - seems to me that's a problem with significant implications.

I think the strength of a "moral conviction" has to be weighed realistically in this case. The vax-resistant are on shaky moral ground to start with, claiming their personal liberty overrides the general health of all.

Speaking of weighing realistically, it's unrealistic to pretend only the unvaccinated are likely to spread the virus in the workplace. We know this is not the case. It's shaky moral ground to deny someone the insurance they've paid for in order to force them to do something against their will.

The employer can't make a case that the vaccinated are not spreading the virus. This isn't about workplace health and safety, it's about moral judgement.

Who decides what's moral? Many would say the small-town pharmacist is "on shaky moral ground" when claiming their personal convictions override their responsibility to provide a woman with a morning after pill. Same is true of a GP who refuses to refer for a tubal ligation.

Is this a sensible road to start us on? The implications are significant.

[rustled]

You're assuming the vaccinated aren't spreading the virus in their workplaces.

A safe assumption given the available evidence. Vaccinations, while not eliminating risk, are proven to reduce it.

We don't yet know enough to know how significantly, or for how long.

This mandate isn't about the health and safety of fellow employees.

Yes, it is. That's all it's about.

Hogwash. The authorities who've introduced the mandates have let us know these mandates are to encourage people to get vaccinated.

To me, this is rather clearly a case of drawing a moral line based on personal preference.

The insurance one has paid for should not be denied based on personal moral preference.

[fluffy]

Speaking of weighing realistically, it's unrealistic to pretend only the unvaccinated are likely to spread the virus in the workplace. We know this is not the case.

But we do know for a fact that vaxxing reduces the risk.

[crookedmember]

The bottom line is the only way we're going to get out of this pandemic is if almost everyone is vaccinated, which deprives the virus of long-term hosts in which it can survive. (See Polio.)

The dimbulbs who are refusing vaccination after obtaining their misinformation from dubious and stupid sources are denying the majority of us the right to go on living normal lives.

If they are denied EI, it will be for valid reasons.

If they don't want to do their part and live in society with the rest of us, they can freeze in the dark and starve.

[fluffy]

We don't yet know enough to know how significantly, or for how long.

We know enough to make decisions in the here and now. We don't make decisions based on something we don't know yet.

[rustled]

Speaking of weighing realistically, it's unrealistic to pretend only the unvaccinated are likely to spread the virus in the workplace. We know this is not the case.

But we do know for a fact that vaxxing reduces the risk.

We don't yet know whether or not it reduces the risk significantly enough to fire people.

Perhaps folk want to think it does because it justifies the scapegoating.

The government authorities have admitted the objective isn't workplace health and safety - it's to encourage more people to get vaccinated.

[fluffy]

If they are denied EI, it will be for valid reasons.

Yes, it is a contentious issue, and I expect we will see all manner of acrobatic equivocating in favour EI eligibility. As I read it, there will still be support available at a reduced rate to those ineligible for EI under the new plan, but I don't doubt there is a measure of coercion to increase vax rates. At this point, I'm okay with that.

[rustled]

We don't yet know enough to know how significantly, or for how long.

We know enough to make decisions in the here and now. We don't make decisions based on something we don't know yet.

It seems quite immoral to support taking actions that likely do little to protect people in the workplace in order to force people to get vaccinated.

To me, scapegoating in the here and now is neither moral nor logical.

[fluffy]

The government authorities have admitted the objective isn't workplace health and safety - it's to encourage more people to get vaccinated.

You say that like it's a bad thing. The best evidence available now says that vaccinating is our single best defense against the virus. Higher vax rates produce a safer workplace.

[rustled]

If they are denied EI, it will be for valid reasons.

Yes, it is a contentious issue, and I expect we will see all manner of acrobatic equivocating in favour EI eligibility. As I read it, there will still be support available at a reduced rate to those ineligible for EI under the new plan, but I don't doubt there is a measure of coercion to increase vax rates. At this point, I'm okay with that.

Throughout history, people have been okay with scapegoating and censuring "others" as long as it doesn't affect them personally.