No EI for the unvaccinated

[fluffy]

The government and community isn't supporting anything. These people have paid into this program.

It's not a bank account, there's no little pile of money sitting somewhere with your name on it, waiting for you to request a withdrawal. It is supported by employees and and employers and is available to people who find themselves unemployed if they meet qualifying conditions. The discussion here is that if a worker refuses to abide by workplace health & safety rules are they subject to termination, and as such ineligible for EI benefits ? I say yes, putting your own agenda ahead of a group's safety concerns is wrong, and should not be encouraged. There may be a case made in support of people who have a legitimate medical condition that prohibits vaccination, or people working from home who will never have to show up at a workplace with other people, but those are exceptions that need to be dealt case-by-case. For the most part the vaccine resistant are doing so based on a political agenda, or unfounded fear of the vaccines, and these are not legitimate reasons.

[LANDM]

The government and community isn't supporting anything. These people have paid into this program.

It's not a bank account, there's no little pile of money sitting somewhere with your name on it, waiting for you to request a withdrawal. It is supported by employees and and employers and is available to people who find themselves unemployed if they meet qualifying conditions. The discussion here is that if a worker refuses to abide by workplace health & safety rules are they subject to termination, and as such ineligible for EI benefits ? I say yes, putting your own agenda ahead of a group's safety concerns is wrong, and should not be encouraged. There may be a case made in support of people who have a legitimate medical condition that prohibits vaccination, or people working from home who will never have to show up at a workplace with other people, but those are exceptions that need to be dealt case-by-case. For the most part the vaccine resistant are doing so based on a political agenda, or unfounded fear of the vaccines, and these are not legitimate reasons.

FINALLY, someone has recognized that there is no inherent right to receive EI simply because you paid into it. It’s like saying you have paid into any other insurance for years and now want to receive money when you do not fit the criteria for a claim.
Good post!

[Beerhunter341]

The government and community isn't supporting anything. These people have paid into this program.

It's not a bank account, there's no little pile of money sitting somewhere with your name on it, waiting for you to request a withdrawal. It is supported by employees and and employers and is available to people who find themselves unemployed if they meet qualifying conditions. The discussion here is that if a worker refuses to abide by workplace health & safety rules are they subject to termination, and as such ineligible for EI benefits ? I say yes, putting your own agenda ahead of a group's safety concerns is wrong, and should not be encouraged. There may be a case made in support of people who have a legitimate medical condition that prohibits vaccination, or people working from home who will never have to show up at a workplace with other people, but those are exceptions that need to be dealt case-by-case. For the most part the vaccine resistant are doing so based on a political agenda, or unfounded fear of the vaccines, and these are not legitimate reasons.

You do recognize that denying people access to money to survive on will drive up crime and violence right? Is there an expectation that they will have to go on welfare or will they deny that too? People will steal to survive. Is that a world you are prepared to live in?

[LANDM]

It's not a bank account, there's no little pile of money sitting somewhere with your name on it, waiting for you to request a withdrawal. It is supported by employees and and employers and is available to people who find themselves unemployed if they meet qualifying conditions. The discussion here is that if a worker refuses to abide by workplace health & safety rules are they subject to termination, and as such ineligible for EI benefits ? I say yes, putting your own agenda ahead of a group's safety concerns is wrong, and should not be encouraged. There may be a case made in support of people who have a legitimate medical condition that prohibits vaccination, or people working from home who will never have to show up at a workplace with other people, but those are exceptions that need to be dealt case-by-case. For the most part the vaccine resistant are doing so based on a political agenda, or unfounded fear of the vaccines, and these are not legitimate reasons.

You do recognize that denying people access to money to survive on will drive up crime and violence right? Is there an expectation that they will have to go on welfare or will they deny that too? People will steal to survive. Is that a world you are prepared to live in?

EI is insurance, not a fund for access to money to survive for any reason. There is criteria that has not been met.
What people do when they voluntarily leave employment or get fired for cause is their problem, but that does not give carte blanche to commit illegal activities. Instead, they could simply get vaccinated. It’s not as if there is no quick and easy solution given to them.

But no, they are so brave and principled that it is suggested that they must now turn to stealing to survive?
Good one.

[Boosted632]

You do recognize that denying people access to money to survive on will drive up crime and violence right? Is there an expectation that they will have to go on welfare or will they deny that too? People will steal to survive. Is that a world you are prepared to live in?

EI is insurance, not a fund for access to money to survive for any reason. There is criteria that has not been met.
What people do when they voluntarily leave employment or get fired for cause is their problem, but that does not give carte blanche to commit illegal activities. Instead, they could simply get vaccinated. It’s not as if there is no quick and easy solution given to them.

But no, they are so brave and principled that it is suggested that they must now turn to stealing to survive?
Good one.

Riiigghhtt being forced into taking an untested vaccine that doesn't really work and may or may not have harmful side effects is a quick easy solution, good one.

[LANDM]

EI is insurance, not a fund for access to money to survive for any reason. There is criteria that has not been met.
What people do when they voluntarily leave employment or get fired for cause is their problem, but that does not give carte blanche to commit illegal activities. Instead, they could simply get vaccinated. It’s not as if there is no quick and easy solution given to them.

But no, they are so brave and principled that it is suggested that they must now turn to stealing to survive?
Good one.

Riiigghhtt being forced into taking an untested vaccine that doesn't really work and may or may not have harmful side effects is a quick easy solution, good one.

It is tested, approved, effective, and in use with billions of doses given and rare instances of side effects.

Try again. But this time with an effective, accurate argument.

[fluffy]

You do recognize that denying people access to money to survive on will drive up crime and violence right? Is there an expectation that they will have to go on welfare or will they deny that too? People will steal to survive. Is that a world you are prepared to live in?

I recognize, as do most, that there is an easy solution for people out of work because they refuse to vaccinate, a solution that benefits more people than just them.

[Beerhunter341]

You do recognize that denying people access to money to survive on will drive up crime and violence right? Is there an expectation that they will have to go on welfare or will they deny that too? People will steal to survive. Is that a world you are prepared to live in?

I recognize, as do most, that there is an easy solution for people out of work because they refuse to vaccinate, a solution that benefits more people than just them.

Just like there is an easy solution to homelessness, get a job. Obviously people are opposed to vaccination so how do you think it is an easy solution?

[crookedmember]

The government and community isn't supporting anything. These people have paid into this program.

EI is an insurance policy where everyone pays into a pot. But insurance has rules.

If you intentionally burn down your own house, you can't collect from your home insurer, either.

[fluffy]

Obviously people are opposed to vaccination so how do you think it is an easy solution?

Sure they are opposed, that's obvious. It's more to the point that the reasons for that opposition aren't being viewed as legitimate by anyone but the small vocal minority using them.

[LANDM]

I recognize, as do most, that there is an easy solution for people out of work because they refuse to vaccinate, a solution that benefits more people than just them.

Just like there is an easy solution to homelessness, get a job. Obviously people are opposed to vaccination so how do you think it is an easy solution?

Oh, perhaps because billions of others have taken this easy solution. Billions. With a B. Think about it.

Homeless people aren’t trying to collect home insurance.

[rustled]

We're expected to accept that unvaccinated people should have their employment terminated and their EI denied "because workplace safety" regardless of other measures in place, yet there's no mandatory provision in place to ensure vaccinated employees with covid are kept out of the workplace.

There's no logic in this.

[crookedmember]

It's weird that some people care so much about a small number of anti-vaxxers who seem to care only about themselves.

What's next? Champion scapegoated, persecuted drunk drivers because the rest of us have seatbelts and airbags to protect ourselves from the irresponsible lushes?

[AtlantisKelowna]

If this was truly about workplace safety the current IH policy would be to treat every person equally. Currently, exposure cases are handled differently based on vax status.

If your vaxxed and do not show any symptoms, testing is not required, but if you are unvaxxed, show no symptoms it is required?

If your vaxxed and do not show symptoms you don't need to isolate, if your unvaxxed you do?

If you are vaxxed and test negative you can carry on with life, if your unvaxxed and test negative you are still required to isolate.

Now, this would make sense if a vaccine was 100% effective which we all know it is not.

So then explain the rationale behind this policy and how it is about keeping people safe. To me, all exposures cases should be handled the same if it was about the safety of everyone.

[foenix]

It's weird that some people care so much about a small number of anti-vaxxers who seem to care only about themselves.

What's next? Champion scapegoated, persecuted drunk drivers because the rest of us have seatbelts and airbags to protect ourselves from the irresponsible lushes?

Yeah for sure those drunken drivers are "scapegoated" because it infringes on their right to drink, drive and put others in danger.