No EI for the unvaccinated

[erinmore3775]

The choice to participate in health and safety measures is a matter of personal choice. However, the exercising of that choice has consequences and responsibilities. Within my family circle I have several anti-vaxers and those who believe that COVID is a hoax. They are angry that their social life interactions have been reduced and have sought interactions that do not force them to show a vaccination certificate. They are angry that they are required to wear masks to shop but due so. However, when one member was required to be vaccinated to keep their job in construction, they complied. While their social life improved, their employment was maintained along with all benefits, their family relations deteriorated.

It is interesting that the small amount (about 10%) of the population is creating all the turmoil. They feel that their right not to be vaccinated should supersede the rights of others. Less than 1% of those 10% have a legitimate reason for not getting vaccinated ( allergy to vaccine ingredients, specific health condition). The rest of the unvaccinated have made their choice.

Celebrate your choice but accept the consequences. Your choice will affect your social interactions. It may affect your family interrelationships, and it may affect your employment opportunities. It will affect your access to EI, if your choice leads to dismissal. It is fair that you have a choice and have the ability to exercise your choice. However, it is unfair that you expect your choice to have no consequences or responsibilities.

[rustled]

Celebrate your choice but accept the consequences. Your choice will affect your social interactions. It may affect your family interrelationships, and it may affect your employment opportunities. It will affect your access to EI, if your choice leads to dismissal. It is fair that you have a choice and have the ability to exercise your choice. However, it is unfair that you expect your choice to have no consequences or responsibilities.

The consequences for the employee's choice should logically and rationally support the goal. These consequences are punitive and coercive, because the goal is to force people to do something they've chosen not to do.

If the goal was to ensure safer workplaces, we'd see mandates to ensure no employee entered the workplace while infected with covid. The consequences for these employees' for their choice do not logically or rationally support the goal of workplace safety.

[foenix]

Celebrate your choice but accept the consequences. Your choice will affect your social interactions. It may affect your family interrelationships, and it may affect your employment opportunities. It will affect your access to EI, if your choice leads to dismissal. It is fair that you have a choice and have the ability to exercise your choice. However, it is unfair that you expect your choice to have no consequences or responsibilities.

The consequences for the employee's choice should logically and rationally support the goal. These consequences are punitive and coercive, because the goal is to force people to do something they've chosen not to do.

If the goal was to ensure safer workplaces, we'd see mandates to ensure no employee entered the workplace while infected with covid. The consequences for these employees' for their choice do not logically or rationally support the goal of workplace safety.

Aren't the mask mandates still in place for workplaces? ....other places of employment require temperature checks and most places are required to get testing if exhibiting signs of Covid......so it's not like there aren't any measures including the vaccinations for a safe workplace environment.

[erinmore3775]

Rustled, I respect and support your right to make your personal choices and also ask you to support the right of an employer to institute a "Communicable Disease Prevention Plan" as an addition to their Health and Safety program.

Communicable disease prevention focuses on basic risk reduction principles to reduce the risk of workplace transmission of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases...Communicable disease prevention involves understanding the level of risk in your workplace, application of the fundamentals and implementing appropriate measures, communicating policies and protocols to all workers, and updating measures and safeguards as required.

https://www.worksafebc.com/en/covid-19/ ... ep-restart

I may not agree with a person's decision not to be vaccinated, but I do respect it. I ask you to respect an employer's decision to institute a Communicable Disease Policy, which in their opinion and based on reasonable facts related to current health/medical conditions, ensures the health and safety of their company, employees, and customers. This policy may include but not be limited to hand washing, temperature checks, work place distancing, and/or vaccinations. Remember that Work Safe BC premiums are totally paid by the employer. Also when project bids are evaluated, workplace safety is often a component of the evaluation. Therefore, the employer's choice to implement a Communicable Disease Prevention Plan should logically and rationally support the goal of maintaining a profitable company and promoting workplace safety. The extension of this employment policy is the worker's choice to remain in their employment or not.

[rustled]

Rustled, I respect and support your right to make your personal choices and also ask you to support the right of an employer to institute a "Communicable Disease Prevention Plan" as an addition to their Health and Safety program.

Communicable disease prevention focuses on basic risk reduction principles to reduce the risk of workplace transmission of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases...Communicable disease prevention involves understanding the level of risk in your workplace, application of the fundamentals and implementing appropriate measures, communicating policies and protocols to all workers, and updating measures and safeguards as required.

https://www.worksafebc.com/en/covid-19/ ... ep-restart

I may not agree with a person's decision not to be vaccinated, but I do respect it. I ask you to respect an employer's decision to institute a Communicable Disease Policy, which in their opinion and based on reasonable facts related to current health/medical conditions, ensures the health and safety of their company, employees, and customers. Remember that Work Safe BC premiums are totally paid by the employer. Also when project bids are evaluated, workplace safety is often a component of the evaluation. Therefore, the employer's choice to implement a Communicable Disease Prevention Plan should logically and rationally support the goal of maintaining a profitable company and promoting workplace safety. The extension of this employment policy is the worker's choice to remain in their employment or not.

I respect employers who make decisions affecting their employees' livelihood, including workplace safety, that are logical and rational.

I've no reason to respect any employer, including the various levels of government - which is "us" - that makes their decisions with an eye to achieving compliance with a window-dressing agenda while hiding behind weak and unsupportable protestations of "workplace safety". Particularly when these employers - and when it's government, these employers are "us" - know the most prominent consequences of those decisions will be scapegoating and divisiveness that damages the social fabric of our communities, along with a reduction of their already jeopardized ability to provide the services we collectively pay them to provide.

[erinmore3775]

For those who might be interested here is the advice from the Business Council of British Columbia on the implementation of Mandatory Vaccines in the Workplace.

https://bcbc.com/reports-and-research/m ... -workplace

"Employers have a right to manage their workplace and to protect their business interests. This overarching power is not set out in any law; rather, it is an inherent right of every employer implied in every employment contract, including collective agreements...For unionized employers, any mandatory vaccination policy either needs to be implemented with the agreement of the union or would have to withstand the “KVP test” if a union subsequently filed a grievance about the policy. The KVP test essentially asks whether the unilateral action of management (the exercise of management rights) is reasonable and applied in good faith...

"Employers implementing mandatory vaccination policies should consider potential consequences for employees failing or refusing to get vaccinated. These could include being terminated, being held out of work without pay, being required to avoid contact with coworkers or customers, being required to work from home, or simply being required to always wear a mask."

With an illness or a medical condition acquired after the beginning of employment, the employer has a "duty to accommodate." However, I can find no history related to accommodation required for a health and safety mandate. It would appear that an employee who declined to be vaccinated would have to provide substantial and proven evidence that they could not be vaccinated and therefore must be accommodated.

Rustled, accept your position and hopefully, we can agree to disagree.

[rustled]

For those who might be interested here is the advice from the Business Council of British Columbia on the implementation of Mandatory Vaccines in the Workplace.

https://bcbc.com/reports-and-research/m ... -workplace

"Employers have a right to manage their workplace and to protect their business interests. This overarching power is not set out in any law; rather, it is an inherent right of every employer implied in every employment contract, including collective agreements...For unionized employers, any mandatory vaccination policy either needs to be implemented with the agreement of the union or would have to withstand the “KVP test” if a union subsequently filed a grievance about the policy. The KVP test essentially asks whether the unilateral action of management (the exercise of management rights) is reasonable and applied in good faith...

"Employers implementing mandatory vaccination policies should consider potential consequences for employees failing or refusing to get vaccinated. These could include being terminated, being held out of work without pay, being required to avoid contact with coworkers or customers, being required to work from home, or simply being required to always wear a mask."

With an illness or a medical condition acquired after the beginning of employment, the employer has a "duty to accommodate." However, I can find no history related to accommodation required for a health and safety mandate. It would appear that an employee who declined to be vaccinated would have to provide substantial and proven evidence that they could not be vaccinated and therefore must be accommodated.

Rustled, accept your position and hopefully, we can agree to disagree.

I agree we disagree on this.

You've put the onus on the employee to prove they could not be vaccinated.

The onus - particularly when the employer is "us" via our government - ought to be on proving that banishing unvaccinated employees from the workplace significantly improves workplace safety.

Significantly improving workplace safety would be FAR better achieved not by banishing employees based on their vaccination status, but by ensuring any employee currently infected with covid is not entering the workplace.

Using vaccine status is likely to prove far less effective, it gives a false sense of security, is more likely to result in "Typhoid Mary" asymptomatic transmission scenarios, and may well cost all of us far too dearly in the long run when compared to what it achieves.

[crookedmember]

With vaccine mandates in the BC health care sector, we saw all but 3% of employees vaccinated prior to the first deadline, and still a few weeks to go until the second. I'm just going to guess this will be much lower by November 15th.

It's likely these numbers will be similar in other sectors, so this is a problem that will take care of itself.

The very few employees who still refuse vaccination and find themselves out of work can perhaps find employment more appropriate for their selfishness and dismal social skills.

We don't owe these people anything.

[Beerhunter341]

With vaccine mandates in the BC health care sector, we saw all but 3% of employees vaccinated prior to the first deadline, and still a few weeks to go until the second. I'm just going to guess this will be much lower by November 15th.

It's likely these numbers will be similar in other sectors, so this is a problem that will take care of itself.

The very few employees who still refuse vaccination and find themselves out of work can perhaps find employment more appropriate for their selfishness and dismal social skills.

We don't owe these people anything.

These people? Selfish? Dismal?! What do you really know about any of them?

[foenix]

For those who might be interested here is the advice from the Business Council of British Columbia on the implementation of Mandatory Vaccines in the Workplace.

https://bcbc.com/reports-and-research/m ... -workplace

"Employers have a right to manage their workplace and to protect their business interests. This overarching power is not set out in any law; rather, it is an inherent right of every employer implied in every employment contract, including collective agreements...For unionized employers, any mandatory vaccination policy either needs to be implemented with the agreement of the union or would have to withstand the “KVP test” if a union subsequently filed a grievance about the policy. The KVP test essentially asks whether the unilateral action of management (the exercise of management rights) is reasonable and applied in good faith...

"Employers implementing mandatory vaccination policies should consider potential consequences for employees failing or refusing to get vaccinated. These could include being terminated, being held out of work without pay, being required to avoid contact with coworkers or customers, being required to work from home, or simply being required to always wear a mask."

With an illness or a medical condition acquired after the beginning of employment, the employer has a "duty to accommodate." However, I can find no history related to accommodation required for a health and safety mandate. It would appear that an employee who declined to be vaccinated would have to provide substantial and proven evidence that they could not be vaccinated and therefore must be accommodated.

Rustled, accept your position and hopefully, we can agree to disagree.

Well said Erin!!

[sobrohusfat]

These people? Selfish? Dismal?! What do you really know about any of them?

All Stupid - Selfish - science denying - flat-earth believing - conspiracy spouting lunatics.

It's not the case, but that is the caricature of reality needed to smugly deny the 10% among us the temporary means to support their families while transitioning to other employment - while spitting "let them starve - let them freeze - pound sand" in their face. (Also maybe why personal human stories of real people are not welcome)

But unfortunately that lunatic fringe does exist out there, and God forbid a few of them snap violently instead of freezing quietly in the middle of January.
"dangerous - violent - plague riddled vermin - evil menace to society" can then be added to the list.

Maybe then rounding-up the unvaxed lepers will be deemed necessary and justifiable - for the greater good.
"...consequences b*tches !..."

we'll see.

What a progressive utopia that would be tho eh!? - just think of it, 10% less traffic.

[nucksRnum1]

The consequences for the employee's choice should logically and rationally support the goal. These consequences are punitive and coercive, because the goal is to force people to do something they've chosen not to do.

If the goal was to ensure safer workplaces, we'd see mandates to ensure no employee entered the workplace while infected with covid. The consequences for these employees' for their choice do not logically or rationally support the goal of workplace safety.

The anti-people have not lived up to the social contract - and had a long period where they had the opportunity to step up and do the right thing. Punitive and Coercive from the top down after a lack of progress by the anti-mask/vax crowd - is their own choice and responsibility. If they did what was mandated - they would be as free as a bird. But alas fake news made them think they were victims

In our society being coerced to live by the laws and expectations is not something new. It's actually as old as time itself. And in most cases that coercion was effective. We don't see people driving drunk "just cuz" anymore because of punitive measures that hit them where it hurts the most. Their bank account and ability to drive. There are also cases civilly where the perpetrators were sued for compensation. We also see the success of punitive measures with people not wearing seatbelts. And the irony is that cars are so safe now with airbags - that you could probably survive without a seatbelt.

At the end of the day, I am pleased with the Liberal government moving forward with standards - even though it's a flashpoint with obtuse people. And especially because there are some people that love to frame the anti-narrative with a penchant for going in circles - and achieving absolutely nothing of substance besides their finite opinion. Now there is a gold standard for people to follow. No excuses - no semantics - just a standard. As an anti-vaxxer, if you choose to live or act like a freeman of the land - removing yourself from all the mandates, laws and standards - then the case is clear - the supreme court already shot that silliness down. So it doesn't matter how the freedom debate is framed.

[dirtybiker]

Yet people in certain employment situations are asked, told, demanded, to work
potential hazard situations daily.
Climb here, lift this, crawl under here, etc.
But that's fine..

My vote goes to if proper hours of employment were met.
Here ya go. You can have some of your money back.

Being all paid in amd all.

[hobbyguy]

Yet people in certain employment situations are asked, told, demanded, to work
potential hazard situations daily.
Climb here, lift this, crawl under here, etc.
But that's fine..

My vote goes to if proper hours of employment were met.
Here ya go. You can have some of your money back.

Being all paid in amd all.

Actually it isn't fine. Any manager or supervisor who knowingly direct employees to violate safe working practices act go to jail.

I have no doubt that some of that goes on, but it isn't "fine" and all that is needed is a quick call to worksafe to end it.

I can tell you that when I ran plants, any supervisor who directed employees to work in unsafe manners was toast. Many times employees were disciplined, and in one case fired for working in an unsafe manner repeatedly. If we did not have the proper equipment and/or training, the work did not get done by us, and we hired someone who did have the right equipment and training.

Smart management realizes that the safe way of doing things is the most efficient in the long run - and the most profitable.

And yup, if I was still working and managing, I would advocate for company wide vaccine mandates. And yup, if that's what the top brass decided, employees who failed to comply would be suspended without pay, and then dismissed for cause if not vaccinated in a reasonable time. Either way, EI status would be "dud".

[dirtybiker]

employees who failed to comply would be suspended without pay, and then dismissed for cause if not vaccinated in a reasonable time. Either way, EI status would be "dud".

Not sure the line of thought there. Why would EI end up as 'dud'

Employment conditions being changed mid stroke as to not
be beneficial to both parties should not affect an applicants
EI status.

Benefits were paid in. It is the company that changed a policy that was
causation for any employees facing dismissal.
Not the employees quality of their craft.

I see nothing on the employee, all employer.

Give 'em their EI, They more than earned it, it is their money to
access, Oh, I also contribute monies to the program, so, for my money,
I say grant it !

sidenote' absolute zero of any of this affects me in my field.
No one gives two spits about about the show outside our own
ring in the tent. We play to the crowd of our own circus.