Coronavirus outbreak

[stawns]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Tell me more about CPP.

 

Nothing you or anyone else will say will convince me that this is fair, or even justifiable.  there are numerous other avenues we can take without question before we are literally robbing people of one of the most essential safety nets for working individuals in a nation already having serious labour issues.

 

I again, am 100% on board for mandates, passports, masks, social distancing, lockdowns and punishing the idiocy that refuse to simply accept that they're the ones perpetuating this.  But the MOMENT those steps are taken, you effectively give the idiocy the exact fight and ammunition they need to galvanize those centrists who are neither for nor against mandates, passports and vaccines, dozens of people will turn in to thousands in a minute.

 

And worse, the statement can be made that "the cpc won't win a majority again" yet they still came ahead with the technical popular vote int he last election.  Numerous swing ridings could/would flip in a hurry if they could pin trudeau stealing EI benefits from people on the Liberals, and trust me.  They absolutely would.

I said if they did win it would only ever be a minority govt.  I said the PPC will never win.

 

What does CPP have to do with this discussion?

[Warhippy]

35 minutes ago, stawns said:

I said if they did win it would only ever be a minority govt.  I said the PPC will never win.

 

What does CPP have to do with this discussion?

Because, as I stated.  Once this door is open to allow for the government to retroactively claw back benefits workers have paid in to their entire professional lives.  It's open.  it will not be closed again.

 

If you think it is acceptable for the current government in any manifestation to claw back workers benefits; imagine the CPC looking at that juicy CPP.  Or unions and union dues.  It will not start and end with a one time event and we both know that.

 

This is no longer about vaccines, the vaccinated or the pandemic.  it's an entirely different argument about workers rights and government overreach.  If the Liberal party with NDP support do in fact engage in a program to strip EI rights away from workers fired or laid off or even that have quit due to vaxx status, it is a legal precedent.  In canadian law this is an important thing to note.  It may give corporations the potential right to withhold benefits, pensions etc if they can deem a person to be a justifiable danger to their company or employees.  It gives future governments the power to say "they did it why can't we"

 

once this legal precedent is set it can never EVER be taken back.  Whether "state of emergency" is cited or not, corporations will be able to do this with any number of employee benefits.  future governments the same.

 

Be very very careful about approving what has been or is being suggested, even in passing.  This one is dangerous and I can not agree with it.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Warhippy

[4petesake]

Former Saskatchewan PPC candidate now taking up ICU space in Ontario. More in link.

 

 

 

 

[JM_]

13 hours ago, Warhippy said:

If you're unable to get vaccinated you already don't qualify for an exemption under BCs current laws.

 

What on earth makes you think there would be any difference under this suggested proposal?  What makes you think corporations with millions in lawyers on retainer wouldn't immediately act the same way and allow the courts and those affected fight it out.

 

No sir it's a seriously dangerous door to open and I do not agree with it

I don't think thats correct. Federally if you cant get vaccinated for medical reasons, they have to find accommodations for you like daily testing.

 

My wife works for a BC university, and they have a person in their group with immune system issues and can't work in their normal group setting, and they are being allowed to work at home full time, even though the school policy is everyone has to be back full time. It was something that had to go though approval of HR and they had to go by provincial guidelines to make it happen.

 

Do you have an example of someone who has a legit medical reason not being accommodated in BC?

 

Here's an example of being able to request an exemption for legit reasons: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/covid-19/covid-19-exemption-guidelines-request-for-reconsideration.pdf

 

 

Edited October 24, 2021 by JM_

[JM_]

8 hours ago, 4petesake said:

Former Saskatchewan PPC candidate now taking up ICU space in Ontario. More in link.

 

 

 

 

So what am I supposed to do with this person? If he survives I'm sure he'll have another regretful "gee I wish I had..." story.

 

Its very hard to find sympathy, but having seen what happens to people I know he's paying for it big time. Hopefully a few people in his circle have decided to get vaccinated.

 

 

[stawns]

11 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Because, as I stated.  Once this door is open to allow for the government to retroactively claw back benefits workers have paid in to their entire professional lives.  It's open.  it will not be closed again.

 

If you think it is acceptable for the current government in any manifestation to claw back workers benefits; imagine the CPC looking at that juicy CPP.  Or unions and union dues.  It will not start and end with a one time event and we both know that.

 

This is no longer about vaccines, the vaccinated or the pandemic.  it's an entirely different argument about workers rights and government overreach.  If the Liberal party with NDP support do in fact engage in a program to strip EI rights away from workers fired or laid off or even that have quit due to vaxx status, it is a legal precedent.  In canadian law this is an important thing to note.  It may give corporations the potential right to withhold benefits, pensions etc if they can deem a person to be a justifiable danger to their company or employees.  It gives future governments the power to say "they did it why can't we"

 

once this legal precedent is set it can never EVER be taken back.  Whether "state of emergency" is cited or not, corporations will be able to do this with any number of employee benefits.  future governments the same.

 

Be very very careful about approving what has been or is being suggested, even in passing.  This one is dangerous and I can not agree with it.

I think you're over thinking emergency measures in a pandemic.

[stawns]

8 hours ago, 4petesake said:

Former Saskatchewan PPC candidate now taking up ICU space in Ontario. More in link.

 

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/JmcA9LIIXWw

[JM_]

11 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Because, as I stated.  Once this door is open to allow for the government to retroactively claw back benefits workers have paid in to their entire professional lives.  It's open.  it will not be closed again.

just want to touch on this point - where is the EI issue retroactive? I don't understand how it can be considered a claw back if you quit or get fired for reasons that don't allow you to collect EI. I don't understand how this would be considered new law or a precedent either.

 

I'm confused as to how the CPC would be able to invent a new category of employment conditions to try to make this happen. Can you show me a theoretical example of what the CPC would come up with to take peoples pensions away?

 

[4petesake]

6 minutes ago, JM_ said:

just want to touch on this point - where is the EI issue retroactive? I don't understand how it can be considered a claw back if you quit or get fired for reasons that don't allow you to collect EI. I don't understand how this would be considered new law or a precedent either.

 

I'm confused as to how the CPC would be able to invent a new category of employment conditions to try to make this happen. Can you show me a theoretical example of what the CPC would come up with to take peoples pensions away?

 

I have been searching the EI rules regarding both quitting your job and constructive dismissal or termination  and can’t find any rules that have been changed for this. I could be missing something but it looks to me like the government is just clarifying the interpretation of the existing  rules for people who may decide to refuse thinking that they will qualify. In any case if a person disagrees with EI’s decision on their case they still have legal recourse but don’t expect timely outcomes with or without a pandemic.

[stawns]

38 minutes ago, JM_ said:

just want to touch on this point - where is the EI issue retroactive? I don't understand how it can be considered a claw back if you quit or get fired for reasons that don't allow you to collect EI. I don't understand how this would be considered new law or a precedent either.

 

I'm confused as to how the CPC would be able to invent a new category of employment conditions to try to make this happen. Can you show me a theoretical example of what the CPC would come up with to take peoples pensions away?

 

[JM_]

18 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

I have been searching the EI rules regarding both quitting your job and constructive dismissal or termination  and can’t find any rules that have been changed for this. I could be missing something but it looks to me like the government is just clarifying the interpretation of the existing  rules for people who may decide to refuse thinking that they will qualify. In any case if a person disagrees with EI’s decision on their case they still have legal recourse but don’t expect timely outcomes with or without a pandemic.

me neither. I have a lot of time for @Warhippy's takes on things, so just trying to figure out where the concern is, I'm not connecting the same dots.

Edited October 24, 2021 by JM_

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

https://youtu.be/JmcA9LIIXWw

I think you're underestimating the ability of the government to make a mess of things.

 

Edit*. Sorry I quoted the wrong post if yours, apologies if there's confusion

Edited October 24, 2021 by Warhippy

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

just want to touch on this point - where is the EI issue retroactive? I don't understand how it can be considered a claw back if you quit or get fired for reasons that don't allow you to collect EI. I don't understand how this would be considered new law or a precedent either.

 

I'm confused as to how the CPC would be able to invent a new category of employment conditions to try to make this happen. Can you show me a theoretical example of what the CPC would come up with to take peoples pensions away?

 

Ei is retroactive in the sense that you pay in to it as an employee from the moment you start working.  Banked insurable hours in the event you are laid off or fired.

 

These are supposed to be guaranteed banked insurable hours.  If these banked hours are no longer honoured it is effectively a retroactive claw back of what you've worked towards.

[Warhippy]

51 minutes ago, stawns said:

Opinions are just that aren't they?

[NewbieCanuckFan]

On 10/22/2021 at 4:53 PM, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Great, now tell us what "underlying" means?

I actually just want to know what the main account CDC of this poster is.

[JM_]

54 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Ei is retroactive in the sense that you pay in to it as an employee from the moment you start working.  Banked insurable hours in the event you are laid off or fired.

 

These are supposed to be guaranteed banked insurable hours.  If these banked hours are no longer honoured it is effectively a retroactive claw back of what you've worked towards.

they aren't guaranteed tho. You have to lose your job through no fault of your own, and choosing not to be vaccinated isn't a reason. The term choice is really important here because from what I've been reading there are legitimate exceptions.

 

We all pay into EI, I have since being a teenager. I've never taken it though, and likely won't. Its like all the other insurance I've bought over the years, imo, it comes with strings attached.

Edited October 24, 2021 by JM_

[Kragar]

6 minutes ago, JM_ said:

they aren't guaranteed tho. You have to lose your job through no fault of your own, and choosing not to be vaccinated isn't a reason. The term choice is really important here because from what I've been reading there are legitimate exceptions.

But, demanding vaccination is a change in terms of employment, right?  It's why a number of unions are fighting it (down here at least), cuz it's not in the contract.

[JM_]

36 minutes ago, Kragar said:

But, demanding vaccination is a change in terms of employment, right?  It's why a number of unions are fighting it (down here at least), cuz it's not in the contract.

for sure it is. But all employers have to do is give reasonable notice of a change like that. You don't have a right to your original employment terms, unless you have one hell of a union, but I doubt most have that kind of ultimate power. But for sure thats why we're seeing more and more union push back on the news.

 

I agree with Hip tho that this is a pretty big hornets nest to kick. If most people see EI as an entitlement then even if the gov't is in the right, its a losing PR battle and does give opposition parties some leverage.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

[Kragar]

40 minutes ago, JM_ said:

for sure it is. But all employers have to do is give reasonable notice of a change like that. You don't have a right to your original employment terms, unless you have one hell of a union, but I doubt most have that kind of ultimate power. But for sure thats why we're seeing more and more union push back on the news.

 

I agree with Hip tho that this is a pretty big hornets nest to kick. If most people see EI as an entitlement then even if the gov't is in the right, its a losing PR battle and does give opposition parties some leverage.

But if the terms of employment have changed, and one does not agree to them, they should not lose their access unemployment benefits.  The employer is "moving the goalposts" (not the best analogy, but I'm focused on my fantasy team).

 

IMO, it's just another extension of cancel culture.  They think that everyone should comply, or be punished. Except when it is one of the "sophisticated" people who gets to ignore their own mandates... they'll let that go.  Bullying, plain and simple.  I would think most of the people clamoring for this kinda stuff are already vaccinated.  Those of us who are vaccinated have very little to worry about.  I know I don't worry about it.  Those who aren't vaccinated are not much of a threat to those that are, except for those who are health-compromised to begin with.  And for those with health issues already, they should be taking extra care to protect themselves, because the virus isn't going away

 

But definitely agree, it is a bad PR move for the government to consider, let alone take.