Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Coronavirus outbreak


CBH1926

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, stawns said:

let'sfocus on getting out of this first nd then deal with that after.  The PPC is never going to be in power and of the Cons ever do again, it will be a minority govt.  I want to get this behind us and that means we all have to be pulling in the same direction........if people either don't want to pull with us or actively go against it, then they need tobe sidelined until this is over.

I'm not sure what societal pillar we are upholding by allowing the anti-vax-by-choice to run rampant over our healthcare, legal and other systems. Its not any freedom I see in the Charter.

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Warhippy said:

 

You two are not thinking long term or in terms of judicial precedent.

 

You can think that a party like X won't get in to power, but look at the reform party.  Fringe nobodys in the 80s.  2 seats in the 90s and then they took over the Conservative brand.  

 

The bottom line is once this door gets opened it cannot be closed.  This is something that everyone should be watching VERY closely because the ramifications of it are so wide reaching and not relegated to federal boundaries.  once it is set in motion or enacted at the federal level it gives provinces the same ability to impose and challenge should it end up before the courts.

what door is being opened though? the EI rules are already in place, you have to lose or quit your job for a legitimate reason. Anti-vax-by-choice isn't a legitimate reason, and we can't allow it to be one.

 

Is that risking some kind of future blow back by a political party? maybe it is, I don't know. But i do know if we let this reason stand to get EI that does open a real door immediately to more abuse of the system.

 

I see a lot more risk in legitimizing the anti-vax-by-choice now, because it legitimizes the next facebook theory which we know is coming sooner than later.

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

And considering that the Charter opens with this:

1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

 

A global pandemic is a reasonable justification for limitations.  In the anti-vaxx world, nope.

thats another very good point. Who determines what's reasonable in a democracy, which is partly what @Warhippy is getting at with the risk of this being used for further abuses by gov't down the road.

 

For me I see a far bigger risk in legitimizing their position for them now, vs. them building up a future majority winning party.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JM_ said:

it is, its the fed's saying it. You have to comply with the terms of your employment, and not doing that makes you ineligible for EI. Its a good move.

 

Anti-vaxxers are off the rails, they can't think rationally. Its only by playing hardball that we'll be able to wake them up.

Yup, jobs are not a right and are very important to provide for oneself and their families. If one would rather play healthcare administrator/doctor/scientist/government official than work at their own jobs, fine let them starve. There are millions of decent people looking for work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Yes. It’s your own money.

 

That’s like saying they wouldn’t be able to get a tax return.

 

Its an abuse of power by the government no matter how you look at it.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Yes.

@JM_

 

Uh no, you don't get EI for quitting your job. :picard: That's ridiculous.

 

Entitled ... some people think they should snap their fingers and get paid. Not in real life.

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/quit-job.html

What you should know

You are thinking of quitting your job. Did you know that if you voluntarily quit your job without just cause, you will not be paid regular benefits. After quitting your job, you must work the minimum number of insurable hours required to get regular benefits.

  • Thanks 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

what door is being opened though? the EI rules are already in place, you have to lose or quit your job for a legitimate reason. Anti-vax-by-choice isn't a legitimate reason, and we can't allow it to be one.

 

Is that risking some kind of future blow back by a political party? maybe it is, I don't know. But i do know if we let this reason stand to get EI that does open a real door immediately to more abuse of the system.

 

I see a lot more risk in legitimizing the anti-vax-by-choice now, because it legitimizes the next facebook theory which we know is coming sooner than later.

 

This isn't at issue or an issue with quitting or losing your job.  This is the statement made about the government willingly withholding EI and employment benefits simply due to vaccination status.

 

IF we open the door to allow the government to disallow individuals employment insurance simply because they are not vaccinated that open door is available for any level of awful laws and rules towards the workplace.

 

If a person quits or loses their job that's on them.  But if the government is allowed, as was stated; to withhold employment insurance benefits based on vaccination status then that is wrong.  Period.  That open door allows for outright discrimination and don't for a second think other parties in power would not be afraid to use that open door to curtail workers rights, striking unions or more.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gawdzukes said:

It's the same as refusing to wear PPE in the workplace. Clear violation of safety policy resulting in termination. People simply  can't be allowed to make up their own rules, or disregard ones they don't like.

Wearing PPE for a job that requires wearing PPE would have likely always been a policy that was in place.

 

The difference here is changing policies during a persons employment that might conflict with their beliefs.

 

They have the choice to not get vaccinated and their employer has the right to terminate. What I don’t agree with is closing them off to EI, which is their own money that they paid.

 

Thats a slippery slope that gives the government too much power. If we’re saying these people have a choice then pushing them to the point of homelessness is not really much of a choice is it? I would say that’s  coercion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Wearing PPE for a job that requires wearing PPE would have likely always been a policy that was in place.

 

The difference here is changing policies during a persons employment that might conflict with their beliefs.

 

They have the choice to not get vaccinated and their employer has the right to terminate. What I don’t agree with is closing them off to EI, which is their own money that they paid.

 

Thats a slippery slope that gives the government too much power. If we’re saying these people have a choice then pushing them to the point of homelessness is not really much of a choice is it? I would say that’s  coercion.


Not so. I was I charge of the program bringing PPE into our plant and enforcing the new rules.  Some employees were resistant at the time and did lots of complaining but decided to acquiesce when they learned they had to comply or be let go. It was their choice.

  • Thanks 2
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 4petesake said:


Not so. I was I charge of the program bringing PPE into our plant and enforcing the new rules.  Some employees were resistant at the time and did lots of complaining but decided to acquiesce when they learned they had to comply or be let go. It was their choice.

I said likely in place, obviously there are exceptions.

 

Either way someone not wanting to wear PPE would have less of a case than someone not wanting to get the vaccine.

 

Again not arguing that someone shouldn’t be terminated if its policy. I’m saying they should not be closed off to financial aid that they paid into. That’s not the solution.

 

I mean at that point you might as well just say vaccines are mandatory. We’re basically far enough down that road anyways. Pushing these people to the brink of financial ruin doesn’t do anyone any good. Especially taxpayers who will have to pay for these peoples welfare.

 

Edited by DeNiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

This isn't at issue or an issue with quitting or losing your job.  This is the statement made about the government willingly withholding EI and employment benefits simply due to vaccination status.

But its not simple. If vaccination were just a personal choice, I'd agree with you. But it isn't. Choosing not to be vaccinated is your right and it comes with responsibilities and consequences, just like your choice to get vaccinated does, and both impact other people.

 

We need to stop pretending that being anti-vax is a personal choice, because it isn't.

 

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

 

IF we open the door to allow the government to disallow individuals employment insurance simply because they are not vaccinated that open door is available for any level of awful laws and rules towards the workplace.

But they disallowed themselves. EI isn't a blank cheque for any reason. Its insurance. You can't burn your own house down and expect to collect.

 

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

 

If a person quits or loses their job that's on them.  But if the government is allowed, as was stated; to withhold employment insurance benefits based on vaccination status then that is wrong.  Period.  That open door allows for outright discrimination and don't for a second think other parties in power would not be afraid to use that open door to curtail workers rights, striking unions or more.

We'll just have to agree to disagree I don't see it as wrong  i see the gov't following its own rules.

 

There are plenty of ways future gov'ts can choose to discriminate, I don't think this is the issue that creates all that future strife. Why the hell are we giving an anti-vax stance this much weight?

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Wearing PPE for a job that requires wearing PPE would have likely always been a policy that was in place.

 

The difference here is changing policies during a persons employment that might conflict with their beliefs.

 

They have the choice to not get vaccinated and their employer has the right to terminate. What I don’t agree with is closing them off to EI, which is their own money that they paid.

 

Thats a slippery slope that gives the government too much power. If we’re saying these people have a choice then pushing them to the point of homelessness is not really much of a choice is it? I would say that’s  coercion.

I see your side but I must disagree. The government already sets aside certain conditions where EI is not paid out. They are valid reasons so people don't abuse the system. It's like rewarding some kid that doesn't like work so he quits and hangs out on EI all day.

 

Does it really matter where the funding comes from? In my opinion they should have to struggle on far less money (welfare) and not be given a free pass to goof off for a year, if that's their decision. I hate to see people struggle but they are no different from others who are having a hard time paying bills. The only difference here is these people could quite easily pay the bills if they accepted basic societal responsibilities necessary to work with other people.

 

The government already has this power imo. Either way it's only a matter of time until the EI runs out. What then, we just pay them out for life or hope this runs the course by then and give them a free pass in the meantime? In my opinion these special individuals should have to learn like everyone else you can't just take your life or job for granted. Unfortunately, like these people, there are a fraction of society that's un-hirable because they can't behave responsibly.

 

As per your thoughts on PPE being a policy already in place you are way off. In construction and businesses in general they are continually evaluating safety and implementing new measures which must be adhered to immediately or face termination. These also become law like work boots and safety glasses. One law says you must be tied off on a ladder (and similar) at more than 6 feet. People can be legally fired for this. I've seen it a number of times. Otherwise people would still be doing this:

 

Idiots on Ladders competition: Stomach-churning pictures of workers  balanced very precariously - Mirror Online

 

 

 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

It's the same as refusing to wear PPE in the workplace. Clear violation of safety policy resulting in termination. People simply  can't be allowed to make up their own rules, or disregard ones they don't like.

 

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

But its not simple. If vaccination were just a personal choice, I'd agree with you. But it isn't. Choosing not to be vaccinated is your right and it comes with responsibilities and consequences, just like your choice to get vaccinated does, and both impact other people.

 

We need to stop pretending that being anti-vax is a personal choice, because it isn't.

 

But they disallowed themselves. EI isn't a blank cheque for any reason. Its insurance. You can't burn your own house down and expect to collect.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree I don't see it as wrong  i see the gov't following its own rules.

 

There are plenty of ways future gov'ts can choose to discriminate, I don't think this is the issue that creates all that future strife. Why the hell are we giving an anti-vax stance this much weight?

 

There IS no disagreement here.  You're wrong in my eyes.  We can't agree to disagree as I feel at that point the level of government interference is incredibly dangerous

 

Imagine this.

 

You're unable to be vaccinated.  You have worked for say 35 years same company.  You're fired because you can't get vaccinated.

 

The government holds no desire to pick and choose so you apply for ei.  But you're excluded.  You apply for early pension, but the government took it away.  You apply for your employee pension, but the corporation has stripped you of it because the government has allowed for it.

 

You're cash strapped and panicked but you can always look and smile at your kids.  Until you go to pick them up and they've been expelled from school because you are not vaccinated.  Their sports teams  contact you and they've been removed from extra curricular activities because they're tax payer funded and you're unvaccinated.

 

Again, this is a huge reach on my part and a massive jump to conclusions but once that door is open you can not close it.  I agree with everything up until this point.  The moment they retroactively strip people of financial benefits they've paid in to their whole working lives all bets are off.

 

You and I will butt heads on this without question but this is my line in the sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

There IS no disagreement here.  You're wrong in my eyes.  We can't agree to disagree as I feel at that point the level of government interference is incredibly dangerous

 

Imagine this.

 

You're unable to be vaccinated.  You have worked for say 35 years same company.  You're fired because you can't get vaccinated.

 

The government holds no desire to pick and choose so you apply for ei.  But you're excluded.  You apply for early pension, but the government took it away.  You apply for your employee pension, but the corporation has stripped you of it because the government has allowed for it.

 

You're cash strapped and panicked but you can always look and smile at your kids.  Until you go to pick them up and they've been expelled from school because you are not vaccinated.  Their sports teams  contact you and they've been removed from extra curricular activities because they're tax payer funded and you're unvaccinated.

 

Again, this is a huge reach on my part and a massive jump to conclusions but once that door is open you can not close it.  I agree with everything up until this point.  The moment they retroactively strip people of financial benefits they've paid in to their whole working lives all bets are off.

 

You and I will butt heads on this without question but this is my line in the sand.

but Hip, its not a real line. If you're legitimately unable to get vaccinated, you can't get fired for it legally, you have to be accommodated.

 

We're talking about the 5-10% of people that have no physical, medical or other constitutionally protected reason to avoid the shot. They just don't want it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard of 3 people that are unvaccinated that work with a family member. Only 1 may be considered as having a legitimate medical reason.  After many many years, 1 is claiming to have asthma (suddenly) and cannot get the vaccine (which many suspect is BS).  1 is vaccine hesitant.  All 3 work for the Federal Government. 

 

Only the 1 with true medical reason will be accommodated.  The other 2 have only a few weeks to comply or will be put on leave without pay.

 

Already heard of a case where 1 employee lied about their vaccine attestation.  Was confronted to provide evidence of getting the vaccine in 2 weeks.  The employee handed in his/her/they (insert pronoun) resignation. 

 

Mind you, this is 2nd hand info but I see no reason for the person to lie about it.

Edited by BPA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, JM_ said:

but Hip, its not a real line. If you're legitimately unable to get vaccinated, you can't get fired for it legally, you have to be accommodated.

 

We're talking about the 5-10% of people that have no physical, medical or other constitutionally protected reason to avoid the shot. They just don't want it.

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

 

There IS no disagreement here.  You're wrong in my eyes.  We can't agree to disagree as I feel at that point the level of government interference is incredibly dangerous

 

Imagine this.

 

You're unable to be vaccinated.  You have worked for say 35 years same company.  You're fired because you can't get vaccinated.

 

The government holds no desire to pick and choose so you apply for ei.  But you're excluded.  You apply for early pension, but the government took it away.  You apply for your employee pension, but the corporation has stripped you of it because the government has allowed for it.

 

You're cash strapped and panicked but you can always look and smile at your kids.  Until you go to pick them up and they've been expelled from school because you are not vaccinated.  Their sports teams  contact you and they've been removed from extra curricular activities because they're tax payer funded and you're unvaccinated.

 

Again, this is a huge reach on my part and a massive jump to conclusions but once that door is open you can not close it.  I agree with everything up until this point.  The moment they retroactively strip people of financial benefits they've paid in to their whole working lives all bets are off.

 

You and I will butt heads on this without question but this is my line in the sand.

They already said legitimate medical exemption would likely not be denied benefits.

 

You pay into it, yes, but you're not entitled to money.  It is a government assistance program, same as other programs.  They don't just put it into an account for you to redeem at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...