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

Coronavirus outbreak


CBH1926

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

California is scaring the crap out of me.  Can't wait to get out.  I'm not willing to look for a new job (cuz I doubt I could find one with the same level of pay n benefits), and the places the company will let me move to (and stay employed) are not places I am willing to go.  Can't retire soon enough!

 

You could be kidding, but it'd be a tight race between NY and CA to bring it to reality.

I hope they use a carrot instead of a stick, like insurance companies are doing now with tracking apps, so if you are healthy you get a reduction in premiums. That's a fair system.

 

On the EI thing up here... I guess one solution would be to have one level of benefits that you get for any reason. It would likely mean a lower level of pay, and maybe more weeks of paying in, but we'd eliminate issues around things like vaccination choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Kragar said:

The number of serious or critical cases in Canada are less than 800 now (per worldometers.com). I struggle to see how that number could be overloading ICUs. 

US population is 8.7452958 times the population of Canada

thus  800 to us equals  6,996.23 to America.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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.

That is true, but it's not yours........you can't just "redeem" it.  You pay into a govt program that is there to help citizens when they need it, but there always has been and always will be criteria that has to be met to be eligible for those benefits.  Those people are essentially quitting their jobs and, thus, would not be eligible for those benefits.

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

2 minutes ago, JM_ said:

But employees don't get to determine their own job requirements.

 

The slippery slope I see here, is if a person is allowed to collect EI due to their choice to not get vaxxed (we're not talking about legit health reasons, e.g.) then where does that end? what other personal choice would we have to accept for people to go back on the dole?

 

We know the vaccine is much safer than getting covid, thats a statistical fact. So its a personal choice. How do we draw lines around that?

I'm not saying the employees are determining the requirements.  If the requirements are changed by the employer (or government), and an employee is not willing to abide by them, they should be entitled to unemployment when they are forced out of the job. 

 

Unemployment insurance is not "the dole". Dole refers to welfare.  As Hippy said, these are benefits that the employees paid for, and I strongly believe they should be entitled to them.

 

The only line to draw is who gets the EI benefit.  I can understand the employee losing their job (regardless of whether I agree on a particular mandate).  The safety and efficacy of the vaccine (which I am not disputing) are immaterial to the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I don't see your point.  Did you hit Submit too early?

You had indicated that 800 people seriously ill in our hospitals didn't seem that bad, i just showed how many people that would make in the states.

Perhaps you don't think  just under 7,000 people critically ill, of covid,  clogging your  hospitals in America would be a big number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I hope they use a carrot instead of a stick, like insurance companies are doing now with tracking apps, so if you are healthy you get a reduction in premiums. That's a fair system.

 

On the EI thing up here... I guess one solution would be to have one level of benefits that you get for any reason. It would likely mean a lower level of pay, and maybe more weeks of paying in, but we'd eliminate issues around things like vaccination choices.

How many people are we talking about?  The majority of people are vaccinated already, and more will do it to keep their jobs.  Rewriting the program laws would probably cost more than the benefits we are talking about here :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gurn said:

You had indicated that 800 people seriously ill in our hospitals didn't seem that bad, i just showed how many people that would make in the states.

Perhaps you don't think  just under 7,000 people critically ill, of covid,  clogging your  hospitals in America would be a big number?

There are 1200 hundred hospitals in Canada, and 6000 in the US.  While distribution is rarely even, 1-2 people per hospital is hardly "clogged".  So, no, in perspective, those who are seriously ill due to Covid are not big numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kragar said:

There are 1200 hundred hospitals in Canada, and 6000 in the US.  While distribution is rarely even, 1-2 people per hospital is hardly "clogged".  So, no, in perspective, those who are seriously ill due to Covid are not big numbers.

Out of those hospitals how many have ICU wards or beds? Most of ours do not, critical folk are flown, ambulanced or ferried out to our bigger hospitals. 2 weeks ago the Province of Alberta had to close down all surgeries at their children's hospital to make room for covid patients on ventilators. They also had to request military help at that time.

It is a big problem. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JM_ said:

they aren't guaranteed tho

Then why can I not opt out of paying for EI?

 

I won't argue this anymore.  You and Stawns are in your camp and i'm sitting in mine here.  That won't change, so for the sake of discussion I'm gonna move on :) 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a sad story.

One that has been a major set back in my push to get one of my family members to drop his anti-vaxx stance.

 

One of his friends got Covid and had to have a few nights in hospital.

 

He got better and went back to work. The employer had a Oct 1st deadline for all to be vaxxed.

He spoke with his Dr and was told to hold off on the vaccination due to it being so soon after recovering from the virus.

He was scared to lose employment and got the jab anyway. He had complications and was put back in hospital on a ventilator. Last I heard, after 16 days he was being taken off and his survival was up in the air. The fam is putting together a law suit.

 

This is all second hand info. I will see my family member again tomorrow and get the latest. 

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I'm not saying the employees are determining the requirements.  If the requirements are changed by the employer (or government), and an employee is not willing to abide by them, they should be entitled to unemployment when they are forced out of the job. 

 

uh oh. The "E" word. Well thats the rub, are they entitled or not? according to what I've read and the Fed's are saying, they are not.

 

46 minutes ago, Kragar said:

 

Unemployment insurance is not "the dole". Dole refers to welfare.  As Hippy said, these are benefits that the employees paid for, and I strongly believe they should be entitled to them.

 

The only line to draw is who gets the EI benefit.  I can understand the employee losing their job (regardless of whether I agree on a particular mandate).  The safety and efficacy of the vaccine (which I am not disputing) are immaterial to the situation.

its the dole if it becomes a way of life. Minimum weeks, go be a ski bum for the rest.

 

37 minutes ago, Kragar said:

How many people are we talking about?  The majority of people are vaccinated already, and more will do it to keep their jobs.  Rewriting the program laws would probably cost more than the benefits we are talking about here :) 

I'm looking for a potential compromise. But if thats not workable, I'm OK with the way things are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

I got a sad story.

One that has been a major set back in my push to get one of my family members to drop his anti-vaxx stance.

 

One of his friends got Covid and had to have a few nights in hospital.

 

He got better and went back to work. The employer had a Oct 1st deadline for all to be vaxxed.

He spoke with his Dr and was told to hold off on the vaccination due to it being so soon after recovering from the virus.

He was scared to lose employment and got the jab anyway. He had complications and was put back in hospital on a ventilator. Last I heard, after 16 days he was being taken off and his survival was up in the air. The fam is putting together a law suit.

 

This is all second hand info. I will see my family member again tomorrow and get the latest. 

thats harsh, its unfortunate that he didn't consult an employment lawyer, or read the exemption application the gov't has. It explicitly states medial reasons qualify.

  • Vintage 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I'm not saying the employees are determining the requirements.  If the requirements are changed by the employer (or government), and an employee is not willing to abide by them, they should be entitled to unemployment when they are forced out of the job. 

 

Unemployment insurance is not "the dole". Dole refers to welfare.  As Hippy said, these are benefits that the employees paid for, and I strongly believe they should be entitled to them.

 

The only line to draw is who gets the EI benefit.  I can understand the employee losing their job (regardless of whether I agree on a particular mandate).  The safety and efficacy of the vaccine (which I am not disputing) are immaterial to the situation.

They are making a choice to leave their jobs.  They don't have to leave those jobs, ttey are choosing to.  The goct in right in saying they are, thus, likely not eligible for benefits.

 

The fact that we pay into it is completely irrelevant.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stawns said:

They are making a choice to leave their jobs.  They don't have to leave those jobs, ttey are choosing to.  The goct in right in saying they are, thus, likely not eligible for benefits.

 

The fact that we pay into it is completely irrelevant.

it is, like every other insurance program.

 

It always seems to come down to whether or not people think vaccination is a choice, and what consequences they are willing to bear.

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JM_ said:

 

uh oh. The "E" word. Well thats the rub, are they entitled or not? according to what I've read and the Fed's are saying, they are not.

 

its the dole if it becomes a way of life. Minimum weeks, go be a ski bum for the rest.

 

I'm looking for a potential compromise. But if thats not workable, I'm OK with the way things are now.

Then I agree with Hippy, and let me opt out and self-insure (yeah, I know that's not going to be allowed).  But, realistically, the E word is what it is all about.

 

Unemployment benefits, by design, have a limited period and limited benefit amount (until you have idiots like our Dems down here who jacked it up due to Covid, and now can't figure out why prices are rising and people aren't rushing back to work).  It's only a way of life if you get back to work and earn more benefits and re-apply, at which point most people realize they are better off working than if they aren't.  That's putting aside those that think guaranteed income is the way to go, but then (oddly enough) most of them are the same that would support preventing the unemployment benefits we're talking about.  A little ironical, perhaps.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, stawns said:

They are making a choice to leave their jobs.  They don't have to leave those jobs, ttey are choosing to.  The goct in right in saying they are, thus, likely not eligible for benefits.

 

The fact that we pay into it is completely irrelevant.

They are not being allowed to work.  Sounds like being forced out to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JM_ said:

thats harsh, its unfortunate that he didn't consult an employment lawyer, or read the exemption application the gov't has. It explicitly states medial reasons qualify.

I know and I dont want to spook anyone since I dont have all the details. Just a sad story and an unfortunate set back for one of the antivaxxers in my circle.

 I'll update when i can. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Huggy Bear 1
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...