CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

[suffolkowner]

Forced is a funny word. I wasn't forced into a line up and injected, but I was told to take the jab or lose my career and ability to support my young family.

notwithstanding my opinions on the covid narrative I think that outside a few employment regimes this should count as constructive dismissal. Arbitration and court cases will I am sure be dealing with this for a while. Your employer can not normally arbitrarily change the terms of your employment

 

[QV]

I believe you did. Can you explain what you think I meant?

Basically what I was trying to say that employment driven vaccine mandates have merit as workplace health and safety policies, but not as general code of conduct policies.

Important to note in the US the USSC determined C19 was not an OSHA issue, but rather being in the category of “day-to-day dangers that all face,”. Similar to risks like crime and air pollution, so not specific to the workplace which is where OSHA governs in the US.

Canada should follow.

 

[Remius]

notwithstanding my opinions on the covid narrative I think that outside a few employment regimes this should count as constructive dismissal. Arbitration and court cases will I am sure be dealing with this for a while. Your employer can not normally arbitrarily change the terms of your employment

Actually they can. You can choose to accept or not. If not then it can be considered constructive dismissal and the appropriate severance paid out etc. At least in Ontario. Things like the PS are governed by the collective agreements in place.

But we are essentially saying the same thing.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Important to note in the US the USSC determined C19 was not an OSHA issue, but rather being in the category of “day-to-day dangers that all face,”. Similar to risks like crime and air pollution, so not specific to the workplace which is where OSHA governs in the US.

Canada should follow.

No, what they determined was that the ETS an was overreach because C19 was not a specific occupational hazard in all jobs, and by using such a broad brush they were essentially making public health policy rather than enforcing workplace safety standards.

That decision does/did not rule out targeted OSHA regulation to address employment areas where C19 is/was a specific occupational hazard. Nor did it preclude a business from setting their own private policy regarding vaccination addressing a C19 as an occupational hazard.

 

[suffolkowner]

Actually they can. You can choose to accept or not. If not then it can be considered constructive dismissal and the appropriate severance paid out etc. At least in Ontario. Things like the PS are governed by the collective agreements in place.

But we are essentially saying the same thing.

We are but employers dont actually want to pay out constructive dismissal claims especially when you start looking at 2 months pay out per year of service. Already unions have won arbitration on a few of these cases and Im not even paying attention. The employetr also cant proclaim changes that are a violation of labour law even though it happens every day. They lose in court everyday as well its just few cases make it there

 

[mariomike]

Saw this about Work Refusals,

Can You Refuse to Work With Someone Who is Unvaccinated?​

Under B.C.’s Workers Compensation Act, being required to work in close physical proximity to an unvaccinated coworker could give someone grounds to refuse unsafe work due to the increased danger posed by the spread COVID-19 variants.

Blog

Blog

stevenslaw.ca

 

[Remius]

We are but employers dont actually want to pay out constructive dismissal claims especially when you start looking at 2 months pay out per year of service. Already unions have won arbitration on a few of these cases and Im not even paying attention. The employetr also cant proclaim changes that are a violation of labour law even though it happens every day. They lose in court everyday as well its just few cases make it there

Of course they don’t. And they lose in court almost every time. They are in essence required to make the minimum offer of basic severance as laid out by the province but it is the minimum and not normally near what someone is entitled to. That’s where people need to be up on labour law so they don’t get screwed over.

 

[QV]

No, what they determined was that the ETS an was overreach because C19 was not a specific occupational hazard in all jobs, and by using such a broad brush they were essentially making public health policy rather than enforcing workplace safety standards.

That decision does/did not rule out targeted OSHA regulation to address employment areas where C19 is/was a specific occupational hazard. Nor did it preclude a business from setting their own private policy regarding vaccination addressing a C19 as an occupational hazard.

Right, so it was still a broad government overreach. Got it.

 

[mariomike]

Arbitration and court cases will I am sure be dealing with this for a while.

There were only two union arbitrations I was interested in,

City of Toronto firefighters:

Re: Mandatory Vaccine Policy Grievance

262. Accordingly, I declare that the Policy requiring fully vaccinated status to the level set for the end of 2021 as a condition precedent for a fire fighter’s continuing to report for work in TFS was and continues to be reasonable.

Derek L. Rogers
Arbitrator

https://hicksmorley.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/TPFFA-and-City-of-Toronto-Rogers-26-August-2022.pdf

And,

City of Toronto paramedics:

Re: Policy Grievance concerning a mandatory vaccine policy

99. Requiring employees to become vaccinated is by a considerable measure the most effective protection against transmission and/or the serious consequences of infection. The requirement to be vaccinated attempts to protect both the unvaccinated employee and those vaccinated employees working with unvaccinated employees.

( Gets back to the Work Refusals. )

100. Even if the Act itself did not require that the City take every reasonable precaution to protect employees from anything other than transmission, it was still reasonable for the City to attempt through the Policy to reduce the negative health ramifications for all workers should they become infected, and reasonable for it to take steps to minimize disruption to its ability to provide services to the public. At a minimum, the City has a valid interest in reducing the likelihood that its employees might die or be absent for lengthy periods while they are seriously ill and in the hospital. As well, requiring employees to get vaccinated appears to have had the effect of incentivizing reluctant employees to become vaccinated, as reflected in the increased vaccination rate amongst City employees after the issuance of the Policy, which was also a reasonable purpose of the Policy.

Robert J. Herman
Arbitrator

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2022/2022canlii109503/2022canlii109503.html?searchUrlHash=&resultIndex=7&offset=12758.400390625

​

​

 

[QV]

Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study is Removed Within 24 Hours – The Daily Sceptic

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours. Read it here.

dailysceptic.org

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the journal removed the study within 24 hours.

The study, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company and was published online on Wednesday on the pre-print site of the prestigious medical journal.

 

[suffolkowner]

Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study is Removed Within 24 Hours – The Daily Sceptic

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours. Read it here.

dailysceptic.org

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the journal removed the study within 24 hours.

The study, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company and was published online on Wednesday on the pre-print site of the prestigious medical journal.

I believe this has already been pulled

 

[QV]

Of course it has.

 

[PMedMoe]

Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study is Removed Within 24 Hours – The Daily Sceptic

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours. Read it here.

dailysceptic.org

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the journal removed the study within 24 hours.

The study, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company and was published online on Wednesday on the pre-print site of the prestigious medical journal.

This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study's conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.

But I'm sure there must be some nefarious reason.

 

[QV]

Journals have been captured by industry.

Ex-editor of NEJM tells how Big Pharma has corrupted academic institutions - MinnPost

In the May/June issue of the Boston Review, Dr.

www.minnpost.com

 

[PMedMoe]

Journals have been captured by industry.

Ex-editor of NEJM tells how Big Pharma has corrupted academic institutions - MinnPost

In the May/June issue of the Boston Review, Dr.

www.minnpost.com

That headline is a bit misleading. Dr. Angell was the interim Editor-in-Chief of NEJM from 1999 to June 2000. She then retired to write a book on alternative medicine.

 

[QV]

Here is her bio from the Harvard site:

Marcia Angell

bioethics.hms.harvard.edu

Marcia Angell, MD, is a corresponding member of the faculty of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and faculty associate in the Center for Bioethics. She stepped down as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine on June 30, 2000. A graduate of Boston University School of Medicine, she trained in both internal medicine and anatomic pathology. She joined the editorial staff of the New England Journal of Medicine in 1979, became executive editor in 1988, and editor-in-chief in 1999.

Here is one of her books: The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It: Angell, Marcia: 9780375508462: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Remius]

That headline is a bit misleading. Dr. Angell was the interim Editor-in-Chief of NEJM from 1999 to June 2000. She then retired to write a book on alternative medicine.

I think it still is ok to still refer to her as an ex editor in chief even if interim for that period.

 

[QV]

I think it still is ok to still refer to her as an ex editor in chief even if interim for that period.

Right. But what we have here is what we've had throughout COVID. Attempts to discredit what that person is saying with underhanded smears. Here is a lifelong expert in the medical field with long time association to top institutions in their arena (NEJM, Harvard), but if they propose uncomfortable (and qualified) views on contentious subjects the tendency is to discredit; interim... alternative medicine.. etc. This is a passive aggressive way to shut down discussion on serious issues not yet resolved. This practice was prolific throughout the pandemic and continues.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

By who??

 

[QV]

That headline is a bit misleading. Dr. Angell was the interim Editor-in-Chief of NEJM from 1999 to June 2000. She then retired to write a book on alternative medicine.

No it's not. Any useful comment on the content?