All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

[Bluebulldog]

Setting aside the CAF did public servants have to prove their immunization record as a condition of employment prior to COVID ?

Honest question.

Honest answer, I didn't......

 

[brihard]

For full context, I am vaxxed and will get what ever the CAF prescribes to me. Not so much out of altruism or belief in the cause, more out of pragmatism and real world facts of life. Just being honest here, and I don't think I am alone.

Carrying on, I'm a CPO2, I fully understand and support the issuance of orders, and I get where my role sits in that system. My conundrum comes with where does that end. Some would argue at the border of lawful orders and not. Its probably the right line.

A persons body is the a deeper issue IMHO. Taking administrative action on people because they do not wish to inject a foreign substance into their body is a point I waiver on. I just see it as coercive to hold peoples livelihoods and professional lives over their heads for this. I've done numerous deployments and I am on my second immunization book. I even turned down malarial meds on my AFG deployments.

It seems all too Orwellian go this route. Maybe going through this on deployment and in NS means I am lacking some perspective of the actual threat this poses. We've done well here, and if I lived in Tor, Mtl or Van maybe I would have a different position.

I am currently on a year long French course so I haven't had to experience dealing with a subordinate who choses not to get vaccinated. As always I would carry out the direction given too me if I was in such a situation. And I would ensure my subordinate understands the repercussions of their decision, I may even have sympathy for them.

Its a strange divided world we're in now. Just look at this site, while there have been many arguments on here before they seems to be getting more and more divisive and I can see our membership moving into camps. I don't like it.

I don't know, verbal ejection over lol

That’s fair, and I think I spoke earlier with more disdain that I intended- I apologize for that. While I have exceedingly little time for the anti vax types at this point, I know that’s also not your personal stance, and that your concerns and objections are more nuanced.

I think there’s been some muddying of the waters here in that for a long time, administrative measures and disciplinary ones have had heavy overlap. You frig up, you eat a charge, and oftentimes there’s administrative action too. Though the admin side is to document and address a performance deficiency, it’s perceived as a consequence for conduct/discipline.

In this case, administrative action is being used to correct a ‘deficiency’ in its clearest, most direct and measurable form. In response to a situation unprecedented in living memory, there is now a thing CAF members need to do to protect themselves and others and to be able to travel- it’s a readiness and force protection thing, really. Unlike someone sucking at a job tasks, this one is a purely binary yes/no, with just as simple a solution, and that solution can be remedied in the time it takes to log in to a provincial website or drive to a walk in vaccine clinic, thus allowing for seriously expedited timelines.

Because CAF members now see administrative action being used in its purest, most efficient form, it can’t help but contrast with a long, slow, drawn out process usually associated with cases where it’s seen as punitive. This might explain some of why some members perceive themselves as being railroaded- though Bluebulldog I think also has hit a nail on the head with there being a general unfamiliarity with actions or choices equaling consequences.

FWIW, I would not take my stance and apply it more broadly to the entire public service. In such cases this policy is clearly being used coercively to achieve government objectives. If some CR-5 can and has been working from home and there’s no realistic reason to expect they would need to physically attend the workplace or a congregate setting, I don’t see there being the same bona fide requirement. RCMP officers, yes; corrections, CBSA, other essential or ‘public facing’ roles, yes. No issue there.

If private businesses want to put a mandate in place to smooth operations, that’s their prerogative too.

CAF is the most special case, with emergency, healthcare, or other front line services following close behind for similar reasons.

 

[stoker dave]

Just for reference, I work for a large, multi-national engineering and construction company. All employees (40,000+) are mandated to be vaccinated.

 

[mariomike]

Not to join the CAF.

But, before being eligible to apply to the municipal public service we had to be vaccinated for Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Polio, Pertussis, proof of immunity to Varicella TDP, MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella.

After I hired on, proof of seasonal Influenza vaccination was also required.

Honest answer, I didn't......

 

[brihard]

Not to join the CAF.

But, before being eligible to apply to the municipal public service we had to be vaccinated for Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Polio, Pertussis, proof of immunity to Varicella TDP, MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella.

After I hired on, proof of seasonal Influenza vaccination was also required.

Was that unique to paramedics, or did it apply more broadly within your city?

 

[mariomike]

Was that unique to paramedics, or did it apply more broadly within your city?

It was mandated for our job classification prior to joining.

Maybe Dept. of Public Health and the Water Dept. had something similar. But, I'm not sure what their mandates were.

 

[Remius]

Setting aside the CAF did public servants have to prove their immunization record as a condition of employment prior to COVID ?

Honest question.

PSEs had to attest just like CAF members did.

 

[Remius]

PSEs had to attest just like CAF members did.

Oh sorry prior to COVID no.

 

[Bluebulldog]

It was mandated for our job classification prior to joining.

Maybe Dept. of Public Health and the Water Dept. had something similar. But, I'm not sure what their mandates were.

Having worked in a Municipal Environment previously ( non medical), it was not a requirement. Our day care staff, LTC employees, and paramedics were required to be, and submit proof.

Federally I've worked with the RCMP, as well as another Crown Corp ( current). Not a requirement, with the exception of front line staff. Although some staff travelling to the far North were required to submit proof, prior to travel.

 

[Fabius]

In a broad context, what is the dividing line between encouraged and forced?
If government makes one of two choices almost unviable does that count as a true legitimate choice?

These are questions that make me uncomfortable with some attitudes expressed by society and certain officials right now.

 

[Bluebulldog]

If government makes one of two choices almost unviable does that count as a true legitimate choice?

IMHO, it comes down to what is the requirement of the position.

Do you walk up to an employer, apply, and then cite a religious exemption when required to work on the sabbath?

If the job requires you interact with other humans, and wishes to minimize risk, so requires you to be immunized?
Let me clarify, that "risk" is a broad use word, which encompasses all, including the employer, it's staff, its other resources, and other entities it works with

As mentioned, I know some in the Federal Service were required to provide UTD proof of vaccination prior to travel to the far North.

If disclosed as part of the hiring process, would that more or less mean it isn't still a choice?

The choice is still there. Yes, it's a lousy one for some, and may feel like the sword of Damocles, but it exists.

Please don't misinterpret. I am not unsympathetic to those who are struggling with it. I have lost a good friend simply by way of my being on my side of the fence.

But inconveniently the old saw still applies " You take the Queens shilling, you do the Queens bidding".

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nowadays the Queen takes your shilling and tells you their bidding.

 

[Winds]

It is a bold assumption that ALL public servants "work entirely from home". It is also fallacy to expect that their working environment will be to do so indefinitely. The employer has the right to dictate how their work environment should operate, and that they ensure the safety of those within that environment.

I never said that ALL public servants work from home, but the majority currently do. The employer has certain rights but they have already broken several collective agreements... for instance, most public service agreements do not allow for employees to be placed on LWOP except for voluntarily. I do not think it is a fallacy to think that large portions of the Public Service will move to permanent remote work, it is something that had been pursued before the pandemic as a means to allow more flexible working arrangements, for equity reasons.

How exactly does firing (or placing members on LWOP) significantly alter the safety of those around them? How much more likely is a vaccinated employee to catch COVID19 if there is an unvaccinated worker in the office? What if that person submits to mandatory testing and proves that they are negative? What if that worker is not in the office, but working virtually?

 

[lenaitch]

Ah. There's the rub.

What much of the issue is, both CF and Federal service, is that this is one of the first times, in a very long period, where there is a very direct ( and stated), consequence of action.

For the last few generations there have always been implied penalties, and a ton of process...to a generation that by-and-large had empty threats made by parents, and other persons in authority. This is likely the first time for many, where it has been explicitly spelled out. x+y=Z, and many don't like it. The online tantrums, and seeking confirmation bias to justify action, has been a go-to for far too long.

I've watched a former friend ( member), drag his feet, and is now facing a career ending decision. He has chosen this hill to die on.

I envy his conviction, and admire him for his principle.....if not his intelligence.

My son-in law is a department manager who had to walk one of his unvaccinated staff to the door whose last words were 'I didn't they'd really do it'.

 

[brihard]

I don’t think this got lost in the mix earlier- news in the past couple hours (can’t post here due to the reporter), sounds like Federal Court returned a decision on the requested injunction today, and shot it down quite decisively. Absolutely no dice for the members trying to get and injunction. I’m not sure if this represents the conclusion of this proceeding or if there’s still more going forward and the injunction sought was an interim measure. Decision should be posted tomorrow.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . . Decision should be posted tomorrow.

It's up already.

Neri v. Canada - Federal Court

decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca

It's the same as the pdf posted earlier in the thread CAF Members File Suit in Federal Court re: COVID 19 Vaccine

 

[brihard]

It's up already.

Neri v. Canada - Federal Court

decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca

It's the same as the pdf posted earlier in the thread CAF Members File Suit in Federal Court re: COVID 19 Vaccine

Ah- I had understood this to be a decision newly rendered rather than a release of the decision from December. Thank you. Sometimes cases will have a number of interim orders and decisions along the way.

Edit to add:

Oof. That was a pretty blistering decision. So yeah, rejection of an interim injunction requested as part of a Judicial Review, where the court is asked to review an administrative decision.

The judge basically torpedoed the entire judicial review in this one. The applicants completely failed to exercise the grievance system; you will almost never get a favourable judicial review if you fail to exhaust internal grievance methods or applicable tribunals first. Beyond that, it reads like they essentially failed to make a convincing case whatsoever. I think that Judicial Review will die an ugly death when it gets decided upon. These members are hooped.

 

[FJAG]

Ah- I had understood this to be a decision newly rendered rather than a release of the decision from December. Thank you. Sometimes cases will have a number of interim orders and decisions along the way.

The press is quick to say someone sued DND but very slow to say they lost their suit bigtime. I'm actually surprised it was reported at all. Haven't seen it anywhere else. Maybe now it will circulate.

 

[brihard]

The press is quick to say someone sued DND but very slow to say they lost their suit bigtime. I'm actually surprised it was reported at all. Haven't seen it anywhere else. Maybe now it will circulate.

Pour yourself a drink and read the decision if you haven’t already. You’ll cringe. I wouldn’t want to be counsel for the applicants with my name on this ruling.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Pour yourself a drink and read the decision if you haven’t already. You’ll cringe. I wouldn’t want to be counsel for the applicants with my name on this ruling.

I wonder if this is related to this case.

Catherine Christensen – Law Society of Alberta

A self governing body, acting as a regulator, to set the standards for Alberta lawyers. Includes news, and services for lawyers and for the public.

www.lawsociety.ab.ca