Amazing news from ALPA on the vaccine front today. I think it’s excellent to hear they’re taking pause and finding solutions that will work for “everyone.” It can’t be easy navigating through this right now considering Covid has become so political and polarizing, but (in my opinion) they’re doing the right thing.
Once again, ALPA leading by example in our industry. Hats off to them!
Hopefully ACPA can follow suit.
Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
Transition9er2
- Rank 4
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:18 pm
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
Very true. We need stop dividing us further....Transition9er2 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 11:01 am Amazing news from ALPA on the vaccine front today. I think it’s excellent to hear they’re taking pause and finding solutions that will work for “everyone.” It can’t be easy navigating through this right now considering Covid has become so political and polarizing, but (in my opinion) they’re doing the right thing.
Once again, ALPA leading by example in our industry. Hats off to them!
Hopefully ACPA can follow suit.
-
Mrbobmarly111
- Rank 2
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:29 am
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
Thank god ACPA supports our industry by standing by mandatory vaccines. How stupid would it be if they opposed the one thing helping our industry recover. All you anti vaxxers need to give your head a shake. And im extremely happy the company has taken this position. Keep in mind they did a survey and over 80% supported mandatory vaccines.
-
schnitzel2k3
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1456
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 11:17 pm
-
Tdicommuter
- Rank 2
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:39 am
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
So 20 percent did not support the motion? That's 1/5 of the people. That certainly is not nothing. Pump the brakes for a minute here and think for a second about how easy it is to be judgmental when you are on the side doing the attacking. Likely feels different being on the other side of the equation. Are we using the same vitriolic words towards gender fluid, or binary people and the woke movement. They certainly represent less than 20 percent of the population.Mrbobmarly111 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:00 pm Thank god ACPA supports our industry by standing by mandatory vaccines. How stupid would it be if they opposed the one thing helping our industry recover. All you anti vaxxers need to give your head a shake. And im extremely happy the company has taken this position. Keep in mind they did a survey and over 80% supported mandatory vaccines.
I am vaccinated, I think people should get vaccinated; however and this is huge... No one should be able to mandate, or terminate employment based on health decisions. This is a slippery slope that does not end well. If we took a 10 pay cut based on an expired MOA, imagine what else can happen if they can say 'do this, or be terminated'. That is crazy! No employer, or government should have that authority over individuals... Not in Canada anyway, Russia maybe.
-
sevendigits
- Rank 0
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:26 pm
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
Constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati has indicated that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that any medical treatment, including vaccination, without the informed consent of the individual, is unconstitutional. Galati also states:
• If your employment is already in progress, it is illegal for an employer to impose a new condition not included in the employment contract.
• If your employer terminates your employment as a result of your decision to refuse this experimental medical treatment, they could be held responsible for unfair dismissal or other breaches of the contract.
• If you sign an employment contract agreeing to be vaccinated with the COVID vaccine as a condition of employment, the employer may have the legal right to fire you without compensation.
• The Center for Constitutional Rights believes that compulsory vaccination in all employment settings is illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable.
• If your employment, registration, or service is unlawfully terminated due to your refusal to accept experimental injection, you are advised to take legal action for wrongful termination or breach of contract.
“We need to stop thinking about getting an exemption for violating our constitutional rights. We have the constitutional right to refuse a vaccine. Those who try to coerce and impose the vaccine violate this common, statutory and constitutional right. Why ask for an “exemption” FROM OFFENDERS? It makes no sense. "- Rocco Galati, constitutional lawyer
• If your employment is already in progress, it is illegal for an employer to impose a new condition not included in the employment contract.
• If your employer terminates your employment as a result of your decision to refuse this experimental medical treatment, they could be held responsible for unfair dismissal or other breaches of the contract.
• If you sign an employment contract agreeing to be vaccinated with the COVID vaccine as a condition of employment, the employer may have the legal right to fire you without compensation.
• The Center for Constitutional Rights believes that compulsory vaccination in all employment settings is illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable.
• If your employment, registration, or service is unlawfully terminated due to your refusal to accept experimental injection, you are advised to take legal action for wrongful termination or breach of contract.
“We need to stop thinking about getting an exemption for violating our constitutional rights. We have the constitutional right to refuse a vaccine. Those who try to coerce and impose the vaccine violate this common, statutory and constitutional right. Why ask for an “exemption” FROM OFFENDERS? It makes no sense. "- Rocco Galati, constitutional lawyer
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
I’m sure Air Canada has some extremely intelligent and highly paid legal counsel that advised them that the mandatory vaccine requirement had a high probability of satisfying jurisprudence.
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
August 19, 2021
Mr. Wesley Lesosky
Component President
Air Canada Component of CUPE 25 Belfield Road
Etobicoke ON M9W 1E8
RE: MANDATORY VACCINES FOR FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
The following is a legal opinion jointly addressed to each of you as Presidents of your respective bargaining units. It has been requested, as I understand it, as a result of your joint collaboration on the issues discussed below.
Kindly accept this letter as constituting our opinion as to whether the Government of Canada can impose a vaccine mandate on flight attendants working under collective agreements with Air Canada, Air Canada Rouge or Jazz.
You specifically asked us to consider whether there are any legal avenues for flight attendants to challenge the upcoming vaccine mandate with any realistic chance of success, and whether there are any protection mechanisms in place for members who receive the vaccine and experience corresponding medical complications.
In researching and drafting our opinion, we considered the information you provided to us during our recent phone conversations, as well as materials from a number of other sources, including relevant case law and the recent announcements from the Federal government. This letter constitutes a summary of our findings and our opinion.
In brief, subject to the anticipated legislation, regulation(s), or ministerial order(s) which have yet to be released, we conclude that a challenge to the Federal Government’s vaccine mandate, in whatever avenues and forums it may be brought, is unlikely to succeed for the reasons that follow.
Background
Last week, the Federal Government announced its intent to require all federal public servants be vaccinated as early as the end of September. The Government also said it expects all employers in federally regulated sectors and Crown corporations to follow suit.
This is not a recommendation. Transport Minister Omar Alghabra confirmed that workers in federally regulated air, rail, and marine transportation sectors will have to be vaccinated by the end of October. The Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc added that all public servants and some employees in federally regulated sectors must comply with the mandate or “risk losing their jobs.”
The Government announced its plan to engage with bargaining agents and employers during the mandate’s implementation. Everything about this process is unclear and up in the air for now. However, the Government stated that it will include “determining how the mandate will be implemented, through confirmation of COVID-19 vaccination and other means of protection.” There is no guarantee that the government will listen to either the employers or unions on this issue.
The Government confirmed that testing and screening measures will be put in place for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
So far, these are only announcements by the Government. Details of the mandate and its implementation remain unclear until legislation or regulations are released. Our answer is subject to change accordingly.
Conclusion
Subject to the legislation, regulation(s), or order(s) which have yet to be released, we conclude that an appropriately drafted mandatory vaccine policy is very likely to hold up to any legal challenges. There are significant procedural and substantive hurdles to bringing a successful legal challenge given that the Federal Government has the authority to legislate federal workplaces. Meanwhile, the prevalence of the Delta variant and recent rise in case numbers provide strong justification for some form of vaccine mandate to prevent employees and the general public from contracting and spreading COVID-19.
With respect to employees who have an adverse reaction to the vaccine, the Federal Government recently launched the Vaccine Injury Support program to provide financial support to those who experience a no-fault “serious and permanent injury” after receiving a vaccine. For employees with short-term injuries, it seems likely that an adverse reaction may be compensable under workers’ compensation regimes if the worker was vaccinated after being required to do so by their employer as a condition of continued employment.
Discussion
One of the most common objections to mandatory vaccination policies relate to the doctrine of informed consent and the right to be free from coerced medical treatment. In Canada, these rights are captured under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the life, liberty, and personal security of all Canadians.
While it is true that the broad liberty interests of unvaccinated individuals are affected by instituting employment vaccine requirements and by the privacy intrusion of being required to disclose vaccination status, these rights are not absolute. Section 1 of the Charter states that all of its rights can be subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Similar mandatory vaccine mandates already exist in some Canadian jurisdictions. For instance, in Ontario, schoolchildren are required to provide proof of vaccination to attend school, where health and safety considerations take precedence over section 7 rights on the basis that the infringement is a justified response to the risk.
Mandatory vaccine policies have also been upheld in healthcare workplaces in the context of the seasonal flu vaccine, where arbitrators have concluded that the employer’s interest in workplace safety in high risk workplaces outweighs the corresponding violation of employee rights.
In the case of the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine mandate, in all likelihood, the Government will be able to justify an invasion of section 7 rights on the basis that the vaccine mandate is reasonable and “demonstrably justified” due to the public safety threat of COVID-19. After all, COVID-19 is much more infectious and deadlier than the seasonal flu, with evidence that the vaccine is 95% effective—a stark difference when compared to the seasonal flu vaccine, which ranges between 40%-60% effectiveness.
Further, the Government will have an easier time justifying mandatory vaccines in high risk sectors such air transportation, and especially for flight attendants, who work in confined spaces for prolonged periods of time, without the possibility for social distancing, and who are in close, frequent contact with members of the public (passengers).
In any event, there are two important caveats that may limit the Government’s powers with respect to any mandatory vaccine legislation, regulation(s), or order(s).
The first caveat is that the Government will not be permitted to force employees to be vaccinated against their will, but rather, to impose restrictions on employees who refuse the vaccine. Unfortunately, the restrictions that the government intends to impose appear to include either dismissing employees who refuse the vaccine or placing them on an unpaid leave of absence until they become vaccinated or the pandemic is contained.
The second caveat is that the mandate must accommodate employees who cannot comply because of protected grounds under human rights legislation. As stated above, the Government plans to accommodate those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons through additional testing and screening measures. Presumably, this also includes employees who cannot be vaccinated due to sincerely held religious beliefs.
It is unclear at this point whether the Government’s mandate will provide for similar accommodations for individuals who are unwilling or “vaccine hesitant.” The latest messaging from the Government suggests they will not be offered any accommodations and would be subject to termination or being withheld from service. Once again, we are of the opinion that a Government mandate requiring the unwilling or the vaccine hesitant to be vaccinated in order to attend work would not be deemed unconstitutional.
In terms of the lawfulness of any company policy, no airline has yet produced a policy on mandatory vaccination and, therefore, we are unable to provide specific commentary. However, it is our opinion that a mandatory vaccination – provided it contemplates accommodations for those with bona fide medical or religious beliefs – will also likely be upheld as lawful as a reasonable exercise of management rights (consistent with principles annunciated in Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2537 v. KVP Co) on similar grounds as the Federal Government’s mandate. A recent arbitration (Ellis Don) decision has strongly endorsed this approach in denying a grievance filed against a compulsory Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Screening Program. That decision will very likely be followed in future decisions.
To be clear, we do not believe that any challenge to the Government’s vaccine mandate as it applies to flight attendants will be successful. This includes any challenge before the courts, human rights tribunals, or arbitration boards, and it applies to all flight attendants save and except those who meet the very limited exceptions referred to above. As stated above, we need to see the actual wording of the order(s) to comment any further as to the options and consequences available to those flight attendants who meet the exceptions and any criteria associated with such.
There are also a number of other points that can be made including but not limited to the following: If a flight attendant refuses to be fully vaccinated she may be terminated by her employer. Absent a legitimate reason for refusing to become fully vaccinated (i.e. medical or religious reasons), a flight attendant will be required to comply with the airline’s directives (which are essentially the Government’s directives). If s/he does not comply s/he will like face disciplinary consequences – likely dismissal. If so, while the Union may try to reverse such via the grievance and arbitration procedure, we think the likelihood of success in those circumstances would be very slim.
We also point out that any challenge to any body (whether it be a court, human rights tribunal or arbitration) involves a lot of work, effort, resources, expense and time. Given that the mandate is expected to become enforceable within the next ten weeks, there is no realistic expectation of receiving a decision on any challenge before that point in time (likely much longer afterwards in fact). The clock will likely “out race” any challenge in this case.
Additionally, the chance of obtaining a temporary order to halt the requirement for full mandatory vaccination (i.e. such as an injunction, stay or other such remedy) is even more difficult, uncertain, and unlikely. The test to obtain an injunction or a stay is a very high bar to meet. It is highly unlikely that any adjudicator would order an injunction or stay in these circumstances.
There is simply very little that unions can do to stop the effect and consequences of the Government’s decision in these circumstances.
In summary, we recommend that you do not expend any efforts trying to challenge the upcoming mandate. Rather, unions may wish to spend its time, efforts, and resources on trying to persuade the Government to make the mandate, terms, and consequences as reasonable and fair as possible. We recommend that your members—subject to those few who meet any human rights exceptions—be fully vaccinated as soon as possible. Otherwise, they will be risking their future employment.
Those few who suffer any significant adverse medical reactions to any of the vaccines because of the Government mandate may try to seek individual remedies under the above noted options or perhaps pursue civil action. The success of such will depend on the law and other specific facts yet to evolve. However, the mere possibility of a substantial adverse reaction by a very small group, if any, will not protect or relieve those flight attendants who are not yet fully vaccinated from becoming fully vaccinated by the deadline date. Again, this comment does not include those who will be found to be legitimately exempt under the rules to come. We expect that any flight attendant who wishes to claim an exemption will have the onus of proving that legitimate grounds for an exemption exists.
We are sorry that we could not give you a more positive opinion as to your chances to successfully challenge this new vaccine mandate. However, for the reasons above and many more (to say nothing of the politics at play, including the fact that some provincial governments are also moving in a similar direction) we urge you to recommend that your members comply with the Government’s upcoming vaccination mandate. Unions, airlines and their employees will have little choice but to accept the mandate in order to avoid different adverse consequences for all concerned.
In terms of your members, we believe that any flight attendants who do not comply with the new mandate without legitimate reasons will likely face significant discipline (if not discharge) which will likely not be reversed in the grievance and arbitration process.
We trust the foregoing is satisfactory. If you have any questions or concerns or if we can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Michael A. Church
CaleyWray
August 19, 2021
Mr. Wesley Lesosky
Component President
Air Canada Component of CUPE 25 Belfield Road
Etobicoke ON M9W 1E8
RE: MANDATORY VACCINES FOR FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
The following is a legal opinion jointly addressed to each of you as Presidents of your respective bargaining units. It has been requested, as I understand it, as a result of your joint collaboration on the issues discussed below.
Kindly accept this letter as constituting our opinion as to whether the Government of Canada can impose a vaccine mandate on flight attendants working under collective agreements with Air Canada, Air Canada Rouge or Jazz.
You specifically asked us to consider whether there are any legal avenues for flight attendants to challenge the upcoming vaccine mandate with any realistic chance of success, and whether there are any protection mechanisms in place for members who receive the vaccine and experience corresponding medical complications.
In researching and drafting our opinion, we considered the information you provided to us during our recent phone conversations, as well as materials from a number of other sources, including relevant case law and the recent announcements from the Federal government. This letter constitutes a summary of our findings and our opinion.
In brief, subject to the anticipated legislation, regulation(s), or ministerial order(s) which have yet to be released, we conclude that a challenge to the Federal Government’s vaccine mandate, in whatever avenues and forums it may be brought, is unlikely to succeed for the reasons that follow.
Background
Last week, the Federal Government announced its intent to require all federal public servants be vaccinated as early as the end of September. The Government also said it expects all employers in federally regulated sectors and Crown corporations to follow suit.
This is not a recommendation. Transport Minister Omar Alghabra confirmed that workers in federally regulated air, rail, and marine transportation sectors will have to be vaccinated by the end of October. The Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc added that all public servants and some employees in federally regulated sectors must comply with the mandate or “risk losing their jobs.”
The Government announced its plan to engage with bargaining agents and employers during the mandate’s implementation. Everything about this process is unclear and up in the air for now. However, the Government stated that it will include “determining how the mandate will be implemented, through confirmation of COVID-19 vaccination and other means of protection.” There is no guarantee that the government will listen to either the employers or unions on this issue.
The Government confirmed that testing and screening measures will be put in place for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
So far, these are only announcements by the Government. Details of the mandate and its implementation remain unclear until legislation or regulations are released. Our answer is subject to change accordingly.
Conclusion
Subject to the legislation, regulation(s), or order(s) which have yet to be released, we conclude that an appropriately drafted mandatory vaccine policy is very likely to hold up to any legal challenges. There are significant procedural and substantive hurdles to bringing a successful legal challenge given that the Federal Government has the authority to legislate federal workplaces. Meanwhile, the prevalence of the Delta variant and recent rise in case numbers provide strong justification for some form of vaccine mandate to prevent employees and the general public from contracting and spreading COVID-19.
With respect to employees who have an adverse reaction to the vaccine, the Federal Government recently launched the Vaccine Injury Support program to provide financial support to those who experience a no-fault “serious and permanent injury” after receiving a vaccine. For employees with short-term injuries, it seems likely that an adverse reaction may be compensable under workers’ compensation regimes if the worker was vaccinated after being required to do so by their employer as a condition of continued employment.
Discussion
One of the most common objections to mandatory vaccination policies relate to the doctrine of informed consent and the right to be free from coerced medical treatment. In Canada, these rights are captured under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the life, liberty, and personal security of all Canadians.
While it is true that the broad liberty interests of unvaccinated individuals are affected by instituting employment vaccine requirements and by the privacy intrusion of being required to disclose vaccination status, these rights are not absolute. Section 1 of the Charter states that all of its rights can be subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Similar mandatory vaccine mandates already exist in some Canadian jurisdictions. For instance, in Ontario, schoolchildren are required to provide proof of vaccination to attend school, where health and safety considerations take precedence over section 7 rights on the basis that the infringement is a justified response to the risk.
Mandatory vaccine policies have also been upheld in healthcare workplaces in the context of the seasonal flu vaccine, where arbitrators have concluded that the employer’s interest in workplace safety in high risk workplaces outweighs the corresponding violation of employee rights.
In the case of the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine mandate, in all likelihood, the Government will be able to justify an invasion of section 7 rights on the basis that the vaccine mandate is reasonable and “demonstrably justified” due to the public safety threat of COVID-19. After all, COVID-19 is much more infectious and deadlier than the seasonal flu, with evidence that the vaccine is 95% effective—a stark difference when compared to the seasonal flu vaccine, which ranges between 40%-60% effectiveness.
Further, the Government will have an easier time justifying mandatory vaccines in high risk sectors such air transportation, and especially for flight attendants, who work in confined spaces for prolonged periods of time, without the possibility for social distancing, and who are in close, frequent contact with members of the public (passengers).
In any event, there are two important caveats that may limit the Government’s powers with respect to any mandatory vaccine legislation, regulation(s), or order(s).
The first caveat is that the Government will not be permitted to force employees to be vaccinated against their will, but rather, to impose restrictions on employees who refuse the vaccine. Unfortunately, the restrictions that the government intends to impose appear to include either dismissing employees who refuse the vaccine or placing them on an unpaid leave of absence until they become vaccinated or the pandemic is contained.
The second caveat is that the mandate must accommodate employees who cannot comply because of protected grounds under human rights legislation. As stated above, the Government plans to accommodate those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons through additional testing and screening measures. Presumably, this also includes employees who cannot be vaccinated due to sincerely held religious beliefs.
It is unclear at this point whether the Government’s mandate will provide for similar accommodations for individuals who are unwilling or “vaccine hesitant.” The latest messaging from the Government suggests they will not be offered any accommodations and would be subject to termination or being withheld from service. Once again, we are of the opinion that a Government mandate requiring the unwilling or the vaccine hesitant to be vaccinated in order to attend work would not be deemed unconstitutional.
In terms of the lawfulness of any company policy, no airline has yet produced a policy on mandatory vaccination and, therefore, we are unable to provide specific commentary. However, it is our opinion that a mandatory vaccination – provided it contemplates accommodations for those with bona fide medical or religious beliefs – will also likely be upheld as lawful as a reasonable exercise of management rights (consistent with principles annunciated in Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2537 v. KVP Co) on similar grounds as the Federal Government’s mandate. A recent arbitration (Ellis Don) decision has strongly endorsed this approach in denying a grievance filed against a compulsory Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Screening Program. That decision will very likely be followed in future decisions.
To be clear, we do not believe that any challenge to the Government’s vaccine mandate as it applies to flight attendants will be successful. This includes any challenge before the courts, human rights tribunals, or arbitration boards, and it applies to all flight attendants save and except those who meet the very limited exceptions referred to above. As stated above, we need to see the actual wording of the order(s) to comment any further as to the options and consequences available to those flight attendants who meet the exceptions and any criteria associated with such.
There are also a number of other points that can be made including but not limited to the following: If a flight attendant refuses to be fully vaccinated she may be terminated by her employer. Absent a legitimate reason for refusing to become fully vaccinated (i.e. medical or religious reasons), a flight attendant will be required to comply with the airline’s directives (which are essentially the Government’s directives). If s/he does not comply s/he will like face disciplinary consequences – likely dismissal. If so, while the Union may try to reverse such via the grievance and arbitration procedure, we think the likelihood of success in those circumstances would be very slim.
We also point out that any challenge to any body (whether it be a court, human rights tribunal or arbitration) involves a lot of work, effort, resources, expense and time. Given that the mandate is expected to become enforceable within the next ten weeks, there is no realistic expectation of receiving a decision on any challenge before that point in time (likely much longer afterwards in fact). The clock will likely “out race” any challenge in this case.
Additionally, the chance of obtaining a temporary order to halt the requirement for full mandatory vaccination (i.e. such as an injunction, stay or other such remedy) is even more difficult, uncertain, and unlikely. The test to obtain an injunction or a stay is a very high bar to meet. It is highly unlikely that any adjudicator would order an injunction or stay in these circumstances.
There is simply very little that unions can do to stop the effect and consequences of the Government’s decision in these circumstances.
In summary, we recommend that you do not expend any efforts trying to challenge the upcoming mandate. Rather, unions may wish to spend its time, efforts, and resources on trying to persuade the Government to make the mandate, terms, and consequences as reasonable and fair as possible. We recommend that your members—subject to those few who meet any human rights exceptions—be fully vaccinated as soon as possible. Otherwise, they will be risking their future employment.
Those few who suffer any significant adverse medical reactions to any of the vaccines because of the Government mandate may try to seek individual remedies under the above noted options or perhaps pursue civil action. The success of such will depend on the law and other specific facts yet to evolve. However, the mere possibility of a substantial adverse reaction by a very small group, if any, will not protect or relieve those flight attendants who are not yet fully vaccinated from becoming fully vaccinated by the deadline date. Again, this comment does not include those who will be found to be legitimately exempt under the rules to come. We expect that any flight attendant who wishes to claim an exemption will have the onus of proving that legitimate grounds for an exemption exists.
We are sorry that we could not give you a more positive opinion as to your chances to successfully challenge this new vaccine mandate. However, for the reasons above and many more (to say nothing of the politics at play, including the fact that some provincial governments are also moving in a similar direction) we urge you to recommend that your members comply with the Government’s upcoming vaccination mandate. Unions, airlines and their employees will have little choice but to accept the mandate in order to avoid different adverse consequences for all concerned.
In terms of your members, we believe that any flight attendants who do not comply with the new mandate without legitimate reasons will likely face significant discipline (if not discharge) which will likely not be reversed in the grievance and arbitration process.
We trust the foregoing is satisfactory. If you have any questions or concerns or if we can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Michael A. Church
CaleyWray
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
Except this is the company, not the government.rudder wrote:whether the Government of Canada can impose
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
Air Canada does what they want.
There is no down side for them to try.
They sell labour the helpless narrative on everything, but it isn't reality.
Their council is on retainer and getting paid either way.
-
Mrbobmarly111
- Rank 2
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:29 am
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
The time for being nice to Anti Vaxxers is over. If you have a ligit reason to not get it (medical or religious) fine. Otherwise you are a complete idiot. This situation can be compared to smoking. Years ago it was discovered that smoking in the vicinity of others was bad for their health and could give them cancer among other things. So the government and businesses said it was banned basically everywhere. On planes in bus stops, within 20 feet of a business entrance etc. And the smokers were mad but who cares. Now covid its very similar. If you dont get vaccinated you are a burden on our healthcare system. You could potentially get others around you sick etc.... so the government stepped in and businesses and said get vaccinated or stay at home and smoke.. i mean cough. Anyways the time is over for me caring for the idiots ive listened and ive lived in a bubble for 2 years. Now its time for them to be placed in the bubble and for the rest of us to move on with our lives
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
Mrbobmarly111 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:26 am The time for being nice to Anti Vaxxers is over. If you have a ligit reason to not get it (medical or religious) fine. Otherwise you are a complete idiot. This situation can be compared to smoking. Years ago it was discovered that smoking in the vicinity of others was bad for their health and could give them cancer among other things. So the government and businesses said it was banned basically everywhere. On planes in bus stops, within 20 feet of a business entrance etc. And the smokers were mad but who cares. Now covid its very similar. If you dont get vaccinated you are a burden on our healthcare system. You could potentially get others around you sick etc.... so the government stepped in and businesses and said get vaccinated or stay at home and smoke.. i mean cough. Anyways the time is over for me caring for the idiots ive listened and ive lived in a bubble for 2 years. Now its time for them to be placed in the bubble and for the rest of us to move on with our lives
+1
I wrote ALPA and told them let's take this one step further. I want mandatory flu vaccine every year. I had a family member die of the flu 4 years ago so it's important to me.
Anyone against masks, covid vax, and flu vax is just an idiot.
-
sevendigits
- Rank 0
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:26 pm
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
We are at a crossroads! There are so many side effects being caused by these vaccines that the government does not want you to know about (yet some have been publicly made.) You are forced to take a vaccine not fully understood, then you get sick, lose your medical and then your on your own. The history of vaccines has shown that they are tested for many years before being produced for the general public. In this case we are rushing not knowing the full extent of the damage caused. People will of course have different opinions. They can make there own decision's as adults. However, as adults WE have the right to choose and not a government or some smug executive worried about his bottom line.
Every vaccine is a human test subject in a trial.
The Nuremberg Code states, article 1: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
The CMPA (Canadian Medical Protective Association) employs strong language in the matter of informed consent.
“For consent to treatment to be considered valid, it must be an “informed” consent. The patient must have been given an adequate explanation about the nature of the proposed investigation or treatment and its anticipated outcome as well as the significant risks involved and alternatives available. The information must be such as will allow the patient to reach an informed decision.”
The Health Care Consent Act of Ontario
Consent to Treatment
No treatment without consent
Elements of consent
11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:
1. The consent must relate to the treatment.
2. The consent must be informed.
3. The consent must be given voluntarily.
4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (1).
Every vaccine is a human test subject in a trial.
The Nuremberg Code states, article 1: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
The CMPA (Canadian Medical Protective Association) employs strong language in the matter of informed consent.
“For consent to treatment to be considered valid, it must be an “informed” consent. The patient must have been given an adequate explanation about the nature of the proposed investigation or treatment and its anticipated outcome as well as the significant risks involved and alternatives available. The information must be such as will allow the patient to reach an informed decision.”
The Health Care Consent Act of Ontario
Consent to Treatment
No treatment without consent
Elements of consent
11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:
1. The consent must relate to the treatment.
2. The consent must be informed.
3. The consent must be given voluntarily.
4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (1).
-
metalbusdriver
- Rank 0
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:55 am
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
Just to put this in perspective everyone blaming anti vax or people who have not received an EUA vaccine, for the delta variant and that thinking having everyone vaccinated will cure all our problems need to open their eyes and at least look at both sides objectively.
At this point it is past vax vs. unvaxxed its medical freedom, so in reality maybe AC should fire every pilot that is overweight or a health risk.
Also there was a study in 2015 conducted that showed that vaccines that allow the host to transmit the virus the virus will continue to mutated and create strong strains with. Just look at the breakthrough cases and people just glancing over those facts. At the end of the day mandating vaccines is not going to cure our industry and pitting ourselves against each while ACPA sells us out so they can sit in montreal and fly overtime is a joke. I mean we all naively though 2 weeks to flatten the curve look where that got us.
reference: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/a ... io.1002198
At this point it is past vax vs. unvaxxed its medical freedom, so in reality maybe AC should fire every pilot that is overweight or a health risk.
Also there was a study in 2015 conducted that showed that vaccines that allow the host to transmit the virus the virus will continue to mutated and create strong strains with. Just look at the breakthrough cases and people just glancing over those facts. At the end of the day mandating vaccines is not going to cure our industry and pitting ourselves against each while ACPA sells us out so they can sit in montreal and fly overtime is a joke. I mean we all naively though 2 weeks to flatten the curve look where that got us.
reference: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/a ... io.1002198
-
Mrbobmarly111
- Rank 2
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:29 am
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
Stop shifting and deflecting. If you haven't been vaccinated yet you are DUMB dumb dumb. Stop this stupid narrative where you post articles showing more dumb people. Just get vaccinated and youre good to go. It does give you more protection and it does keep others from getting sick. Not all the time but definitely more than when you dont have it. Stop being stupid. Get the shot
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
+1Mrbobmarly111 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 7:31 am Stop shifting and deflecting. If you haven't been vaccinated yet you are DUMB dumb dumb. Stop this stupid narrative where you post articles showing more dumb people. Just get vaccinated and youre good to go. It does give you more protection and it does keep others from getting sick. Not all the time but definitely more than when you dont have it. Stop being stupid. Get the shot
Dumb dumb dumb like a Mormon!
https://gloria.tv/post/DADGumHLcheh3pXWf8eoYZabE
If you don’t get vax you are dumb, if you don’t wear a mask you are dumb, if you go to bed without pexi glass between you and your SO you are dumb, if you let your kids go to school and risk death you are dumb. If you travel to another country during a DEADLY PANDEMIC you are also dumb.
Lots of dumb dumbs in the world so glad we can freely point them all out. If only they were as SMRT as me!
-
Cavalier44
- Rank 4
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:32 am
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
A) The Nuremberg Code is not in any way a legally binding treaty or document. It has never been adopted as a law by any nation, nor has it been adopted as an official ethics guideline by any medical association. It was written following the Nuremberg Trials in response to the inhumane and unethical human experiments that occurred in concentration camps; primarily against Jewish people, but also against other groups considered "undesirable" by the Nazi regime, including Jehova's Witnesses, homosexuals, political prisoners, the disabled, etc. Drawing the comparison between the government enforcing a mandatory vaccine for federally regulated workers and the barbaric practices that occurred in concentration camps during WWII is both disingenuous and revolting.sevendigits wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:46 am We are at a crossroads! There are so many side effects being caused by these vaccines that the government does not want you to know about (yet some have been publicly made.) You are forced to take a vaccine not fully understood, then you get sick, lose your medical and then your on your own. The history of vaccines has shown that they are tested for many years before being produced for the general public. In this case we are rushing not knowing the full extent of the damage caused. People will of course have different opinions. They can make there own decision's as adults. However, as adults WE have the right to choose and not a government or some smug executive worried about his bottom line.
Every vaccine is a human test subject in a trial.
The Nuremberg Code states, article 1: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
The CMPA (Canadian Medical Protective Association) employs strong language in the matter of informed consent.
“For consent to treatment to be considered valid, it must be an “informed” consent. The patient must have been given an adequate explanation about the nature of the proposed investigation or treatment and its anticipated outcome as well as the significant risks involved and alternatives available. The information must be such as will allow the patient to reach an informed decision.”
The Health Care Consent Act of Ontario
Consent to Treatment
No treatment without consent
Elements of consent
11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:
1. The consent must relate to the treatment.
2. The consent must be informed.
3. The consent must be given voluntarily.
4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (1).
B) You assert that every individual who receives the COVID-19 vaccine is "a human test subject in a trial". This statement is false. All of the major vaccine manufacturers have conducted numerous, voluntary clinical trials. You can read up on Phase I, II, III, and IV clinical trials if you'd care to educate yourself on how clinical trials are conducted to verify the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Several nations have already given full authorization to the major Western vaccine manufacturers (Oxford–AstraZeneca, Pfizer–BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson), and in those countries that are still administering the vaccines under emergency use, it is expected that full authorization will occur in the coming months.
C) No one is forcing you to get vaccinated without your consent. If you decide not to get the vaccine, no one can legally compel you to do so. However, your employer is also allowed to set certain conditions in order for you to be employed there. They require you to maintain a valid Cat. 1 medical, RAIC, passport, type rating, etc. There is a historical and legal precedent for employers requiring their employees to be vaccinated against various pathogens, especially within the medical field, but also for children attending school, etc. This has been the case for decades and is not in any way new or controversial from a legal standpoint. Additionally, the federal government, through the regulatory body (in this case, Transport Canada), has the right to impose new regulations at will, such as vaccines being mandatory for aviation workers.
The bottom line is this: no one is forcing you to take the vaccine, but as a responsible adult, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of your choices, one of which may be that you no longer meet the conditions for employment as an airline pilot in this country.
Re: Take the vaccine, or lose your job - WTF?
There shouldn’t be any religious exemptions. That is just a bunch of BS. If any Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. really cared about their fellow man, as those works of fiction they like to quote state you should do, they would be doing anything to ensure they don’t bring harm to others.Mrbobmarly111 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:26 am The time for being nice to Anti Vaxxers is over. If you have a ligit reason to not get it (medical or religious) fine. Otherwise you are a complete idiot. This situation can be compared to smoking. Years ago it was discovered that smoking in the vicinity of others was bad for their health and could give them cancer among other things. So the government and businesses said it was banned basically everywhere. On planes in bus stops, within 20 feet of a business entrance etc. And the smokers were mad but who cares. Now covid its very similar. If you dont get vaccinated you are a burden on our healthcare system. You could potentially get others around you sick etc.... so the government stepped in and businesses and said get vaccinated or stay at home and smoke.. i mean cough. Anyways the time is over for me caring for the idiots ive listened and ive lived in a bubble for 2 years. Now its time for them to be placed in the bubble and for the rest of us to move on with our lives
Instead many use these ‘good books’ to rationalize their batshit crazy theories.
Even the f***ing Pope said get vaccinated.
