Articling & Vaccine Mandates

[castor]

3 minutes ago, HammurabiTime said:

Sure it does. Just like if someone is a flat earther or unironically talks about 'the jews' that also gives people a fair bit of other information about them. Now you may not like what people infer about you as a result but that doesn't change the reality of the above one iota.

Okay, you don't like me and you think X about me. Fine. But now lawyers are coming on this thread and bullying articling students? Please leave if you're not interested in my topic question. Seriously. Don't you have some client to overbill?

[Yogurt Baron]

Who, exactly, is "bullying" "articling students", plural? Who is "bullying"? Who is the second articling student?

[CleanHands]

4 minutes ago, castor said:

No, it's not. There are many issues at play here. In case you care, check out this piece by the CCLA. https://ccla.org/major-cases-reports/covid-19/fear-loathing-and-the-law-pushing-the-limits-of-legislating-good-behaviour/

You can't conflate concerns about lockdowns, business regulations, infringements on free association, infringements on mobility rights, new criminal offences, etc with anti-vaccination workplace mandates. Yes, there are obviously legitimate Charter issues raised by COVID. No, I don't agree with all the government measures. Yes, individuals should be allowed to voluntarily assume certain risks.

But you're talking about employers firing or refusing to hire employees for failing to adhere to some fairly basic and common sense safety mandates. That doesn't deserve to be taken as seriously.

[HammurabiTime]

8 minutes ago, castor said:

Okay, you don't like me and you think X about me. Fine. But now lawyers are coming on this thread and bullying articling students? Please leave if you're not interested in my topic question. Seriously. Don't you have some client to overbill?

I never said I don't like you. If you think pointing out that people are going to draw reasonable assumptions from what you say amounts to 'bullying' you've got a broad enough definition of bullying that encompasses disagreeing with you and is basically meaningless.

I am obviously interested in your topic question, that's why I'm participating (as are others). You just don't get to dictate the nature of other people's interest and participation in a public forum, that's what the admins and moderators get to do by setting and enforcing the forum policies.

I'm not sure why you would think a lawyer who was not that long ago an articling student and is now involved in selecting articling students during a pandemic wouldn't have input of any value.

Edited October 29, 2021 by HammurabiTime

[Apple]

To answer OPs question, no I am not having any issues with the vaccine "mandate" and my employment as I got the vaccine. I got that 5G network coursing through my veins. I know of one person who had an adverse reaction to the first dose and she has been advised by her doctor to not take the second. As such, they qualify under the exemptions created by statute and are also not having an issue with their work and the vaccine "mandate". 

For better or for worse the difficulties it sounds like you are facing is something you are going to have to accept in consideration of holding on to your refusal to get vaccinated. You are not entitled to an articling position and employers are not compelled to provide you one. In my view, you are also not being unlawfully discriminated against. Choices have consequences and you are experiencing the consequences of your choices. Is it fair? I don't really know the answer to that. 

I have two final comments to make. First, despite the rhetoric of this being a vaccine mandate the public policy is not a vaccine mandate. No one is mandating you to get vaccinated. The government is just mandating non-essential services to request proof of vaccination in order to give access to some specific types of services - not even all (i.e., you can still get take out from your favorite pub but just can't sit down). Second, I say what I say despite also having my concerns with the impact the vaccine related regulations. I can't decide whether the vaccine rules are overwhelming individual choice but something rubs me the wrong way about them. The vaccine has been out for nearly a year now and those that want them will likely get them and those who don't won't. The policy however seems to not just be about getting jabs in arms but about protecting larger public health and for that reason I can tolerate the governments approach. However, I'm not sure if the evidence favors the restriction of individual freedoms to the extend that they are being restricted at this time. Then again, I'm not privy to the data our government is operating off of but I think given their recent announcement to start ending restrictions we're moving in a good place and one which the government recognizes will no longer be able to justify their intervention. 

No one is bullying you. Sure, some people are getting spicy but come on don't be so quick to accuse people of bullying because they commented more aggressively than you anticipated. Also, who gave @BlockedQuebecoisa right to comment here in the way they do? The website creators, just as they have given to everyone else who agrees to their terms of service. Your immediate decrying of people who express that your lamenting of your anti-vax woes as bullies is just silly. 

Finally, the recent decision from the Manitoba Court of Appeal is really well reasoned and helpful for engaging with this topic from a legal perspective. Your rights aren't being unlawfully trampled and the tide of jurisprudence seems to support that finding very well. 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Apple

[castor]

Just now, CleanHands said:

You can't conflate concerns about lockdowns, business regulations, infringements on free association, infringements on mobility rights, new criminal offences, etc with anti-vaccination workplace mandates. Yes, there are obviously legitimate Charter issues raised by COVID. No, I don't agree with all the government measures. Yes, individuals should be allowed to voluntarily assume certain risks.

But you're talking about employers firing or refusing to hire employees for failing to adhere to some fairly basic and common sense safety mandates. That doesn't deserve to be taken as seriously.

Yes it should be. It's kind of like bona fide occupational requirements. In a normal law firm, vaccines are just one way to protect people, not the only way. As we've seen, there are many other ways to keep a workplace safe, including masks, SD, testing, temp checks, etc. Forcing all articling students to get vaccines is serious. If that's what it's going to be, the law society really needs to step in and set some policy direction on this topic. Articling students are in a uniquely vulnerable situation, and that deserves some thought. What is happening now is a knee jerk reaction and it could ruin careers and livelihoods, and that's not okay.

[Thrive92]

18 minutes ago, castor said:

Okay, you don't like me and you think X about me. Fine. But now lawyers are coming on this thread and bullying articling students? Please leave if you're not interested in my topic question. Seriously. Don't you have some client to overbill?

Thank you for voicing your opinions and your anti - vax stance despite knowing that you will probably face at least some backlash for your views and opinions; free speech should never be discouraged, particularly viewpoints and opinions that are deemed as unpopular by the majority of the society. Regardless of how "wrong" or "incorrect" something may seem, there should be no barrier nor any difficulty in voicing them.

Having said that, you should be aware that just as you have the right to free speech, others have the right to criticize it -- I can agree to a certain extent that this may go a little too far (like how Nicki Minaj becoming a pariah on social media for her viewpoints towards the vaccines), but you should expect this from issues or beliefs that may be controversial. Just as you have your right to exercise free speech, they have their right to express theirs in response.

As for your original post, your employers also have the right to dismiss or discriminate against those who may not align with their particular beliefs/opinions, regardless of whether you perceive these beliefs and opinions as correct or backed up by evidence. An example of this is how I view certain employers from discriminating against hiring or keeping those who may have a criminal record, despite the fact that the employment position may have nothing in relations to the crime that the individual was charged with. Nevertheless, I respect the rights of these employers to dismiss or discriminate against those who may have a criminal past, despite the fact that these individuals are probably in the most need of employment.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Thrive92

[CleanHands]

Just now, castor said:

It's kind of like bona fide occupational requirements.

You do realize that the BFOR is a standard to permit what would otherwise be discrimination based on a prohibited ground, right? So if you adopt that logic, then vaccine mandates would be completely fine if exemptions were provided based on prohibited grounds. But that's expressly not the position you initially took:

Quote

Especially if they are ignoring medical and religious exemptions (which many are) ,but not limited to only that.

There has never been a standard in other contexts that employers have to go out of their way to accommodate employees based on mere personal preferences.

[Phaedrus]

CTV: Do vaccine mandates violate Canadians' Charter rights?

[castor]

8 minutes ago, HammurabiTime said:

I never said I don't like you. If you think pointing out that people are going to draw reasonable assumptions from what you say amounts to 'bullying' you've got a broad enough definition of bullying that encompasses disagreeing with you and is basically meaningless.

I am obviously interested in your topic question, that's why I'm participating (as are others). You just don't get to dictate the nature of other people's interest and participation in a public forum, that's what the admins and moderators get to do by setting and enforcing the forum policies.

I'm not sure why you would think a lawyer who was not that long ago an articling student and is now involved in selecting articling students during a pandemic wouldn't have input of any value.

Look, I posted a question 2 pages ago, reaching out to other articling students to see if anyone was having this issue. And what I got was a bunch of comments from people insulting me & by extension any other students who dare question any of this, and mocking any responses. People aren't interested in this topic question, they're interested in demonstrating their righteousness and shit talking me for daring to post this question. I understand it's a public forum, but if you really care about that, I'm not sure what value you think you're adding here. I didn't ask for people's opinions on unvaccinated students. I asked for the thoughts and experiences of unvaccinated (or undisclosed) students. I mean, no wonder no one brings up their concerns, when this is the reaction from everyone. That's my point. By adding your voice, you're potentially silencing others, and ones that don't have the benefit of having already completed this mandatory component of our legal education.

4 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

You do realize that the BFOR is a standard to permit what would otherwise be discrimination based on a prohibited ground, right? So if you adopt that logic, then vaccine mandates would be completely fine if exemptions were provided based on prohibited grounds. But that's expressly not the position you initially took:

There has never been a standard in other contexts that employers have to go out of their way to accommodate employees based on mere personal preferences.

We've also never been in this situation before. As many lawyers have pointed out, the law is evolving as we go day to day on this issue.

[Apple]

7 minutes ago, castor said:

Forcing all articling students to get vaccines is serious

No one is forcing you to do anything. You can either get vaccinated or not. Choice have consequences. You can speed for instance but you cannot cry foul when you get caught for speeding and your insurance goes up. 
 

[castor]

6 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

Thank you for voicing your opinions and your anti - vax stance despite knowing that you will probably face at least some backlash for your views and opinions; free speech should never be discouraged, particularly viewpoints and opinions that are deemed as unpopular by the majority of the society. Regardless of how "wrong" or "incorrect" something may seem, there should be no barrier nor any difficulty in voicing them.

Having said that, you should be aware that just as you have the right to free speech, others have the right to criticize it -- I can agree to a certain extent that this may go a little too far (like how Nicki Minaj becoming a pariah on social media for her viewpoints towards the vaccines), but you should expect this from issues or beliefs that may be controversial. Just as you have your right to exercise free speech, they have their right to express theirs in response.

As for your original post, your employers also have the right to dismiss or discriminate against those who may not align with their particular beliefs/opinions, regardless of whether you perceive these beliefs and opinions as correct or backed up by evidence. An example of this is how I view certain employers from discriminating against hiring or keeping those who may have a criminal record, despite the fact that the employment position may have nothing in relations to the crime that the individual was charged with. Nevertheless, I respect the rights of these employers to dismiss or discriminate against those who may have a criminal past, despite the fact that these individuals are probably in the most need of employment.

I get that people can critique it. But what's happening is everyone is coming down on this topic mercilessly, and potentially silencing or scaring any other students who wanted to actually respond to my initial question (which was addressed to unvaccinated or undisclosed articling students).

[Apple]

Just now, castor said:

But what's happening is everyone is coming down on this topic mercilessly

Not everyone is doing this. I thought my take was pretty gracious. The exaggeration here about everyone coming down on you isn't helpful. I agree, some people get snarky (and tbh I love the rawness these people have on this forum), but no need to take it as a personal attack on you and not all of us are as snarky as others. 

[ClarkGriswold]

19 minutes ago, castor said:

Forcing all articling students to get vaccines is serious.

Those hiring at “Random Firm” LLP requiring articling students to be vaccinated ≠ all articling students in any traditional or non-traditional legal capacity being forced to do so. Foregoing vaccination is an option, but there are associated outcomes with that decision, such as not being able to land an articling gig at select workplaces. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by ClarkGriswold

[castor]

1 minute ago, Apple said:

No one is forcing you to do anything. You can either get vaccinated or not. Choice have consequences. You can speed for instance but you cannot cry foul when you get caught for speeding and your insurance goes up. 
 

Oh come on. Law school debt + no job and no prospects. Never mind the INSANE amount of social pressure (uhem, this thread). You seriously don't think that's forcing people? There's more than one way to force people, and everyone knows it. This isn't not being able to go to a restaurant or a hockey game, this is an articling students only way to pay back their debt and put food on the table.

1 minute ago, Apple said:

Not everyone is doing this. I thought my take was pretty gracious. The exaggeration here about everyone coming down on you isn't helpful. I agree, some people get snarky (and tbh I love the rawness these people have on this forum), but no need to take it as a personal attack on you and not all of us are as snarky as others. 

Well, I'm glad you aren't, but pretty sure I haven't heard from one person who this post was intended for. And I don't love "the rawness" when it's meant to humiliate me.

3 minutes ago, ClarkGriswold said:

Those hiring at “Random Firm” LLP requiring articling students to be vaccinated ≠ all articling students in any traditional or non-traditional legal capacity being forced to do so. Foregoing vaccination is an option, but there are associated outcomes with that decision, such as not being able to land an articling gig at select workplaces. 

Also, employers can enforce a vaccination requirement in their workplace so long as it aligns with guiding documents (ex: provincial Human Rights Act). 

As I said to another poster,  Law school debt + no job and no prospects. Never mind the INSANE amount of social pressure (uhem, this thread). You seriously don't think that's forcing people? There's more than one way to force people, and everyone knows it. This isn't not being able to go to a restaurant or a hockey game, this is an articling students only way to pay back their debt and put food on the table.

[Apple]

1 minute ago, castor said:

Oh come on. Law school debt + no job and no prospects. Never mind the INSANE amount of social pressure (uhem, this thread). You seriously don't think that's forcing people? There's more than one way to force people, and everyone knows it. This isn't not being able to go to a restaurant or a hockey game, this is an articling students only way to pay back their debt and put food on the table.

No I don't think that fits within the definition of force. You made choice, you took risk and you continue to make choices with full knowledge of the associated risks. That's on you. Is it crappy you have to assume these risks and impacts? Sure. But again, you're assuming them in consideration of not being vaccinated. 

Once again, your exaggeration isn't helpful to you. There's nothing else you can do? I can think of at least one thing you could do lol. And again, you're not entitled to a job or an articling position. You are entitled though to maintain your refusal to be vaccinated. That right is something I will stand behind you to maintain. On the topic of exaggeration, no one here is pressuring you socially to get vaccinated. In fact, I haven't seen anyone post anything remotely resembling social pressure. 

[Kimura]

9 minutes ago, castor said:

Look, I posted a question 2 pages ago, reaching out to other articling students to see if anyone was having this issue. And what I got was a bunch of comments from people insulting me & by extension any other students who dare question any of this, and mocking any responses. People aren't interested in this topic question, they're interested in demonstrating their righteousness and shit talking me for daring to post this question. I understand it's a public forum, but if you really care about that, I'm not sure what value you think you're adding here. I didn't ask for people's opinions on unvaccinated students. I asked for the thoughts and experiences of unvaccinated (or undisclosed) students. I mean, no wonder no one brings up their concerns, when this is the reaction from everyone. That's my point. By adding your voice, you're potentially silencing others, and ones that don't have the benefit of having already completed this mandatory component of our legal education.

Absent medical or religious observances, you should go get vaccinated - especially if you're having a hard time securing articling. That will solve all your problems. You haven't stated exactly why you haven't been vaccinated, and unless you state so, people are going to assume your reason is ill-founded, which is predicated on anti-vaxxers having ill-founded reasons for being anti-vax in the first place. 

Sure, you do have a say over your body and what you put in it, but only to the extent that your action (or inaction, in this case) impacts others. I've noticed many anti-vaxxers can't accept that the world doesn't revolve around them - that yes, if you want to participate in society, and get back to "normal" - you need to play your part too, which means getting vaccinated. If you can't accept that reality, then you need to accept the consequence that you may have difficulties finding articling. 

[HammurabiTime]

5 minutes ago, castor said:

I get that people can critique it. But what's happening is everyone is coming down on this topic mercilessly, and potentially silencing or scaring any other students who wanted to actually respond to my initial question (which was addressed to unvaccinated or undisclosed articling students).

I don't really think anyone has been 'merciless'. You need to look at your own responses to some degree if you want to fret about the tone in here. I wrote about as neutral a disagreement as possible with no personal insults and in response you suggested I rip off my clients by 'overbilling' them which, outside of a pseudonymous forum, could be a pretty serious accusation.

Your concern is premised on the existence of some silent majority in support of you. There just might not be that many law graduates in this particular position. Does anyone know if the LPP requires vaccination?

[efrefgg]

17 minutes ago, castor said:

I didn't ask

Gettem, boys!

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by efrefgg
Removed irrelevant information.

[Thrive92]

12 minutes ago, castor said:

I get that people can critique it. But what's happening is everyone is coming down on this topic mercilessly, and potentially silencing or scaring any other students who wanted to actually respond to my initial question (which was addressed to unvaccinated or undisclosed articling students).

That's what usually happens whenever someone voices an opinion or a perspective that is widely seen as unpopular by the society -- name calling and other nasty shit (death threats, vandalism to one's home, etc). I'm not saying that everyone in this thread is going that far, but I know what you mean when you say that these reactions are preventing others who also have similar beliefs or viewpoints from speaking out.

This is unfortunately a collateral damage of free speech; you just have to accept that some may be more viciously opposed to your viewpoints than others, and may go that extra mile into ridiculing or harming you for it. Regardless, these extreme cases should not be the basis that you apply to everyone else who opposes your beliefs and opinions, because that simply isnt true. Filter out the ones that you know are just there to attack you directly, which i know is easier said than done, and instead take seriously those who properly exercise their right to free speech when they criticize your beliefs and opinions.

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Thrive92

[castor]

3 minutes ago, Apple said:

No I don't think that fits within the definition of force. You made choice, you took risk and you continue to make choices with full knowledge of the associated risks. That's on you. Is it crappy you have to assume these risks and impacts? Sure. But again, you're assuming them in consideration of not being vaccinated. 

Once again, your exaggeration isn't helpful to you. There's nothing else you can do? I can think of at least one thing you could do lol. And again, you're not entitled to a job or an articling position. You are entitled though to maintain your refusal to be vaccinated. That right is something I will stand behind you to maintain. On the topic of exaggeration, no one here is pressuring you socially to get vaccinated. In fact, I haven't seen anyone post anything remotely resembling social pressure. 

So get vaccinated or starve? Is that really what you're saying?

[Kimura]

1 minute ago, castor said:

So get vaccinated or starve? Is that really what you're saying?

Yes. You have a choice - we all have a choice. Choices have consequences. That's life. Or go pick up a job somewhere that doesn't impose a vaccine mandate. What else are you looking for?

Edited October 29, 2021 by Kimura

[ClarkGriswold]

1 minute ago, castor said:

So get vaccinated or starve? Is that really what you're saying?

You are a soon-to-be articling student? Nice work, this is logically airtight.

[Apple]

Just now, castor said:

So get vaccinated or starve? Is that really what you're saying?

Look I'm trying to be really gracious with you. Those binaries are not your only options. If you're legitimately in this position there's resources available to you. But, there are plenty of jobs out there that you could do that wouldn't require a vaccine. They may not be in law or something you enjoy but there is work available if you really are in such dire states. 

Again, I hear you and this is the sort of reason why I don't like the vaccination policies in force right now. 

[Yogurt Baron]

Okay, look, let me bring some kindness.

Clients are looking for certain traits in lawyers. Employers are looking for certain traits in employees. If you make a choice that signals that you don't have those traits and/or aren't willing to adhere to certain social norms, things are going to be harder for you. If there were, e.g., a nudist articling student who couldn't get a job because he refused to wear clothes in the office, no one would bat an eye at the notion that yes, of course that personal choice is going to make is harder for that person to get a job.

Nobody's entitled to a job, but what's more, nobody's entitled to practice a profession. All of these hoops you have to jump through - kindergarten, the LSAT, the good character requirement - are about screening for certain traits, certain abilities, and certain choices. If someone, during this process, makes choices that disqualify them, they don't get to practice the profession. That sucks for you. But you can always make a different choice.