• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
704
Points
1,060
They have scrapped the 30 Nov deadline for CO's decisions on accommodations to indefinite.
It’s been taking longer than expected to get guidance on certain cases.
These measures are temporary so can't be released because of universality of service.
If it was such a write off, then why is the CDS making the deadline for attestation from 15 Nov to 18 Dec? And the deadline for approvals from 30 Nov to indefinite? Is it possible they are getting the people who didn't attest/ unvaccinated a way to stay in?
You are going to lose good people over this, and many people felt compelled and scared to comply.
There’s already a way to keep people, the beginning of the CDS directive from day one says that exemptions can be requested for urgent operational requirements.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,992
Points
1,060
There is amendment to CDS directive 002 on CAF COVID-19 vaccination – Implementation of Accommodations and Administrative Action - Canada.ca currently signed on DWAN and I assume be published publicly soon.

They extended deadline to 18th Dec for attestations, and you are able to submit accommodation requests for both religious and human rights (CHRA) (and medical if you have a basis to requests on that ground).

They have scrapped the 30 Nov deadline for CO's decisions on accommodations to indefinite.

Why they chose to make these changes? I gather that there is a significant amount of CAF members that have not complied with policy along with some requests for accommodations. What would be the impact of releasing all these members?

Let's say 1-2% all under this category, you can argue that it is non-significant sure. But where every facet of the CAF is short staffed, what does that equate to for Full timed manned for of 60k? You would feel the hurt especially if those people where in

Admin law requires certain processes to ensure procedural fairness. This is well-entrenched in Canadian law and the CAF abides by it; this includes those requesting accommodations. Right to know the decision, full disclosure on all info used to arrive at said decision, right to make representations, etc.

If the requests aren't able to be processed IAW with the initial timelines, the correct COA (for more than a single reason) is to adjust/amend the original direction.

This isn't new to the CAF; we do estimates and plans all the time on "what we know" and then change it later with "what we know now".
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,992
Points
1,060
This is strange. If people have not attested and not requested accommodation they should already be on remedial measures. Accomodation requests may be the hold up but it seems pretty cut and dry in most cases.

Our unit had about 2% in that category. All but one I believe were denied accommodation and it didn’t take that long.

This may be the exception to the rule though. But it could be that COs are seeking guidance on accommodations and that return might be taking more time.

I know there's some cases of people being away from the unit lines/no access to MonMass and attestations were unable to be completed. Medical leave comes to mind (at least 1 case that I know of personally).

Attestation refusals, refusal to vaccinate are treated, or should be treated, differently than accommodation requests that are processing; no admin action should take place, work considerations should be taken by CofC and regular, recorded testing is supposed to be happening. I've gone to pick up testing kits once to date for mbr's who are waiting accn decisions and I know those with pending decisions are facing no admin actions at this time.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,680
Points
1,060
These measures are temporary so can't be released because of universality of service.
If it was such a write off, then why is the CDS making the deadline for attestation from 15 Nov to 18 Dec?

Why would we keep members who made themselves non-deployable abroad for training or operations?

You are going to lose good people over this, and many people felt compelled and scared to comply.
Good people who won't be able to travel to train or do ops so they hang out in Canada and someone else picks up their slack. I'm not sold on them being worth keeping.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,992
Points
1,060
Why would we keep members who made themselves non-deployable abroad for training or operations?


Good people who won't be able to travel to train or do ops so they hang out in Canada and someone else picks up their slack. I'm not sold on them being worth keeping.

Question for discussion; the CAF accommodates some people medically for up to 3 years "if there is a need for them in their trade and they can be employed" (my words). I know a few flyers who went A7 PCAT but were retained for 3 years. No flying, no deploying...

So...what's the difference with this? Question came up in a convo at work...I didn't really have a good reply.

Where I am currently posted, some people are towards the end of the mil careers, have amassed some significant flying experience and are not likely going to deploy again. Decades of flying, fleet and corporate knowledge. Is the CAF really focusing on the steak, and not the peas, in these cases?

Curious as to what people think....
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,992
Points
1,060
That "unreasonable risk" existed, was accepted by the CAF since Day 1 of the pandemic until the Magic Day (when vaccination was considered mandatory). Example, I received my 2nd shot on 11 Jun. I may have worked with mbr's who did not get vaccinated, or tested 3 x a week, from that day until say, 15 Nov, or 30 Nov, with no extra precautions. Did the CAF put me at unreasonable risk by allowing unvaccinated people to share my workspace, because nothing has changed medically...just "policy" changes.

* just to be clear, I am not in support of those refusing to comply, but I am willing to look at all sides of the subj.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,680
Points
1,060
Question for discussion; the CAF accommodates some people medically for up to 3 years "if there is a need for them in their trade and they can be employed" (my words). I know a few flyers who went A7 PCAT but were retained for 3 years. No flying, no deploying...

So...what's the difference with this? Question came up in a convo at work...I didn't really have a good reply.
That sounds like a period of retention for members who are given a release message but can be advantageously employed within their trade. At any time the unit CO can say it's not working out and the member has 6 months to release. Having their POR canceled to make room for someone else who can deploy happens as well.

The difference I'd say is that medical releases are beyond a members control where as refusing a vaccination isn't. I see the fine line you're talking about but you could also go the other way. If a member refuses to deploy because they might die, or even do a task that's dangerous, why not still keep them on for another 3 years because we're hurting for numbers?
 
Reaction score
23
Points
180
Question for discussion; the CAF accommodates some people medically for up to 3 years "if there is a need for them in their trade and they can be employed" (my words). I know a few flyers who went A7 PCAT but were retained for 3 years. No flying, no deploying...

So...what's the difference with this? Question came up in a convo at work...I didn't really have a good reply.

Where I am currently posted, some people are towards the end of the mil careers, have amassed some significant flying experience and are not likely going to deploy again. Decades of flying, fleet and corporate knowledge. Is the CAF really focusing on the steak, and not the peas, in these cases?

Curious as to what people think....
This is a temporary measure. You could make the same case for pregnancy "Good people who won't be able to travel to train or do ops so they hang out in Canada and someone else picks up their slack. I'm not sold on them being worth keeping".

What is the unreasonable risk if all accommodated members are testing 3 times a week? The risk is mitigated at that point, and they aren't allowed to attend non-work events right now.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,992
Points
1,060
The difference I'd say is that medical releases are beyond a members control where as refusing a vaccination isn't.

That's the big piece of the puzzle, isn't it?

I see the fine line you're talking about but you could also go the other way. If a member refuses to deploy because they might die, or even do a task that's dangerous, why not still keep them on for another 3 years because we're hurting for numbers?

Tracking...'starting down the slippery slope'...
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,992
Points
1,060
This is a temporary measure. You could make the same case for pregnancy "Good people who won't be able to travel to train or do ops so they hang out in Canada and someone else picks up their slack. I'm not sold on them being worth keeping".

What is the unreasonable risk if all accommodated members are testing 3 times a week? The risk is mitigated at that point, and they aren't allowed to attend non-work events right now.

As it was said at a few higher level meeting I've been at recently; "the unvaccinated mbr is the one actually at risk, not the vaccinated ones".

So the risk is medical, or "obedience"?
 
Reaction score
23
Points
180
As it was said at a few higher level meeting I've been at recently; "the unvaccinated mbr is the one actually at risk, not the vaccinated ones".

So the risk is medical, or "obedience"?
It's about obedience.
Look at the GoC policy, why do workers who work full time at home have to be vaccinated to work at home?
It is no longer about health and safety at that point, it's driving a point home. If they can get enough people to comply, then there is no neeed to comprimise.

Quebec nurses currently employed in what most people would say are a "high-risk" environment do not have to be vaccinated while the code monkey at home has to be. Enough non-compliance affecting service levels reason for compromise.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
704
Points
1,060
As it was said at a few higher level meeting I've been at recently; "the unvaccinated mbr is the one actually at risk, not the vaccinated ones".

So the risk is medical, or "obedience"?
I’m aware of someone who’s received 3 vaccinations but developed no anti-bodies. So they’re at greater risk due to the choices of others. Some of those others have legitimate reasons why they can’t be vaccinated and that’s fair, but some of them just read too much crap on Facebook.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
832
Points
1,010
This is a temporary measure. You could make the same case for pregnancy "Good people who won't be able to travel to train or do ops so they hang out in Canada and someone else picks up their slack. I'm not sold on them being worth keeping".

What is the unreasonable risk if all accommodated members are testing 3 times a week? The risk is mitigated at that point, and they aren't allowed to attend non-work events right now.
We’re so far down this rabbit hole that we don‘t think the vaccine sufficiently protects us and natural immunity is a myth.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
671
Points
1,260
If the federal public service and municipal transit systems can impose a vaccine standard but the CAF cannot, then we may as well stop pretending that the words "discipline" and "profession" apply to the CAF.

The Ontario Supreme Court denied the union's request for an injunction back on Nov. 20.


Those not fully vacinated have been on unpaid suspension since Nov. 20, and will be fired on 31 Dec.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
832
Points
1,010
I’m aware of someone who’s received 3 vaccinations but developed no anti-bodies. So they’re at greater risk due to the choices of others. Some of those others have legitimate reasons why they can’t be vaccinated and that’s fair, but some of them just read too much crap on Facebook.
That person should take precautions due to their weakened state. Everyone else should be left alone.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,992
Points
1,060
I’m aware of someone who’s received 3 vaccinations but developed no anti-bodies. So they’re at greater risk due to the choices of others. Some of those others have legitimate reasons why they can’t be vaccinated and that’s fair, but some of them just read too much crap on Facebook.

Just curious...how do they know they did not develop them? Genuinely curious...I've never heard of this before.
 
Top