Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'd demand some latin blood. My temperament is far too calm...I wanna live a little and gesticulate more!

Gotta have some of that John Holmes blood....cuz, you know.

[para transit fellow]

statement from Canadian Blood Services
https://www.blood.ca/en/covid19/vacc...blood-donation

"With COVID-19 vaccines, the mRNA or viral-vector vaccine is broken down quickly once it enters the body’s cells and there is no evidence that transfused blood collected from donors who were previously vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine poses any harm to patients. Further, blood donated by individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccine is not associated with a risk to a transfusion recipient of COVID-19 infection, nor will it protect a transfusion recipient from COVID-19 infection."

[14Roman14]

Originally Posted by Sliver

There was a period during the pandemic where that 'different medical decision' was putting lives, livelihoods and our healthcare system at risk.

How was someone who made a different medical decision who did not have COVID more risky to be beside in a restaurant or a hockey game than someone who may or may not have showed symptoms but had a card saying they were accepted in society? It was common knowledge to stay home when showing any symptoms regardless. However I didn’t once hear of anyone being kicked out of a restaurant or sporting event for sneezing, coughing, or blowing their nose inside. This may have made sense if that card proved that you couldn’t get, or pass the virus. Unfortunately that proved not to be true. I get that everyone feels they made the correct choice. I’m very glad that for the most part things are back to normal and most are accepting of everyone now that politicians and media aren’t telling you to be intolerant of others. So far I haven’t heard the premier say that she wants to take anybody’s rights, she wants to make sure everyone always has equal rights as they should. Agree or disagree, but people should not be discriminated against for any reason. As another poster said earlier, most are over it, and once this initial shock wears off, I hope it continues to just be normal, which it will if folks stop fighting for their “right” to discriminate. The vax didn’t stop COVID in its tracks, the non vax didn’t all drop dead or cause everyone around them to drop dead. Both sides are still in society and it would be great if there is never such a divide in our world again where some members of society were put on a pedestal and others were stomped on like sewer rats. I think if we can all be respectful and understanding of both sides it can go a long ways. I personally think that is what the premier is asking for, and if you are too intolerant to do that, then maybe it’s mirror time.

[Delgar]

I haven't donated since Covid hit, maybe I should go back (as O-, they always like seeing that). Do they ask if you're vaxxed (I'm double vaxxed, thinking about getting a third shot).

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

How was someone who made a different medical decision who did not have COVID more risky to be beside in a restaurant or a hockey game than someone who may or may not have showed symptoms but had a card saying they were accepted in society? It was common knowledge to stay home when showing any symptoms regardless. However I didn’t once hear of anyone being kicked out of a restaurant or sporting event for sneezing, coughing, or blowing their nose inside. This may have made sense if that card proved that you couldn’t get, or pass the virus. Unfortunately that proved not to be true. I get that everyone feels they made the correct choice. I’m very glad that for the most part things are back to normal and most are accepting of everyone now that politicians and media aren’t telling you to be intolerant of others. So far I haven’t heard the premier say that she wants to take anybody’s rights, she wants to make sure everyone always has equal rights as they should. Agree or disagree, but people should not be discriminated against for any reason. As another poster said earlier, most are over it, and once this initial shock wears off, I hope it continues to just be normal, which it will if folks stop fighting for their “right” to discriminate. The vax didn’t stop COVID in its tracks, the non vax didn’t all drop dead or cause everyone around them to drop dead. Both sides are still in society and it would be great if there is never such a divide in our world again where some members of society were put on a pedestal and others were stomped on like sewer rats. I think if we can all be respectful and understanding of both sides it can go a long ways. I personally think that is what the premier is asking for, and if you are too intolerant to do that, then maybe it’s mirror time.

you may think that's what she's asking for, but you're likely thinking wrong.
She's pandering to the anti-science base that's she's a part of, and nothing else.
If her intent was to be respectful and understanding she'd never have said the unvaxxed were the most discriminated people she's seen in her life.

And yes to your comment., I am too intolerant to be respectful and understanding of the freedom convoy, anti vax, ###### trudeau demographic. It wasn't the vaxed that was spewing hateful rhetoric at our healthcare workers and blocking access to hospitals. It wasn't "left wing loonies" causing all the trouble with the convoy situation, amongst the many examples.

Since you brought up rats, I agree that those people are as Freddy Mercury sang about in Death on Two Legs-
"Insane, should be put inside,
you're a sewer rat decaying in a cesspool of pride"

Remember the old saying about the right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins? To steal a response from the Dallas Morning News, your side now believes it's your right to swing your arms and do anything else you want, regardless of anyone else.

Sorry dude, liberty has it's responsibilities.
in my shallowly educated way, I'll give the last word to John Stuart Mill.

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Sure they are. Donation criteria hasn't changed. Blood isn't separated vax and unvax.

Dr Cooper is describing a request which is a first for her, but there no way that request can be done anyways.

Seriously, people might not want to think too hard about where the blood has been or what might be ‘in it’.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

How was someone who made a different medical decision who did not have COVID more risky to be beside in a restaurant or a hockey game than someone who may or may not have showed symptoms but had a card saying they were accepted in society? It was common knowledge to stay home when showing any symptoms regardless. However I didn’t once hear of anyone being kicked out of a restaurant or sporting event for sneezing, coughing, or blowing their nose inside. This may have made sense if that card proved that you couldn’t get, or pass the virus. Unfortunately that proved not to be true. I get that everyone feels they made the correct choice. I’m very glad that for the most part things are back to normal and most are accepting of everyone now that politicians and media aren’t telling you to be intolerant of others. So far I haven’t heard the premier say that she wants to take anybody’s rights, she wants to make sure everyone always has equal rights as they should. Agree or disagree, but people should not be discriminated against for any reason. As another poster said earlier, most are over it, and once this initial shock wears off, I hope it continues to just be normal, which it will if folks stop fighting for their “right” to discriminate. The vax didn’t stop COVID in its tracks, the non vax didn’t all drop dead or cause everyone around them to drop dead. Both sides are still in society and it would be great if there is never such a divide in our world again where some members of society were put on a pedestal and others were stomped on like sewer rats. I think if we can all be respectful and understanding of both sides it can go a long ways. I personally think that is what the premier is asking for, and if you are too intolerant to do that, then maybe it’s mirror time.

Last year you said you were unvaccinated. Still the case?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

How was someone who made a different medical decision who did not have COVID more risky to be beside in a restaurant or a hockey game than someone who may or may not have showed symptoms but had a card saying they were accepted in society? It was common knowledge to stay home when showing any symptoms regardless. However I didn’t once hear of anyone being kicked out of a restaurant or sporting event for sneezing, coughing, or blowing their nose inside. This may have made sense if that card proved that you couldn’t get, or pass the virus. Unfortunately that proved not to be true. I get that everyone feels they made the correct choice. I’m very glad that for the most part things are back to normal and most are accepting of everyone now that politicians and media aren’t telling you to be intolerant of others. So far I haven’t heard the premier say that she wants to take anybody’s rights, she wants to make sure everyone always has equal rights as they should. Agree or disagree, but people should not be discriminated against for any reason. As another poster said earlier, most are over it, and once this initial shock wears off, I hope it continues to just be normal, which it will if folks stop fighting for their “right” to discriminate. The vax didn’t stop COVID in its tracks, the non vax didn’t all drop dead or cause everyone around them to drop dead. Both sides are still in society and it would be great if there is never such a divide in our world again where some members of society were put on a pedestal and others were stomped on like sewer rats. I think if we can all be respectful and understanding of both sides it can go a long ways. I personally think that is what the premier is asking for, and if you are too intolerant to do that, then maybe it’s mirror time.

This is a ridiculous sentence. People who chose not to get vaccinated did so for selfish reasons. They contributed to the overwhelming of our medical system, for which we are still suffering. This isn't just me saying things, it's a fact. If people can't do the bare minimum required to participate in society, it should not be a stretch to exclude them from large gatherings that contributed to the extreme problems we faced, like overrun hospitals, schools shut down due to lack of staffing, businesses unable to open etc.

This revisionist garbage you and others peddle is nonsense, and painting antivaxers as some noble class of people worthy of endless selfishness while others suffer is unacceptable. Knock it off. You want to live in society? Do what needs to be done for others. "Both sides" ...come on.

[Monahammer]

Roman14 is just Theo Fleury's actual account.

PS anyone peeked at that lunatic's twitter over the last few days? Mother of god. He's about to name himself King of Canada in the vein of Dildo.

[Monahammer]

PS Can we stomp on that segment of society now in order to fulfill the claims they are making that we did? If so, I will go buy some new stomping boots.

[PepsiFree]

Being unvaccinated also quickly became a political statement (starting as an ideological decision instead of a medical decision helped that along). Anti-vaxxers made life hell for others at every opportunity, trashing and blocking businesses, blocking hospital access, weekly anger-filled marches, constant violent and profanity laced confrontations (including with doctors and nurses, even those caring for them or their loved ones). And much of this wasn’t at the height of the pandemic, it was after restrictions had been winding or had already winded down.

These aren’t the people that get to turn around and demand respect and understanding, wax poetic about intolerance, or pretend they were victimized in any way. They made a choice and made it political, and then made it everyone else’s problem.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Being unvaccinated also quickly became a political statement (starting as an ideological decision instead of a medical decision helped that along). Anti-vaxxers made life hell for others at every opportunity, trashing and blocking businesses, blocking hospital access, weekly anger-filled marches, constant violent and profanity laced confrontations (including with doctors and nurses, even those caring for them or their loved ones). And much of this wasn’t at the height of the pandemic, it was after restrictions had been winding or had already winded down.

These aren’t the people that get to turn around and demand respect and understanding, wax poetic about intolerance, or pretend they were victimized in any way. They made a choice and made it political, and then made it everyone else’s problem.

The same people that now call themselves "Pure Blood"

[Ozy_Flame]

Unvaccinated Albertans did no favors to the rest of Albertans during the pandemic by disproportionally clogging the healthcare system. In fact they almost near choked the system into submission, and likely prevented life-saving services by consuming precious healthcare resources to cater to their illnesses over those of other Albertans who could have used medical attention for COVID and other ailments. Not to mention they obstructed and impacted private businesses, residents, and caused general chaos on moralistic grounds.

Toxic individualism was crippling our public institutions at a time when the community needed to rally for each other the most, in what is no doubt now a generational calamity.

And all the while healthcare workers getting spat on, insulted, acosted, and marginalized for following the science and doing their jobs. I know because I saw it first hand.

Anti-vaxxers cost Albertans lives, pain, frustration, and millions in lost taxpayer dollars. And it didn't have to be that way.

This is the clear, immutable fact that is glaringly obvious over the last 2.5 years.

That 'she' wants to politicize and re-litigate this topic again is unspeakably irresponsible.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

How was someone who made a different medical decision who did not have COVID more risky to be beside in a restaurant or a hockey game than someone who may or may not have showed symptoms but had a card saying they were accepted in society? It was common knowledge to stay home when showing any symptoms regardless. However I didn’t once hear of anyone being kicked out of a restaurant or sporting event for sneezing, coughing, or blowing their nose inside. This may have made sense if that card proved that you couldn’t get, or pass the virus. Unfortunately that proved not to be true. I get that everyone feels they made the correct choice. I’m very glad that for the most part things are back to normal and most are accepting of everyone now that politicians and media aren’t telling you to be intolerant of others. So far I haven’t heard the premier say that she wants to take anybody’s rights, she wants to make sure everyone always has equal rights as they should. Agree or disagree, but people should not be discriminated against for any reason. As another poster said earlier, most are over it, and once this initial shock wears off, I hope it continues to just be normal, which it will if folks stop fighting for their “right” to discriminate. The vax didn’t stop COVID in its tracks, the non vax didn’t all drop dead or cause everyone around them to drop dead. Both sides are still in society and it would be great if there is never such a divide in our world again where some members of society were put on a pedestal and others were stomped on like sewer rats. I think if we can all be respectful and understanding of both sides it can go a long ways. I personally think that is what the premier is asking for, and if you are too intolerant to do that, then maybe it’s mirror time.

Probably the thing that angered me most about the pandemic was people and their misunderstanding of rights. Being asked to wear a mask is not an infringement of rights, yet people claimed it to be so. Being required to get vaxxed for certain things in society is not an infringement of rights. I could see how some think it should be, but its not. Regardless we discriminate against people in society all the time in the name of safety. "You need to be this tall to ride this ride", or "you need to be this old to consume alcohol/pot". Are these examples of discrimination?

A functioning society has always been about a balance of individual rights and collective safety. The pandemic pushed that to the limits but also showed us who in our society is more focused on themselves and less on the collective well being of our society as a whole. It also showed us, that there are many people in our society who talk about rights, but have ZERO understanding of what actually constitutes a right.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The same people that now call themselves "Pure Blood"

Yeah, you can tell just how far removed they are from reality based on the blood thing.

“Which bag of blood would you choose?” lol, nobody with half a brain thinks that is a serious question worth asking. You trust the medical professionals to give you the blood you need. Just like trusting the medical professionals to give you the vaccinations you need. But I’m sure these people have to see what their favourite politician or political pundit says about the blood before they go ahead and make a decision.

Lol, imagine being in a major car accident and using your precious few moments of awareness before a blood transfusion to demand to inspect the bag and ensure the blood is up to your standards. These people are just begging Darwinism to kill them off. I say let it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, you can tell just how far removed they are from reality based on the blood thing.

“Which bag of blood would you choose?” lol, nobody with half a brain thinks that is a serious question worth asking. You trust the medical professionals to give you the blood you need. Just like trusting the medical professionals to give you the vaccinations you need. But I’m sure these people have to see what their favourite politician or political pundit says about the blood before they go ahead and make a decision.

Lol, imagine being in a major car accident and using your precious few moments of awareness before a blood transfusion to demand to inspect the bag and ensure the blood is up to your standards. These people are just begging Darwinism to kill them off. I say let it.

They also waste valuable time(and cost us all money) of medical professionals who have to sit there and explain to them, restraining themselves from rolling their eyes, how stupid they are.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I haven't donated since Covid hit, maybe I should go back (as O-, they always like seeing that). Do they ask if you're vaxxed (I'm double vaxxed, thinking about getting a third shot).

The questionnaire hasn't changed much, it's just a lot faster because you do it at home.


They just ask if you have had any vaccinations recently and if you say Yes, they just ask for what. Usually it would be flu, covid etc.


They're just making sure you didn't suddenly need the rabbies vaccine or step on a rusty nail last week.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

How was someone who made a different medical decision who did not have COVID more risky to be beside in a restaurant or a hockey game than someone who may or may not have showed symptoms but had a card saying they were accepted in society? It was common knowledge to stay home when showing any symptoms regardless. However I didn’t once hear of anyone being kicked out of a restaurant or sporting event for sneezing, coughing, or blowing their nose inside. This may have made sense if that card proved that you couldn’t get, or pass the virus. Unfortunately that proved not to be true. I get that everyone feels they made the correct choice. I’m very glad that for the most part things are back to normal and most are accepting of everyone now that politicians and media aren’t telling you to be intolerant of others. So far I haven’t heard the premier say that she wants to take anybody’s rights, she wants to make sure everyone always has equal rights as they should. Agree or disagree, but people should not be discriminated against for any reason. As another poster said earlier, most are over it, and once this initial shock wears off, I hope it continues to just be normal, which it will if folks stop fighting for their “right” to discriminate. The vax didn’t stop COVID in its tracks, the non vax didn’t all drop dead or cause everyone around them to drop dead. Both sides are still in society and it would be great if there is never such a divide in our world again where some members of society were put on a pedestal and others were stomped on like sewer rats. I think if we can all be respectful and understanding of both sides it can go a long ways. I personally think that is what the premier is asking for, and if you are too intolerant to do that, then maybe it’s mirror time.

There were minor mandates for a brief period of time, some places had more, some had less. It's over now, move on. If you have no issue with a Premier saying that people who couldn't go to chili's for a beer for a couple months because of a choice they made are more discriminated against than any other group you're telling on yourself. Stop with the mental gymnastics to justify an absolutely ridiculous ignorant comment that can't be defended. Sometimes your favourite politician is just wrong, be an adult and accept it.


"I think if we can all be respectful and understanding of both sides it can go a long ways." - Do you think you're being respectful and understanding? Your revisionist history and little passive aggressive comments aren't respectful or understanding.


It was common knowledge to stay home when showing any symptoms regardless. - Except many on the unvaxxed side didn't believe in this at all, because it's all a hoax and we were being lied to.. Remember? My 70 year old father literally had to quit his job because people kept showing up to work sick. He had no choice, both he and my mother have heart conditions. But yes, tell me how oppressed the unvaxxed were.


"Unfortunately that proved not to be true" - I don't believe this is correct. We were all told from the start that you would still be able to get covid, but that it would very likely reduce transmission, and it did, and STILL does. It wanes faster now so it's not particularly useful for preventing transmission at this point. It did work well during the first few waves. Stop revising history if you want to have an honest discussion.

"most are accepting of everyone now that politicians and media aren’t telling you to be intolerant of others." - Obviously this isn't true since I'm still hearing non stop whining about freedom and oppression.

"The vax didn’t stop COVID in its tracks, the non vax didn’t all drop dead or cause everyone around them to drop dead." - They put enormous pressure on our healthcare system, to near collapse. They weren't the only part of that, but they were proportionally the largest covid group. Now we have more mild strains, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE TOLD WOULD HAPPEN. Now all I hear is how it's always been mild, and we were lied to. We weren't. Stop revising history.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Egregious was a poor word choice. Remedial certification in Alberta was not used much (once?) - I meant to say that it was used in the most egregious of circumstances i.e. rarely. It is still possible to use remdial certification in Alberta, but only where no other remedy is sufficient. I think that change covers the basis of having the ALRB jump to remedial certification too quickly. It should be used as a last resort.

So what you’re saying is that all indications suggest that the legislation was working as intended and remedial certification was rarely used as remedy but that the law needed to be changed because the board was jumping to use it too quickly in the single case where it was awarded? Seems like a stretch but you’re entitled to your opinion.

I would suggest that the more likely scenario is that the previous legislation was effective at keeping employers from interfering in Union organizing campaigns so businesses lobbied the UCP to have it reworded to make it as difficult as possible for a remedial certification to be awarded so that employers could go back to more easily interfering in campaigns.

Adding the language that it can only be awarded when no other remedies are possible all but makes it impossible to be awarded a remedial certification because a company can easily argue for another remedy, like a vote, where they can better increase their chances to keep the Union out by continuing to intimidate their employees instead of awarding the certification and letting the employees decide whether or not they want to decertify, without intimidation from their employer.

- im not talking about baiting - that was your word. I also didnt mention illegal efforts to get cards. again, you are taking my comments to the extreme.

Yeah, no. I was actually quoting you directly:

Originally Posted by Cappy

The unfair practices = remedial certification was certainly rare (and determined by the ALRB as an egregious stick), but again there should still be a vote. Also, it really turned some certification drives into a question of baiting a company into doing/saying the wrong thing while threatening the push for remedial legislation.

Oh well.

I know a few occasions where union recruiters would meet up with workers at the bar and speak to everyone etc. In those circumstances, some people noted there was social pressure. I also know other people who got a card just to stop someone at work from hounding them.

Let’s assume this actually happened, what would prevent those employees from applying for a decertification vote if the majority of them were coerced?

Again, no where did i say force.

Then if you feel signing a card doesn’t show the true intentions of the employee but they also aren’t being forced to sign care, I’m not sure what your concern is with allowing employees to apply for a decertification vote. Your entire position comes off as predicated on ensuring that employers be allowed to influence their employees because you don’t offer any solutions to address that issue and instead are arguing that it makes more sense to do away with the laws that actually help to avoid that.

Weird tone, but ok.

You’re pretty good, most people have a hard time determining tone through text.

Decertification is certainly possible, but how often does it happen?

Far more often than remedial certifications are awarded.

A union can use its experience and backing to certify. That's great! nothing wrong with that. How does Joe Ironworker go about decertifying? does he know? does he hire a lawyer to do it? who is paying?

Joe would contact the ALRB or visit their website to read the steps. Employees form independent associations all the time, if they can figure that out there’s no reason to believe employees couldn’t figure out how to decertify since the application processes are identical. Do they have to hire a lawyer? No, but if they need assistance I believe the UCP set up a program to help people get legal assistance in such cases, can’t remember all the details but worse case scenario they can also go to a number of anti-union organizations whom I’m not going to give any free advertising to by naming.

Im not arguing that decertification is something that a mjority of unionized workers want, but its not as easy for the average worker.

Again, it’s literally the same process as applying for certification of an independent association, which people are clearly able to do.

In my overall opinion on this topic, i believe that unionization should always go to a secret ballot. It's a big decision for an employee to make, and they should make that choice on their own in private.

They can still go to a vote, you’re just clearly more concerned with providing the employer the ability to interfere with their employees decision. You’re entitled to your opinion even if I think it’s out to lunch, to put it politely.

I don't think i was. I noted that remedial certification could have been abused, but the ALRB rarely used it. I did not assert that i expected it to be abused at all.

You literally said it could have been abused, yet so far you refuse to give any real or even hypothetical scenario where or how it could. Unions can’t force employers to commit unfair labour practices, so how could it possibly be abused? Pretty straightforward.

I get it, Iggy. This is a touchy subject for you and there are more than a few occasions in your page long rebuttal to show that you are all knowing on this front.

A person doesn’t have to be all knowing to pick apart the holes in your cookie cutter pro-business arguments. Having an anti worker government in power should be a touchy subject for any employee in this province. The previous legislation left the decision to unionize to employees but made it less likely for them to have to deal with interference from their employer, I don’t see an issue with that.

That's fine. You took a small piece of my Pro-NDP post from a centrist and turned it into a defence of the two areas i flippantly said went too far.

Fortunately I don’t buy into the political “centrist”, “left” or “right” nonsense so how ever you choose to politically identify is of no concern to me, however your opposition to what I consider to be sensible legislation is IMO also nonsense.

I guess I’m just a “no nonsense” kind of person.

Im sure this post won't end and i can expect another long post on this matter; but i'm done with this topic. I didnt bring it up outside of a flippant comment and my response was basically because I thought you were curious. I did not expect to get into a labour law debate in the middle of discussion about Danielle Smith disastrous first day.

That’s fine.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

you may think that's what she's asking for, but you're likely thinking wrong.
She's pandering to the anti-science base that's she's a part of, and nothing else.
If her intent was to be respectful and understanding she'd never have said the unvaxxed were the most discriminated people she's seen in her life.

And yes to your comment., I am too intolerant to be respectful and understanding of the freedom convoy, anti vax, ###### trudeau demographic. It wasn't the vaxed that was spewing hateful rhetoric at our healthcare workers and blocking access to hospitals. It wasn't "left wing loonies" causing all the trouble with the convoy situation, amongst the many examples.

Since you brought up rats, I agree that those people are as Freddy Mercury sang about in Death on Two Legs-
"Insane, should be put inside,
you're a sewer rat decaying in a cesspool of pride"

Remember the old saying about the right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins? To steal a response from the Dallas Morning News, your side now believes it's your right to swing your arms and do anything else you want, regardless of anyone else.

Sorry dude, liberty has it's responsibilities.
in my shallowly educated way, I'll give the last word to John Stuart Mill.

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

You may think that's what she's asking for, but you're likely thinking wrong.