9 Comments

Thanks for sharing and reporting. However, this actually isn't a win because of the reasoning: "found that while the policy was reasonable at its inception and until mid-2022, it became unjustifiable as COVID-19 evolved."

These measure and demands were and are never reasonable - so this jargon here doesn't set a good precedent.

Expand full comment

The policy, of course, was never "reasonable".

Expand full comment

The cracks in the wall of "safe and effective" science are growing bigger all the time.

The damn will break one day.

Expand full comment

Now let’s get all those healthcare workers compensated as well…waiting for their unions to finally step up and represent them…

Expand full comment

Any doubt about a health care policy should be resolved before implementing a mandatory treatment. The doubt was there from the beginning and the consequences overstated to incite fear and obedience. Turns out that safe and effective was a lie. Never again.

Expand full comment

It does send a message..money talks. Freedom of Choice should be the law.

Expand full comment

Funny how only some unions stood up for their member while others just bent over for the employer.

Just for clarity…..these injections were never OSHA certified or tested, were not PPE and in fact had compounds in them (SM-102) that were labelled “not for human or veterinary use”…….this is like the employer telling workers that flip flops were now mandated in a construction zone, a complete safety violation, and what did the unions do to protect their members….SFA.

Expand full comment

The lack of protection was known all along, i.e. from Israeli data. Why shouldn't Purolator have been obliged to understand that? Why did their (and the courts') obligation to understand things only kick in in mid-2022?

Expand full comment

This is to protect the government.

Expand full comment