OPPOSE-- Part II--The Suspected Covid Provisions Are Unworkable And Harm Employees and Employers
The Board has stated that a person "suspected" of COVID is someone who has one of a long list of potential symptoms-- including a cough, a sneeze, a headache, fatigue. Such a symptom the poses a burden on someone-- it is unclear whether it is the employer, employee or doctor-- to show that the symptoms are not COVID by some standard. Proving a negative is not possible. Even people without symptoms cannot prove they do not have COVID at any point in time. This scheme where employees must leave a work site because of symptom like a cough would wreak havoc if it was taken seriously. Given that this rule has been in place for two months are there any examples of an employer taking this scheme seriously? We deprive people of work in all settings due to one of these symptoms. Nor is every work situation the same. Some sites are outside. Others may not face customers. For someone who is not shown to have COVID but simply has the symptoms a cold, this massive intrusion into the workplace is unwarranted and unfair. The return to work criteria are equally oppressive. The Board will force employees who need the work to lose it. Some of the employees may be temporary or contract and there may be no further opportunities for such employees.
Everyone is not a government worker who is working remotely from home. Some people have other jobs. We have to care about their employment and their employer. A rule that does not work is not supported and of no help to anyone.