I wonder what contractors will mandate for planters as far as vaccinations are concerned for the spring 2022 season?
I've heard that some are going to require that their planters all be vaccinated in order to work.
I've also heard that some will not require the jab.
Would a contractor requiring immunization from Covid attract more planters than they would repel?
I'm thinking I would rather be on a crew where I felt less likely to get infected.
Would some contractors split their crews based on vaccination level?
Vaccine Nation
Re: Vaccine Nation
First of all, Merry Christmas to you and all. Not a real xmas person myself, but hope everyone is well and warm.
I am hearing various approaches on this directly from the employers. Some have moved quickly and announced vaccine requirements early, in order to provide their (existing and prospective) staff the best chance to adjust or find work elsewhere. By now it is fairly clear, that employers can do this legally, so long as they do it the right way. Given that shared transport, accommodation, and often camps are part of the job, and employer can very readily justify a vaccine mandate should they be challenged on it.
A few employers are trying to find a middle ground where they will have separate systems or requirements for workers based on vax status, such as additional testing, additional isolation periods, and potential restrictions on facilities they share or contracts they attend. This is actually a fairly difficult approach to take as it requires additional resources committed to those few, and must be done in a consistent manner. Still, some are figuring this out.
Some others are taking a hands-off approach...at least for now. I don't think ANY of the employers really want to be implementing such demands, and those that require vax are doing based on the position that it is the most effective way to protect their employees. Still, some are avoiding this altogether (either openly or silently).
Among the considerations are restrictions from clients that only fully-vax contractor staff may enter client worksites .... not necessarily cut blocks, but any indoor site, such as camps, offices, mills, etc.... Rare but still an issue for supervisor staff. Another issue, and potentially a major economic consideration is that an unvaccinated workers MUST be isolated for 10 days if they have close contact exposure to verified COVID, whereas a fully vaccinated person does not. Now, with Omicron that could change, given that even fully vaccinated people are catching it easily (although experiencing far lower chances of hospitalization). I think there may be a few shoes to drop yet before spring rollout in terms of how vaccination status may dictate the steps that employers must take in managing their staff through exposure events.
I think the idea of splitting a crew on vaccination lines is dubious and risky. First off, it establishes potential differential treatment. Even if an employer does their best to even the ground, people will be looking hard at ground and earnings with an eye on who gets what. That's kind of superficial though compared to the other issue....and that is concentrating all your unvaccinated workers in one job is a inviting disaster, and likely would contravene WSBC requirements unless you are taking additional extra measures to protect those staff. For example, it is possible a larger company could concentrate all unvaccinated workers in one camp AND keep that camp entirely and totally isolated with a lead-up isolation period prior to the season. That could provide a way of operating with a greatly greatly reduced risk of that entire group being nuked by Omicron (or Sigma, or whatever could be next
There is a cost consideration here too, in that the employer may be taking on additional expenses by having non-vaccinated individuals. I want to clarify I am not voicing a pro-mandate position, only pointing out the pros and cons.
Additional considerations, that may be or could in the future affect planning are:
>>> Will natural immunity from infection be recognized as equivalent to vaccination, and if so, what proof should be asked?
>>> More of a societal level - if further and milder variants emerge with greater spread and lesser danger, will vaccination programs become less important or at least less relied upon?
>>> As new treatments (after infection) emerge, how will this affect decisions. Some new prospects are emerging, and I'm not talking horse dewormers
>>> What if more harmful variants emerge? Ugh
>>> What if clients REQUIRE vaccination? A few contracts already have this as a clause just to be on the job?
>>> What is jobs have significant heli demands? Currently you must be vacced to leave from an airport, and that is expected to be expanded to include charter flights too (i.e. landing to cutblock)
>>> What is say 50-60-70% of the industry requires vaccination? Where will that put the rest in terms of recruitment options, and will they in turn face elevated risk by becoming migration points for unvaccinated workers? If this happens, what are the health and cost risks of a major outbreak?
>>> What of key relationships with staff? It is one thing to turn away say 5-10% of your potential planting cohort. What if a company has to consider breaking ties with a key supervisor if they choose a mandate?
>>> On a planter level, I think a company will not necessarily "attract" more people with a vaccine mandate, as they represent the majority already. I also think that the unvaccinated are more likely to be outspoken and choose their destination based on vacc policy. Thus, I think there is a greater risk of attracting a certain set of people by not having a mandate.
My hope is that we will stress and freak out over this, engage in endless planning and discussion, and then everything will blow over just before spring and cases will fizzle out like a fart in the wind. It's okay to hope isn't it? However, in the meantime, there will still be lots of planning, and lots of preparation and budgeting by companies who are still obligated to have facilities in place and medical services arranged to support and isolate workers in the case of an outbreak. That without the financial support that was provided in past seasons to help them adapt.
I am hearing various approaches on this directly from the employers. Some have moved quickly and announced vaccine requirements early, in order to provide their (existing and prospective) staff the best chance to adjust or find work elsewhere. By now it is fairly clear, that employers can do this legally, so long as they do it the right way. Given that shared transport, accommodation, and often camps are part of the job, and employer can very readily justify a vaccine mandate should they be challenged on it.
A few employers are trying to find a middle ground where they will have separate systems or requirements for workers based on vax status, such as additional testing, additional isolation periods, and potential restrictions on facilities they share or contracts they attend. This is actually a fairly difficult approach to take as it requires additional resources committed to those few, and must be done in a consistent manner. Still, some are figuring this out.
Some others are taking a hands-off approach...at least for now. I don't think ANY of the employers really want to be implementing such demands, and those that require vax are doing based on the position that it is the most effective way to protect their employees. Still, some are avoiding this altogether (either openly or silently).
Among the considerations are restrictions from clients that only fully-vax contractor staff may enter client worksites .... not necessarily cut blocks, but any indoor site, such as camps, offices, mills, etc.... Rare but still an issue for supervisor staff. Another issue, and potentially a major economic consideration is that an unvaccinated workers MUST be isolated for 10 days if they have close contact exposure to verified COVID, whereas a fully vaccinated person does not. Now, with Omicron that could change, given that even fully vaccinated people are catching it easily (although experiencing far lower chances of hospitalization). I think there may be a few shoes to drop yet before spring rollout in terms of how vaccination status may dictate the steps that employers must take in managing their staff through exposure events.
I think the idea of splitting a crew on vaccination lines is dubious and risky. First off, it establishes potential differential treatment. Even if an employer does their best to even the ground, people will be looking hard at ground and earnings with an eye on who gets what. That's kind of superficial though compared to the other issue....and that is concentrating all your unvaccinated workers in one job is a inviting disaster, and likely would contravene WSBC requirements unless you are taking additional extra measures to protect those staff. For example, it is possible a larger company could concentrate all unvaccinated workers in one camp AND keep that camp entirely and totally isolated with a lead-up isolation period prior to the season. That could provide a way of operating with a greatly greatly reduced risk of that entire group being nuked by Omicron (or Sigma, or whatever could be next
There is a cost consideration here too, in that the employer may be taking on additional expenses by having non-vaccinated individuals. I want to clarify I am not voicing a pro-mandate position, only pointing out the pros and cons.
Additional considerations, that may be or could in the future affect planning are:
>>> Will natural immunity from infection be recognized as equivalent to vaccination, and if so, what proof should be asked?
>>> More of a societal level - if further and milder variants emerge with greater spread and lesser danger, will vaccination programs become less important or at least less relied upon?
>>> As new treatments (after infection) emerge, how will this affect decisions. Some new prospects are emerging, and I'm not talking horse dewormers
>>> What if more harmful variants emerge? Ugh
>>> What if clients REQUIRE vaccination? A few contracts already have this as a clause just to be on the job?
>>> What is jobs have significant heli demands? Currently you must be vacced to leave from an airport, and that is expected to be expanded to include charter flights too (i.e. landing to cutblock)
>>> What is say 50-60-70% of the industry requires vaccination? Where will that put the rest in terms of recruitment options, and will they in turn face elevated risk by becoming migration points for unvaccinated workers? If this happens, what are the health and cost risks of a major outbreak?
>>> What of key relationships with staff? It is one thing to turn away say 5-10% of your potential planting cohort. What if a company has to consider breaking ties with a key supervisor if they choose a mandate?
>>> On a planter level, I think a company will not necessarily "attract" more people with a vaccine mandate, as they represent the majority already. I also think that the unvaccinated are more likely to be outspoken and choose their destination based on vacc policy. Thus, I think there is a greater risk of attracting a certain set of people by not having a mandate.
My hope is that we will stress and freak out over this, engage in endless planning and discussion, and then everything will blow over just before spring and cases will fizzle out like a fart in the wind. It's okay to hope isn't it? However, in the meantime, there will still be lots of planning, and lots of preparation and budgeting by companies who are still obligated to have facilities in place and medical services arranged to support and isolate workers in the case of an outbreak. That without the financial support that was provided in past seasons to help them adapt.