One other thing to mention (not BC specifically) in a slightly different and yet related way to
this, are the actions been taken in some places to replace covid business plans, with what is called the new Communicable Disease Plan (or similar language) for business:
The WHO laid out a
template back in 2006 'Communicable disease surveillance and response systems - A guide to planning' with much of what can be seen today (i.e. focused on regulatory framework and strategic response), although given the time it was early-days framed around "EPIDEMIC AND PANDEMIC ALERT AND RESPONSE".
More recently, from
EHA Daily Advisor, one sees "
Could a Workplace Infectious Disease Standard Be on the Horizon?"
Herein (regarding OSHA), they are suggesting these things are covered in what is called a General Duty Clause, which is what they have used in some places for Covid to force draconian restrictions:
OSHA General Duty Clause Enforcement
As with earlier outbreaks, OSHA’s COVID-19
enforcement relies upon the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Under the General Duty Clause, §5(a)(1), employers must provide a work environment “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”
In some places, workplace legislation around this subject uses General Duty Clauses (Canada is similar, possibly the EU). So when Covid first entered the picture, what many did was not write specified legislation (which can take years to enact), they knitted Covid Health law into General Duty Clauses for workplaces, backstopped by Public Health orders (whatever that looks like where you live) and held it up as a measure for employers with all the implications as are known. Thus, they are using General Duty clauses as a catch all for 'whatever we say it means' in the most absurd legal stitching. And that is what they are doing right now, in some locations with Communicable Disease plans that look exactly like Covid Plans (with employers told to support vaccinations - obviously some are making it mandatory with their respective governments, like France, the guiding green light; more to follow).
Now there are some good occupational lawyers that could (and should) argue against the use of GD clauses, because if they are allowed to continue to abuse them, then why would there be a need to write any specific occupational laws when a GD clause covers it. Specific laws are based on Standards (CSA, ISO and many others) and proofs are needed to support them, and employer, unions and worker must agree to them. It seems to be at this point that the ptb want to shy away from specific laws (although Biden is pushing - see below) that again, might likely take years to enact. Don't know, will have to see.
Here is Biden working to '
Revive OSHA’s Stalled Infectious Disease Rulemaking (1),' bypassing the GD clause, although it could be used and would be used if he (or whoever is behind him) is successful:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration intends to offer a draft version of an infectious disease rule in fiscal year 2022 and seek public comment, according to an OSHA spending proposal released alongside the White House’s fiscal 2022 budget request last week. That means
a proposal could be released as soon as October, when fiscal 2022 begins.
If enacted, the rule
could require {
call it what it is, it would be require not could}
employers to protect workers from hazards such as tuberculosis, drug-resistant staph bacterial infections, and severe acute viral respiratory infections, according to OSHA’s summary of the rulemaking (
RIN:1218-AC46).
General Duty clause (GD) are suppose to be a hierarchy to backstop specific issues when employers run afoul of regulatory laws to strengthen a case e.g. an employer may have a tower crane failure, bridge demolition or construction problem, lead paint or asbestos exposure - a thousand things to measure as hazards that result in serious outcomes. Regulatory laws are not supposed to be arbitrarily drawn up by governments alone, they are usually done through extensive processes of consultation, as said, between employers, unions and workers based on occupational historical evidence of serious injury and death (not PCR tested cases that inflate numbers). With communicable diseases, federal, provincial, and state Health system generally operate separately from occupational law, so in roping the latter in, business is controlled as is the public that interacts, while employers hold the burden and pay the costs for this type of redirected health system forced upon them (i.e. governments don't pay, employers pay). Thus, GD clauses were never designed to be used as they are now - you can read just a few of the arguments from the link above to get a sense.
Biden's actions, if successful, might make GD clauses moot as they will have their specific regulatory law for workplaces - and employers will pay, workers will pay and the public will always pay - society pays. Meanwhile, the vaccine makers and their supporters are raking in billions from global taxpayers, billions in stock transactions, while being completely immune to their product failures having been sheltered from legal suit (not news here).
Anyway, all this looks to the trajectory of where things seem headed; control all employers through occupational policy and law (use politicians, media, legal council and social media to help achieve), thus better to control the public and shift costs. This has been since day one (IMO).
A footnote here might be that some 'big' multinational employers have known this and have early on taken the knee (in all things requested of them) and said yes we can, and we will lead by example. These players are also the ones being rewarded, while the backbone of society, small and moderate sized business (and their workers and families), takes the full brunt of it. Pick a country and it is the same.
www.bitchute.com
www.kleinezeitung.at
