I think you've effectively conceded the point here. Losing one's job is generally understood to be a catastrophic outcome for people in our society, especially when someone has been doing that job for a long time (and perhaps also doesn't have the educational level to get another job at anything close to the same compensation). It follows that "do X or you're fired" is a form of force or coercion. In fact that's so obvious in general that to narrow the definition of "force" to exclude it seems to be a case of special pleading. Threatening someone with a severe material consequence and then saying "it's not force because it's your choice" isn't an argument most people are going to accept, and I find it interesting that you're resorting to it, because it's surely not the strongest argument for your position.
> Losing one's job is generally understood to be a catastrophic outcome for people in our society, especially when someone has been doing that job for a long time (and perhaps also doesn't have the educational level to get another job at anything close to the same compensation)
I haven't seen any mass protests about at-will employment. Why not?
> It follows that "do X or you're fired" is a form of force or coercion.
But we've had these things around for decades. Vaccines have been required in other jobs, tests have been required for jobs, and yet no mass protests. Why not?
> Threatening someone with a severe material consequence and then saying "it's not force because it's your choice" isn't an argument most people are going to accept, and I find it interesting that you're resorting to it, because it's surely not the strongest argument for your position.
It actually is the strongest argument, because it's true. No one is being forced.
> I haven't seen any mass protests about at-will employment. Why not?
The cases are not comparable because if an at-will employee loses a job with one employer, the employee can often find a job with another employer.
> Vaccines have been required in other jobs, tests have been required for jobs, and yet no mass protests. Why not?
The cases are not comparable because, as far as I know, there is no testing option in the Canadian regulation. Also, as far as I know, there is no exception made to the 14-day quarantine period for those who cannot be vaccinated because of either a negative reaction to a prior vaccine or deeply held religious convictions.
> The cases are not comparable because if an at-will employee loses a job with one employer, the employee can often find a job with another employer.
And so can anyone fired for not begin vaccinated, since there are many more jobs that don't require a vaccine than those that do.
> The cases are not comparable because, as far as I know, there is no testing option in the Canadian regulation.
It depends which jobs we're talking about. Make so mistake, this "trucker" protest has been coopted by basically anyone mad about vaccines. So for instance Alberta healthcare workers do not have to get vaccinated, but are subject to periodic testing instead.
> And so can anyone fired for not begin vaccinated, since there are many more jobs that don't require a vaccine than those that do.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The jobs I was referring to are Canadian cross-border trucking jobs, all of which are affected. Affected truckers may be able to transition to other trade routes, but they may face hardships (e.g., increased time away from family, lower pay, expenses for required additional training, or opportunity losses relating to non-use of expertise gained in cross-border work).
