Being an NCR Executive member, I have personally witnessed the use of demeaning language by Union staff and senior executives when referring to members who did not comply with Vaccination Mandates.

These members are often labeled by Union EROs and Executives as individuals "who refused to be vaccinated"—a phrase that mirrors language used towards alcoholics “who refuse to be” treated for alcoholism. 

The Union has been consistently avoiding acknowledging these members as individuals who stood up for their fundamental rights—rights such as bodily autonomy, medical privacy, informed consent, life security, and freedom of religion. These principles motivated their decision not to comply with the mandates, even when faced with severe financial penalties. Many believed the Employer's actions, including threats of indefinite loss of income for failure to disclose medical information or undergo a medical procedure, were unreasonable or potentially unlawful.

The mandates forced members into untenable positions, often requiring them to accept procedures without full transparency regarding their efficacy or potential side effects. This coercion eroded trust and placed undue pressure on individuals to sacrifice their principles.

Even more troubling is the observation that such degrading and dismissive rhetoric was not isolated to PIPSC. Many other unions echoed similar messaging, suggesting that these attitudes may have been coordinated and influenced by external entities, namely the Employer who imposed these mandates.

This page documents evidence supporting these claims, highlighting the need for accountability, transparency, and a renewed commitment to defending the rights and dignity of all members.

Examples:

•  An email communication to PSAC members aimed at distilling hatred towards members who protest against violation of their fundamental rights by the employer: Email, Analysis

• Related discussions: PSAC member case, PIPSC member case