The vaccine mandate took me by surprise. It was surprising to me because the Prime Minister repeatedly said that he was not going to adopt “draconian Chinese methods” of dealing with the pandemic. That was his response when the NDP suggested closing the country’s main airport because the virus was spreading rapidly around the world. “They want me to lock down the country, lock it down tight like a drum”. Though he rejected this advice, airlines grounded their flights and the airport closed anyway. Thereafter, when the vaccines became available, Dr. Gonsalves initially advocated using moral suasion over force. Who knew then, that he would eventually impose measures on the people far more draconian than the NDP could recommend or the people imagine?
An absurd law.
The law reminded me of the childhood phrase – who beg na get and who na beg na want. It was our childhood way of saying no – even before anyone asked. Instead of simply saying no, we created a dilemma in the mind of anyone who desired a piece of our snack. If I beg, I won’t get but not asking means I don’t want. What am I to do?
Didn’t take the vaccine? Don’t come to work.
If you don’t come to work, you are absent.
If you come to work without taking the vaccine – you are still absent.
Absent for too long? You’ve abandoned your job.
Tested negative for COVID? Still absent…
Tried teaching online? You were locked out of the online portal.
But the vaccinated are still testing positive? The law deemed that okay.
You have underlying conditions, can you get a medical exemption? Yes, but only if their Doctors exempt you. Here’s a list of Doctors who will not exempt you. You are not free to consult with your primary health care provider for the purpose of getting an exemption.
What about your deeply held religious beliefs? Even if you get a valid exemption, unless they have somewhere else to put you – you are no longer exempted and deemed absent.
Once you’re deemed to have abandoned your job, you cannot be reinstated or compensated.
There’s also no acknowledgement of or compensation for vaccine injury, severe adverse effects or even death.
I had to conclude that the legal consultants when this law was being drafted were Anansi and Puss in Boots. Only the morally ambiguous could conceive this law. Real pappyshow thing.
Here is what hurt me the most about this law. La Soufriere erupted in April 2021 and schools were used as shelters. There is a certain principal whose name I withhold who I personally observed working day and night managing a certain shelter. This particular shelter housed some of the most vulnerable from the red zone and I imagine that only made it all the more demanding. I often wondered how this role affected her marriage, her health and her general wellbeing. Yet, she performed her role dutifully, without murmuring or complaint for about six consecutive months. Principals like her are the unsung heroes of our country. While politicians take all the credit as the ones with “experience” – they are not the ones who are actually doing the heavy lifting to make this country work. Instead of receiving recognition and gratitude, it broke my heart that the only thanks she ever received was a termination letter for her Christmas. I have not seen much of that Principal since then; I have no idea where she is or what she is currently doing. All I know is that her face comes to my mind every time I address my mind to this subject. Her sacrifice was so great that I even asked my mother if she was sure she wanted to be a Principal. That lady is not my relative, she is not my friend and I doubt she even knows how much I was admiring her during her months of relentless service. My heart continues to grieve to this day.
For those who say the Government had no choice but to impose the mandate, I wish to highlight paragraphs 166-170 of Justice of Appeal Wallbank’s (Ag.) dissenting judgment:
Neither necessary nor desirable.
By 14th October 2021 (i.e. 5 days before the vaccine mandate was imposed on 19th October 2021), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Government’s figures placed in evidence before the Court show that there had been 4,217 reported cases of infection with COVID-19 representing approximately 3.83% of the population of 109,999, as estimated by the Government. Conversely, 96.17% of the population had reportedly not become infected with COVID-19 yet.
The Government’s figures showed that by 14th October 2021, there had been 42 deaths ‘from’ COVID-19, representing a mortality rate of approximately 0.04% of the population and approximately 0.99% of the reported infections with COVID-19.
The regional position, some 10 days earlier, as reported in a Situation Report of the Caribbean Public Health Agency (‘CARPHA’) was that there had been a total of 1,944,608 confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection in 35 Caribbean countries/territories, including the 26 CARPHA Member States, with 24,354 deaths recorded. This represented a mortality rate for those 35 countries/territories of approximately 1.25% of those who had reportedly tested positive for the disease. For the 26 CARPHA Member States, there were a total of 362,694 reported cases and 7,786 reported deaths, representing a mortality rate of approximately 2.15% of reported cases of infection. At the time, the mortality rate of the reported infections with COVID-19 for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines stood at less than half of this, at approximately 0.99%.
In terms of the incidence rate for COVID-19 per 100,000 of population amongst CARPHA Member States, the three highest were Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago and Suriname. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was surpassed by twelve States/Territories: Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Curacao, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Surname and Trinidad and Tobago, all of which had a higher incidence per 100,000 than Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. This warrants observation, as it presents the circumstance that the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines uniquely, in the region, adopted the severe measure of requiring public officers to take the Vaccine on pain of losing their jobs, despite being surpassed in terms of incidence per 100,000 by twelve other States/Territories.
The evidence does not disclose any reason why such a uniquely severe measure should be adopted in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
In another part of the judgment he said: If a measure breaches legal or constitutional principles, then the gravity of a situation cannot save it.
The case has since been referred to the Privy Council for final determination.
I love the way Justice of Appeal Wallbank pulled his calculator and did the math. He made it quite clear that the situation in other countries was more severe, yet, we were the only ones who imposed this draconian measure on our people.
The Ralph Gonsalves Government is currently fighting a legal battle all the way to the highest appellate court, to ensure that those terminated under the mandate are never compensated or reinstated.
To add insult to injury, they surmise that this issue is no longer even relevant. To them I say, still waters run deep.
Before I conclude, I want to address Dr. Gonsalves’ call to return to work. Dr. Gonsalves is a man who habitually criticizes the opposition for speaking in general platitudes and not being specific in their utterances. Yet, his call to return to work with “full benefits in tact” could not be more vague.
With full benefits.
The principal “benefit” for which people go to work is their salary. Yes, workers also become entitled to other benefits – gratuity, pension, vacation days, maternity leave, severance pay etc. However, nobody goes to work everyday for a pension. People show up to work daily for a salary and without the salary, they will not go.
If people were terminated from their jobs in 2021 and were invited to reapply months, if not years later (I cannot recall when the first invitation was made) – they lost the primary benefit of their employment when they were dismissed – their salary. This also comes with a hefty opportunity cost. This is why some countries did not just reinstate but reinstated ‘with full back pay’. It is compensation for the dismissal and should not be regarded as wanting money without doing any work. This compensation goes a long way to assist those who faced tremendous financial strain during the period of lost income. Mortgages that have gone into arrears, late fees and other penalties, homes and vehicles repossessed, personal loans taken which remain outstanding etc. To date, numerous financial institutions continue to battle debt recovery claims as so many of their loans went into delinquency, putting even them in the midst of this unnecessary predicament.
Moreover, “come back to work”, but come back to work as what? When these workers were terminated, their jobs were advertised. Some of them held positions which were supervisory in nature. So, if you were a Principal, your school was advertised and a new principal appointed. If a former principal exercised his/her option to reapply – they will be returning to school as what? Certainly not principal because that position has already been filled, even if filled by an acting appointment.
Are we going to ignore the psychological aspect of work? I have said and continue to say that the public service is in a poor state. Many people show up to work and perform their role diligently and are never promoted while others, junior to them, receive multiple promotions or transfers they have not earned on any merit. Understandably, this has led to frustration in the workplace, job dissatisfaction and I cannot ignore this in the call to “come back to work”. Some workers were heads of their departments or were the coordinators on their projects. Will they be returning to work junior to persons less experienced, educated and qualified than they are? I believe we are all aware that the new hires during the COVID years were generally less qualified/experienced than the ones they replaced. How will those returning function when taking instruction from someone who does not have the years of experience, education and expertise they have?
Needless to say, it is not lost on me that this is an administrative challenge that has to be met even if workers were to be reinstated.
Will all those returning to work return on the same salary/grade they previously held, whether or not they are filing the same role they previously held? Would this mean that there would be duplicate salaries being paid in the service if for instance you have two members of staff getting a Principal pay?
Will workers receive the vacation they were already entitled to (or payment in lieu of it) at the time of their dismissal or will they have to become eligible all over again?
What about those who were already at a stage where they can apply for early retirement? Was it open to them to apply for early retirement immediately instead of reapplying to resume duty?
It was important to me that the Prime Minister provided greater clarity on these and other questions as persons contemplated whether or not they should reapply. I was even of the view that those who were nearing retirement age but did not quite serve out the period to access full retirement benefits should be given special consideration to retire early without the penalties that would ordinarily be imposed. This is because there would be some who do not wish to return to work given the way they were demonized among their colleagues and unceremoniously removed from their station of duty after serving sometimes two to three decades.
While the Prime Minister said that 11 millions dollars (at that time) was not available to compensate workers, we have all seen much more than 11 million spent on things far more trivial.
It is not even about the money. For me, it is about restoring the dignity that this labour party – so called has striped from our people.
Their dignity is on the ballot.
My final article in this series will be entitled “the blind leading the blind”.
