@bluebayou, actually, Iâm pointing our various kinds of hypocrisies. The politicians and pundits Iâm talking about oppose mask mandates in schools, mask mandates in private businesses (in some locations), vaccine mandates by businesses, vaccine mandates by schools or universities, even vaccine mandates for cruise ships. They not only oppose federal mandates. They have been happy to mandate that businesses, schools and universities not have mandates.
As a consequence, the federal mandate is not key to my argument. Iâm not a lawyer (although I have worked with lawyers from many of the top firms in the world) and I plead guilty to not worrying a lot about the different jurisdictions. However, trying to reduce what I was saying to a focus on federal mandates may just be an illustration of my broader point. For months, Iâve seen people in threads like these search through the studies to find something, anything, that can be used to shed confusion about the results of studies that provide pretty strong evidence that the vaccines are remarkably effective for Covid. It wouldnât shock me if the newly Trumpified SCOTUS overthrows OSHA emergency rules (who knows). Focusing on the constitutionality of the Federal mandate when Iâm talking about a variety of different kinds of hypocrisy seems akin to looking for the one piece of disconfirming data amidst the many pieces of confirming data. But, even if the OSHA rules are overturned would not negate the overall observation about the hypocrisy of folks who oppose public and private mask and vaccine mandates but are happy to impose their own.
I have a few legal questions for you.
- Is there a reasonable legal argument as to why telling firms or schools or universities that they cannot impose mask or vaccine mandates is different (in terms of dictating their actions) than telling them they must impose a mandate? Both a positive mandate and a negative one restrict a firmâs freedom to act.
- Would a company be allowed to tell an infected person they could not come to work/
- Would OSHA be able to require that a company have a policy that infected persons not come to work?
-
Depends on who is doing the âtellingâ. The feds likely do not have authority. The states may, depending on their constitution vs the independent authority of their local school boards. (I have not researched what argument Florida usedâŠ)
-
Sure, particularly if they pay them for time off.
-
Likely, after going thru the normal rule-making procedure: propose, request comments, hold hearings, publish final rule. OTOH, per a top Appellate law firm, the proposed Emergency Order by OSHA will be a point of challenge.
I think that plenty of employers will sigh with relief that OHSA is handing down these vaccine mandates.
It keeps them from being the bad guy. Itâs also cheaper in the long run with health insurance costs sure to increase. A vaccinated company is one that will have less costs due to Covid, both in health care and in employee absences
Iâm wondering about the testing option. Seems like that could have substantial requirements to implement and manage?
I think that many large companies are already testing employees. Additionally companies may require their unvaccinated employees to incur the cost of testing.
My husbandâs company has spent a lot of money trying to keep their employees working. The more they have vaccinated, the less they spend on other areas.
This is just flat out incorrect. Talk an attorney (not a pundit) who actually deals with OSHA issues.
It will be very interesting to see how the regulation is crafted. Will employees that are working remotely be required to vaccinate or test? How will companies be required to monitor and validate testing? Will testing need to be accomplished at the work site or will the employees word be enough? How do companies verify that employees have been vaccinated? What happens for people who have lost their card? The devil is in the details.
Iâm very pro vaccination but at the same time I would like to see it be easy to implement. And, along the same lines we should expect vaccines for all the federal government (not just executive branch) including;
People employed in the legislative branch should be required to vaccinate including senators, representatives, and staff.
Same for employees in the judicial branch
Itâs very easy to prove you were vaccinated in my state. We have a state registry. Many states do now. When I received my vaccine, it went right to my physicianâs office. To receive preferential health insurance you have to have an annual physical every year and report things to a database. The vaccine also was registered in the state vaccine registry.
Itâs not a right to be employed but a privilege. Donât want to have your vaccine registered or have confirmation of vaccination? Donât work there.
I see a lot of thought that the paper vaccine cards can be forged.
My personal opinion is that those paper vaccine cards are forged about as often as there are dead people voting.
Another interesting issue is going to be the third shots, and future shots. Are people considered fully vaccinated with just two Pfizer shots? They should be because that is the current FDA approved labeling.
Will people have to take the third shot if the Pfizer label is changed to reflect a 3 dose regimen? What if it is more of a booster concept, and not all are recommended to receive it? What about next year if another shot is needed?
Companies and individuals are going to litigate, no doubt.
Most companies I advise are going the vaccine only route, and not permitting a testing alternative. Too cumbersome and costly. Easier to just mandate vaccination as a condition of employment .
That makes sense to me and will be much easier to manage. How are they handling exemptions? Is there a religious exemption or any other exemptions? Wonder how those are validated and managed. Remote work?
Well, the first question is whether they qualify for a medical or religious exemption. The criteria are quite narrow and the burden is on the employee. We need a four page questionnaire to be completed to set forth exactly what parts of the vax mandate are a problem, how prior vax have been handled by the employee since age 18, and what they propose as an accommodation. Then the company would need to address if that qualifies usually by means of an exemption committee, and if so, whether an accommodation to their job is possible, and if so what form it would take and for how long. Short term medical exemptions are easy. Indefinite length exemptions are unlikely, as few employers are willing to commit to permanent remote work assignments.
Interesting. Didnât know this, thanks.
Us too @roycroftmom. Our clients are going g the Vaccine only route. Some are allowing religious exemption but like you said requiring inquiries of other vaccine history. Thatâs a major problem for many. As for medical exemption many requiring it to be vetted by hired medical expert and so far only one person has qualified. Many people who claim they do were told the risk if getting COVID is so much higher that itâs not a basis for exemption.
Yes, the only medical exemptions I have seen work are for short delays, to allow more recovery time from a current covid infection prior to vax, or to allow changing of some pre existing medications prior to the vax. Temporary Exemptions for a few weeks duration in such situations seem obtainable.
I have read reports of some ministers who will give out vaccine exemption letters if a box on a form is checked off. Others will sign the form in exchange for a donation to the church.
I donât believe any major denomination objects to the vaccine. Itâs the unaffiliated independents who are more lenient.
Such letters are useful but not conclusive. For example, the lack of objection to a prior vax would for most companies be dispositive in outcome.
It looks like some some churches are writing letters that say a more flowery version of âXXX prayed and has been told that he should not take the vaccine.â
Resistance to such letters may depend upon how willing an employer is willing to get into a kerfuffle over âreligious rights and freedomsâ. For some it may be easier to just give in.