![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
canyonwalkerA sweeping Covid-19 vaccine mandate announced by President Joe BIden almost two months ago went into effect Friday, 5 November, when rules devised by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) were published in the federal register. The rule affects companies employing 100 or more people. By January 4 they must either ensure all their employees are vaccinated or submit to weekly testing and mandatory masking. It's estimated this covers at least 84 million workers in the US. Example news coverage: "Who's covered?"-type articles in The New York Times (5 Nov 2021) and CNBC (4 Nov 2021). Or see the actual OSHA publication in the Federal Register (5 Nov 2021).
It'll be interesting to see how this mandate plays out. 60 days may be a quick timeframe for especially large companies to create and implement new policy— if they haven't already started drafting one since the intention was announced two months ago. I haven't heard a peep about this yet from my own employer, with about 300 US employees.
How enforcement will work is a huge question mark. It's been noted in various news articles that OSHA has relatively few inspectors. I recall an estimate that if OSHA inspectors were to visit every workplace covered by this rule it would take 10 years. Compliance is going to be kind of an honor-system thing, with the burden being on employees to file complaints in hopes of getting OSHA's attention.
Then, too, a lot of people are strongly opposed to this mandate. Several Republican governors are suing, as are various Republican-led organizations. They claim the mandate is executive overreach and is unconstitutional.
Is it actually unconstitutional? I'm hard pressed to see how. The Constitution doesn't address such things as workplace regulation. "Unconstitutional!!!!" is a favorite cry of people who simply dislike a government action and want to dress it up in a fancy word to give it emotional appeal.
Is it unlawful? is a better question. There, the answer is probably not. It's well established that the Department of Labor, of which OSHA is a part, has the authority to write and enforce regulations on workplace safety. The crux of the opposition, then, is whether it's lawful for employers to subject employees to the mandate. And there, ironically, the answer is also probably not.
The irony is that employee rights are weak in the US because of Republicans. Most states have "Right-to-Work" laws— another fancy, dress-up term that's much more emotionally appealing than what it means in fact— that companies can fire any person at any time, no formal reason or process necessary. Companies on their own could have made these rules months ago. In fact, quite a number did. A few were challenged in court and upheld. Now all the rest have federal regulation as cover.
Update: About an hour after I posted this blog a three-judge panel in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay on the government's order. Example news coverage: CNN.com article 6 Nov 2021. It's a good thing I wrote it's "probably not" illegal vs. something like "almost certainly isn't". 🙄 Of course the stay doesn't mean that it's going to be overturned, just that the judges want to pause it briefly to consider the plaintiffs' and defendants' arguments. But really even that is unnecessary as the rule doesn't take effect for 60 days. This could be the work of the type of ideologically extreme judges the previous administration celebrated appointing.
It'll be interesting to see how this mandate plays out. 60 days may be a quick timeframe for especially large companies to create and implement new policy— if they haven't already started drafting one since the intention was announced two months ago. I haven't heard a peep about this yet from my own employer, with about 300 US employees.
How enforcement will work is a huge question mark. It's been noted in various news articles that OSHA has relatively few inspectors. I recall an estimate that if OSHA inspectors were to visit every workplace covered by this rule it would take 10 years. Compliance is going to be kind of an honor-system thing, with the burden being on employees to file complaints in hopes of getting OSHA's attention.
Then, too, a lot of people are strongly opposed to this mandate. Several Republican governors are suing, as are various Republican-led organizations. They claim the mandate is executive overreach and is unconstitutional.
Is it actually unconstitutional? I'm hard pressed to see how. The Constitution doesn't address such things as workplace regulation. "Unconstitutional!!!!" is a favorite cry of people who simply dislike a government action and want to dress it up in a fancy word to give it emotional appeal.
Is it unlawful? is a better question. There, the answer is probably not. It's well established that the Department of Labor, of which OSHA is a part, has the authority to write and enforce regulations on workplace safety. The crux of the opposition, then, is whether it's lawful for employers to subject employees to the mandate. And there, ironically, the answer is also probably not.
The irony is that employee rights are weak in the US because of Republicans. Most states have "Right-to-Work" laws— another fancy, dress-up term that's much more emotionally appealing than what it means in fact— that companies can fire any person at any time, no formal reason or process necessary. Companies on their own could have made these rules months ago. In fact, quite a number did. A few were challenged in court and upheld. Now all the rest have federal regulation as cover.
Update: About an hour after I posted this blog a three-judge panel in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay on the government's order. Example news coverage: CNN.com article 6 Nov 2021. It's a good thing I wrote it's "probably not" illegal vs. something like "almost certainly isn't". 🙄 Of course the stay doesn't mean that it's going to be overturned, just that the judges want to pause it briefly to consider the plaintiffs' and defendants' arguments. But really even that is unnecessary as the rule doesn't take effect for 60 days. This could be the work of the type of ideologically extreme judges the previous administration celebrated appointing.
