Posted on 08/30/2021 1:00:13 AM PDT by Mount Athos
Another California Legislature gut-and-amend-bill has been amended to replace existing legislation with language that seeks to order an employer to require a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment. The bill also warns that to avoid further shutdowns and prevent the health care system from becoming overwhelmed, “it is critical that all eligible Californians get vaccinated against COVID-19.”
• Amends current state discrimination statute (Section 12940 of the Government Code) by specifying that the law does not prevent an employer from requiring a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment. And specifies that employers may require booster shots that are recommended by the CDC.
• Also clarifies that employers may require employees or “applicated” who are not vaccinated to submit regular testing to confirm a negative COVID-19 status.
AB 1102 now joins AB 455, which was a transportation bill amended into a bill ordering a vaccine mandate on private industry, as the Globe reported Wednesday.
Amendment 5: 52.8. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, an establishment, as defined in subdivision (b), shall require each person who is eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, who seeks to enter the indoor facilities of that establishment, to show proof to an employee or authorized agent of the establishment that the person has been vaccinated against COVID-19…an employee who refuses to comply with this section may be subject to termination…”
Does this mean they don’t think they can pass is the normal way?
Does this mean they don’t think they can pass is the normal way?
Interesting.
The section of the amendment that has language justifying the amazement mentions the now debunked claim in the CDC memo that COVID-19 spreads as “easily” as chickenpox.
Throw Newsom out ,and all the communists who like facism in our CA government.
All this craziness is being pushed by the globalists. They are doing a pretty good job of tearing this country apart.
The editorial term “Gutted bill” is throwing me off. Is this Bill now the law? Yes or no? Or is this merely a proposal?
“justifying the amazement” = “justifying the AMENDMENT”
Not sure, but it could be a maneuver to get a bill passed that has already been voted to the floor of the California General Assembly. IOW’s it’s a parliamentary maneuver designed to get an law passed by inserting the wording into a bill that has already gone thru the hearing period and committees.
Thanks. So the bill is still being formed.
Sounds like it to me.
Spread that all over CA. Especially Sacramento.
Editorial: California should pass model COVID-19 mandate law
Lawmakers contemplate timing of introducing vaccine mandate legislation
Note to CA: Tell it the CDC, the FDA, the WH, Moderna, Pfizer...
Note that the amendment does not say that. But the high rates of vaccine hesitancy among blacks means that they will be disproportionately penalized by this amendment. Following the "equity" approach (rather than the "equality" approach) we conclude that since the bill has disparate impact on the blacks it must be racist. And its intent must be the re-imposition of legal segregation.
Turnabout is fair play.
(1) The only Pfizer vaccine currently available is the Emergency Use vaccine that has NOT been approved by the FDA.
(2) The Pfizer vaccine that has been approved - labeled as COMIRNATY - is NOT currently available.
(3) COMIRNATY and the Emergency Use vaccine appear to be identical. Why is one approved, but the other one is not approved? Unknown.
(4) When COMIRNATY does become available, it should immediately qualify for coverage under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
(5) The VICP currently covers ALL common USA vaccines - specifically, all vaccines that are recommended by the CDC for children and pregnant women - which includes seasonal influenza vaccines.
(6) Once COMIRNATY qualifies for VICP coverage, you will have legal authority to sue Pfizer, to sue your health care provider, and to claim Workman's Comp if you are injured by the COMIRNATY vaccine.
(7) This quote is from the VICP website...
"The VICP special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the VICP court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine."
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
This is a complex issue. There is no question that activist judges or government executives may be able to change the law as it is currently written.
Businesses in Calif are already back-ordered to the hilt.
Manufactured homes are now back-ordered as much as 18 months +++.
Prices of materials like lumber-—and workers who refused to come to work when they made more by staying home.
A bill is not law, it is a proposed law that is working it’s way through committee and floor votes.
I think a gutted bill is where they hijack a bill and stuff it with unrelated amendments. For example, they take a bill titled SAVE THE CHILDREN ACT that funds school lunches, and add an amendment that funds the obama library and mandates vaccine shots for all government employees. Probably many of the people voting on it didn’t notice the fine print of the amendments.
You’re probably correct on the meaning.
I suppose I’m a little jumpy about it because such a law would effect me directly in the great state of California.
All recipients of government assistance must be vaccinated to continue to receive aid.
That’ll put an end to this nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.