“ Their strongest position will be establishing the need for a mandate to protect employees against the “grave danger” of COVID-19.”
A virus with a 99.8% chance of survival is a “grave danger?” I would laugh, but from what we have seen, the courts will uphold that.
“A virus with a 99.8% chance of survival is a ‘grave danger’?”
If one looks at the language:
grave danger -> danger that can cause someone to wind up in a grave
(even a danger that stands a .2% chance of putting someone in a grave is a ‘grave’ danger.)
[Note: Since so many have already died, the risk is now far less.]
serious danger -> danger that is associated with blood loss.
I like to use language in a rather strict manner. I find my local school district’s policy of frowning on student dictionary use highly objectionable.
If it a grave danger when you have 100 employees it a grave danger when you have 99 employees
This rule directly contradicts itself by trying create an exemption at the same time it argues it needs this “emergency power” to fight this “grave danger
Obviously there is no “grave danger” since they are willing to exempt a large segment of the work force from it’s requirements,
Actually there is a very good chance the Courts will not.
The Courts tend to be obsequious to Legislative action but rather hard on arbitrary Executive action