Posted on 11/05/2021 8:31:36 PM PDT by DoodleBob
AGENCY:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.
ACTION:
Interim final rule; request for comments.
SUMMARY:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is issuing an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers (100 or more employees) from the risk of contracting COVID-19 by strongly encouraging vaccination. Covered employers must develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or elect to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.
...
PART 1910—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS Subpart U—COVID-19
1.Revise the heading for Subpart U to read as set forth above.
2.The authority citation for subpart U continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553.
3.Add § 1910.501 to subpart U to read as follows:
§ 1910.501Vaccination, testing, and face coverings. (a) Purpose. This section is intended to establish minimum vaccination, vaccination verification, face covering, and testing requirements to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the workplace, and to preempt inconsistent state and local requirements relating to these issues, including requirements that ban or limit employers' authority to require vaccination, face covering, or testing, regardless of the number of employees.
...
(g) COVID-19 testing for employees who are not fully vaccinated.
(1) The employer must ensure that each employee who is not fully vaccinated complies with paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section:
(i) An employee who reports at least once every 7 days to a workplace where other individuals such as coworkers or customers are present:
(A) Must be tested for COVID-19 at least once every 7 days; and
(B) Must provide documentation of the most recent COVID-19 test result to the employer no later than the 7th day following the date on which the employee last provided a test result.
(ii) An employee who does not report during a period of 7 or more days to a workplace where other individuals such as coworkers or customers are present ( e.g., teleworking for two weeks prior to reporting to a workplace with others):
(A) Must be tested for COVID-19 within 7 days prior to returning to the workplace; and
(B) Must provide documentation of that test result to the employer upon return to the workplace.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1): This section does not require the employer to pay for any costs associated with testing; however employer payment for testing may be required by other laws, regulations, or collective bargaining agreements or other collectively negotiated agreements. This section also does not prohibit the employer from paying for costs associated with testing required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(2) If an employee does not provide documentation of a COVID-19 test result as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, the employer must keep that employee removed from the workplace until the employee provides a test result.
(3) When an employee has received a positive COVID-19 test, or has been diagnosed with COVID-19 by a licensed healthcare provider, the employer must not require that employee to undergo COVID-19 testing as required under paragraph (g) of this section for 90 days following the date of their positive test or diagnosis.
(4) The employer must maintain a record of each test result provided by each employee under paragraph (g)(1) of this section or obtained during tests conducted by the employer. These records are considered to be employee medical records and must be maintained as such records in accordance with § 1910.1020 and must not be disclosed except as required or authorized by this section or other federal law. These records are not subject to the retention requirements of § 1910.1020(d)(1)(i) but must be maintained and preserved while this section remains in effect.
Thus, by having the testing alternative, Bidet can argue that, like in Jacobson, there is an alternative to getting these shots. You know, those things that, unlike the smallpox vaccine in 1905, haven't been around for a while.
There is a SmartNews Salon story that says ERs are getting flooded with conditions that aren’t given standard diagnostic names.
Jacobson vrs Mass specifically refers to the court needs to show deference to a State legislative authority
It has no bearing on a Federal Executive order attempting to extralegilsatively expand a Government Agencies authority into a whole new area of enforcement. There is no legislative base to anchor this mandate on. It all make believe and wishful thinking
The Leftist blabbering squad in the Lying Media likes to throw this case out there with zero actually understanding of what it actually says.
The inconsistency of course is that ANYBODY can have Covid. Well, maybe a few people have some total immunity.
So BESIDES wear-the-mask-all-the-time we should just consider: How about semi-weekly covid testing.
THINK OF THE LIVES IT WILL SAVE. (Laffing my Nigerian butt off!!)
Why does a “fully vaccinated” (whatever that means) worker, who according to the CDC can spread COVID-19 as easily as an unvaccinated person, not have to get tested as frequently? How does a worker who receives the J&J or Moderna vax fall under the same classification in the EO as someone who was vaccinated with the only FDA approved vaccine? If this is such a grave threat why did this order take so long and why is the first EO deadline being postponed?
No EOs, not made up expansion of Government regulatory authority with no legal basis for their action. Jacobson vrs Mass specifically refers to STATE LAWS. Legislative action duly taken by appropriate legislative bodies.
There were only a small number of vaccines available in 1905 - smallpox, rabies, typhoid, plague and diptheria and one other.
As I remember the case Jacobson had already been vaccinated and had a bad reaction. It was probably against smallpox.
Secondly, I see this stupid monstrosity as just one more affirmation to support the wise decision I made in June 2020 to shut down my company’s office and go to a 100% work-from-home arrangement for my staff. I don’t give a crap if any of them are “vaccinated,” and I never will.
OSHA, I would like to report that Wal-Mart is endangering its employees by letting unvaccinated customers into its stores.
The vaccinated employees will clock out and then interact with unmasked, unvaccinated persons.
Employment mask mandates are silly.
This rule is arbitrary.
The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.
Can the unvaccinated get Covid, and/or be hospitalized, and or suffer long term damage from Covid? yes.
Can the vaccinated also get Covid, and/or be hospitalized, and or suffer long term damage from Covid? yes.
We know this because both the vaccinated and unvaccinated are showing up to the hospitals ER.
So the distinction between the two has no difference. The testing requirement should apply to all employees.
This rule is arbitrary.
The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.
Can the unvaccinated get Covid, and/or be hospitalized, and or suffer long term damage from Covid? yes.
Can the vaccinated also get Covid, and/or be hospitalized, and or suffer long term damage from Covid? yes.
We know this because both the vaccinated and unvaccinated are showing up to the hospitals ER.
So the distinction between the two has no difference. The testing requirement should apply to all employees.
"Jacobson, standing by itself, will not support a vaccine mandate. If the state or federal governments wish to forcibly vaccinate people, they will have to rely on Buck v. Bell. That anticanonical case upheld the state's power to forcibly perform medical procedures on people to promote the public good. Roe v. Wade favorably cited Buck to support this proposition. In Roe, Justice Blackmun contended, the state retains the authority to force a woman to maintain a pregnancy for, among other reasons, to "protect[] potential life." Justice Blackmun explained that "[t]he Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right" "to do with one's body as one pleases." To support this proposition, Justice Blackmun cited two cases, with one-word parentheticals: "Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927) (sterilization)."
A vaccinated Wal-Mart cashier will have hundreds of times more interactions with unvaccinated people than would a typical vaccinated office worker.
It also hangs on the differences between LEGISLATIVE and EXECUTIVE power.
The Executive cannot write law.
Did the Virginia statute which authorized sterilization deny Buck the right to due process of the law and the equal protection of the laws as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
that was a state law not federal...
“It has no bearing on a Federal Executive order...]
There is no executive order. Biden said it, but never issued an EO.
OSHA is acting in response to a speech. Both Biden and OSHA can kiss my ass.
I blame the vaxxers. If they weren’t such wussy weak sheep, this would never be happening.
Jacobson v Massachusetts was not about the federal government. It was about state government (specifically the state legislature).
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.