Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(OSHA) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard Frequently Asked Questions: Paragraph (g) – COVID-19 Testing for Employees Who are Not Fully Vaccinated
OSHA ^ | November 5, 2021 | OSHA

Posted on 11/06/2021 7:39:03 PM PDT by DoodleBob

6. Paragraph (g) – COVID-19 Testing for Employees Who are Not Fully Vaccinated

No. The requirements of the standard do not apply to the employees of covered employers who do not report to a workplace where other individuals such as coworkers or customers are present or while working from home. This includes the testing requirements of paragraph (g) of the ETS. 

No. The employee does not need to be tested for COVID-19 on a weekly basis. However, the employer must ensure the employee is tested for COVID-19 within seven days prior to returning to the workplace and provides documentation of that test result to the employer upon return to the workplace. For example, if an unvaccinated office employee has been teleworking for two weeks but must report to the office, where other employees will be present (e.g., coworkers, security officers, mailroom workers), on a specific Monday to copy and fax documents, that employee must receive a COVID-19 test within the seven days prior to the Monday and provide documentation of that test result to the employer upon return to the workplace. The employee’s test must occur within the seven days before the Monday the employee is scheduled to report to the office, but it also must happen early enough to allow time for the results to be received before returning to the workplace.

No. If an employee does not provide the result of a COVID-19 test as required by paragraph (g)(1) of the standard, the employer must keep the employee removed from the workplace until the employee provides a test result. In addition to being tested for COVID-19 on a weekly basis, unvaccinated employees must also wear a face covering at the workplace.

Yes.  Pool testing is one form of testing that can satisfy the testing requirements in paragraph (g).  Pooling (also referred to as pool testing or pooled testing) means combining the same type of specimen from several people and conducting one antigen laboratory test on the combined pool of specimens to detect SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., four samples may be tested together, using only the resources needed for a single test). According to the CDC, the advantages of pooling include preserving testing resources, reducing the amount of time required to test large numbers of specimens (increasing throughput), and lowering the overall cost of testing.

If pooling procedures are used and a pooled test result comes back negative, then all the specimens can be presumed negative with the single test. In other words, all of the employees who provided specimens for that pool test can be assumed to have a negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, documentation of the negative pooled test result would satisfy the paragraph (g)(1) documentation requirement for each employee in the pool and no additional testing is necessary. However, if the pooled test result is positive, immediate additional testing would be necessary to determine which employees are positive and/or negative. Each of the original specimens collected in the pool must be tested individually to determine which specimen(s) is (are) positive. If original specimens from the workers in a pooled test with a positive result are insufficient to be subsequently tested individually, those workers in the positive pool would need to be immediately re-swabbed and tested. The individual employee test results would be necessary to satisfy the employee documentation requirements of paragraph (g)(1). Where pooled testing is used (in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)), CDC and FDA procedures and recommendations for implementing screening pooling tests should be followed. OSHA notes that only some tests are authorized by the FDA for pooled testing, and should be performed per the authorization.

The standard provides that 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 for 90 days following the date of their positive test or diagnosis. This provision is specifically intended to prohibit screening testing for 90 days because of the high likelihood of false positive results that do not indicate active infection but are rather a reflection of past infection. However, when the employee returns to work they must continue to wear a face covering in accordance with paragraph (i) of this ETS.

Yes. The employer must maintain a record of each test result required to be provided by each employee pursuant to this ETS or obtained during tests conducted by the employer. These records must be maintained in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020 as employee medical records and must not be disclosed except as required by this ETS or other federal law. However, these records are not subject to the retention requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1020(d)(1)(i) (Employee medical records), but must be maintained and preserved while this ETS remains in effect.

No. The ETS does not require employers 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. OSHA notes that the ETS also does not prohibit the employer from paying for costs associated with testing required by the ETS. Otherwise, the agency leaves the decision regarding who pays for the testing to the employer.

OSHA expects that some workers and/or their representatives will negotiate the terms of payment. OSHA has also considered that some employers may choose to pay for some or all of the costs of testing as an inducement to keep employees in a tight labor market. Other employers may choose to put the full cost of testing on employees in recognition of the employee’s decision not to become fully vaccinated. It is also possible that some employers may be required to cover the cost of testing for employees pursuant to other laws or regulations. The subject of payment for the costs associated with testing pursuant to other laws or regulations not associated with the OSH Act is beyond OSHA’s authority and jurisdiction.

Yes. The ETS requires weekly COVID-19 testing of all un-vaccinated employees, including those entitled to a reasonable accommodation from vaccination requirements. However, if testing for COVID-19 conflicts with a worker’s sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance, the worker may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. For more information about evaluating requests for reasonable accommodation, employers can consult the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s website: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws

The employer is required to comply with the requirements of the ETS as long as it is in effect. If an employer has unvaccinated workers in the workplace, those employees will be required to have weekly tests until they are fully vaccinated or the ETS is no longer in effect.

Under the ETS, a “COVID-19 test” must be a test for SARS-CoV-2 that is:

  1. cleared, approved, or authorized, including in an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to detect current infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (e.g., a viral test);
  2. administered in accordance with the authorized instructions; and
  3. not both self-administered and self-read unless observed by the employer or an authorized telehealth proctor.

Examples of tests that satisfy this requirement include tests with specimens that are processed by a laboratory (including home or on-site collected specimens which are processed either individually or as pooled specimens), proctored over-the-counter tests, point of care tests, and tests where specimen collection and processing is either done or observed by an employer.

COVID-19 tests can broadly be divided into two categories, diagnostic tests and antibody tests. Diagnostic tests detect parts of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and can be used to diagnose current infection. On the other hand, antibody tests look for antibodies in the immune system produced in response to SARS-CoV-2, and are not used to diagnose an active COVID-19 infection. Antibody tests do not meet the definition of COVID-19 test for the purposes of this ETS.

Diagnostic tests for current infection fall into two categories: nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and antigen tests. NAATs are a type of molecular test that detect genetic material (nucleic acids); NAATs for COVID-19 identify the ribonucleic acid (RNA) sequences that comprise the genetic material of the virus. Most NAATs need to be processed in a laboratory with variable time to receive results (approximately 1–2 days), but some NAATs are point-of-care tests with results available in about 15–45 minutes.

Antigen tests may also meet the definition of COVID-19 test under this standard. Antigen tests indicate current infection by detecting the presence of a specific viral antigen. Most can be processed at the point of care with results available in about 15­30 minutes. Antigen tests generally have similar specificity to, but are less sensitive than, NAATs.

Antigen tests are the only type of diagnostic tests that can be self-administered.  To be a valid COVID-19 test under this standard, an antigen test may not be both self-administered and self-read unless observed by the employer or an authorized telehealth proctor. If an over-the-counter (OTC) test is being used, it must be used in accordance with the authorized instructions. The employer can validate the test through the use of a proctored test that is supervised by an authorized telehealth provider. Alternatively, the employer could proctor the OTC test itself.

It should be noted that point-of-care (POC) testing must be performed in accordance with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). The FDA has authorized POC tests that can be used at a place of employment when the facility is operating under a CLIA certificate of waiver. A CLIA certificate of waiver can be issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Yes; however, to satisfy the requirements of the standard an over-the-counter (OTC) antigen test may not be both self-administered and self-read unless observed by the employer or an authorized telehealth proctor. Antigen tests indicate current infection by detecting the presence of a specific viral antigen. Most can be processed at the point of care with results available in about 15­30 minutes. OSHA included the requirement for some type of independent confirmation of the test result in order to ensure the integrity of the result. This independent confirmation can be accomplished in multiple ways, including through the involvement of a licensed healthcare provider or a point-of-care test provider. If an OTC test is being used, the employer can validate the test through the use of a proctored test that is supervised by an authorized telehealth provider. Alternatively, the employer could proctor the OTC test itself.

OSHA has determined that there are sufficient COVID-19 tests available and adequate laboratory capacity to meet the anticipated increased testing demand related to compliance with the ETS testing requirements. However, in the event that an individual employer is unable to comply with paragraph (g) of this ETS due to inadequate test supply or laboratory capacity, OSHA will look at efforts made by the employer to comply, as well as the pattern and practice of the employer’s testing program, and consider refraining from enforcement where the facts show good faith in attempting to comply with the standard.

COVID-19 tests that are cleared, approved, or authorized, including in an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), by the FDA to detect current infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (e.g., a viral test) are permitted under the ETS when used as authorized by the FDA and with a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) certification when appropriate. The FDA has authorized point-of-care tests that can be used at a place of employment when the facility is operating under a CLIA certificate of waiver. A CLIA certificate of waiver can be issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). However, a CLIA certificate of waiver is not required for over-the-counter employee self-tests that are observed by employers.

The ETS encourages vaccination, and most employers can comply with the ETS by requiring their employees to become fully vaccinated, which will avoid any increased need for testing. But even if most employers were to forgo that option, and most of their employees were to choose not to be vaccinated, there would still be adequate testing capacity. OSHA thoroughly reviewed current and future projections of the availability of COVID-19 tests, testing supplies, and laboratory capacity. Following that review, OSHA determined that there is sufficient testing capacity to meet the anticipated increased testing demand related to compliance with the ETS testing option and found that the standard is technologically feasible. For more information about OSHA’s feasibility analysis, see the detailed discussion in Technological Feasibility (Section IV.A. of the ETS preamble).

Yes. Because antigen testing in point-of-care locations will typically produce results within minutes, the use of antigen testing should not result in an inability to provide the employer with test results in a timely fashion. However, the agency recognizes that where the employee or employer uses an off-site laboratory for testing, there may be delays beyond the employee’s or employer’s control. In the event that there is a delay in the laboratory reporting results and the employer permits the employee to continue working, OSHA will look at the pattern and practice of the individual employee or the employer’s testing verification process and consider refraining from enforcement where the facts show good faith in attempting to comply with the standard.

Employers must ensure that each employee who is not “fully vaccinated” complies with the testing requirements in paragraph (g)(1) of this ETS, including weekly testing for employees who report at least once every 7 days to a workplace where other individuals such as coworkers or customers are present. In the case of a two-dose primary vaccination series (e.g., Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), an employee is not considered “fully vaccinated” until 2 weeks after receiving the second dose of the series. Therefore, employers would need to ensure employees continue to test weekly until 2 weeks after receiving their second dose. However, employers have until 60 days after publication in the Federal Register to comply with the testing requirement in paragraph (g), and employees who have completed the entire primary vaccination by that date do not have to be tested, even if they have not yet completed the 2-week waiting period.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 666; mandate; osha; revelation13; systemofthebeast; testing; va666ine; vaccination
First, this entire thing is an abomination and should be struck down by the courts asap.

Second, this is BS.

Third, if all else fails and SCOTUS let's this ride, you do NOT have to get a shot.

If you want to get the shot, get it. If not, don't cave in.

1 posted on 11/06/2021 7:39:07 PM PDT by DoodleBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

I will not comply.


2 posted on 11/06/2021 7:43:35 PM PDT by cyclotic (I won't give up my FREEDOM for your FEAR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

System of the beast. Revelation 13. 666. Va666ine.


3 posted on 11/06/2021 7:44:29 PM PDT by Kevmo (I’m immune from Covid since I don’t watch TV.🤗)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob; All

unconstitutional

horredously discriminatory

also horrendously unscientific

vaxxed people can get infected and transmit covid just as easily as the unvaxxed

the vax makers blatantly admit this. now the only thing they claim (but cannot prove) is that the vax will lessen the severity of covid if you are infected

the vax doesnt stop you catching covid, and it doesn’t stop you infecting others - they admit this, they know this, they cannot deny it, too many people know its true

yet only the unvaxxed get tested

how moronic if you really “care” about the “health” of ALL your employees


4 posted on 11/06/2021 7:46:41 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

OSHA’s vax mandate is not justified, because this is not an emergency

they said so themselves, thru their own actions, by merely talking about this mandate for months

if it was truly an emergency, all this would have been done long ago

now the worst is already past, so there’s no need for this Soviet-style overkill


5 posted on 11/06/2021 7:52:08 PM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

All of these rules are arbitrary. Since both the vaccinated and unvaccinated can catch and transmit Covid, there is no medical reason or fact for the different treatment.


6 posted on 11/06/2021 7:56:46 PM PDT by taxcontrol (The choice is clear - either live as a slave on your knees or die as a free citizen on your feet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

Thank you for posting that. The rumor was that exclusively remote workers would need a shot, and the actual text reveals that is not the case. My employer is headquartered in Texas, so I expect them to tread carefully.


7 posted on 11/06/2021 7:56:52 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("There are only men and women."-- George Gilder, Sexual Suicide, 1973)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

It would be a shame if OSHA got about a million anonymous complaints a day about companies not meeting the requirement. Actually, they probably will get a ton of complaints about this since most of what OSHA does is investigate complaints from disgruntled fired employees. This will be an easy complaint for the fired employees to make.


8 posted on 11/06/2021 7:59:54 PM PDT by suthener ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

And, the Southern Border is STILL OPEN. ..


9 posted on 11/06/2021 8:15:58 PM PDT by goodnesswins (....pervert Biden & O Cabal are destroying America, as planned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: suthener

>It would be a shame if OSHA got about a million anonymous complaints a day about companies not meeting the requirement.

Yes. It would be doubly shameful if the most wokey leftist companies were so lax about their government mandates that complaints were filed against them constantly.

Certainly similar actions were NOT undertaken last year for mask tip lines and definitely did NOT result in the overwhelming of such systems and the near instant abandonment of Soviet-style snitch programs. :p


10 posted on 11/06/2021 8:24:48 PM PDT by No.6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

Welcome to the Biden Gulag.


11 posted on 11/06/2021 8:31:25 PM PDT by lightman (I am a binary Trinitarian. Deal with it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

OSHA needs to be defunded and this is a perfect opportunity to do it.


12 posted on 11/06/2021 8:35:45 PM PDT by Newtoidaho (All I ask of living is to have no chains on me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyclotic

Nor I. I also don’t think I should have to give them my DNA weekly. That is unconstitutional.


13 posted on 11/06/2021 8:36:52 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (But what do I know? I'm just a backwoods engineer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

I’m not getting the shot and refuse to be tested by something was never meant for that


14 posted on 11/06/2021 9:37:18 PM PDT by roving
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
vaxxed people can get infected and transmit covid just as easily as the unvaxxed

No. Not as easily. Much much much less frequently.

Because the vaccine makes the symptoms weaker and of shorter duration, if the person happens to get infected, and the symptoms are what spread the disease.

15 posted on 11/06/2021 9:43:52 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Not true. Just as easily.


16 posted on 11/06/2021 9:46:52 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

“Antibody tests do not meet the definition of COVID-19 test for the purposes of this ETS.”

What a fraud.


17 posted on 11/07/2021 1:23:07 AM PST by BiglyCommentary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

Bkmk


18 posted on 11/07/2021 5:38:58 AM PST by Hegemony Cricket (< < Wandering aimfully > >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

Thank you


19 posted on 11/07/2021 9:53:35 AM PST by MNJohnnie (They would have abandon leftism to achieve sanity. Freeper Olog-hai)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson