Legality of Vaccine Mandates

[anatta]

Agree. The court could care less about the law.

the court very much understands the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS)
you can see the reasoning here

Fifth Circuit Hits Pause on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine or Testing Emergency Standard

One day after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) titled “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard” (Mandate) (see 86 Fed. Reg., 61,402), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a...

www.jacksonlewis.com

 

[anatta]

None of what you just posted, except the last, is accurate or responsive. I get you have a fixed opinion and neither the law nor logic will sway you. In that respect, of course, you mirror the conservatives on the court. And I, too, expect that will be their response (as I've previously posted).

Let me have one more go: do vaccinations reduce the severity of disease? Yes, or no? Answer that question and I'll know whether further discussion is even possible.

they do

 

[noonereal]

the court very much understands the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS)
you can see the reasoning here

Fifth Circuit Hits Pause on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine or Testing Emergency Standard

One day after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) titled “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard” (Mandate) (see 86 Fed. Reg., 61,402), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a...

www.jacksonlewis.com

I am very familiar. They proceeded politically and used arbitrary definitions based on how they WANT to rule.

It's easy to do. You know the outcome you want so you set about to justify it.

 

[NWRatCon]

they do

Then I'll do you the courtesy of continuing.

lots of word to really not answer my point.

Actually, you don't make a point. But, I'll be specific.

the vaxx mandate for 100+ people in a business is just that

Is just what? Does the rule require vaccines? No. You are basing your argument on a non-fact. It's an optional scenario. Since vaccination status significantly reduces the transmission risk, the employer has alternative choices. Does the rule encourage the employer to mandate vaccines? Yes. Does it require them to? No. Can employers mandate vaccines? In most circumstances, yes (absent bargaining limitations), as is well established in the courts.

masks, PPE and all that are of course helpful in limited fashions ( PPE much more then masks)

Limited is all that is required.

but the mandate is simply for the vaxx. so lets talk about just that

Again, not the fact. Asserted and answered.

Sotomayor made some crazy statements like "what if it were machines flying off sparks -would not OSHA have the emergency use authority"
If it was a grave exigent danger then yes. People are not machines however and the" sparks flying off" like Covid transmission
is not fixable just by a workplace mandate. So the exigent threat doesnt "arise" ( from the law) simply from being at a workplace

You're basing this on... what? Not science. Not the law. The exigency is COVID transmission, is it not? The rule applies to the workplace only, does it not? Now who's talking nonsense?

the emergency use has only been tried like ten times and most were shot down by the courts

Based on their unique facts, which are beyond this discussion.

cases were like peach tree pickers and WORKERS EXPOSED TO HAZARDS due to work conditions

Where, pray tell, are these workers being exposed to hazards within the scope of OSHA's authority?

You see, you're not addressing the actual rule, the actual law, or its actual application. Your post is full of conjecture based upon your personal predilection, not congressional intent, not the facts, not the law, not the adjudication requirements or authority. I believe that is also the basis upon which the SCOTUS majority will rule, which is exactly the problem and the basis for most complaints about judicial activism.

I think, too, you can appreciate my frustration with your argumentation.

 

[NWRatCon]

I need to correct a potential overstatement. The rule requires vaccinations with exceptions, and mandates actions with regard to the unvaccinated. All of the rules are, technically, mandates (as the law requires), because compliance is not optional. My description, in retrospect, was inaccurate, as I was describing exceptions as "options", which is technically (or at least arguably) incorrect. I meant to describe the alternate scenarios. The scheme, however, has to be considered as a whole. Vaccinations are one condition, unvaccinated are another.

1910.501(d)
Employer policy on vaccination.
1910.501(d)(1)
The employer must establish, implement, and enforce a written mandatory vaccination policy.
1910.501(d)(2)
The employer is exempted from the requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this section only if the employer establishes, implements, and enforces a written policy allowing any employee not subject to a mandatory vaccination policy to choose either to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or provide proof of regular testing for COVID-19 in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section and wear a face covering in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section.

The time limit for editing prohibited the correction.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

ThI need to correct an overstatement. The rule requires vaccinations with exceptions, and mandates actions with regard to the unvaccinated. All of the rules are, technically, mandates (as the law requires), because compliance is not optional. My description, in retrospect, was inaccurate, as I was describing exceptions as "options", which is incorrect. I meant to describe alternate scenarios. The scheme, however, has to be considered as a whole. Vaccinations are one condition, unvaccinated are another.

The time limit for editing prohibited the correction.

What I understand about these mandates is that the people must get the two shots. Not the booster. I believe that is how it is written by Biden's brilliant team of ignoramuses. The CEO of Pfizer said in October that the vaccines do not stop the spread of the virus. In fact, he said only two shots do not protect enough against hospitalizations and death. The booster is required and recently said that they are coming out with a second booster for Omicron. So, the mandate makes no sense if it only demands the first two shots.

 

[upsideguy]

Can you show me where OSHA explicitly has the authority to implement a vaccine mandate?

No one is suggesting OSHA has the explicit authority; the suggestion is that OSHA has the implicit authority. Hence the question.

What I understand about these mandates is that the people must get the two shots. Not the booster. I believe that is how it is written by Biden's brilliant team of ignoramuses. The CEO of Pfizer said in October that the vaccines do not stop the spread of the virus. In fact, he said only two shots do not protect enough against hospitalizations and death. The booster is required and recently said that they are coming out with a second booster for Omicron. So, the mandate makes no sense if it only demands the first two shots.

That is a bit convoluted. The overall evidence is the two shot regiment will significantly reduce the severity of the virus including drastically reduce the chances of hospitalization and death. The two shot regiment will greatly alleviate the burden this pandemic has on our social welfare and our economy. The mandate will increase the number of vaccinated persons and move us toward heard immunity, hence it is in the public interest.

 

[NWRatCon]

No one is suggesting OSHA has the explicit authority; the suggestion is that OSHA has the implicit authority. Hence the question.


That is a bit convoluted. The overall evidence is the two shot regiment will significantly reduce the severity of the virus including drastically reduce the chances of hospitalization and death. The two shot regiment will greatly alleviate the burden this pandemic has on our social welfare and our economy. The mandate will increase the number of vaccinated persons and move us toward heard immunity, hence it is in the public interest.

Moreover, at the time the rule was promulgated, data on boosters had not yet been published. It would have been hard to base a policy on future events.

 

[upsideguy]

Moreover, at the time the rule was promulgated, data on boosters had not yet been published. It would have been hard to base a policy on future events.

Agreed. What the naysayers continually wish to do is go back to the guidelines and pronouncements that were set very early in the pandemic and suggest that such were set in stone. This whole thing is iterative. We are learning as we go, so things change. The intelligent get that, but others, not so much.

 

[anatta]

Then I'll do you the courtesy of continuing.

Actually, you don't make a point. But, I'll be specific.

Is just what? Does the rule require vaccines? No. You are basing your argument on a non-fact. It's an optional scenario. Since vaccination status significantly reduces the transmission risk, the employer has alternative choices. Does the rule encourage the employer to mandate vaccines? Yes. Does it require them to? No. Can employers mandate vaccines? In most circumstances, yes (absent bargaining limitations), as is well established in the courts.

Limited is all that is required.

Again, not the fact. Asserted and answered.

You're basing this on... what? Not science. Not the law. The exigency is COVID transmission, is it not? The rule applies to the workplace only, does it not? Now who's talking nonsense?

Based on their unique facts, which are beyond this discussion.

Where, pray tell, are these workers being exposed to hazards within the scope of OSHA's authority?

You see, you're not addressing the actual rule, the actual law, or its actual application. Your post is full of conjecture based upon your personal predilection, not congressional intent, not the facts, not the law, not the adjudication requirements or authority. I believe that is also the basis upon which the SCOTUS majority will rule, which is exactly the problem and the basis for most complaints about judicial activism.

I think, too, you can appreciate my frustration with your argumentation.

not interested in continuing this if you can't see "workplace safety" is exactly and only limited to that.
Do you get the regs purported for mandate?..kinna busy but you might ant to reveiw the 5th's injunction for details

 

[NWRatCon]

not interested in continuing this if you can't see "workplace safety" is exactly and only limited to that.
Do you get the regs purported for mandate?..kinna busy but you might ant to reveiw the 5th's injunction for details

It would have been simpler and more honest if you'd simply said, "I don't care and I don't intend to try to understand." It would have saved me a lot of effort, too, but I'm sure others (interested in reality) appreciated the information. Bye now.