Biden moves to mandate vaccines for large part of workforce

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,419
13,041
136
Very narrowly yes but i am not seeing any judge dropping OSHA. It will probably be ruled that this type of mandate can't be enforced or something like that. I suspect we will see some type of action once OSHA actually publishes the regulation which i don't believe have been done yet.
so what separates this particular provision from any other workplace safety requirement that OSHA establishes and enforces?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
Very narrowly yes but i am not seeing any judge dropping OSHA. It will probably be ruled that this type of mandate can't be enforced or something like that. I suspect we will see some type of action once OSHA actually publishes the regulation which i don't believe have been done yet.
Why does OSHA permit other regulation but not this one? Be specific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
749
254
96
Again. Fantasy.

Might there be a few injunctions? Sure.

Will everything be stopped? No way.

Take away a couple tools, there are plenty more to use.

Will businesses refuse to act? Volunteer to side with the virus? Run up their healthcare costs?

Federal contractors sit on their asses and endanger their business?

Not happening. You are kidding yourself if you think this will go away.
I am seeing federal contractors complying, i am actually seeing it being enforceable. The only provision i am not seeing being enforced is the one that requires all company with 100 or more employees to mandate weekly testing or vaccination. With labor shortage,yes many business not will not bother to act on this unless they absolutely have to.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
So back to the claim that OSHA as a statute is unconstitutional? Otherwise this argument makes no sense.

OSHA will be giving options for protecting workers. Vaccines, testing or paid WFH.

Up to the business to decide, and gives legal cover to fed action.
 

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
749
254
96
so what separates this particular provision from any other workplace safety requirement that OSHA establishes and enforces?
OSHA regulations requires employer to do something to keep employees safe. This is requiring employees to take action by getting something to keep other people safe. It's like a day and night difference.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Zorba

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
OSHA regulations requires employer to do something to keep employees safe. This is requiring employees to take action by getting something to keep other people safe. It's like a day and night difference.
You’re saying OSHA can’t require businesses to have their employees take actions to keep other employees safe? Lolwut. OSHA does this all the time and has for a half century.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,616
17,191
136
OSHA regulations requires employer to do something to keep employees safe. This is requiring employees to take action by getting something to keep other people safe. It's like a day and night difference.

Not really. This gives employers cover to enforce vaccination. Having their employees vaccinated is a win. Businesses are hurting right now, both with trying to find employees and keeping existing ones working and healthy. The smart businesses want/need this and they're unlikely to be the ones fighting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
749
254
96
You’re saying OSHA can’t require businesses to have their employees take actions to keep other employees safe? Lolwut. OSHA does this all the time and has for a half century.
Biden even acknowledged that this is no enforceable in his speech. "Administration officials acknowledged the requirement for large employers could be challenged in court. But they said their hope was to provide cover of federal rules to businesses who want to require vaccines for employee " This is really nothing but really wishing that some more companies will mandate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
749
254
96
Not really. This gives employers cover to enforce vaccination. Having their employees vaccinated is a win. Businesses are hurting right now, both with trying to find employees and keeping existing ones working and healthy. The smart businesses want/need this and they're unlikely to be the ones fighting it.
Exactly cover, few extra might do it under this cover but that is about all.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
Biden even acknowledged that this is no enforceable in his speech. "Administration officials acknowledged the requirement for large employers could be challenged in court. But they said their hope was to provide cover of federal rules to businesses who want to require vaccines for employee " This is really nothing but really wishing that some more companies will mandate it.
That’s not what your quote says at all - it says it could be challenged, not that the challenge would be successful.

Like I said you’re wishcasting. It will certainly be challenged but Biden’s authority is clear. The only reason I think this question is at all close is because of the corruption of the courts.

The plain language of the statute authorizes this.
 

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
749
254
96
That’s not what your quote says at all - it says it could be challenged, not that the challenge would be successful.

Like I said you’re wishcasting. It will certainly be challenged but Biden’s authority is clear. The only reason I think this question is at all close is because of the corruption of the courts.

The plain language of the statute authorizes this.
They said same thing when CDC issued new prohibition on eviction. They are not going to say outright this is unconstitutional but they also didn't say we are confident that this will survive court challenge is what often happens when they think they even have a chances to win this fight.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
So as far as I can tell weblooker’s argument is that he accepts that states can mandate vaccination and that the federal government can mandate workplace health rules but the federal government can’t mandate this particular health rule for reasons he cannot identify.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
They said same thing when CDC issued new prohibition on eviction. They are not going to say outright this is unconstitutional but they also didn't say we are confident that this will survive court challenge is what often happens when they think they even have a chances to win this fight.
SCOTUS said that the CDC lacked the statutory authority to enact such a moratorium, something OSHA explicitly has. You’re destroying your own argument.


The quote didn’t say what you claimed it said. End of story.
 

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
749
254
96
SCOTUS said that the CDC lacked the statutory authority to enact such a moratorium, something OSHA explicitly has. You’re destroying your own argument.


The quote didn’t say what you claimed it said. End of story.
Lets wait for lawsuit to be filed and court to make a ruling. I think we both can agree that it will happen very soon.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
Lets wait for lawsuit to be filed and court to make a ruling. I think we both can agree that it will happen very soon.
Sure. Here’s my prediction right now - some random judge issues an injunction that is then revoked by the court of appeals. I have no idea what SCOTUS will do because they pretty clearly don’t care about the law anymore (see Texas abortion decision).

If you’re interested in learning more about OSHA’s enormous authority granted by Congress for emergency action here’s a CRS report on it. Hell, they don’t even have to follow other federal laws when making the rules.

 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
OSHA regulations requires employer to do something to keep employees safe. This is requiring employees to take action by getting something to keep other people safe. It's like a day and night difference.

This is nonsense. Employers have to provide a safe workplace for employees.
End of story.

Close your other tabs from whatever rw org you are reading, it's not working
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Sure. Here’s my prediction right now - some random judge issues an injunction that is then revoked by the court of appeals. I have no idea what SCOTUS will do because they pretty clearly don’t care about the law anymore (see Texas abortion decision).

If you’re interested in learning more about OSHA’s enormous authority granted by Congress for emergency action here’s a CRS report on it. Hell, they don’t even have to follow other federal laws when making the rules.


Meanwhile businesses will need to start addressing employee questions TOMORROW.

Leaders cannot respond with "well, we're waiting around to see if there will be an injuction, and watch lawyers bicker, so go back to work and try not to cough on each other or our customers."
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Dave_5k

Platinum Member
May 23, 2017
2,007
3,820
136
Sure. Here’s my prediction right now - some random judge issues an injunction that is then revoked by the court of appeals. I have no idea what SCOTUS will do because they pretty clearly don’t care about the law anymore (see Texas abortion decision).

If you’re interested in learning more about OSHA’s enormous authority granted by Congress for emergency action here’s a CRS report on it. Hell, they don’t even have to follow other federal laws when making the rules.

My prediction: First, OSHA has to actually draft and publish the proposed new rules - which don’t yet exist. And they have to provide time for review and implementation.

Sometime shortly after publication you’ll have a jurisdiction-shopped district court judge brought a case for injunction against the rule (almost certainly in the 5th Circuit states), chosen knowing he’ll grant it. Then the 5th Circuit will uphold the injunction regardless of precedent or the law. Then finally the Supreme Court will get its say - but barring crystal clear precedent, I’m guessing they’ll at a minimum uphold the injunction, and at worst they may use the opportunity to basically gut OSHA if the Trump “Justices” are having a bad hair day.

What Biden should have done instead (or in addition) is mandate vaccinations for all age 12+ travelers on planes and trains, which the federal govt has much more direct and clear broad interstate authority over, and could likely be done on shorter notice.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
Watching you guys argue with him while he's blocked is like internet shadow boxing 😂
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,134
2,450
126
OSHA regulations requires employer to do something to keep employees safe. This is requiring employees to take action by getting something to keep other people safe. It's like a day and night difference.

I haven't actually stepped foot in my office for the past 18 months. How does OSHA apply in my case? More importantly, why is my employer asking about my vaccination status, when it has zero impact on how I do my job 100% remotely?

Back when I took Business Law and Management classes, they drilled into us that we were only allowed to ask Occupational Qualification questions and NOTHING else. Questions about stuff like whether or not you were married or had kids were 100% off limits. If I'm never in physical contact with my employeer, why does my vaccination status even matter to them? These are questions that employment lawyers are going to be asking a lot over the next few days.
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,605
3,109
136
Biden even acknowledged that this is no enforceable in his speech. "Administration officials acknowledged the requirement for large employers could be challenged in court. But they said their hope was to provide cover of federal rules to businesses who want to require vaccines for employee " This is really nothing but really wishing that some more companies will mandate it.
LOL! You do realize anything can be challenged in court right? You don't seem to understand that his statement is just telling people that they can challenged it in court, and some most likely will try, it doesn't say or mean they can win that challenge.
 

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
749
254
96
Commerce clause says Hi!
So if company Z is working in a state A and B and state B got minimum wage at $25, are you saying that they must pay same in state A as they are paying in state B because of interstate commerce clause?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
My prediction: First, OSHA has to actually draft and publish the proposed new rules - which don’t yet exist. And they have to provide time for review and implementation.

Sometime shortly after publication you’ll have a jurisdiction-shopped district court judge brought a case for injunction against the rule (almost certainly in the 5th Circuit states), chosen knowing he’ll grant it. Then the 5th Circuit will uphold the injunction regardless of precedent or the law. Then finally the Supreme Court will get its say - but barring crystal clear precedent, I’m guessing they’ll at a minimum uphold the injunction, and at worst they may use the opportunity to basically gut OSHA if the Trump “Justices” are having a bad hair day.

What Biden should have done instead (or in addition) is mandate vaccinations for all age 12+ travelers on planes and trains, which the federal govt has much more direct and clear broad interstate authority over, and could likely be done on shorter notice.
While maybe it could be done on shorter notice it wouldn’t be very effective as even before the pandemic only like 40 something percent of Americans got on a plane each year and now I bet that number is a lot lower. Also, the populations we are trying to reach are probably disproportionately unlikely to fly.

You are definitely right that people will venue shop to get a crazy judge to issue a nationwide injunction, but if the courts are even modestly responsible they will stay it immediately. I guess we will see!
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,605
3,109
136
They said same thing when CDC issued new prohibition on eviction. They are not going to say outright this is unconstitutional but they also didn't say we are confident that this will survive court challenge is what often happens when they think they even have a chances to win this fight.
Do you even understand why the CDC eviction mandates where deemed unconstitutional? Because they don't have the authority to issue such mandates, that is reserved for Congress. In this situation, Biden is using the proper agency (OSHA) that does have the authority.