I’m not one either, but we have one and he disagrees with you.
I should note that my company isn’t some rebellious little island of specialness.
Does he think that “generally available” and EUA are the same thing? I’ve read that one of the reasons why the military hasn’t mandated the Covid vaccine for the troops is because it’s only in EUA status.
The military has a different set of laws and rules that apply to them that differs from the civilian world. What they do makes no difference to me.
No, generally available and EUA are not the same thing, nor are they meant to be. One is a type of approval, while the other speaks to availability. Under the EUA, the COVID vaccine in the US is currently generally available to anyone who is 12 or older, which covers everyone I’m able to employ. Under full approval, the COVID vaccine in the US will be generally available to anyone who is 12 or older (and maybe younger by then).
As I’m sure you’re aware, this matter will ultimately decided by the courts.
Not really aware of anything. I fully expect lawsuits fighting vaccine requirements to get resolved rather quickly and likely not in favor of those filing them. Either way, this is moving the goalposts and is way off topic by now. I was simply calling out an incorrect statement that you made. Remember this:
I’m pretty sure I have comprehensively debunked that by this point.
You’ve done no such thing. I said that they shouldn’t, and that’s my opinion. You haven’t debunked anything.
Okay, then I’ll give your original reply the consideration an opinion deserves and ignore it in face of evidence to the contrary. Works for me.
The way you framed your complete post including giving an example of a third party handling vaccination bonuses read very much to me as a statement of what you thought the legal situation was as a factual matter, not your personal opinion on the merits of the law.
But there’s no reason we can’t discuss both.
I didn’t intend to state a factual legal opinion, as I am not qualified to do so. Sorry if my phrasing made you think otherwise.
I was going to post a similar thread, and Discourse directed me here, so here I am.
Some new information since the last post May 15.
It seems that employers can definitely require that it’s on-site employees be vaccinated with some exceptions - medical conditions and “sincerely held religious belief.”. This last one may be problematic as I am unaware of any main-stream religions that ban vaccinations for their members (Jehova witness?)
I still can’t find much information on Health Insurance in the USA in the time of Covid, particularly if rates will be going up for the unvaccinated, or if their policies will henceforth exclude coverage if they have not been vaccinated. I can imagine that the bean counters/actuaries are calculating the costs of covering unvaccinated people who are much, much more likely to require expensive medical treatment.
Meh. That entire article ignores the current problem which is that the vaccines are currently under emergency authorization. The legislation on emergency approval specifically mentions a right of refusal, with the consequences of refusal being explained. Pro-vaccine mandate lawyers take that to mean any non-government consequences whatsoever, eg getting fired/losing your credit score/blackballed by an industry are all fair game. I think a more realistic reading would be that medical consequences are explained because otherwise a right of refusal is utterly meaningless.
That opinion is worth about as much as the opinion of the pro-insurrection lawyers who say that their clients were just simple tourists on Jan 6.
Value = less than a bucket of warm spit.
Do you even know what I’m talking about? What the hell does insurrection have to do with this? The emergency approval legislation provides “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks”. Pro mandate people are saying that means being told you’re getting fired is intended as legitimate “consequence” under the legislation. Anyone with the barest of medical background would not.
Think about it. Do you want, going forward, employers to be able to mandate drugs that aren’t fully approved? Imagine how this could be abused with soldiers being deployed.
I don’t want employers doing a whole lot of things, although pandemic-triggered drug mandates aren’t high on my list of concerns (or on the list at all), but since the US is pretty solidly on board with at will employment, that ship has sailed. Being vaccinated isn’t a protected class, so kiss your job goodbye. I might have fired you because of your green shoelaces, or perhaps it was because you’re an Auburn fan, or hell, I might even have fired you because you weren’t vaccinated. There’s even the chance that perhaps you actually did suck at your job. Either way, and regardless of whether the drug is authorized under EUA vs Full Approval,…
You’re fired!
Yes, “at will” employment takes care of many of the legal problems. I would kinda bet this is the only time you’re happy about it.
But not everyone lives in an at will jurisdiction.
When vaccines became available, I got one as quickly as I could. I also told my employees that vaccination would be a requirement for employment.
I never spoke with a lawyer, or researched the legality of my requirement, but hell if I’d be around people every day who were unvaccinated. I’d retire a few years earlier than planned if necessary.
Sure, but those who aren’t also don’t fall under the US EUA rules (or the EEOC or ADA or HIPAA or anything else along those lines), so what exact point were you wanting to make again?
Maybe you’re a worker’s rights lawyer and can tell me. I can fire someone without cause, ie “at will”. If I make a public statement that I am firing someone for a particular cause, eg you are unvaccinated, do you think that might cause any complications with unionized employees? Professional employees with decent contracts?
Fwiw, I am leery of this kind of thing but I can accept some employer push on vaccinations. I just think emergency authorization vs full authorization is an important line in the sand though.