I don’t understand what your question has to do with the thread, but - William of Ockham says so.
(We were all indoctrinated by Dr. Seuss and his book “Horton Hears a Who!”.)
I’m curious about the legal mechanism being employed here. From what I can gather, the EO is for OSHA to develop an Emergency Temporary Standard, which is mentioned in Section 6.c of the OSH Act of 1970.
I don’t know how to tell if that’s been updated in the past 50 years.
Most of my searches for a examples of other ETSs are drowned out by this one, but apparently there was another COVID-related one earlier this summer.
Anyway, here at least is the text:
(c)
(1)
The Secretary shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, title 5, Unites States Code, for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register if he determines –
(A)
that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and
(B)
that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.
(2)
Such standard shall be effective until superseded by a standard promulgated in accordance with the procedures prescribed in paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(3)
Upon publication of such standard in the Federal Register the Secretary shall commence a proceeding in accordance with section 6 (b) of this Act, and the standard as published shall also serve as a proposed rule for the proceeding. The Secretary shall promulgate a standard under this paragraph no later than six months after publication of the emergency standard as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
The replies to this were deeply unsatisfactory. Hopefully the above post helps.
I think this will end up coming down to what the rule actually says. If for instances OSHA says that:
In companies greater than 100 people the pathways to infection are higher than install companies so if there is a disease outbreak with greater than 1,000 infections in the state the company is doing business in it must implement the following PPE for any of their workforce that isn’t vaccinated: PAPR, and an encapsulating level A suit.
1926.95(d)(4)(iii) is added to include infectious disease PPE when the employer has offer to bear the cost (if any) of the vaccination.
That rule should be well within their statutory authority and drops several thousands of dollars in cost on the unvaccinated while doing the job to protect the people around them.
Yes, the OSHA angle satisfied me that Biden is acting constitutionally, and these details help. IANAL, but the current situation sure seems to be one in which " … employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful …," so the rest falls right in line.
Go, Joe!
In 1970, Congress gave the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) authority to write regulations governing workplace safety, including emergency standards that are valid for six months.
In June, the agency issued an emergency rule to prevent the spread of coronavirus in health care settings. But courts have fully or partially struck down five of the nine emergency rules OSHA has promulgated, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Josh Blackman, a constitutional law specialist at the South Texas College of Law, said Biden was attempting to stretch a half-century-old law beyond what Congress had intended.
OSHA regulations customarily deal with workplace conditions that directly affect employee health and well-being, such as the handling of hazardous chemicals, slippery floors or dangerous stairs.
“This is completely novel. There’s a credible argument it goes beyond the scope of delegated authority,” he said. “Lawsuits will be filed and inevitably some judge will find this goes too far.”
I’ll try to find more info on the bolded part.
Listening to 1A on NPR this morning it sounded like it was going to be a hard push for Biden to get this through the supreme court. As evidence the commentator pointed to their rejection of the Eviction moratorium as evidence that they would likely say this exceeds the bounds if the federal government. If there is a health emergency that requires immediate action, then the state governments have the power to act. Surely they wouldn’t just sit by and watch their constituents die by the thousands?
The question is how long is it going to take to work its way through the courts and will the decision be stayed in the meantime. If companies really are desiring mandates but want the political cover that Biden is providing, then even just a short window might be enough. They can then put policies in place with a press release saying they are mandating vaccination in order to comply with federal requirements. By the time the supreme court knocks it down, much of their work force will already have been vaccinated, and they can keep the mandates in place purely by inertia.
I also suspect that many Red state governors secretly hope Biden is successful while publicly lambasting him for over reach. By and large most of them are themselves vaccinated and realize that getting as many of their residents vaccinated is the only way to get the pandemic under control in their state, but can’t publicly say so because their constituency will hunt them down with torches and pitch forks. So Biden taking it out of their hands is a godsend.
Yup. I have been wondering if there are going to be any class-action lawsuits against vaccinated politicians who irresponsibly encouraged widespread refusal of vaccination.
Once a sufficiently large number of vax-hesitant people realize that the COVID vaccine is a necessary and prudent measure, and that their elected officials were well aware of that but encouraged them to believe otherwise for partisan advantage, I would think they might be somewhat miffed.
If you’re suggesting that Republican voters might suddenly realize their leaders actively work against their best interests, they’ve already had thousands of opportunities to do so. Why would this time be any different?
Well, I’m not counting on it, but I was thinking that for at least some of them, the painful COVID deaths of loved ones, or their own permanent lung damage from COVID, medical bills, etc., might be clarifying.
Many other Republican policies involve complicated social phenomena, and it can be very hard to reliably identify causes and effects for things like opioid deaths, rural decay, job insecurity and so forth. So it’s easy for the leaders to shift blame away from their own policies onto some other hypothetical cause.
But COVID is pretty straightforward, factually speaking: Deadly disease; vaccines and anti-transmission protocols provide significant protection; if you reject them you’re much more likely to get sick and die.
I know a lot of Republicans are coming up with very convoluted fantasy scenarios to try to explain away the situation with government conspiracies and microchips and horse medicine and whatnot. But I still have hope that at least some of them will be able to connect those few big flashing dots and realize how they’ve been lied to.
Why if you have gotten the vaccines you need protection from the unvaccinated? Doesn’t make sense. Also the Vaccine hesitation isn’t only with the Reps. Check the CDC website, the have a breakdown of who has not gotten vaccines by race.
Can you lay it out for us?
Anyway, vaccines aren’t 100%, so you can get it even if vaccinated, and, if you’re around unvaccinated people (for example, children younger than 12), you can pass it to them. Now that that has been stated for the millionth time, can you point to the stats about current vaccinations by demographic?
Duh, because COVID vaccines don’t provide 100% protection, so having millions of unvaccinated covidiots irresponsibly spewing their germs everywhere increases risk even for vaccinated people.
Also because the unvaccinated covidiots are irresponsibly providing COVID breeding labs in their lungs for the virus to continue mutating. Thus increasing the likelihood of creating new variants that will be more resistant to the vaccine.
Also because millions of people, such as children under 12, cannot currently get the COVID vaccine, and unvaccinated covidiots are putting all those people at serious risk.
It’s hard to believe that you’ve been reading COVID threads on these boards for months and haven’t encountered these facts before.
This has been true for 18 months (well, except the vaccine part – that’s only been true for eight or nine) but people have not just blinded themselves to the evidence but actively espoused 180-degree contrary views. We’ve had posters here share stories of relatives who continue to deny the facts after their own spouses have died of Covid. I’m not holding out hope for a mass dawning of reality for these folks.
Case in point.
The politicians and other opinion leaders who are stupidly and maliciously spreading misinformation about vaccines, and are encouraging their constituents to avoid vaccination and defy anti-transmission protocols, are almost all Republican.
Yes, there are numerous non-white people who generally vote Democratic who are hesitant about getting the vaccine. The difference is that their political and community leaders are encouraging them to get the facts and take common-sense steps to protect themselves, unlike the Republican leaders who are obstructing and misrepresenting fact-based public policies regarding COVID.
The irresponsible politicization of COVID at the expense of public health and safety is overwhelmingly coming from the Republican side of the aisle.
OK, I’ll provide the cite:
I don’t know what the NH means after some of the demographic names. Does anyone here know?
Anyway, it looks like Black,NH is in last place, both for one dose and fully vaccinated, followed by White,NH if you’re looking at one does, or Hispanic/Latino if you’re looking at fully vaccinated. So, White,NH is one of the worst in terms of vaccine status. If you broke that down further by political party, I suspect the White/Republican would be much worse than Black,NH, and of course all the rest of the minorities are better. So, I’m not sure what point you’re making.
I thought it meant Non-Hispanic.
Here’s a news story that did that, as of late August.
The smarter ones know that they’ve indelibly branded themselves as the culprits for the wave of death and long-term disability, not to mention the insurance-rate spikes coming down the pike. The latter may prove more politically damaging because 1)they’ll piss off everyone, including people too sociopathic to give a rat’s ass about deaths and injuries outside their own little monkeyspheres, and 2)they’ll peak as the 2022 election cycle hits high gear.
Interesting. Doesn’t really match the CDC page.