The Sixth United States Circuit Court of Appeals published an opinion last month upholding the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), requiring businesses with more than 100 employees to implement what many are calling a vaccine mandate.
The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter this past Friday.
There is no vaccination mandate. The ETS allows “employers to “opt out” of any vaccination policies).” There are several ways in which a business may continue without requiring employees to be vaccinated. Businesses may require employees to wear a mask rather than be vaccinated. However, those employees who do not want the vaccine, must be required to “test for COVID-19 weekly.” There is also the option of having employees work from a remote location, such as their homes, and those who work exclusively outside are exempt.
Iowa’s Governor Kim Reynolds claimed in a statement that “We are in the height of a workforce shortage and supply chain crisis, and I have no doubt these issues are only going to be compounded by this poor decision.” She needs to reconsider.
A requirement to wear hardhats, safety gear such as goggles and ear plugs, steel-toed boots, and many other safety features to protect the employee and those working around the employee came through the same process. This ETS is just another example of what OSHA does. Protecting employees on the job, to ensure that more employees are available to do the job will improve the status of workforce shortages by reducing absenteeism and providing a healthier environment for workers.
How can protecting public health be opposed to the public interest? Where is the harm in requiring necessary protection vs. a pandemic disease?
Rethinking is needed here by the complaining party…
Governor Reynolds thinking is absolutely opposed to the public interest.