OldFlame
Diamond Member
- Aug 5, 2020
- 12,585
- 10,166
- 2,138
Yes, they have everyone by the proverbial balls, that's why big government needs to go.
OSHA to expand COVID mandate?
- Thread starter task0778
- Start date
Yes, they have everyone by the proverbial balls, that's why big government needs to go.
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 91,579
- 38,637
- 2,250
People have been protesting an overbearing out of control government but they were demeaned bad and told to stop.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,040
- 123,803
- 3,645
Wow, you misunderstood his post and posted a falsehood. Embarrassing.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,040
- 123,803
- 3,645
Well, take some good acid then, because he is lying his ass off and that company does not exist.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,040
- 123,803
- 3,645
Right. Count on them to post puffy chested self soothing crap online. Like your post.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
Here we go:
Federal vs State
news.yahoo.com
Federal vs State
Lawsuits over workplace vaccine rule focus on states' rights
More than two dozen Republican-led states filed lawsuits Friday challenging President Joe Biden's vaccine requirement for private companies, setting up a high-stakes legal showdown pitting federal authority against states' rights. The requirement issued Thursday by the federal Occupational...
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 75,714
- 40,886
- 2,605
- Sep 19, 2020
- 8,967
- 10,470
- 2,138
U.S. federal appeals court issued a stay Saturday freezing the Biden administration’s efforts to require workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees to be vaccinated, citing “grave statutory and constitutional” issues with the rule. The ruling from the Fifth Circuit comes after 19 Republican-led states filed legal challenges against the new rule, which is set to take effect on Jan 4.
It's a form of torture, I read. A way to get people to quit, I guess.
But no wonder half the states are now suing the Brandon Administration about this ---- the actual big news this week is that nobody can find employees. And so they are encouraging everyone who doesn't want the government requiring this kind of stuff to quit? By Jan. 4, right after Christmas in the middle of winter? If the economy goes into a fatal tailspin, it will be all Biden's fault.
The vaccines are no good ---- so why should we have to get them, by force?
Huge news!!!! This happened a lot faster than I expected! I thought they'd have to rescind this rule because it was going to crash the economy, and soon --------- I guess some other people thought so too.
WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court issued a stay Saturday freezing the Biden administration's efforts to require workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly, citing "grave statutory and constitutional" issues with the rule.
The ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit comes after numerous Republican-led states filed legal challenges against the new rule, which is set to take effect on Jan 4.
Thanx, Jim H ---- You are first with the breaking news!
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,552
- 2,645
The Constitution gives Osha no such authority.The Biden administration’s emergency COVID-19 vaccination requirement released today could be expanded in the future to employers who have fewer than 100 workers.
The emergency temporary standard, issued by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and scheduled to go into effect on Friday, is presented as only applying to firms that have 100 or more employees.
But OSHA is seeking public comments on that aspect of the standard, and it may be ultimately expanded to include smaller businesses, the agency said in the 490-page document.
OSHA said it is “soliciting stakeholder comment and additional information to determine whether to adjust the scope of the ETS,” or emergency standard, “to address smaller employers in the future.”
The agency is seeking perspectives from employers, it indicated (pdf).
“OSHA seeks information about the ability of employers with fewer than 100 employees to implement COVID-19 vaccination and/or testing programs,” it said.
OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine Rule May Be Expanded to Small Businesses: Labor Department
www.theepochtimes.com
This isn't a done deal, they haven't done this yet, but I think they will. Interesting to see how the courts rule on this, does the federal gov't have the power to decide what is good for you against your own wishes?
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 91,579
- 38,637
- 2,250
I'm simply noting what is happening. If the economy goes really south the Democrats will get crushed.
On the other hand, if this flies and next August transmission rates are way down
..........
task0778
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #193
That is true, but doesn't Congress write laws for health and safety that OSHA uses as their authority to issue rules and regs? The question is, has OSHA exceeded the laws Congress passed relative to this issue? I think we both would say yes, but it's up to the courts to decide. What I'm hoping to see soon is a court-ordered stay on that mandate, and subsequent decision that OSHA can't do that.
Added: I just saw Circe's post #190, the stay is in place. Good. And Jim H's post #188. Thanks guys.
Last edited:
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,552
- 2,645
Congress did not pass any legislation giving OSHA that responsibility...even if they had The Constitution does not authorize OSHA to wield that / that type of power over Americans.
- Sep 19, 2020
- 8,967
- 10,470
- 2,138
Submit comments to OSHA on the ETS - Here's How
Please submit comments people. Keep them short and sweet if you want. Be civil and state something reasonable which voices your opposition to the ETS. Use my draft comments below however you want.
Published in the Federal Register Here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...tion-and-testing-emergency-temporary-standard
Submit your comments by 12/6 here:
Regulations.gov
My comment I submitted is reproduced below. I had to shorten it a tiny bit to get under 5000 characters:
-------
The proposed ETS is unlawful, unscientific, a violation of fundamental human rights, medically ineffective, and an undue burden on businesses and the American economy.
It should be withdrawn completely and not replaced.
The proposed ETS is unlawful
The federal government cannot mandate the vaccines themselves, so the fed is using coercive tactics to threaten employers with fines or lack of business. These businesses then use coercion (threat of termination) to get employees vaccinated or tested against their free will.
The fed has authority only to issue vaccination guidelines. Vaccination requirements are set by the states. The proposed ETS is a de facto vaccination requirement masquerading as workplace safety rule.
The federal government has no power under the Constitution to force half the U.S. private sector workforce — 80 million workers or more — to be vaccinated against their will or endure repeated medical testing as a condition of simply earning a living.
The federal government lacks the legal authority to compel private employers to play the role of vaccine or COVID police, lack the police power to force private employees to undergo medical treatment, and may not ignore constitutional limits on its ability to regulate every aspect of our lives.
The proposed ETS is unscientific
The proposed ETS states, "OSHA has determined that many employees in the U.S. who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 face grave danger from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace." The working population which is the subject of this ETS is generally younger and healthier than those who are susceptible to COVID.
The data used to justify the ETS is not current or recent. The data needs to be recent to include the effects of variants, the effects of natural immunity (over half of workers have already been infected), and also the large number of employees who have now been vaccinated.
The proposed ETS effectively gives natural immunity zero significance, while treating all vaccines as if they are fully effective, regardless of when they were administered. As we know, vaccines attempt to mimic natural immunity, but don't quite achieve it, and they also lose considerable effectiveness over time and against variants. The Johnson and Johnson single dose vaccine has approximately zero effectiveness (3%) after six months, but is treated as if it is fully effective. Natural immunity is far superior and longer-lived than any of the vaccines alone.
The proposed ETS is a violation of fundamental human rights,
It is a fundamental human right for an individual to make their own medical decisions, including which medical diagnostic tests they consider necessary.
Everyone who wanted to get vaccinated has done so.
Forcing unvaccinated people to get vaccinated or tested, in order to protect the vaccinated, makes no sense. The vaccines are supposed to protect the vaccinated. If they don't work, then you can't possibly force them on the unvaccinated.
The proposed ETS is medically ineffective and possibly harmful
No vaccines or testing will ever stop the transmission of respiratory viruses which mutate quickly and have animal reservoirs. It is a proven fact and this pandemic simply confirms this.
Leaky vaccines, and the COVID vaccines are very leaky, can actually worsen pandemics due to anti-body dependent enhancement. This is well-known, and there are peer-reviewed publications discussing this likelihood for the current vaccines.
The proposed ETS is an undue burden on businesses and the American economy.
The costs of testing alone, considering the kit and administrative costs, is approximately $1.00 per hour per tested employee.
Test time is also 15 to 30 minutes per week. For non-exempt (hourly) employees who test at work, it's a significant business burden which is not addressed in the ETS.
Total costs are estimated by OSHA at $1.9B, or $7200 per firm. This estimate is ridiculously low. Losing one employee can easily exceed this low erroneous estimate, considering the costs of lost production, recruiting, interviewing, providing a competitive salary, relocation benefits, signing bonus, etc.
The cited reference (Barry et. al. November 2021) is very limited and not timely. In Washington State, for example, "About 3 percent of the state’s 63,000-plus employees left their jobs or were fired by October 18 for not complying with Inslee’s vaccine mandate. (That’s nearly 2,000 people.)" [ How Many Washington Workers Were Fired for Refusing to Get Vaccinated? ]
The magnitude and costs of employee turnover are severely underestimated.
Finally,
The Biden administration’s attempt to impose this unprecedented and unlawful federal medical mandate on the U.S. workforce without considering the public’s views is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by the evidence, and would produce a willfully ignorant rule. I demand my right to have my comments considered in a rule which affects my fundamental freedoms.
Thank you for your consideration,
James _. H____________
__________, VA
Please submit comments people. Keep them short and sweet if you want. Be civil and state something reasonable which voices your opposition to the ETS. Use my draft comments below however you want.
Published in the Federal Register Here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...tion-and-testing-emergency-temporary-standard
Submit your comments by 12/6 here:
Regulations.gov
My comment I submitted is reproduced below. I had to shorten it a tiny bit to get under 5000 characters:
-------
The proposed ETS is unlawful, unscientific, a violation of fundamental human rights, medically ineffective, and an undue burden on businesses and the American economy.
It should be withdrawn completely and not replaced.
The proposed ETS is unlawful
The federal government cannot mandate the vaccines themselves, so the fed is using coercive tactics to threaten employers with fines or lack of business. These businesses then use coercion (threat of termination) to get employees vaccinated or tested against their free will.
The fed has authority only to issue vaccination guidelines. Vaccination requirements are set by the states. The proposed ETS is a de facto vaccination requirement masquerading as workplace safety rule.
The federal government has no power under the Constitution to force half the U.S. private sector workforce — 80 million workers or more — to be vaccinated against their will or endure repeated medical testing as a condition of simply earning a living.
The federal government lacks the legal authority to compel private employers to play the role of vaccine or COVID police, lack the police power to force private employees to undergo medical treatment, and may not ignore constitutional limits on its ability to regulate every aspect of our lives.
The proposed ETS is unscientific
The proposed ETS states, "OSHA has determined that many employees in the U.S. who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 face grave danger from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace." The working population which is the subject of this ETS is generally younger and healthier than those who are susceptible to COVID.
The data used to justify the ETS is not current or recent. The data needs to be recent to include the effects of variants, the effects of natural immunity (over half of workers have already been infected), and also the large number of employees who have now been vaccinated.
The proposed ETS effectively gives natural immunity zero significance, while treating all vaccines as if they are fully effective, regardless of when they were administered. As we know, vaccines attempt to mimic natural immunity, but don't quite achieve it, and they also lose considerable effectiveness over time and against variants. The Johnson and Johnson single dose vaccine has approximately zero effectiveness (3%) after six months, but is treated as if it is fully effective. Natural immunity is far superior and longer-lived than any of the vaccines alone.
The proposed ETS is a violation of fundamental human rights,
It is a fundamental human right for an individual to make their own medical decisions, including which medical diagnostic tests they consider necessary.
Everyone who wanted to get vaccinated has done so.
Forcing unvaccinated people to get vaccinated or tested, in order to protect the vaccinated, makes no sense. The vaccines are supposed to protect the vaccinated. If they don't work, then you can't possibly force them on the unvaccinated.
The proposed ETS is medically ineffective and possibly harmful
No vaccines or testing will ever stop the transmission of respiratory viruses which mutate quickly and have animal reservoirs. It is a proven fact and this pandemic simply confirms this.
Leaky vaccines, and the COVID vaccines are very leaky, can actually worsen pandemics due to anti-body dependent enhancement. This is well-known, and there are peer-reviewed publications discussing this likelihood for the current vaccines.
The proposed ETS is an undue burden on businesses and the American economy.
The costs of testing alone, considering the kit and administrative costs, is approximately $1.00 per hour per tested employee.
Test time is also 15 to 30 minutes per week. For non-exempt (hourly) employees who test at work, it's a significant business burden which is not addressed in the ETS.
Total costs are estimated by OSHA at $1.9B, or $7200 per firm. This estimate is ridiculously low. Losing one employee can easily exceed this low erroneous estimate, considering the costs of lost production, recruiting, interviewing, providing a competitive salary, relocation benefits, signing bonus, etc.
The cited reference (Barry et. al. November 2021) is very limited and not timely. In Washington State, for example, "About 3 percent of the state’s 63,000-plus employees left their jobs or were fired by October 18 for not complying with Inslee’s vaccine mandate. (That’s nearly 2,000 people.)" [ How Many Washington Workers Were Fired for Refusing to Get Vaccinated? ]
The magnitude and costs of employee turnover are severely underestimated.
Finally,
The Biden administration’s attempt to impose this unprecedented and unlawful federal medical mandate on the U.S. workforce without considering the public’s views is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by the evidence, and would produce a willfully ignorant rule. I demand my right to have my comments considered in a rule which affects my fundamental freedoms.
Thank you for your consideration,
James _. H____________
__________, VA
Last edited:
Flopper
Diamond Member
Your goose is cooked. Americans oppose vaccine mandates and are LESS likely to vote for Congressional candidates who back mandates.
Page 17
This is a total crap sandwich
210292 NBC News October Poll (10-31-21 Release)
www.documentcloud.org
Nope, overall, the poll found that 51% of Americans approve of the mandate, 34% disapprove and 14% have no opinion, the AP reported. Americans are of two minds about President Joe Biden's vaccine mandates, with political party affiliation playing a pivotal role in their opinions, a new poll finds. 64% of those who have been vaccinated approve of the mandate and 23% disapprove. Among those not vaccinated, 14% support the mandate and 67% are opposed to it. Not surprising, nearly 70% of democrats approved of mandate and nearly the same percentage of republicans disapproved. As one scientist said, vaccines, treatments, and preventive measures are rarely the problem in epidemic. It almost always boils down to politics.
Flopper
Diamond Member
No, Congress created OSHA to assure safe and healthful conditions for working men and women in the workplace. Under the OSHA law, the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace for their workers and OHSA's responsibility is to provide the regulations to see that it happens. The only questions before the courts is whether requiring vaccines or covid tests are an overreach.
It seems almost certain that the high court will allow the mandate to stand. Multiple times the court has made it's opinion known in regard to goverment mandates during epidemics. The first vaccine mandate in the early 19th century was ruled to be legal. In 1905 the high court upheld a smallpox vaccine mandate in Cambridge. And by 1922, in another case, Justice Brandeis, writing for a unanimous court, upheld child school vaccine mandates, calling it settled law. Just this month, the Supreme Court, in fact, declined to take up a case that was challenging a vaccine mandate at Indiana University.
There is an abundance of case supporting vaccine mandates.
bugs
Platinum Member
There is NO ******* WAY it will stand..
Flopper
Diamond Member
It will stand for two reasons.
First, there is plenty of case law supporting vaccine mandates, some of it coming from the high court. Secondly, in a national healthcare emergency, it seems very unlikely the high court would stop a presidential vaccine mandate requiring vaccinations that have been shown effective and safe against a virus that has killed over 750,000 Americans in the worst epidemic in American history.
SweetSue92
Diamond Member
Old poll. Opinions have changed and are changing.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Senator Blumenthal: US seem to be on path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 1
-
'Defense sources: Iran regime change not military goal, creating conditions for it is'- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 9
-
Civil Rights Imagery in Anti-Redistricting Mailers Draws Outrage from Virginia Dems- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
This major Ontario lender announces financial hit as borrowers miss payments, bad loans mount- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0