Biden Is Trying to Disguise a General Vaccine Mandate As a Workplace Safety Measure
The Supreme Court will ultimately decide how convincing that disguise is.

Last week Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden's top infectious disease adviser, said the federal government should consider requiring that domestic air travelers be vaccinated against COVID-19. "When you make vaccinations a requirement," he explained, "that's another incentive to get more people vaccinated."
Although requiring vaccination of airline passengers ostensibly would be aimed at making air travel safer, Fauci sees it as a way to boost the U.S. vaccination rate. The Biden administration sees its vaccination rule for private employers, which ostensibly is aimed at addressing a workplace hazard, the same way.
The contrast between that broader goal and the legal justification for the employer mandate is at the center of the debate about whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has the authority to impose it. That debate comes to the Supreme Court on Friday, when the justices will consider whether the mandate should be blocked until the challenges to it are resolved.
OSHA's rule, which it published on November 5, demands that companies with 100 or more employees require them to be vaccinated or wear face masks and undergo weekly virus testing. When Biden announced that policy in September, he presented it as part of the administration's plan for "vaccinating the unvaccinated."
MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle called OSHA's mandate "the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations." White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain retweeted Ruhle's comment, reinforcing the impression that the rule aims to reduce the overall impact of COVID-19 by pressuring Americans to get vaccinated.
But OSHA has no such authority. Officially, its rule is an "emergency temporary standard" (ETS) that is "necessary" to protect employees from a "grave danger" in the workplace.
That characterization, if accepted by the courts, allows OSHA to exercise the sort of public health powers that are ordinarily reserved to the states. It also allows the agency to issue regulations that take effect immediately, without the notice, public comments, and hearings that are usually required.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which stayed the ETS the day after it was published, said it "grossly exceeds OSHA's statutory authority." But after the challenges to the mandate were consolidated and assigned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, a divided three-judge panel lifted the 5th Circuit's stay, which is how the case ended up at the Supreme Court.
OSHA's sudden decision to invoke its "emergency" powers, nearly two years after the pandemic began and a year after vaccines became available, seems dubious. So does its preference for vaccination, which unlike other workplace safety measures is not limited to the workplace. Tellingly, OSHA's estimate of its rule's benefits is based on deaths prevented by vaccination of working-age Americans, regardless of where transmission occurs.
OSHA has never before required or encouraged employers to make vaccination mandatory, even when it issued a COVID-19 ETS for the health care industry in June and when it addressed bloodborne pathogens through the usual rule making process. Both of those standards dealt with situations where employees faced increased disease risks because of the nature of their work—treating COVID-19 patients and handling biological specimens, respectively.
The vaccine-or-testing requirement, by contrast, applies to 84 million employees—two-thirds of the work force—in myriad industries and workplaces, with little regard to how COVID-19 risk varies across them. And it exempts companies that employ fewer than 100 people, as if the risk of COVID-19 transmission disappears below that threshold.
That is not the only puzzling distinction drawn by OSHA. According to the government's data, middle-aged workers who are vaccinated face about the same COVID-19 risk as younger workers who are not vaccinated. According to OSHA, however, COVID-19 poses a "grave danger" to the latter group but not to the former.
It certainly looks like the Biden administration is trying to disguise a general vaccine mandate as a workplace safety measure. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide how convincing that disguise is.
© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
One of those cases where the burden of proof decides everything. So they decide the burden of proof depending on how they want the opinion to come out.
Start working at home with G00gle! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour.
I work thr0ugh this link, G0 to tech tab for work detail.………__>>> Visit Here
Hmm is it true ?
Eslot
Ginsburg is no longer on the court
Note that ginsburgs opinions and dissents were heavy on constitutionality and / or statutory language based on her preferred policy preference
See ledbetter v goodyear, encinio motors, etc in dissents and others such as her ACA plurality opinion.
Based on pure statutory interpretation, the mandate is absolutely invalid. But the final opinion will depends on the policy preference of the judges.
It should be noted, based on history of all pandemics, there is high probability of the end of the covid pandemic by late February / early march which would be the typical end of the third wave. With or without vaccines - with or without vaccine mandates,
I predict an historic 4.5 - 4.5 ruling, with Roberts splitting his vote.
I could see him abstaining
4.25 - 4.25
Roberts splits half his vote and abstains with the other half.
[Fat Tony voice]I'm afraid I must insist, Mr. Roberts. You see, my wife, she has been most vocal on the subject of vaccine mandates. "Where's the vaccine mandates?", "When are you going to get the vaccine mandates?", "Why aren't you getting the vaccine mandates now?", and so on. It would be a shame if your illustrious time on the bench were interrupted because we had to, uh, penaltax it out of your healthcare for you. So please, Mr. Roberts, the vaccine mandates.[/Fat Tony voice]
No shit. Are reason editors just the slow kids in class?
Well, if they are like many libertarians, they are probably on the spectrum.
This is relatively straightforward, and the 5th Circuit had this right. OSHA does not have the authority from Congress to mandate vaccine administration. That is where SCoTUS will probably land.
And they shouldn't get any leeway on overinclusiveness/underinclusiveness just because this is an "emergency" order. They took months to draft it; they had time to get it right.
And they shouldn't get to claim an emergency now, when the vaccines have been available for a year and they hadn't started the rulemaking process on this.
Safety is not subjective. It must be based on clear rules and evidence... we wear eye protection and hard hats AT WORK bc its easy to SEE flying or falling objects.
This BS is attempting to force OSHA in private lives outside of work.
Were living a DAMNED SIMPSONS EPISODE..how can any sane mind take this seriously?
The thing is, and I don't know if you have noticed this, but Biden has been an obvious moron, for going on about 50 years now. It's getting worse in his dotage, but it was never good.
Reason editors voted for the pants shitter.
Literally held their noses while they voted.
He's also a vindictive bully.
And good at personal and family graft.
And family showering.
...and the best of 19 they had..
and it isnt gettin any better...
And to think obesity caused by overeating and junk food and lack of exercise still kills more workers than the virus. See where this is headed? If they can mandate health insurance and mandate vaccines, they can mandate gym memberships and BMI tests to buy a candy bar, can't they?
2,000 calorie diets for all!
"Based on the best scientific guidelines we have" of course
Are you a federal employee or contractor or just looking for a low calorie, nutritious way to stay within those OSHA weight guidelines so you can keep your job? Satisfy that government mandate and your hunger with out all new line of meat products!
Cry a trail of tears over our hot and spicy SOYLENT Red.
Privilege yourself with SOYLENT White supremacy (It's taking the Capitol by storm!)
Wonder at the exotic combination of flavors in SOYLENT Blue
SOYLENT. It's of the people, by the people and for the people!**
*SOYLENT Blue is SOYLENT Green without the addition of SOYLENT Yellow (only available in Chinese markets)
**SOYLENT products may contain actual people
*
SOYLENT Blue is SOYLENT Green without the addition of SOYLENT Yellow (only available in Chinese markets)*SOYLENT Blue is made when SOYLENT Green gets processed by American Universities that make blues blue and dingy yellows sparkling white! "How do they make it so blue?" you ask? Ancient Chinese Secret!
I do believe this will lead to tobacco use bans for employment. I work in several plants that already ban use on their property, but this opens the door to outright bans.
OSHA can't really regulate your diet in any meaningful fashion because most employers aren't responsible for feeding you and food isn't a "workplace hazard".
Disease transmission is a workplace hazard, especially in the service and healthcare industry, and they can indeed regulate these things.
"...Disease transmission is a workplace hazard,.."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
And they could ban guns! Guns run around killing people who sometimes have to go to work, thus they are an immanent threat to the work force!
After the supremes decide it is just a tax, and approves the mandate, the federal government will be shocked, shocked to find a sudden increase in layoffs at plants with 100 to 145 employees, and a sudden increase in companies splitting off divisions of 99 or fewer employees.
ENB will write an article about how pimps with greater than 100 whores had to layoff some of the staff. And make a libertarian argument for a sex worker exemption to the law while citing numerous Twitter posts supporting the mandate for other industries.
Maybe not, just because OSHA doesn't have the personnel to enforce the regulation. Many workplaces may be able to fly under the radar (but also be vulnerable to someone such as a disgruntled employee reporting them for violation).
Creating a hostile environment where people can inform on others to the government is the democrat way. You would have been a dutiful Stalin apologist in the Soviet Union.
Sadly, a company owned under an umbrella is subject to the umbrella's employment #s...I already explored this with my employer.
Almost every employer is good with vaccine mandates because it saves them money on people getting sick and going out on disability or whatever.
The only ones who aren't are people who are bad at business to begin with.
The reality is that very few people are going to burn down their businesses over this, and the ones that do, well, good riddance to bad rubbish.
You mean the people who support freedom of choice and personal physical autonomy?
Yes, those awful people.
Really though, go fuck yourself with an eggbeater.
"Almost every employer is good with vaccine mandates because it saves them money on people getting sick and going out on disability or whatever...."
Amost every one of Titanium Dragon's posts are:
Full.
Of.
Shit.
The only ones who aren't are people who are bad at business to begin with.
"I'm all in on no jobs for undocumented immigrants and penalizing any business owner stupid enough to hire them!" - Titanium Dragon
B.S.
I am part of the management of a medium sized engineering and construction firm and we are WILDLY opposed to it and looking for ways around it.
BIG corporations might be good with it, but companies where the founders are still in control are likely to reflect the values that the founders hold.
You are full of excrement. Pontificating on things you know nothing about.
Yes, I'd expect a range of reactions based on not just philosophical objections but pragmatic considerations.
A lot of big companies are probably OK with it. I'd expect quite a bit of pragmatic pushback from companies in industries where vaccine uptake among the workforce is relatively low and there are lots of <100 employee competitors who are potential alternate employment options for workers who really don't want to get vaccinated. Industries like construction, food service, light manufacturing, and warehousing immediately come to mind.
They love to go on and on about how much they love "democracy" (and they'll lay it on extra thick today, I've no doubt) but when it comes down to actual governing they want to rule by decree (which is what they mean by "workaround").
Yup, and same for Republicans.
It isn’t. But you’re a lying shill for the democrats.
I hate to agree with ML but it may only be a matter of the degree to which they differ. If your intent was to highlight the fact that the Ds are programmed to think that way from preschool and that that is always there go-to in case of legislative resistance - well, then i would tend to agree. But lets face it - its like the rule of water .... it always tries to find a way past roadblocks and any path will do.
This pretty clearly falls into OSHA's wheelhouse. Being exposed to COVID is a significant hazard at workplaces, especially in the service industry. Requiring a vaccination is no different from requiring PPE, legally speaking.
I have higher risk factors from traffic. This is not a deadly risk unless you're fat, sick or old you mendacious fuckwit.
Wa Wa Wa, Wa Wa Wa....
you were saying something Tissue Paper Dildo?
Oh, just more of the same? ok, carry on...
Wa, Wa, Wa .....
Christ, what an asshole.
Oh, and when are midterms again?
"When you make vaccinations a requirement," he explained, "that's another incentive to get more people vaccinated."
And what would happen if we made work a requirement?
When you make vaccination a requirement, that's another incentive to eliminate air travel.
Which is a feature, not a bug Air travel should be reserved for the selected few so that those most deserving do not have to travel with the lower class peons. For those peons are the ones who contribute most to global climate warming/cooling/change.
Sooo..... I'm retired. How the F*** does this "workplace safety" apply to me?!?! Get a new angle, Joe, you dipshit.
When botcher Joe is done with the economy, you may need to get a job to keep the lights on.
...the light...
light-s cause CO2 emission.
If you aren't working, how would this mandate affect you?
Though, seriously, if you're retired, and you catch COVID, you have a much higher risk of getting complications and dying.
Fuck off and die Chicken Little.
This was obvious the day Biden announced he was going to direct OSHA to create a rule. Since then, it has become apparent to anyone paying attention the injections are junk. Not only that, the definition of "fully vaccinated" will continue evolving. No idea how SCOTUS will rule but hopefully they strike this down.
its purely subjective when they cant define
" vaccinated" so no way to enforce this.
This is what has me torn. I am 100% against getting the jab (already had the Vid). But at what point is this a requirement to be employed anywhere? On the other hand, how long until a booster is required to be in OSHA's good graces? It honestly sounds better to just be a welfare leech at this point.
It honestly sounds better to just be a welfare leech at this point.
Nearer to Reagan's term I adopted and advocated the stance that I don't have a problem with illegal immigration if I can opt out of state and federal tax and labor regulations.
Given that the so-called vaccines don’t work, that they probably cause more harm than the virus itself, the mandate is now stale and moot.
The vaccines do work. Where are you getting this idea that they don’t?
Well, they don't work in a way that would qualify them for being mandated under the guise of workplace safety. Given that you can catch and spread covid when vaccinated, it doesn't matter if my coworkers are vaccinated or unvaccinated--they'll still spread it to me.
Hard hats won't stop all forms of head trauma. That doesn't mean they're not a useful piece of PPE and can't be required.
Same goes for seatbelts and emergency cutoff switches.
Something doesn't have to be 100% effective at preventing harm to be useful for preventing harm.
Does not stop the spread or prevent against infection. Merely mitigates symptoms, but at the same time is causing widespread illness, primarily related to coronary inflammation.
I have an infinitesimal risk from Covid. My risk, like every healthy idividual under 50, is higher from the jab than the WuFlu.
TWO false comparisons!
PS tgere ARE exceptions to OSHA safety rules in construction, where PPE are more danger with than without.
If safety lines are more likely to get tangled or cause a trip, they arent used.
Pray tell, Tissue Paper Dildo, have you ever been harmed by your hard Hat? Does the hat hard cause a life threatening condition for some percentage of those who wear it?
I got vaccinated, but you need to be honest (I know it's hard, but give it a try) and recognize that a decent percentage of those who are vaccinated become ill, and some small percentage die from the vaccine.
It does not have to be 100% effective, but it does need to be pretty much 100% not harmful.
This is an absolute no brainer, IMHO. OSHA is clearly stepping outside it's authority. OSHA requiring vaccination is akin to them stating that I not only wear my hard hat and steel-toed boots at work, but always. 24/7. At home. In the shower. In bed. At best, OSHA has the authority to require me to wear PPE while at my place of employment. Make me wear a mask? A face shield? A biohazard suit? Absolutely. That is within their authority. OSHA has no jurisdiction over my body outside of my place of employment.
Assweasel Biden lacked EO authority to force it as EOs are only binding on Govt Agencies and contractors. Ive read them. Apparently he hadnt?
So hes running around with his little hamner trying to beat another Round Peg into a Square Hole.
This injection is not a "workplace" safety measure, because the alledged "danger" it purports (falsely) to mitigate does not lremain at the workplace when an employee goes home, or to a restaurant, or to Disneyland.
Workplace safety laws are to protect workers from harm and/or injury AT THE WORKPLAcE, even if that workplace is a mobile place, such as a firetruck or workboat or boomo truck.
Dopey Joey is getting desparate. Or, more correctlyi, his handlers and teleprompter writers are.
Someons zip up his suit and make him go off by himself. Place a fw little girls' wigs here and there and let him entertain himself sniffing them. Quietly and in private.
"The End justifies the Means."
Its the excuse of all mass murderers ever
The coronavirus is a very significant risk to people at work. It is an especially acute occupational hazard for people who work in any sort of service industry.
It very obviously constitutes a workplace hazard that OSHA can rightfully require employers to deal with, including requiring masks, vaccinations, testing, and social distancing measures.
The fact that vaccines also protect people outside of work is irrelevant as a restriction on OSHA's powers.
The US Supreme Court ruled long ago that you don't have the right to put other people at risk through your actions or inactions.
You're a lying sack of delusional progshit and likely a fresh sock from our cadre of science-denying leftists.
Go fuck right off a cliff, slaver.
your blathering comment is based on TWO LIES:
1. that your OPINION determines that its effective
2. That it is.
Both are false.
"The coronavirus is a very significant risk to people at work."
Titanium Dragon is:
Full.
Of.
Shit.
It is an especially acute occupational hazard for people who work in any sort of service industry.
You can tell because while the rest of us were locked in our homes and doctors were pouring over the fields of dying and corpses all the grocery stores were unable to hire people to man their death traps. I had a cashier and a bag boy both keel over at the same time while checking out my groceries. It was terrible. had to check myself out and bag my own groceries.
Fortunately for us, some black woman was able to keep Joe's grocery store stocked while he stayed locked in his bunker. No word on whether she survived.
The unvaccinated worker must be fired in order for them to be saved.
And the vaccinated may return to work if their symptoms are mild.
Pro vaccine, but anti mandate. It's simple in that everyone can decide for themselves if they want to inject a artificial substance into their personal body. Other people should not claim the right to inject a artificial substance into someone else's body.
In no way is it right for the majority to force their will on the minority even if it makes the majority to feel safer. The Covidians are currently in power, but at some point the reigns of power will change. Would the Covidians like being forced against their will?
The best solution is for the Covidians to attempt to honestly persuade the vaccine wary with real Science using the scientific method and not the "The Science" tainted by using the political method or resorting to the violence of force using mandates.
If the vaccines honestly make sense for an individual considering their personal situation, age, health and other decision points, then let them choose. When the Covidians force a mandate, they don't win adherents. Sure some people will choose to reluctantly capitulate in this instance, but will hold the resentment that will fester and eventually strike back.
Others will choose to entrench simply due to the injustice of mandate in a equal and opposite reaction. If the Covidians have enough Faith in the vaccines, then they should have enough Faith in their ability to persuade people of the value of the vaccines.
The mere fact that the Covidians have resorted to the violence of force using mandates casts doubt in the validity for their claims.
I strongly disagree on the safety and efficacy of the shot, but entirely support your right to choose for yourself. Wish there were more to agree to disagree within civil bounds.
"Emergency Temporary Standard"
Can you even write something that sounds more dystopian?
E and T, yes.
Nothing about that is a Standard.
Standards arent created capriciously as is this.
It's unconstitutional and dead on arrival.
Biden (or his handlers) want to know how many divisions the courts have.
Yet another Reason author trying to define their own opinion and telling readers what to think. So far, I've found Reason to be highly unreasonable, full of conjecture and claims, straw arguments and irrelevant nonsense. Why do others people read this garbage? Stop letting these 'authors' do your thinking for you. They're literally telling you what to think - a true assault on individual freedom and liberty. Worse, readers here are ALLOWING this to happen and even endorsing this type of propaganda. The silly assumptions claimed without any basis in fact are your key - stop falling for this type of nose-ring to lead you around and pollute your mind. Identify the assumptions and conjecture, ignore the nonsense and you will realize that all you are reading is yet another idiotic opinion piece designed to present itself as "truth". Hardly - this is utter garbage for the unthinking masses that have abdicated their own abilities to make up their own opinions without all the noise being produced by "Reason". I find this website utterly worthless so far.
Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Friday questioned the legality of President Joe Biden’s pandemic-related vaccine-or-testing mandate for large businesses but appeared more receptive to his administration’s vaccine requirement for health-care facilities at a time of surging COVID-19 cases.
The court’s nine justices, who are all vaccinated, heard more than 3 1/2 hours of arguments in two cases that test presidential powers to combat a raging public health crisis that already has killed roughly 835,000 Americans.
https://worldabcnews.com/u-s-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-bidens-vaccine-mandate-for-large-employers/