Vaccine or not?

I’ve answered it several times. Biden has ZERO direct authority over individuals however state governors do have based on their vested powers in each state constitution. Abbott has that power. OSHA was not working on any such legislation to impact individuals prior to the idiots EO and still haven’t published the relevant guidelines.

I recognize the power OSHA has based on the commerce clause… just as I recognize the power vested in the governor’s executive office.

Do you have an example of any case by OSHA contesting Montana’s anti vax mandate legislation? No? There you have your answer.

So you support the vaccine mandate.

Gross.
 
I understand you don’t agree with him. I don’t know the answer to your question. Since no mandate actually exists, I haven’t bothered to look past some other people’s hypothetical articles about how it might fare in court.

The congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce is very broad. The delegation of that authority to OSHA is also broad. The non-delegation doctrine has been non-existent in US jurisprudence.

I think it’s more likely the mandate is denied on legal grounds for not meeting the ETS requirements than constitutional reasons.

None of that is entirely original thought. I’ve posted the articles, ITT.
I asked about existing OSHA mandates regarding other vaccines. Not the coming one for Covid 19. I asked because that would determine if there is an established precedence for the requirement of a (any) vaccine. That would go a long way, imo, of determining if OSHA has the power/jurisdiction, not sure of the word, to make this mandate.
 
I asked about existing OSHA mandates regarding other vaccines. Not the coming one for Covid 19. I asked because that would determine if there is an established precedence for the requirement of a (any) vaccine. That would go a long way, imo, of determining if OSHA has the power/jurisdiction, not sure of the word, to make this mandate.

I gave my answer in the post you just responded to.
 
I’ve answered it several times. Biden has ZERO direct authority over individuals however state governors do have based on their vested powers in each state constitution. Abbott has that power. OSHA was not working on any such legislation to impact individuals prior to the idiots EO and still haven’t published the relevant guidelines.

I recognize the power OSHA has based on the commerce clause… just as I recognize the power vested in the governor’s executive office.

Do you have an example of any case by OSHA contesting Montana’s anti vax mandate legislation? No? There you have your answer.

OSHA can't get the 100 employee limit to work, if they could the regulations would already be written.
 
I asked about existing OSHA mandates regarding other vaccines. Not the coming one for Covid 19. I asked because that would determine if there is an established precedence for the requirement of a (any) vaccine. That would go a long way, imo, of determining if OSHA has the power/jurisdiction, not sure of the word, to make this mandate.

There isn't an OSHA regulation in regards to mandating a vaccine.
 
OSHA can't get the 100 employee limit to work, if they could the regulations would already be written.
I’d guess that is a sticking point yes. But I have no doubt they will issue something servicing the EO the idiot in chief has spoken… well or whoever is actually running the country has spoken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol
Constitutionality doesnt determine overreach.
Mostly, it does.

Overreach is a government going beyond the scope of its authority. The constitution is the document that sets out the agreed limits on government. Laws and regulations also limit some actions.

You can have an opinion on constitutionality/legality that precedes or differs from a judicial determination, but you have to (or should) accept that judicial determination is the agreed upon mechanism for resolution of those disagreements. Just like you can think Ron Paul should be President, but if he loses the election, there’s nothing you can do about it except move.

Within constitutional and legal confines, you’re just sharing opinions on prudence.

Overreach tends to dominate the conversation here for two reasons:

1. Some people try to inflate their opinion of what is prudent to the level of overreach.

2. A lot of people base their opinions about what is overreach on what they want to be legal, who is proposing the rule, or who benefits from the rule rather than whether the constitution might actually prohibit it.
 
There isn't an OSHA regulation in regards to mandating a vaccine.
There are zero OSHA rules on the books related to any historical vaccination requirement? Assuming yes as you already stated that, are there “recommendations” on any vaccinations?
 
@LouderVol RE: your question on has OSHA mandated vaccination in the past.

Companies face pressure to act on vaccine mandates even as they wait for clear rules.

Attorneys general in 24 states have threatened to sue. Legal experts generally say that OSHA has the authority to introduce a vaccine mandate under powers granted by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. But it is never has before required vaccines in the workplace.

Plans for a mandate could also be complicated by state legislation challenging the move. Montana has outlawed employer vaccine mandates. OSHA’s standards pre-empt state governments’ existing rules, except in states that have their own OSHA-approved workplace agencies. (About half do.) The legal basis for a challenge is likely to be weakest in states that are directly within OSHA’s jurisdiction, which include Montana, Texas and Florida.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
There isn't an OSHA regulation in regards to mandating a vaccine.
That's what I had found in my limited work. But my lack of proof of a negative didnt necessarily prove the negative. I trust you have far more exposure than I do.

With that caveat I dont see this mandate sailing without getting further challenged on that, as well as other issues.
 
The right to be able to choose to not inject your body with a vaccination thats had far to many adverse reactions without the fear of loosing their jobs. I have a problem with that. Admittedly, I would expect you to think that's completely normal. Many of these businesses have been pushed by the train wreck that's in office to mandate these policies. I see nothing wrong for them to now be pushed in the opposite direction.

That's not a right, what you're describing is a want. You seem to be struggling with the idea that no one is forcing people to get vaccinated, they have the choice to quit.

Try again.

What 'rights' do you believe are conveyed merely by terms of employment?
 
Mostly, it does.

Overreach is a government going beyond the scope of its authority. The constitution is the document that sets out the agreed limits on government. Laws and regulations also limit some actions.

You can have an opinion on constitutionality/legality that precedes or differs from a judicial determination, but you have to (or should) accept that judicial determination is the agreed upon mechanism for resolution of those disagreements. Just like you can think Ron Paul should be President, but if he loses the election, there’s nothing you can do about it except move.

Within constitutional and legal confines, you’re just sharing opinions on prudence.

Overreach tends to dominate the conversation here for two reasons:

1. Some people try to inflate their opinion of what is prudent to the level of overreach.

2. A lot of people base their opinions about what is overreach on what they want to be legal, who is proposing the rule, or who benefits from the rule rather than whether the constitution might actually prohibit it.
I think the base of the constitution prohibition is an extremely high/low bar. Considering that the document allows for changes and laws based in a democratic process, what is or isnt overreach can extend beyond immediate issues of Constitutionality.

Especially in regards to presidential actions. Many have been ruled unconstitutional and gone thru. Lincoln is a favorite to point at, John Marshall may have an opinion on the matter too.
 
That's not a right, what you're describing is a want. You seem to be struggling with the idea that no one is forcing people to get vaccinated, they have the choice to quit.

Try again.

What 'rights' do you believe are conveyed merely by terms of employment?
Well then jail isnt force either. You could just leave the country, or avoid detection, or hire Johnnie Cochran.

It's an awfully narrow brush you are painting with here. Microscopic in fact.
 
That's the wrong direction to take.

It's more the business is completely rewriting the terms of employment without input from the employed during a term of employment. Shouldnt be able to change the "contract" without input, imo. No idea what specific state laws say on the matter.

If the place of employment never required vaccination of other diseases before, imo, they dont have a leg to stand on to require it now for Covid for existing employees. Now if they want to dictate vaccinations for new employees that's different.

Businesses can and should be able to change the terms of employment at will. If an employee doesn't agree to the changes, then they have an out by finding employment elsewhere. Conversely, an employee should and do have the ability to change the terms of their employment as well (e.g. getting a raise) and if the business disagrees, the business may need to find a replacement employee. This is especially true in at will employment agreements.
 
Well then jail isnt force either. You could just leave the country, or avoid detection, or hire Johnnie Cochran.

It's an awfully narrow brush you are painting with here. Microscopic in fact.

Your strawman is coming apart at the seams.

If you don't want to get a vaccine and your employer is requiring one, you've got a choice to make. It's really not as complicated as you're trying to make it.
 
Your strawman is coming apart at the seams.

If you don't want to get a vaccine and your employer is requiring one, you've got a choice to make. It's really not as complicated as you're trying to make it.

Crazy the amount of people who want At Will employment for all, until it could possibly affect them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
Businesses can and should be able to change the terms of employment at will. If an employee doesn't agree to the changes, then they have an out by finding employment elsewhere. Conversely, an employee should and do have the ability to change the terms of their employment as well (e.g. getting a raise) and if the business disagrees, the business may need to find a replacement employee. This is especially true in at will employment agreements.
There is a huge difference in an employee being able to ASK for a raise, and the ability of an employer to suddenly change a pay check without informing the employee.

The only way it would be equal is if the employee could actively change their own pay check, which they cant.
 
Crazy the amount of people who want At Will employment for all, until it could possibly affect them.

I alluded to this earlier, the same folks who squawk the loudest about wanting the government out of private business decisions sure do seem to want the government to step in and tell the businesses what they can and can't do.

Weird how moral anchors start dragging when their political wants are threatened.
 
Last edited:
There is a huge difference in an employee being able to ASK for a raise, and the ability of an employer to suddenly change a pay check without informing the employee.

The only way it would be equal is if the employee could actively change their own pay check, which they cant.

You still don't get it. Employees can demand raises, all day every day. If they don't get what they want, they have the power to terminate their employment. You seem to believe that employers hold all the cards, they don't.

I find it ironic that you'd try to point out a 'huge' difference after trying to conflate criminals having the ability to leave the US before prosecution with the principle of at will employment.
 
Your strawman is coming apart at the seams.

If you don't want to get a vaccine and your employer is requiring one, you've got a choice to make. It's really not as complicated as you're trying to make it.
Except I am not arguing for the acuteness of force. I am saying it's far broader than it's being presented, and has been established as unacceptable in government action.

Our unjust justice system has forced minorities into bad situations for decades, to the point of systemic racism. How does our justice system physically force them into bad decisions? It doesnt. But still its problem because the government limited their choices and opportunities to the point of recidivism. Same situation here. Government is wrongly limiting options on people. Not ironically minorities will largely be the group effected by the Covid Mandates.
 
Except I am not arguing for the acuteness of force. I am saying it's far broader than it's being presented, and has been established as unacceptable in government action.

Our unjust justice system has forced minorities into bad situations for decades, to the point of systemic racism. How does our justice system physically force them into bad decisions? It doesnt. But still its problem because the government limited their choices and opportunities to the point of recidivism. Same situation here. Government is wrongly limiting options on people. Not ironically minorities will largely be the group effected by the Covid Mandates.

I have no dog in your unjust justice system fight.

What I do know is that you're selling the power of employees short.

As if on que: A record number of workers are quitting their jobs, empowered by new leverage (msn.com)
 

VN Store



Back
Top