Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Employers face patchwork of state policies on worker vaccination after Supreme Court order
Health
Employers face patchwork of state policies on worker vaccination after Supreme Court order
By Amy Goldstein, Eli Rosenberg and Jacob Bogage
Yesterday at 7:57 p.m. EST
The Supreme Court’s decision that large companies do not have to force workers to get coronavirus shots or tests leaves employers facing a patchwork of clashing state policies over their role in protecting their workforces from the surging pandemic.
The court order Thursday lands on the polarized American landscape just three days after employers with at least 100 workers — apart from the relatively few that already required vaccines or testing — put into effect vaccine verification and other aspects of the rule. That was two months after it was announced by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The about-face affects 84 million employees, more than half the U.S. labor force, although with about 63 percent of the U.S. population fully vaccinated, many workers are already immunized.
The decision by the court’s conservative majority was a relief for some firms that had regarded the federal rule as overreaching and burdensome. Complying with the requirements “would have been infeasible in some respects and onerous in others,” said Eric Hobbs, a lawyer at Ogletree Deakins, who added that many of the companies with which the firm works will be glad to be unfettered from the federal edict.
{snip}
By Amy Goldstein
Amy Goldstein is The Washington Post’s national health-care policy writer. During her three decades at The Post, her stories have taken her from homeless shelters to Air Force One, often focused on the intersection of politics and public policy. She is the author of "Janesville: An American Story." Twitter https://twitter.com/goldsteinamy
By Eli Rosenberg
Eli Rosenberg covers work and labor for The Washington Post. He joined The Post in 2017 after a decade in New York, where he worked at the New York Times, the Daily News, and the Brooklyn Paper. He has covered misinformation campaigns, politics in the Trump era, immigration issues, and disasters across the country. Twitter https://twitter.com/emrosenberg
By Jacob Bogage
Jacob Bogage writes about business and technology for The Post, where he has worked since 2015. He previously covered the automotive and manufacturing industries and wrote for the Sports section. Twitter https://twitter.com/jacobbogage
Employers face patchwork of state policies on worker vaccination after Supreme Court order
By Amy Goldstein, Eli Rosenberg and Jacob Bogage
Yesterday at 7:57 p.m. EST
The Supreme Court’s decision that large companies do not have to force workers to get coronavirus shots or tests leaves employers facing a patchwork of clashing state policies over their role in protecting their workforces from the surging pandemic.
The court order Thursday lands on the polarized American landscape just three days after employers with at least 100 workers — apart from the relatively few that already required vaccines or testing — put into effect vaccine verification and other aspects of the rule. That was two months after it was announced by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The about-face affects 84 million employees, more than half the U.S. labor force, although with about 63 percent of the U.S. population fully vaccinated, many workers are already immunized.
The decision by the court’s conservative majority was a relief for some firms that had regarded the federal rule as overreaching and burdensome. Complying with the requirements “would have been infeasible in some respects and onerous in others,” said Eric Hobbs, a lawyer at Ogletree Deakins, who added that many of the companies with which the firm works will be glad to be unfettered from the federal edict.
{snip}
By Amy Goldstein
Amy Goldstein is The Washington Post’s national health-care policy writer. During her three decades at The Post, her stories have taken her from homeless shelters to Air Force One, often focused on the intersection of politics and public policy. She is the author of "Janesville: An American Story." Twitter https://twitter.com/goldsteinamy
By Eli Rosenberg
Eli Rosenberg covers work and labor for The Washington Post. He joined The Post in 2017 after a decade in New York, where he worked at the New York Times, the Daily News, and the Brooklyn Paper. He has covered misinformation campaigns, politics in the Trump era, immigration issues, and disasters across the country. Twitter https://twitter.com/emrosenberg
By Jacob Bogage
Jacob Bogage writes about business and technology for The Post, where he has worked since 2015. He previously covered the automotive and manufacturing industries and wrote for the Sports section. Twitter https://twitter.com/jacobbogage