3 ms·

Both of these statements are false, but since you provided no rationale or examples, you'll have to wait until this executive order is thrown out like the one b

by rsj_hn 5y ago

Both of these statements are false, but since you provided no rationale or examples, you'll have to wait until this executive order is thrown out like the one banning evictions. Trying to tie vaccine mandates to workplace safety is a howler (https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/572149-bidens-wildly-unconstitutional-vaccine-mandate https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/572149-bidens-wildly-u...) but we will need to wait for the courts to toss this.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> Both of these statements are false, but since you provided no rationale or examples So you claim without rationale or examples. > you'll have to wait until this executive order is thrown out like the one banning evictions. The eviction ban had nothing to do with workplace safety. It doesn't come under the executive's power to manage federal contracts and workplace safety via OSHA. In fact, it is much more grounded as an executive order than most of the other executive orders dealt out in the past 8 years.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  The executive order is for all employers that employ more than 100 workers, not federal contracts. But even federal contracts can't be amended by executive decree once they are signed. But if you are so certain that the EO is constutional all you will need to do is wait.
davidf18 5y ago
Author of that cited article is with the very conservative Heartland Institute. Protecting vaccinated patients from being infected through vaccine breakthrough by unvaccinated patients is clearly a health and safety rule which is under OSHA. Unvaccinated employees because they are much more likely to become infected, and infectious for longer periods of time than vaccinated employees, present a biohazard risk to vaccinated employees. The Heartland author article did not even mention health and safety and biohazards.

3 ms·

Both of these statements are false, but since you provided no rationale or examples, you'll have to wait until this executive order is thrown out like the one b

by rsj_hn 5y ago

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> Both of these statements are false, but since you provided no rationale or examples So you claim without rationale or examples. > you'll have to wait until this executive order is thrown out like the one banning evictions. The eviction ban had nothing to do with workplace safety. It doesn't come under the executive's power to manage federal contracts and workplace safety via OSHA. In fact, it is much more grounded as an executive order than most of the other executive orders dealt out in the past 8 years.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  The executive order is for all employers that employ more than 100 workers, not federal contracts. But even federal contracts can't be amended by executive decree once they are signed. But if you are so certain that the EO is constutional all you will need to do is wait.
davidf18 5y ago
Author of that cited article is with the very conservative Heartland Institute. Protecting vaccinated patients from being infected through vaccine breakthrough by unvaccinated patients is clearly a health and safety rule which is under OSHA. Unvaccinated employees because they are much more likely to become infected, and infectious for longer periods of time than vaccinated employees, present a biohazard risk to vaccinated employees. The Heartland author article did not even mention health and safety and biohazards.