Biden's employer vaccine rule is good policy, but it also shows we need to go even further with mandates
jbarro@businessinsider.com (Josh Barro)
President Biden rolled out a new rule that employers with 100 or more workers must mandate the vaccine or require weekly testing.
This adds to local and state-level rules requiring vaccinations in industries like healthcare and food service.
This is a good part of a "swiss cheese" policy to increase population-wide vaccine rates.
How "sweeping" is the Biden administration's plan to require every business with 100 or more employees to mandate COVID vaccination or weekly testing for their workers? It is sweeping.
But it's not clear to me it's that much more sweeping than other, less controversial policies already mandating vaccination for large populations. That is to say, other government bodies have imposed mandates that affect a larger percentage of the population they have under their jurisdiction that Biden would with his mandates (in Biden's case that would be the entire US population).
Implicitly, these mandates have two purposes: they seek to increase vaccination rates within a specific context involving specific transmission risks, but they also seek to increase vaccination rates in the general population and reduce general rates of COVID transmission by identifying substantial chunks of the population that can be pushed to get vaccines.
As you look around the country, you see cities and states already mandating vaccination - or strongly inducing it by otherwise imposing onerously frequent testing for the unvaccinated - in a variety of contexts:
Governments are requiring their own employees to get vaccinated. Employers have a particular interest in getting their employees vaccinated, as this reduces sick days, health care costs, and the spread of disease in the workplace. This applies also to the government as an employer.
Governments are requiring employees in particularly sensitive fields to get vaccinated. Many jurisdictions have imposed regulations requiring or inducing vaccination for workers in healthcare and education. New York City requires vaccination for workers in restaurants, bars and entertainment venues. These regulations apply to a mix of government and private-sector employees and are based on the idea that workers in these contexts have high levels of interpersonal contact or have contact with people at especially great risk from COVID.
Governments are requiring students at various institutions to get vaccinated. Many states are requiring vaccination to enroll at public universities, and the Los Angeles Unified School District will even require vaccination for K-12 students aged 12 or older. Congregate settings like colleges and prisons are especially at risk for COVID outbreaks, justifying this regulation.
Some governments are requiring customers of certain establishments to prove vaccination. This is less widespread than employment-based requirements, but jurisdictions including New York City and San Francisco have begun requiring proof of vaccination to enter bars, restaurants and gyms. This is based on the idea that these are contexts where COVID spread is especially likely.
None of these policies is uncontroversial, but they're within the realm of policies being considered and implemented in jurisdictions around the country. They tend to poll pretty well, too.
A "swiss-cheese" approach to getting people vaccinated
If you combine all the employment- and school-related categories with localized mandates already in place or on the way, you're talking about a really large fraction of the working-age American population that could be subject to a vaccine mandate. There are about 17 million Americans who work in healthcare, 12 million who work in food service establishments, and 24 million who work for some part of the government. Roughly 20 million Americans are enrolled at colleges and universities.
If you add in the universe of people who dine at restaurants, you're talking about a larger fraction of the population that could be subjected to these mandates than the roughly 100 million workers who would be covered by Biden's blanket employment-linked mandate.
Biden's policy is a sensible extension of the local policies we have seen, that would do more to increase vaccination rates because of its sheer scope. But he needs to make sure it holds up in court.
As Jonathan Adler of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law notes, OSHA's legal authority to require vaccines is likely extensive but not unlimited; the administration will have to be careful to tailor this rule to situations where employees face "grave danger" from COVID at the workplace - a standard that would hard to be meet when covering, for example, employees who work entirely from home. Limiting this rule to those actually at grave risk at work will likely shrink its scope below 100 million workers.
But that's all the reason to come up with more rules for other contexts (and indeed why Biden's announcement included several other simultaneous new areas of mandate).
OSHA's authority extends to the specific risk of getting COVID at work. But other government entities (not to mention private organizations) have authority over a variety of other areas of specific risk. If you put enough policies aimed at specific risks together - including a version of the OSHA rule designed to survive legal scrutiny - we'll end up with a better mandate policy that does as much as possible to combat the general risk of COVID in the whole population.
I see what gives people pause about the mandate, but these are unusual times
All of these mandates impose significant burdens on the often private entities that get charged with enforcing them. And while mandatory vaccinations are already common in schools, in the military, and for some types of international travel, in many of these settings people are unused to being told they must have received a specific medical intervention in order to be present.
And Biden's proposal is a federal policy, overriding the prerogatives of state and local governments to decide where vaccination should be required. Still, the federal government has valid interstate interests to assert here on behalf of the national public, because what happens in one state doesn't necessarily stay there.
Virus outbreaks travel across state lines. The economic impact can spread even more widely than the virus itself - the Delta wave has produced more pronounced negative economic effects in regions of the country with high vaccination rates and low incidence rates, likely because that is where members of the public are more concerned about rising case counts. And the federal government is a payer, through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, of costs generated by outbreaks.
I would not contend, as the ACLU has, that vaccine mandates are not an infringement on civil liberties. They are. But in this instance, the benefit to be reaped from a vaccine requirement is large and the cost to individuals who are coerced into vaccination is small (indeed, they benefit from receiving the vaccine). So it's good that the Biden administration is looking for legal tools to do so, and it should keep finding more.
United Airlines workers with religious objections to the Covid vaccine will be placed on unpaid leavejbarro@businessinsider.com (Josh Barro)
U.S. President Joe Biden speaks about combatting the coronavirus
pandemic in the State Dining Room of the White House on
September 9, 2021 in Washington, DC.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
President Biden rolled out a new rule that employers with 100 or more workers must mandate the vaccine or require weekly testing.
This adds to local and state-level rules requiring vaccinations in industries like healthcare and food service.
This is a good part of a "swiss cheese" policy to increase population-wide vaccine rates.
This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
How "sweeping" is the Biden administration's plan to require every business with 100 or more employees to mandate COVID vaccination or weekly testing for their workers? It is sweeping.
But it's not clear to me it's that much more sweeping than other, less controversial policies already mandating vaccination for large populations. That is to say, other government bodies have imposed mandates that affect a larger percentage of the population they have under their jurisdiction that Biden would with his mandates (in Biden's case that would be the entire US population).
Implicitly, these mandates have two purposes: they seek to increase vaccination rates within a specific context involving specific transmission risks, but they also seek to increase vaccination rates in the general population and reduce general rates of COVID transmission by identifying substantial chunks of the population that can be pushed to get vaccines.
As you look around the country, you see cities and states already mandating vaccination - or strongly inducing it by otherwise imposing onerously frequent testing for the unvaccinated - in a variety of contexts:
Governments are requiring their own employees to get vaccinated. Employers have a particular interest in getting their employees vaccinated, as this reduces sick days, health care costs, and the spread of disease in the workplace. This applies also to the government as an employer.
Governments are requiring employees in particularly sensitive fields to get vaccinated. Many jurisdictions have imposed regulations requiring or inducing vaccination for workers in healthcare and education. New York City requires vaccination for workers in restaurants, bars and entertainment venues. These regulations apply to a mix of government and private-sector employees and are based on the idea that workers in these contexts have high levels of interpersonal contact or have contact with people at especially great risk from COVID.
Governments are requiring students at various institutions to get vaccinated. Many states are requiring vaccination to enroll at public universities, and the Los Angeles Unified School District will even require vaccination for K-12 students aged 12 or older. Congregate settings like colleges and prisons are especially at risk for COVID outbreaks, justifying this regulation.
Some governments are requiring customers of certain establishments to prove vaccination. This is less widespread than employment-based requirements, but jurisdictions including New York City and San Francisco have begun requiring proof of vaccination to enter bars, restaurants and gyms. This is based on the idea that these are contexts where COVID spread is especially likely.
None of these policies is uncontroversial, but they're within the realm of policies being considered and implemented in jurisdictions around the country. They tend to poll pretty well, too.
A "swiss-cheese" approach to getting people vaccinated
If you combine all the employment- and school-related categories with localized mandates already in place or on the way, you're talking about a really large fraction of the working-age American population that could be subject to a vaccine mandate. There are about 17 million Americans who work in healthcare, 12 million who work in food service establishments, and 24 million who work for some part of the government. Roughly 20 million Americans are enrolled at colleges and universities.
If you add in the universe of people who dine at restaurants, you're talking about a larger fraction of the population that could be subjected to these mandates than the roughly 100 million workers who would be covered by Biden's blanket employment-linked mandate.
Biden's policy is a sensible extension of the local policies we have seen, that would do more to increase vaccination rates because of its sheer scope. But he needs to make sure it holds up in court.
As Jonathan Adler of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law notes, OSHA's legal authority to require vaccines is likely extensive but not unlimited; the administration will have to be careful to tailor this rule to situations where employees face "grave danger" from COVID at the workplace - a standard that would hard to be meet when covering, for example, employees who work entirely from home. Limiting this rule to those actually at grave risk at work will likely shrink its scope below 100 million workers.
But that's all the reason to come up with more rules for other contexts (and indeed why Biden's announcement included several other simultaneous new areas of mandate).
OSHA's authority extends to the specific risk of getting COVID at work. But other government entities (not to mention private organizations) have authority over a variety of other areas of specific risk. If you put enough policies aimed at specific risks together - including a version of the OSHA rule designed to survive legal scrutiny - we'll end up with a better mandate policy that does as much as possible to combat the general risk of COVID in the whole population.
I see what gives people pause about the mandate, but these are unusual times
All of these mandates impose significant burdens on the often private entities that get charged with enforcing them. And while mandatory vaccinations are already common in schools, in the military, and for some types of international travel, in many of these settings people are unused to being told they must have received a specific medical intervention in order to be present.
And Biden's proposal is a federal policy, overriding the prerogatives of state and local governments to decide where vaccination should be required. Still, the federal government has valid interstate interests to assert here on behalf of the national public, because what happens in one state doesn't necessarily stay there.
Virus outbreaks travel across state lines. The economic impact can spread even more widely than the virus itself - the Delta wave has produced more pronounced negative economic effects in regions of the country with high vaccination rates and low incidence rates, likely because that is where members of the public are more concerned about rising case counts. And the federal government is a payer, through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, of costs generated by outbreaks.
I would not contend, as the ACLU has, that vaccine mandates are not an infringement on civil liberties. They are. But in this instance, the benefit to be reaped from a vaccine requirement is large and the cost to individuals who are coerced into vaccination is small (indeed, they benefit from receiving the vaccine). So it's good that the Biden administration is looking for legal tools to do so, and it should keep finding more.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST
Whirlpool is offering to pay workers $1,000 to get vaccinated against Covid-19
By Matt Egan, CNN Business
By Matt Egan, CNN Business
Whirlpool Corp. logos are seen before being attached to washing machines at the company's manufacturing facility in Clyde, Ohio, U.S., on Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2015. The U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release business inventories figures on December 11. Photographer: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The new vaccine incentive, confirmed by Whirlpool to CNN, underscores how Corporate America is trying to win over vaccine-hesitant workers.
The vaccine bonus comes as the Biden administration prepares an emergency rule that will require large companies, like Whirlpool, to ensure their entire workforce is vaccinated or subject unvaccinated staff to weekly testing. Biden officials say companies that don't comply could face fines of up to $14,000 per violation.
Whirlpool was already offering employees a smaller vaccine incentive but increased it to $1,000 last week.
Chad Parks, a company spokesman, said the stepped-up vaccine bonus will apply to workers who were previously vaccinated as well as newly vaccinated ones. He declined to say how much the previous incentive was for.
"Our employees' health and safety remains our top priority," Whirlpool said in a statement. "Throughout this pandemic they have been working tirelessly to serve our consumers, who are depending on our products more than ever to clean, cook and provide proper food and medicine storage in their homes, and we are working to ensure we can deliver."
The $1,000 vaccine incentive by Whirlpool matches one launched earlier this summer by Vanguard, one of the world's largest asset managers. Vanguard's $1,000 incentive applies to the company's roughly 16,500 US employees who show proof of vaccination by October 1.
A number of other companies have offered more modest incentives to get vaccinated. Kroger has said vaccinated employees will get a one-time payment of $100, while Bolthouse Farms offered a $500 bonus.
The new vaccine incentive, confirmed by Whirlpool to CNN, underscores how Corporate America is trying to win over vaccine-hesitant workers.
The vaccine bonus comes as the Biden administration prepares an emergency rule that will require large companies, like Whirlpool, to ensure their entire workforce is vaccinated or subject unvaccinated staff to weekly testing. Biden officials say companies that don't comply could face fines of up to $14,000 per violation.
Whirlpool was already offering employees a smaller vaccine incentive but increased it to $1,000 last week.
Chad Parks, a company spokesman, said the stepped-up vaccine bonus will apply to workers who were previously vaccinated as well as newly vaccinated ones. He declined to say how much the previous incentive was for.
"Our employees' health and safety remains our top priority," Whirlpool said in a statement. "Throughout this pandemic they have been working tirelessly to serve our consumers, who are depending on our products more than ever to clean, cook and provide proper food and medicine storage in their homes, and we are working to ensure we can deliver."
The $1,000 vaccine incentive by Whirlpool matches one launched earlier this summer by Vanguard, one of the world's largest asset managers. Vanguard's $1,000 incentive applies to the company's roughly 16,500 US employees who show proof of vaccination by October 1.
A number of other companies have offered more modest incentives to get vaccinated. Kroger has said vaccinated employees will get a one-time payment of $100, while Bolthouse Farms offered a $500 bonus.
United Airlines told employees that they will be placed on indefinite unpaid leave if they refuse to get a Covid vaccine for religious reasons.
© Daniel Slim/AFP/Getty Images
A United Airlines Airbus 320-232 is seen parked at Dulles Washington International Airport (IAD), in Dulles, Virginia on August 14, 2021.
By Chris Isidore, CNN Business
The company's vaccine mandate is much tougher than those imposed by many other companies, or the ones announced by President Joe Biden Thursday. The federal mandate, and many already announced at other companies, give employees a choice between getting vaccinated or getting weekly Covid tests. At United, it's essentially vaccination or termination.
Although United is granting accommodations for employees who have a valid medical or religious reason not to get vaccinated, it disclosed this week there would be costs for those who cite their religious belief as a reason not to be vaccinated.
"Given our focus on safety and the steep increases in Covid infections, hospitalizations and deaths, all employees whose request is approved will be placed on temporary, unpaid personal leave on October 2 while specific safety measures for unvaccinated employees are instituted," said United's memo to employees. "Given the dire statistics...we can no longer allow unvaccinated people back into the workplace until we better understand how they might interact with our customers and their vaccinated co-workers."
United said a decision on whether to accept an employee's religious objections to vaccination would be made on a case-by-case basis.
"We are working hard to ensure the safety of our employees and customers while accommodating those employees who have sincerely held religious beliefs," said the airline's statement.
United has 67,000 active US employees covered by the mandate. Virtually all non-management employees are represented by a union.
The major unions at United did not object to the airline's original statement on a vaccine mandate in August. It was unclear whether most of the unions are ready to challenge the airline's stance on unpaid leave for their members with religious objections to the vaccine. Some did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.
"We are reviewing our legal and contractual options to support these pilots," said the Air Line Pilots Association in response to a question.
However the Teamsters union, which represents more than 6,000 mechanics at the airline, said simply that it "does not accept United Airlines' position on this issue."
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has advised employers they can impose vaccine mandates on their employees. But the agency also said that claims of religious objections should typically not be disputed by an employer and should be "generally presumed or easily established."
Still, no major religious denomination is on record opposing vaccination, despite some individual clergy members who have raised objections.
Even the Christian Science Church, which teaches its members to use prayer rather than medicine to maintain their health in most cases, has not come out with a prohibition on the use of the vaccine by its adherents. It s statement calls for members to have "respect for public health authorities and conscientious obedience to the laws of the land, including those requiring vaccination."
United employees placed on unpaid leave do not receive other benefits, such as medical insurance, although they can maintain coverage by paying the full premium themselves under Cobra. They do maintain their seniority with the company during the unpaid leave. And seniority is a major factor in determining employees' work conditions, compensation and hours of work in the airline industry.
United employees who have a medical reason for not getting vaccinated will be placed on medical leave, which depending on the details of union contracts can include pay, said United spokesperson Leslie Scott.
-- CNN's Kwegyirba Croffie contributed to this report
The company's vaccine mandate is much tougher than those imposed by many other companies, or the ones announced by President Joe Biden Thursday. The federal mandate, and many already announced at other companies, give employees a choice between getting vaccinated or getting weekly Covid tests. At United, it's essentially vaccination or termination.
Although United is granting accommodations for employees who have a valid medical or religious reason not to get vaccinated, it disclosed this week there would be costs for those who cite their religious belief as a reason not to be vaccinated.
"Given our focus on safety and the steep increases in Covid infections, hospitalizations and deaths, all employees whose request is approved will be placed on temporary, unpaid personal leave on October 2 while specific safety measures for unvaccinated employees are instituted," said United's memo to employees. "Given the dire statistics...we can no longer allow unvaccinated people back into the workplace until we better understand how they might interact with our customers and their vaccinated co-workers."
United said a decision on whether to accept an employee's religious objections to vaccination would be made on a case-by-case basis.
"We are working hard to ensure the safety of our employees and customers while accommodating those employees who have sincerely held religious beliefs," said the airline's statement.
United has 67,000 active US employees covered by the mandate. Virtually all non-management employees are represented by a union.
The major unions at United did not object to the airline's original statement on a vaccine mandate in August. It was unclear whether most of the unions are ready to challenge the airline's stance on unpaid leave for their members with religious objections to the vaccine. Some did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.
"We are reviewing our legal and contractual options to support these pilots," said the Air Line Pilots Association in response to a question.
However the Teamsters union, which represents more than 6,000 mechanics at the airline, said simply that it "does not accept United Airlines' position on this issue."
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has advised employers they can impose vaccine mandates on their employees. But the agency also said that claims of religious objections should typically not be disputed by an employer and should be "generally presumed or easily established."
Still, no major religious denomination is on record opposing vaccination, despite some individual clergy members who have raised objections.
Even the Christian Science Church, which teaches its members to use prayer rather than medicine to maintain their health in most cases, has not come out with a prohibition on the use of the vaccine by its adherents. It s statement calls for members to have "respect for public health authorities and conscientious obedience to the laws of the land, including those requiring vaccination."
United employees placed on unpaid leave do not receive other benefits, such as medical insurance, although they can maintain coverage by paying the full premium themselves under Cobra. They do maintain their seniority with the company during the unpaid leave. And seniority is a major factor in determining employees' work conditions, compensation and hours of work in the airline industry.
United employees who have a medical reason for not getting vaccinated will be placed on medical leave, which depending on the details of union contracts can include pay, said United spokesperson Leslie Scott.
-- CNN's Kwegyirba Croffie contributed to this report
No comments:
Post a Comment