蜜柚直播

Attorney General Mark Brnovich says it鈥檚 taking 鈥渇ederal overreach to unheard of levels.鈥�

But attorneys who specialize in labor law say the decision by President Biden that large employers must have all workers vaccinated against COVID-19 is well within the power of the federal government.

And companies that listen to Republican elected officials like Ducey and Brnovich and ignore the requirement could find themselves facing stiff fines.

In his Thursday announcement, Biden said the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is developing a rule to require all companies with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated. The alternative is requiring any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative COVID test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work.

The Biden administration estimates it will impact more than 80 million workers in the private sector.

Normally, that kind of rule change takes time, including hearings. But the Democratic president said OSHA will implement an 鈥渆mergency temporary standard鈥� to put it into effect.

鈥淭his is not the power vested with the federal government,鈥� Ducey said. He promised pushback against what he called a 鈥渄ictatorial鈥� approach.

鈥淲hat the Biden administration is doing is government overreach, pure and simple,鈥� the governor said.

Brnovich promised to 鈥渢ake all legal recourse to defend our state鈥檚 sovereignty and the rights of 蜜柚直播ns to make the best health-care decisions for themselves.鈥�

And House Speaker Russell Bowers and Senate President Karen Fann, also both Republicans, called Biden鈥檚 order 鈥渁n illegal government mandate.鈥�

But the administration鈥檚 actions are neither as questionable nor as outrageous as the Republican politicians contend, said Shefali Milczarek-Desai, director of the Workers鈥� Rights Clinic at the University of 蜜柚直播 College of Law.

The key is that the plan is rooted in OSHA鈥檚 authority to ensure that employers have safe workplaces.

鈥淣ot only is this something that OSHA can do but it鈥檚 something OSHA鈥檚 always done in the past,鈥� said Milczarek-Desai.

She said a federal statute allows for emergency temporary standards 鈥渨hen workers are exposed to 鈥榞rave danger.鈥濃��

鈥淭he exposure here can be toxic substances, it can be something that is physically harmful,鈥� she explained.

鈥淥r, interestingly, the statute also says 鈥榝rom new hazards,鈥濃�� said Milczarek-Desai, who also is a practicing attorney. 鈥淎nd that can be where COVID is coming in.鈥�

Attorney David Selden agreed.

鈥淭hey do that under the 鈥榞eneral duty鈥� clause which requires that all employers have a workplace free of recognized hazards that can cause serious injury,鈥� he said. And while that may be 鈥渋ll-defined,鈥� Selden said it鈥檚 broad enough to sweep in COVID-related issues.

It is true, he said, that 蜜柚直播 has its own OSHA plan and program, funded in part by the federal government and administered by the state Industrial Commission. But he said that does not make 蜜柚直播 free to ignore federal rules, as the federal law requires the state program be 鈥渁t least as effective鈥� as the federal plan.

鈥淥nce federal OSHA adopts a standard, it will be mandatory for 蜜柚直播 to enforce the same standard,鈥� said Selden who normally represents employers in legal issues, including OSHA compliance.

Attorney James Barton, who represents worker interests, said he believes legal efforts to void the mandate will fall flat, given the agency鈥檚 statutory duties.

鈥淚 think you鈥檇 have a hard time saying that this language isn鈥檛 about workplace safety,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t sure seems like it is to me.鈥�

Nor is this unprecedented.

鈥淭here have already been OSHA reviews and inspections based upon COVID protocols,鈥� said Selden. 鈥淲e have situations, even in 蜜柚直播, where an employee may make a complaint to OSHA.鈥�

Usually, he said, it involves people who want to work at home because they say they鈥檙e being asked to work too close to others, especially if they are not wearing masks. That forces him, as an attorney for the company, to respond to state OSHA officials to assure them there are policies in place to protect the health of the workers.

That can include leaving every other cubicle open, testing workers, or taking their temperature when they report to work. But citations remain possible.

Vaccines aren鈥檛 a different issue, in Milczarek-Desai鈥檚 opinion.

She said it is up to OSHA to show that there is that risk of 鈥済rave danger鈥� when workers have to be in proximity with others who are not vaccinated. And if that鈥檚 the case, she said, requiring vaccinations 鈥渋s something that comes within OSHA鈥檚 purview.鈥�

鈥淚t鈥檚 a health and safety measure that impacts the workforce,鈥� Barton agreed. 鈥淭o me, it doesn鈥檛 seem any different than any other health and safety measure.鈥�

Barton also noted there is an alternate option: weekly testing. 鈥淪o it doesn鈥檛 mandate vaccines,鈥� he said.

He said there always are requirements for accommodations to be made in cases where there is noncompliance due to medical reasons or someone鈥檚 sincerely held religious belief .

If there is a potential weak point in the plan, Selden said the fact that it will apply only to companies with 100 or more employees may provide some basis for a challenge.

鈥淎 worker in a workplace with 75 employees could be exposed to the exact same risks as someone who works for someplace with 101 employees,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hy would there be a different standard for one than the other?鈥�

鈥淭hat kind of gives the appearance this is a politically driven thing rather than pure safety because every worker should be entitled to protection, particularly when the grounds for this are that it鈥檚 鈥榓 grave risk,鈥欌�� Selden said.

Barton, however, said he thinks the exemption for smaller firms might be upheld.

He said that precedent has been set in other laws. For example, federal statutes on age and race discrimination apply only to companies with 15 or more employees.

Milczarek-Desai said there鈥檚 something else that could become an issue.

Take, for example, a company that has more than 100 employees but most of them work from home. She said the firm might be able to make a case for an exemption.

But she expects challenges 鈥渢o be quite limited in scope.鈥�

Selden said there鈥檚 a word of caution for employers who implement the new policy: Address employee concerns on an individual basis and avoid 鈥渦niform edicts and ultimatums that cause people to be resistant to a top-down mandate.鈥�

He also said companies must take care to maintain medical information about employees as confidential, including vaccine ID cards and COVID test results.

And Selden said employers should not have a retaliatory attitude towards those who are resistant to vaccines.