Thank you, op!! ???? Every little win helps!!!

I will go back and grab the links I used, fren! In the meantime—here is a portion of what I wrote, based on the info in those links:

“We’ve all worked incredibly hard this past year to build positivity and appreciation into our work-culture, and I think we’ve made some pretty awesome progress . I fear that this policy will immediately create dissension, divisiveness, ostracization, and contempt between two groups of our work family. Especially after reading several of the responses of the 'why's' that belong to our people who are opting out of the COVID vaccine, from the survey I recently sent out. That is to say—they aren’t wishy-washy responses. And neither are the "why's" of the group that opted in favor of the shot.
Which just means that there's already a major wall (even if currently invisible) between the two groups of people—if we call attention to it, that wall is going to grow larger and larger, and taller and taller, until we’re back to working in our old 'silos'. The only difference is that this time they won’t be service line silos—they’ll be silos containing those who’ve gotten the vaccine, and those who haven’t.

By mandating masking of one group, we are also putting a personal and private medical decision on full-display to the entire company, without each individual's consent. Essentially, we're singling out those who haven’t been vaccinated, which exposes their medical information to other employees.

This may even also work against us among the vaccinated group—many of whom may still feel more comfortable masking in the office. Now they may feel like they will be seen as 'non-vaccinated' by their peers, which, is a whole different issue that causes confusion and division.

Aside from the divisive issue, I also worry about the legality of this policy. I am absolutely not a legal expert, but I did some research today, and learned the following:

When we are talking about medical treatments that are authorized under EUA, and not fully FDA-approved, things get hairy (as you would imagine). AS per EUA rules, there must not be any mandates attached to the acceptance OR refusal of the EUA product or treatment. This rule would apply to both the shot AND masking (which I wasn't aware of, that masks were only approved for current use under EUA) .

As far as the vaccine—

“If a vaccine has been issued EUA by the FDA, it is not fully licensed and must be voluntary. A private party, such as an employer, school or hospital cannot circumvent the EUA law, which prohibits mandates.”

I understand we are not technically ‘mandating’ the shot, which is great, and I know people appreciate that.

However, the EUA rules go on to say that:

"According to Title 21, Section 360bbb-3 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”) vests the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the permissive authority to grant Emergency Use Authorizations (“EUAs”) providing that appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered:

—are informed of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

—are informed of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, or the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

What this sounded like to me, is that an individual must not be forced to accept “consequences” (ie: masking) of refusing the EUA product (ie: the vaccine). Additionally, if we were to still go this route, we would really need to make certain that we are doing a thorough job of pointing out that there are untold risks associated with this shot, as there is no long-term safety data and the type of technology used in the shots has never-before been brought to market.

Good thing to notice. It's encouraging when they let peak the truth. Probably why we so rarely are afforded the view.