Yes, it is not actually a refusal. So the employer can not terminate on grounds of refusing to comply. Also it has specific language about retaliation. It can probably work the same way with swabbing.

I advised months ago to attack mandates from the informed consent angle and not draw a line in the sand and fight over exemptions. They were prepared for that defense and already knew what they were going to do to counter it. This conditional acceptance sidesteps that process by using informed consent laws as a defense. We know that an employer cannot supply the information requested nor are they willing to accept the liability - especially in writing. What is missing from the request is asking them to prove that there even is a health threat to begin with by providing proof that a virus even exists and that it poses a risk.

If a few people at each company employed this strategy, it may actually turn this around and at the same time wake up the employer. Once employers realize they are being hung out to dry, we may see how quickly it will start to crumble. It only takes a couple to get that ball rolling.

Martial arts uses a tactic of not confronting an enemy directly, but to use their own momentum and deflect that energy away, thereby causing the opponent to be off balance and open to be attacked from the side or behind. Using conditional agreement and not a frontal defensive posture of denial is a way to deflect the mandate instead of getting into a situation of seeing who is going to blink first. By giving employers also the possible legal out, they may be more likely to drop the issue. Remember, the government is trying to come up with ways to fine employers for not enforcing the mandates and drug companies are also passing money around to enforce the policies. If employers are put into a no win situation by either being sued by employees as a class action, or fined by the government, they may actually pick up the fight to get mandates dropped.