The above piece written by a lawyer is not a refusal - it is conditional acceptance based upon information needed to make and informed decision that the employer is not going to be able to provide. So, the employer is basically given a legal out because the employee is not refusing. The language is such that no retaliation can be taken by the employer for the exercise of informed consent law. The employers legal counsel will have to inform the employer that no such information is available or can be supplied. That is still not a refusal. This is a strategy that could work because it allows an employer a way out while at the same time educating them that they could be liable because what they were told and what actually is true about the jabs are not the same. This same strategy could also work with the swabbing.
The above piece written by a lawyer is not a refusal - it is conditional acceptance based upon information needed to make and informed decision that the employer is not going to be able to provide. So, the employer is basically given a legal out because the employee is not refusing. The language is such that no retaliation can be taken by the employer for the exercise of informed consent law. The employers legal counsel will have to inform the employer that no such information is available or can be supplied. That is still not a refusal. This is a strategy that could work because it allows an employer a way out while at the same time educating them that they could be liable because what they were told and what actually is true about the jabs are not the same. This same strategy could also work with the swabbing.