Go here to comment on OSHA vax mandate OSHA seeks comment on all aspects of this ETS and whether it should be adopted as a final standard. OSHA encourages commenters to explain why they prefer or disfavor particular policy choices, and include any relevant studies, experiences, anecdotes or other information that may help support the comment. Please note they are also looking for comments from employers with FEWER than 100 employees!
"OSHA seeks information about the ability of employers with fewer than 100 employees to implement COVID-19 vaccination and/or testing programs. Have you instituted vaccination mandates (with or without alternatives), or requirements for regular COVID-19 testing or face covering use? What have been the benefits of your approach? What challenges have you had or could you foresee in implementing such programs? Is there anything specific to your industry, or the size of your business, that poses particular obstacles in implementing the requirements in this standard? How much time would it take, what types of costs would you incur, and how much would it cost for you to implement such requirements?"
Significant Risk. If OSHA were to finalize a rule based on this ETS, it would be a standard adopted under 6(b) of the OSH Act, which requires a finding of significant risk from exposure to COVID-19. As discussed more fully in Pertinent Legal Authority (Section II. of this preamble), this is a lower showing of risk than grave danger, the finding required to issue a 6(c) emergency temporary standard. How should the scope of the rule change to address the significant risk posed by COVID-19 in the workplace? Should portions of the rule, such as face coverings, apply to fully vaccinated persons?
Prior COVID-19 infections. OSHA determined that workers who have been infected with COVID-19 but have not been fully vaccinated still face a grave danger from workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. This is an area of ongoing scientific inquiry. Given scientific uncertainty and limitations in testing for infection and immunity, OSHA is concerned that it would be infeasible for employers to operationalize a standard that would permit or require an exception from vaccination or testing and face covering based on prior infection with COVID-19. Is there additional scientific information on this topic that OSHA should consider as it determines whether to proceed with a permanent rule?
In particular, what scientific criteria can be used to determine whether a given employee is sufficiently protected against reinfection? Are there any temporal limits associated with this criteria to account for potential reductions in immunity over time? Do you require employees to provide verification of infection with COVID-19? If so, what kinds of verification do you accept ( i.e., PCR testing, antigen testing, etc.)? What challenges have you experienced, if any, in operationalizing such an exception?
Experience with COVID-19 vaccination policies. Should OSHA impose a strict vaccination mandate ( i.e., all employers required to implement mandatory vaccination policies as defined in this ETS) with no alternative compliance option? OSHA seeks information on COVID-19 vaccination policies that employers have implemented to protect workers. If you have implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy: (a) When did you implement it, and what does your policy require? Was vaccination mandatory or voluntary under the policy? Do you offer vaccinations on site? What costs associated with vaccination did you cover under the policy? What percentage of your workforce was vaccinated as a result? Do you offer paid leave for receiving a vaccination? If vaccination is mandatory, have employees been resistant and if so what steps were required to enforce the policy?
(b) How did you verify that employees were vaccinated? Are there other reliable means of vaccination verification not addressed by the ETS that should be included? Did you allow attestation where the employee could not find other proof, and if so, have you experienced any difficulties with this approach? Have you experienced any issues with falsified records of vaccination, and if so, how did you deal with them?
(c) Have you experienced a decrease in infection rates or outbreaks after implementing this policy?
(d) If you have received any requests for reasonable accommodation from vaccination, what strategies did you implement to address the accommodation and ensure worker safety ( e.g., telework, working in isolation, regular testing and the use of face coverings)?
COVID-19 testing and removal. OSHA seeks information on COVID-19 testing and removal practices implemented to protect workers. (a) Do you have a testing and removal policy in your workplace and, if so, what does it require? How often do you require testing and what types of testing do you use ( e.g., at-home tests, tests performed at laboratories, tests performed at your worksites)? What costs have you incurred as part of your testing and removal policies? Do you have difficulty in finding adequate availability of tests? How often? Have you experienced any issues with falsified test results, and if so, how did you deal with them? Have you experienced other difficulties in implementing a testing and removal scheme, including the length of time to obtain COVID-19 test results? Do you offer paid leave for testing?
(b) How often have you detected and removed COVID-19 positive employees from the workplace under this policy? Do you provide paid leave and job protection to employees you remove for this reason?
(c) Should OSHA require testing more often than on a weekly basis?
Face coverings. As discussed in the Summary and Explanation for Face Coverings (Section VI.I. of this preamble), ASTM released a specification standard on February 15, 2021, to establish a national standard baseline for barrier face coverings (ASTM F3502-21). Should OSHA require the use of face coverings meeting the ASTM F3502-21 standard instead of the face coverings specified by the ETS? If so, should OSHA also require that such face coverings meet the NIOSH Workplace Performance or Workplace Performance Plus criteria (see CDC, September 23, 2021)? Are there particular workplace settings in which face coverings meeting one standard should be favored over another? Are there alternative criteria OSHA should consider for face coverings instead of the F3502-21 standard or NIOSH Workplace Performance or Workplace Performance Plus criteria? Is there sufficient capacity to supply face coverings meeting F3502-01 and/or NIOSH Workplace Performance or Workplace Performance Plus criteria to all employees covered by the ETS? What costs have you incurred as part of supplying employees with face coverings meeting the appropriate criteria?
Other controls. This ETS requires employees to either be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly and wear face coverings, based on the type of policy their employer adopts. It stops short of requiring the full suite of workplace controls against SARS-CoV-2 transmission recommended by OSHA and the CDC, including distancing, barriers, ventilation, and sanitation. As OSHA explained in Need for the ETS (Section III.B. of this preamble), OSHA has determined that it needs more information before imposing these requirements on the entire scope of industries and employers covered by the standard. OSHA is interested in hearing from employers about their experience in implementing a full suite of workplace controls against COVID-19.
What measures have you taken to protect employees against COVID-19 in your workplace? Are there controls that you attempted to employ but found ineffective or infeasible? What are they? Why did you conclude that they were they ineffective or infeasible; for example, are there particular aspects of your workplace or industry that make certain controls infeasible? Do you require both fully vaccinated and unvaccinated employees to comply with these controls? Have you experienced a reduction in infection rates or outbreaks since implementing these controls?
Educational materials. Have you implemented any policies or provided any information that has been helpful in encouraging an employee to be vaccinated?
Feasibility and health impacts. Do you have any experience or data that would inform OSHA's estimates in its economic feasibility analysis or any of the assumptions or estimates used in OSHA's identification of the number of hospitalizations prevented and lives saved from its health impacts analysis (see OSHA, October 2021c)?
This a fucking joke. A farce. A fake commie intalled illegitimate .gov mandate a vaxx that doesn't work and kills. But hey, give your comment wink wink. They're gonna do what they're gonna do. Fuck letting them know how many and just who opppses their commie wrath. Id rather they be shocked and awed at the number of people that in the end shove all this shit back up those commies asses. Fuck them.
They'll probably just add you to their anti jab database.
I'm already in it, I'm sure.
I'm a kickboxer I'm pro jab cross and hook. Uppercut roo.
How's your roundhouse? We may need it
Pretty damn good, I'm 6 feet tall and can kick above 6 feet, and my roundhouse to knees and ribs packs a hell of a punch.
They can add me. As Jo Dee Messina once sang, my Give A Damn is Busted, after 2 years of this shit. Im back in Infantry mode. I'll die on my motherfucking feet before I'll ever live on my knees. I triple dog dare a fed to knock on my door with whats happening nowadays.
anyone not on that database will be fair game when shtf
Read the comments people submitted, they’re gold!
The first one I clicked on someone added a copy of the US Constitution lol!
How about this, if you're from the government, FUCK OFF.
I do not consent to be governed by any man.
I only follow one God. My rights come only from God.
And that connection is a direct link between me and him.
No outside comms. No interference.
Is this a ploy to put the opposition in a data base? I trust OSHA as far as I can spit. Let’s just say compelling forced vaccination is unconstitutional. My body, my choice. Why take something that is useless-efficacy is 3-6 months with never ending boosters. It provides more deaths and adverse redactions for an illness with greater than 99% survival rate for most. How about encouraging healthy diet with fruits and vegetables, no fast or fried foods, low carbs-cut out pasta, breads, potatoes, potato chips candy, take Vitamin C and D, zinc, and quercitin. Done.
This is a key point to consider. Where is this information to be kept? It cannot be in an employee's file due to ADA regulations. Then there are Cyber liability issues- how secure is this information you are gathering from being hacked? If it does get hacked, what is my recourse?
I'm all for the vitamins, but don't even think about taking away my carbs! :)
This FINALLY got stickied!!! I've been posting this info for the past 3 days - with no sticky.
You did it wrong. If you would have quoted a bible verse or made a meme out of it then it clearly would warrant attention and have been important
Thanks for the advice... learning has occurred!
Thanks for your work, fren!
I dropped 4247 and a copy of the Nuremberg codes
Because I dont want to and you can't force me.
OSHA can piss off.
The obvious statement would be: If workers are concerned about covid, they are free to get the covid "vaccination". Workers who choose not to get the covid "vaccination" are then no threat to those who choose to get "vaccinated".
If they can mandate vaccines, America is over.
Blasted a scathing comment their way.
Wow... I feel like a RINO now!
I thought there was a court stay on no further implementation or enforcement? This sounds like furthering implementation.
By all means, email, call, etc. But, don't be surprised when our efforts here fail. NONE of the past attempts were successful. Just one more nail to add to [their] collective coffin.
Go take your non-voting inaction back to Patriots, faggot.
I posted. Hard to believe we're to this point. talked about treatments that don't get discussed, how the shot is harmful and nobody wants to talk about it.
Thats because its not a meme or bible verse. Anything actually important like this is not worth the forum normies time to indulge. Actual things that should be very much looked at and discussed appears to be the now forum sliding
I'm talking nationally.
It started with big companies and will eventually trickle down to everyone.
Here's my comment. It applies to every mandate, every dictate, every section of Government that thinks for one second that they have the Right to infringe upon Mine:
Molon Labe Bitches.
Molon Labe.
This has nothing to do with the vaccine. I can’t believe how stupid people are being.
OSHA doesn’t have the authority to mandate a vaccine anyway, regardless of the comments.
This part fucking galls me:
"Prior COVID-19 infections. OSHA determined that workers who have been infected with COVID-19 but have not been fully vaccinated still face a grave danger from workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2."
This is scientifically and visibly untrue. But they HAVE to hang onto this lie. The entire vaccine mandate by the string pullers of this planet depends on it.
How does OSHA regulate companies in the states of the Union? Do they name the 50 states in their definitions? There are definitions in some Public Acts of Congress, and the Code of Federal Regulations that specifically use the phrase 'states of the union'. This means when they don't use it, it doesn't apply there.
OSHA is supposed to protect us from products exactly like what's in the "vaccine". So if anything they should ban any mandate, which is already highly illegal.
Can I just add links to gab and greatawakening online articles?
No one at OSHA is actually reading these comments. It's merely covering a legal requirement.
“John Q” posted a Trump won lmao!
They want us to present all the info they have hidden from us.
comments there are priceless, sad for the missed opportunity to updoot at will.