I searched but couldnt find specifically what I was looking for.. I know that the OSHA vax mandate has been stayed by the sixth circuit, BUT can companies still enforce their own mandates? or could it be considered an OSHA violation since OSHA is not even allowed to enforce mandates? but there isnt an OSHA rule that states they CAN'T have mandates so I am unclear if you can point to OSHA if a company tries to mandate being vaxxed..
Specifically I am wondering if any one on here works in film production (Los Angeles) and if companies who were requiring vax mandates (like Disney & several big ones) have had to stop requiring vaccination proof lest it be an OSHA violation? thanks in advance.
Enforcing a vax mandate without any exemptions and testing doesn't hold much legal ground in the long run.
Can they do it? Sure, but it is very disruptive to the work place for a variety of reasons in the short term.
Short answer is that if a company wants to be stupid yes they can.
well for film production its independent contractor work so it's not really disruptive - they just hire someone else thats vaxxed. Im just wondering if proclaiming how the OSHA mandate has been stayed would deter them at all for fear of getting sued if the courts ultimately shut down the OSHA mandate..or if there is anything to say that would make them actually worry about trying to enforce it.
For now because by early next year having the booster will be considered fully "vaxxed". So they are going to keep shrinking their pool of candidates.
Their pool of candidates will shrink to the point that they can not conduct business properly. Independent contractors already have to deal with a myriad of issues and shrinking the pool of candidates actually hurts film production in the long haul.
For example how many are willing to move to California for work in film production? The only ones I know that are doing film production are stuck in California at this point.
I mean it DEFINITELY hurts them when they lose super good workers and have to start moving down the ladder hiring who is available. but to work on things like Star Wars projects everyone is chomping at the bit so its harder to have any leverage. Disney probably preemptively fired Gina Carano for fear she would try to get the entire Mandalorian cast/crew to strike to fight against the Disney mandates bc they would definitely know back then that this was coming & Carano could make a HUUUUUGE stink about it. that wouldve been fucking glorious. sigh Ginaaaaaa (T ^ T)/
California has their own workforce rules. The OSHA issue only covers federal rules.
apparently Cal OSHA is holding off and waiting on the federal decision. my main concern is if you can use this info against a company and state its not a rule or if that doesnt matter bc theres also not a rule explicitly banning mandates.
Mandates are not laws and merely loose guidelines with huge grey areas.
Technically they would be liable for injuries — the EUA doesn’t make them immune. but this hasn’t been challenged in the courts. And the courts enforcement is arbitrary.
If it were me, I’d say I’ve complied with the EUA statute. And I’d leave it at that. And if they want proof of vaccine, I’d give them the informed consent document with the boxed checked “decline” and my signature.
Could you also argue that the EUA is no longer needed because it is provable that other medicines work, like Ivermectin and Hxq? The only reason the EUA was used was because it was supposedly an emergency, now some 2 years in we know that these other meds work, it could be easily argued given the stats, the latest out of Scotland for the last 28 days has 74% of hospital patients with CV are fully vaxx'd whilst a whopping 89% of deaths from CV in the last 28 days were also fully vaxx'd!
I'm just throwing out some thoughts here and in no way fully understand the legal side of it all.
of course you're right, we knew when they were actively surpressing therapeutics it was to justify an EUA, but that's more of a larger criminal conspiracy. the argument over the EUA is not going to help an individual avoid their employer's policy.
but an employee should formally ask, in the name of equal treatment, how are they going to protect the workplace from the vaccinated, given these high infection rates with new variants that the boosters don't protect against?
Just imagine how much more sense it would all make if them figures were the other way around, then companies may have an argument, but currently nope.