Correct. Court decisions are about the law, and here
I blame the current administration for trying to take a shortcut and not doing either
1) legislation (which requires some horse trading -- you'll need to give the GOP something in return to peel off a few moderate votes in the Senate), or
2) work directly with the states to push them to roll out vaccine mandates, which again means that some states wont do it, but that's the way it is.
A combination of one of the above plus requiring vaccines for federal contractors -- which is like half the economy -- and you will get as much coverage or more as the current OSHA ruling which (strangely) affects only employers with 100 or more people. Thus it only covers 61% of workers, and workers are less than 50% of the population, so this OSHA mandate is only going to cover less than 30% of the population. That's a terrible way of doing public health.
FYI, that's another problem with this ETS. If it's such an emergency and it poses such a grave threat to worker safety, then why only apply it to firms with 100 or more workers? Why would workers in a firm with less than 100 employees be in less physical danger? And here's another problem -- they will need to claim this is a grave and immediate threat to workers -- something like daily exposure to a toxic waste dump or nuclear radiation (the bar is really high for ETS) but it's not -- 80% of the deaths are people over 65, so why do this in the name of protecting the health of workers? Of course you and I know the answer, we want the workers to get vaccinated to protect the elderly, so this is a public health measure where workers protect someone else, and doesn't fit well as a workplace safety measure. People can challenge this so many ways -- e.g. why not just require workers over the age of 50, etc? And it's going to be hard for OSHA to come back and say that workers under the age of 50 are in such grave and immediate danger. There are just so many things wrong with this approach, and so many ways to poke holes in it.
1) legislation (which requires some horse trading -- you'll need to give the GOP something in return to peel off a few moderate votes in the Senate), or
2) work directly with the states to push them to roll out vaccine mandates, which again means that some states wont do it, but that's the way it is.
A combination of one of the above plus requiring vaccines for federal contractors -- which is like half the economy -- and you will get as much coverage or more as the current OSHA ruling which (strangely) affects only employers with 100 or more people. Thus it only covers 61% of workers, and workers are less than 50% of the population, so this OSHA mandate is only going to cover less than 30% of the population. That's a terrible way of doing public health.
FYI, that's another problem with this ETS. If it's such an emergency and it poses such a grave threat to worker safety, then why only apply it to firms with 100 or more workers? Why would workers in a firm with less than 100 employees be in less physical danger? And here's another problem -- they will need to claim this is a grave and immediate threat to workers -- something like daily exposure to a toxic waste dump or nuclear radiation (the bar is really high for ETS) but it's not -- 80% of the deaths are people over 65, so why do this in the name of protecting the health of workers? Of course you and I know the answer, we want the workers to get vaccinated to protect the elderly, so this is a public health measure where workers protect someone else, and doesn't fit well as a workplace safety measure. People can challenge this so many ways -- e.g. why not just require workers over the age of 50, etc? And it's going to be hard for OSHA to come back and say that workers under the age of 50 are in such grave and immediate danger. There are just so many things wrong with this approach, and so many ways to poke holes in it.