How Biden’s vaccine mandate may impact businesses

On November 4, 2021, President Joe Biden announced new initiatives to combat COVID-19, including a new vaccine mandate for millions of American workers. The mandate, in the form of an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), would apply to businesses with 100 or more employees and would have been imposed by the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (DOL).

Affected personnel would be required to receive shots of the COVID-19 vaccine or undergo weekly testing under the ETS. Workers would be compensated for taking time off to get vaccinated.

Businesses with less than 100 employees are not included in the OSHA vaccine requirement. However, other vaccine mandates may affect such businesses, depending on the type of business or the partners involved. This could include, regardless of size, the following enterprises or organizations:

·        Facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments include nursing homes, hospitals, and other healthcare facilities.

·        Head Start programs that are housed in facilities.

Vaccine mandates were estimated to affect 100 million workers, or nearly two-thirds of the workforce in the United States. Vaccination mandates are beneficial to the economy, according to President Joe Biden in remarks introducing the mandate. "They not only increase vaccination rates but they help send people back to work—as many as 5 million American workers. They make our economy more resilient in the face of COVID and keep our businesses open.”

Here's a summary of what the ETS mandate would have been:

The ETS mandate would have had an impact on private firms with 100 or more employees, either individually or as a whole.

·        Part-time employees are counted: A company with 50 full-time employees and 50 part-time employees has 100 employees and is subject to the ETS.

·        Employees would not have been counted because independent contractors were not considered employees.

·        If employed by the company, temporary workers would have been considered employees.

·        Employees who are minors would be counted (and may require parental consent before getting vaccinated).

·        Employees who work from home, do not report to a worksite, or work outside are not covered by the ETS.

·        Exclusions would be offered to those who are medically exempt or have a federal civil rights accommodation

The Supreme Court ruled against the vaccine mandate

The Supreme Court, last month, prevented the Biden administration from implementing a vaccine-or-testing rule for major employers, thus killing a crucial component of the White House's effort to combat the pandemic at a time when coronavirus cases caused by the Omicron variety are on the rise.

The Supreme Court ruled that the obstacles created by a global pandemic do not authorize a federal agency to wield powers that it has not been given by Congress. At the same time, such unusual circumstances give no justification for restricting the agency's ability to use powers that have long been acknowledged.

However, the court permitted a more restricted rule for health care employees at facilities receiving federal funds to get vaccinated, which was a minor triumph for President Biden.

The employer requirement case was decided by a 6 to 3 vote, with the liberal justices dissenting. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices to establish a majority in the health-care case, which was 5-4.

The employer ruling thwarted one of President Biden's most important efforts to contain the virus, leaving the country with a patchwork of state laws and practices, essentially leaving companies and enterprises to their own devices.

The president said in a statement that the verdict in his favor would save the lives of health-care professionals and patients. However, he expressed disappointment that the court had reversed the employer mandate, which he claimed was deeply grounded in both science and the law.

The justices looked into whether Congress had empowered the executive branch to take broad actions to address the health-care issue in both the employer and health-care worker cases.