Started By
Message

Federal Vaccine Mandates

Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:26 pm
Posted by Chromdome35
NW Arkansas
Member since Nov 2010
6820 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:26 pm
This is a semi-long post; however, I'm hoping some of you might find this useful. I'm in charge of managing my division's response to COVID, so I'm fairly knowledgeable on what's happening. Maybe this will clarify some things. So while the CEO of SW Air doesn't agree with mandates, SW Airlines' hands are tied by the government in how they have to approach.

There are two different Federal Vaccine Mandates.

1) The 100+ employer mandate that Brandon announced but OSHA hasn't released to the world yet and doesn't currently matter from a legal standpoint. If and when that changes we'll see.

2) The Federal Contractor Mandate was put in place by Brandon's Executive Order.

The Federal Contractor Mandate is extremely vague and broad and appears to sweep up a lot of people who don't directly deal with Federal contracts. For instance, if one person in a corporate office supports employees on a Federal contract (processes payroll, reconciliation of accounting, etc.), everyone who works out of the corporate offices or works remotely but is based out of the corporate offices (onsite FT, PT or FT remote) must be fully vaccinated with proof of vaccination by 12/8/2021 as a condition of employment.

Companies right now are still trying to digest what this Federal Contractor mandate imposes. Currently, it looks to be very broad.

The actual Executive Order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/09/09/executive-order-on-ensuring-adequate-covid-safety-protocols-for-federal-contractors/

This paragraph is of importance:
quote:

(b) By September 24, 2021, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force) shall, as part of its issuance of Task Force Guidance, provide definitions of relevant terms for contractors and subcontractors, explanations of protocols required of contractors and subcontractors to comply with workplace safety guidance, and any exceptions to Task Force Guidance that apply to contractor and subcontractor workplace locations and individuals in those locations working on or in connection with a Federal Government contract or contract-like instrument (as described in section 5(a) of this order).


The Offical Guidelines from the Government: https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/downloads/Draft%20contractor%20guidance%20doc_20210922.pdf

From the definitions page:
quote:

Covered contractor – means a prime contractor or subcontractor at any tier who is a party to a covered contract.

Covered contractor employee – means any full-time or part-time employee of a covered contractor working on or in connection with a covered contract or working at a covered 3 contractor workplace. This includes employees of covered contractors who are not themselves working on or in connection with a covered contract.

Covered contractor workplace means a location controlled by a covered contractor at which any employee of a covered contractor working on or in connection with a covered contract is likely to be present during the period of performance for a covered contract. A covered contractor workplace does not include a covered contractor employee’s residence


The underlined part above is the gotcha...This means anyone working in an office providing support for a federal contract (HR, Legal, Payroll, Accounting, AP, AR, etc...) falls under this mandate. So if a company does any Federal work (SW Airlines for example) then the mandate is far-reaching inside that company.

This is from the FAQ Section, Question 8:
quote:

Q8: If a covered contractor employee is likely to be present during the period of performance for a covered contract on only one floor or a separate area of a building, site, or facility controlled by a covered contractor, do other areas of the building, site, or facility controlled by a covered contractor constitute a covered contractor workplace?

A: Yes, unless a covered contractor can affirmatively determine that none of its employees on another floor or in separate areas of the building will come into contact with a covered contractor employee during the period of performance of a covered contract. This would include affirmatively determining that there will be no interactions between covered contractor employees and non-covered contractor employees in those locations during the period of performance on a covered contract, including interactions through use of common areas such as lobbies, security clearance areas, elevators, stairwells, meeting rooms, kitchens, dining areas, and parking garages.
This post was edited on 10/12/21 at 12:28 pm
Posted by Pezzo
Member since Aug 2020
1918 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:29 pm to
F U C K Joe Biden
This post was edited on 10/12/21 at 12:30 pm
Posted by loogaroo
Welsh
Member since Dec 2005
30218 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:30 pm to
This is about to blow up in the administration's face.
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
80063 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:30 pm to
Anyone with half a brain should understand the two pronged approach at SW.

Being the 100 isn't in effect yet because of OSHA drafting, but the contractor is, can SW sue to stop since they currently have standing?
Posted by BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
Member since May 2019
7039 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:31 pm to
Who from the government will be validating this?

Do not comply and make them use legal action against you.

They are hoping everyone complies out of fear. DON'T!
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118550 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:33 pm to
Please say no.

Do nothing.

Make the federal government come after you then make excuses.
Posted by BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
Member since May 2019
7039 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:35 pm to
quote:

Make the federal government come after you


If we sit back and think about the number of businesses we have in this country we would realize this is too big to monitor. They are hoping corporations will play the bad guys.
Posted by SippyCup
Gulf Coast
Member since Sep 2008
6138 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:35 pm to
So if a restaurant provides meals for government workers (government contract) then everyone who works for said restaurant including the janitor has to be vaccinated?

or

Are those workers exempt because the work scope (delivering meals) takes place away from the restaurant and its offices?
Posted by SippyCup
Gulf Coast
Member since Sep 2008
6138 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:36 pm to
quote:

This is about to blow up in the administration's face.


Only if SWA holds strong and others quickly join in.
Posted by Chromdome35
NW Arkansas
Member since Nov 2010
6820 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:39 pm to
Sippy, that appears to be the case; however, its so vague that companies are still trying to figure that out.

I'm sure it's vague by design.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118550 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:39 pm to
Employees say no.

Employers say no.

Make the federal government blink.

Or you can just give everyone in your company a medical, religious, or philosophical exemption that wants one.
Posted by Mac Power
Member since Jul 2019
435 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:40 pm to
I'm a federal DoD worker who remains unvaccinated. Our office has implemented and scraped two separate plans for the mandate. Both are appearing to get held up by the federal lawyers. It's rumored to be because Corminady isn't available yet. Pfizer playing the legal name game with it's product has complicated things.

Speaking with the boss, we also don't want to lose anyone to this so it's sounding like we will easy going with the exemptions.

It will also be very hard to "punish" a federal employee who refuses the vaccine. It potentially opens up a can of worms legally for the government.

Right now, its all tough talk and telling people get it, but we do not have a written mandate or guidance at the moment.
Posted by Chromdome35
NW Arkansas
Member since Nov 2010
6820 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:41 pm to
The other thing at play here is that most managers in large companies operate under policies or employment contracts that say they can't violate the law. While they may disagree with it, they can't ignore it and must adhere to it.

I fall under such a policy.
This post was edited on 10/12/21 at 12:44 pm
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118550 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:43 pm to
quote:

Both are appearing to get held up by the federal lawyers. It's rumored to be because Corminady isn't available yet. Pfizer playing the legal name game with it's product has complicated things.


BOOM!
Posted by Monday
Prairieville
Member since Mar 2013
5001 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:43 pm to
This is the way that the fed gov will push "compliance" without having to officially pursue it.

The government is counting on employers playing the bad guy and forcing it on employees. I've said it before here but I feel sorry for the people who can't afford to stand up to this abuse of power.
Posted by Cowboyfan89
Member since Sep 2015
12697 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:48 pm to
quote:

but we do not have a written mandate or guidance at the moment.

It amazes me when I read this, because my agency has been very clear on deadlines and attestation requirements. Hell, they even laid out when you needed to have the different shots by in order to meet the November 22 deadline.

How they will handle those accommodation requests is another question entirely. I've heard some crazy numbers for expected RA requests (potentially half to three-quarters of our staff), which makes it hard for me to believe they grant all of them.
quote:

Our office has implemented and scraped two separate plans for the mandate.

I mean, there's really no "plan" unless the DoD is playing games. The mandate gives 2 options, get vaccinated, or request an accommodation. The alternative is termination. The safe workforce task force has laid all of this out.
quote:

Speaking with the boss, we also don't want to lose anyone to this so it's sounding like we will easy going with the exemptions.

My bosses have said this as well, but at the end of the day, it's not going to be their choice, unless they also want to face the firing squad.
This post was edited on 10/12/21 at 12:50 pm
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67478 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:51 pm to
I just got my company's letter of "not vax'd, not employed" letter today. I immediately send Gov. DeSantis an email and am waiting on a reply.
Posted by fjlee90
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2016
7829 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:52 pm to
quote:

The other thing at play here is that most managers in large companies operate under policies or employment contracts that say they can't violate the law. While they may disagree with it, they can't ignore it and must adhere to it.


How does this hold up in states where laws are passed banning vaccine mandates?
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
80063 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:53 pm to
quote:

How does this hold up in states where laws are passed banning vaccine mandates?


Exactly my question... I'm assuming this goes to the USSC and is a 10th amendment issue.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118550 posts
Posted on 10/12/21 at 12:59 pm to
quote:

I just got my company's letter of "not vax'd, not employed" letter today. I immediately send Gov. DeSantis an email and am waiting on a reply.




That's pretty bold of them in the state of Florida.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram