4
0
🎂

Oh, you're going to "mandate" the Covid-19 vaccines?


 invite response                
2021 May 19, 10:19am   323 views  2 comments

by RWSGFY   ➕follow (4)   💰tip   ignore  

Oh, you're going to "mandate" the Covid-19 vaccines?

If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.

Which opens you to potential liability as an employer, both financially and criminally. No, you're not immune!

What if you "recommend" it? That's ok provided it's truly voluntary.

Note that for this discretion to apply, the vaccine must be truly voluntary. For example, an employee’s choice to accept or reject the vaccine cannot affect their performance rating or professional advancement. An employee who chooses not to receive the vaccine cannot suffer any repercussions from this choice. If employees are not free to choose whether or not to receive the vaccine without fearing adverse action, then the vaccine is not merely “recommended” and employers should consult the above FAQ regarding COVID-19 vaccines that are a condition of employment.

What violates "truly voluntary"?

Oh, I can think of a bunch of things. Let's list a few:

Permitting harassment by employees toward those who decline. Got a mailing list going around? Better not let that sort of commentary get going, eh?

Providing incentives. If you hand out "paid time off" or financial incentives to take the jab, it's not truly voluntary.

Attempt to segregate employees. Must do "X" (e.g. wear a mask) if not vaccinated, but not if you are? Nice try, jackass.

Post up some sort of "scoreboard" or set goals? Ha! That's coercion.
Anything that violates "truly voluntary" and you own every single adverse reaction and may well wind up paying that $500,000 medical bill for it and be on the hook for any permanent disability that results, never mind possible criminal prosecution if someone dies.

Oh, and as for private civil suits? Good luck defending against it if there's an OSHA reportable event involved; as an employer you're screwed as that's a formal determination that the injury is "work-related."

Never mind subrogation. Oh, you don't know what that is? If you run a business you better call your counsel and ask them. The health insurance companies who do pay for the side effect treatments are going to subrogate against you as an employer given this ruling and you will lose. Every single dollar of medical expense an employee is subjected to as a result of side effects of the shot your company will be forced to pay, without limitation. Better ask your liability insurance carrier if you're covered -- good odds, given that the event happened due to an intentional act, you're not.

This will drop immediately into Workman's Comp and that's a required policy you must buy from the first employee beyond yourself. Those premiums for anyone requiring vaccines are going to skyrocket even if no injury takes place, since they will of course immediately price that in. In other words while you may think you can gamble you're going to pay for that in spades if you try it, even if you allegedly "win" and nobody has a bad outcome.

What did I say months ago, as a former CEO of an Internet company who knew damn well where the line was when it came to personal health decisions made by staff members?


https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=242282

Comments 1 - 2 of 2        Search these comments

1   Patrick   2021 May 19, 7:24pm  

Lawyers are going to love this.
2   Patrick   2021 May 31, 5:50pm  

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/osha-suspends-requirement-that-employers-report-vaccine-related-injuries_3838781.html?utm_source=patrick.net&utm_medium=patrick.net&utm_campaign=patrick.net

OSHA Suspends Requirement That Employers Report Vaccine-related Injuries
BY MATTHEW VADUM May 31, 2021

In order to encourage American workers to get vaccinated, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has suspended the legal requirement for employers to report work-related injuries resulting from vaccinations aimed at combating the CCP virus that causes the disease COVID-19.

This suspension of the law by OSHA does not change the fact that employers may be held liable under workers’ compensation laws or under civil personal injury laws, according to the nonprofit group Liberty Counsel.

Earlier in May, the website of OSHA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), stated that employers could be held liable if they required employees to receive COVID-19-related injections as a condition of employment and the employees then experience adverse reactions.

A “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) section of OSHA’s website stated, “If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7,” according to Liberty Counsel.

But visitors to the same website’s FAQ section now see a different message, which reads:

“DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.”

Liberty Counsel inferred from the changed guidance that the White House influenced the decision to drop enforcement of the reporting requirement from a year.

“No doubt receiving pressure from the Biden administration, OSHA suspended the enforcement requirement to record adverse injuries or death from COVID shots until May 2022 in order to push the COVID shots. This politically motivated change by OSHA is unprecedented,” the group stated in a press release.

Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver in a press release criticized the decision to change the OSHA guidance.

“Employers that require employees to take a COVID shot may be held liable for adverse injuries and death. The fact that OSHA will not enforce recording requirements does not alter the legal liability of employers who require, coerce, or incentivize employees to take COVID shots.

“OSHA’s suspension of the recording requirement so as not to discourage experimental COVID shots reveals that the Biden administration could care less about the collateral damage being caused by the COVID shots. The people can see this biased agenda. They are not stupid.”

None of the available COVID-19 shots are approved or licensed by the U.S Food and Drug Administration, Liberty Counsel noted. They come under what’s known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), which means their use cannot be required.

The FDA acknowledges on its website that it “must ensure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine, and of any available alternatives to the product.”

EUA authority under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, permits the FDA to take steps to protect public health against “chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats including infectious diseases, by facilitating the availability and use of medical countermeasures (MCMs) needed during public health emergencies.”

When the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declares that an EUA is needed, as it did on March 27, 2020, regarding the ongoing pandemic, the FDA may authorize otherwise unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used “in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”


Of course the alternatives HCQ and Ivermectin are adequate, approved, and availabie, but not profitable.

This Liberty Counsel group seems great: https://lc.org/

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions