Page 1 of 1

A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:32 am
by kroxquo
What is the difference between an employer requiring an employee to get a specific vaccine in order to work there and a school requiring students to get specific vaccines before they can attend school?

Re: A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:50 am
by BackInTex
kroxquo wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:32 am
What is the difference between an employer requiring an employee to get a specific vaccine in order to work there and a school requiring students to get specific vaccines before they can attend school?
One difference would be that employment at a particular employer is not a right guaranteed by law, where a child's education is.

Also, from the other side of the coin, the school is (likely) a government institution and the employer (likely) is not.

Re: A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:13 pm
by Bob Juch
BackInTex wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:50 am
kroxquo wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:32 am
What is the difference between an employer requiring an employee to get a specific vaccine to work there and a school requiring students to get specific vaccines before they can attend school?
One difference would be that employment at a particular employer is not a right guaranteed by law, where a child's education is.

Also, from the other side of the coin, the school is (likely) a government institution, and the employer (likely) is not.
So you're saying the requirements to be vaccinated for more than 100 years to attend school is unconstitutional?

Re: A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:23 pm
by mrkelley23
Bob Juch wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:13 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:50 am
kroxquo wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:32 am
What is the difference between an employer requiring an employee to get a specific vaccine to work there and a school requiring students to get specific vaccines before they can attend school?
One difference would be that employment at a particular employer is not a right guaranteed by law, where a child's education is.

Also, from the other side of the coin, the school is (likely) a government institution, and the employer (likely) is not.
So you're saying the requirements to be vaccinated for more than 100 years to attend school is unconstitutional?
Reading is hard.

Re: A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:25 pm
by tlynn78
mrkelley23 wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:23 pm
Bob Juch wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:13 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:50 am

One difference would be that employment at a particular employer is not a right guaranteed by law, where a child's education is.

Also, from the other side of the coin, the school is (likely) a government institution, and the employer (likely) is not.
So you're saying the requirements to be vaccinated for more than 100 years to attend school is unconstitutional?
Reading is hard.
So is rational thought, for some.

Re: A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:03 pm
by kroxquo
BackInTex wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:50 am
kroxquo wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:32 am
What is the difference between an employer requiring an employee to get a specific vaccine in order to work there and a school requiring students to get specific vaccines before they can attend school?
One difference would be that employment at a particular employer is not a right guaranteed by law, where a child's education is.

Also, from the other side of the coin, the school is (likely) a government institution and the employer (likely) is not.
So, if I am understanding you, and please correct me if I'm not, if it is a matter of ensuring health and safety of a legally guaranteed right, than a vaccine mandate is allowed. Moreover, the government as an employer may impose such a restriction.

If a private employer wanted to impose a mandate without government intervention, would that be acceptable?

Again - not looking to fight, just trying to understand.

Re: A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:19 pm
by Bob78164
kroxquo wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:03 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:50 am
kroxquo wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:32 am
What is the difference between an employer requiring an employee to get a specific vaccine in order to work there and a school requiring students to get specific vaccines before they can attend school?
One difference would be that employment at a particular employer is not a right guaranteed by law, where a child's education is.

Also, from the other side of the coin, the school is (likely) a government institution and the employer (likely) is not.
So, if I am understanding you, and please correct me if I'm not, if it is a matter of ensuring health and safety of a legally guaranteed right, than a vaccine mandate is allowed. Moreover, the government as an employer may impose such a restriction.

If a private employer wanted to impose a mandate without government intervention, would that be acceptable?

Again - not looking to fight, just trying to understand.
If by "acceptable" you mean legal, the answer is going to be yes almost everywhere. An employer can let someone go for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not a forbidden reason such as race discrimination. Refusal to take a vaccine (other than for medical reasons or possibly based on a good-faith religious objection) is not a protected class.

I say "almost" everywhere because Montana (alone among the states, I believe) does not use at-will employment, so employees who have made it past the six-month probationary period may have more rights. The limits on employee rights under Montana law are outside my knowledge base. --Bob

Re: A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:28 pm
by Beebs52
I also have questions, sincerely.
Comment first-I have no problem with private employers mandating.
States regulate school vaccinations, so whole states rights thing along with state institutions.

My question-is the fed government contracting with many employees, like Soc Sec, etc and are those considered private employees? Does that affect anything?

I realize public health policy is key, but there are many vaccines without 100% efficacy, e.g. flu.

Re: A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:50 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:28 pm
I also have questions, sincerely.
Comment first-I have no problem with private employers mandating.
States regulate school vaccinations, so whole states rights thing along with state institutions.

My question-is the fed government contracting with many employees, like Soc Sec, etc and are those considered private employees? Does that affect anything?

I realize public health policy is key, but there are many vaccines without 100% efficacy, e.g. flu.
The federal government can say that it won't do business with any private company that doesn't impose a vaccine mandate. I think that's something President Biden can accomplish via executive order. I expect that most federal contracts include a clause saying that the company agrees to comply with such additional regulations as the federal government may in the future impose. --Bob

Re: A sincere question re: vaccine mandates

Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:44 am
by earendel
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:50 pm
The federal government can say that it won't do business with any private company that doesn't impose a vaccine mandate. I think that's something President Biden can accomplish via executive order. I expect that most federal contracts include a clause saying that the company agrees to comply with such additional regulations as the federal government may in the future impose. --Bob
IANAL, but I do have some knowledge in this area. No, there are no such provisions in government contracts, at least not as such, but the government does have the right to add conditions to a contract unilaterally. As an example, in 2019 when Congress passed the National Defense Act, there was a provision prohibiting companies from procuring telecommunications equipment from China. There was no such prohibition in existing contracts, but DoD directed that new contract clauses be added to all existing contracts that spelled out the responsibilities of the contractor with respect to such equipment. Contractors had to certify that they were not using such equipment; those that would not do so had their contracts terminated for default.