We are delighted you have found your way to the best Jet Boaters Forum on the internet! Please consider Signing Up so that you can enjoy all the features and offers on the forum. We have members with boats from all the major manufacturers including Yamaha, Seadoo, Scarab and Chaparral. We don't email you SPAM, and the site is totally non-commercial. So what's to lose? IT IS FREE!
Membership allows you to ask questions (no matter how mundane), meet up with other jet boaters, see full images (not just thumbnails), browse the member map and qualifies you for members only discounts offered by vendors who run specials for our members only! (It also gets rid of this banner!)
In a balance between patient health and employee rights (especially when a fully approved vaccine is available), in my opinion patient health trumps employee rights in a hospital environment.
Lets also remember Texas is an employment at will state, and employers may develop and change personnel policies, reassign employees, and change such things as work locations, schedules, job titles, job descriptions, pay, and other aspects of jobs at will.
Agreed, Houston Methodist and TX are within their rights/charter to mandate a vax. In the context of this conversation, the Fedgov has claimed this power as its own, dictating private employer/employee contracts nationwide for companies with over 100 employees (why 100 I wonder, are smaller companies immune from COVID transmission?). Sorry I wasn't more clear in my point.
That’s a major stretch. Imprisoning/killing people for who they are and requiring employees to get an approved vaccine for the safety of their patients and coworkers aren’t even close.
I said nothing about killing/imprisoning, I called out the mindset that if something doesn't affect me, I have no obligation to speak out. Again, apologies...the parallel that was glaringly obvious to me might not be to others.
Agreed, Houston Methodist and TX are within their rights/charter to mandate a vax. In the context of this conversation, the Fedgov has claimed this power as its own, dictating private employer/employee contracts nationwide for companies with over 100 employees (why 100 I wonder, are smaller companies immune from COVID transmission?). Sorry I wasn't more clear in my point.
I said nothing about killing/imprisoning, I called out the mindset that if something doesn't affect me, I have no obligation to speak out. Again, apologies...the parallel that was glaringly obvious to me might not be to others.
Until you're one of the 150 who has your livelihood taken away. Martin Niemoller had some pretty good insight into this mentality.
On another note, wasn't Houston Methodist already suffering a staffing shortage prior to this mandate/firings?
Would be interesting to interview those 150....but my guess....most of them were going to quit anyway, and used this as their excuse for their mom's (whose basement they still live in). .6% attrition over the quarter they implemented it in.....meh.....we should be so lucky!
Would be interesting to interview those 150....but my guess....most of them were going to quit anyway, and used this as their excuse for their mom's (whose basement they still live in). .6% attrition over the quarter they implemented it in.....meh.....we should be so lucky!
Agreed, Houston Methodist and TX are within their rights/charter to mandate a vax. In the context of this conversation, the Fedgov has claimed this power as its own, dictating private employer/employee contracts nationwide for companies with over 100 employees (why 100 I wonder, are smaller companies immune from COVID transmission?). Sorry I wasn't more clear in my point.
It is actually quite common for federal regulations and programs to have carve-outs for small businesses. The thought is that they might not have the resources to achieve compliance as a larger business, and this might result in a larger relative burden on the smaller business.
It is actually quite common for federal regulations and programs to have carve-outs for small businesses. The thought is that they might not have the resources to achieve compliance as a larger business, and this might result in a larger relative burden on the smaller business.
I had .6% attrition last week! (really....I just did the math!) And have had that pretty much every week all year. Our company's vaccine mandate hasn't changed my group's attrition rate at all.
More than 600,000 Covid cases from April through mid-July were analyzed and linked to vaccination status.
Those who were unvaccinated were about 4.5 times more likely to contract the virus, more than 10 times more likely to be hospitalized with the virus, and 11 times more likely to die from the disease.
Yes, there is a 'normal' process for federal regulation, but there are also expedited processes as well when need be. For regulations, they are normally published as a draft with an open comment period when all the received comments are addressed. If the Agency moves to a 'final' regulation they will adjust the regulation based upon the input received, and they will publish a preamble to the new regulations that address the comments received and why they were or were not incorporated into the final rule. In an emergency situation, an agency can go directly to a final rule. One thing about the regulations is that they are always open for review, and can always be changed.
There is also another pathway for 'temporary' requirements. One example of this was the FDA's Guidance for Industry: Temporary Policy for Preparation of Certain Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitize) Products During the Public Health Emergency (COVID-19). FDA's idea here was that they wanted to encourage the manufacturing and availability of hand sanitizers to the general public. They relaxed the normal manufacturing requirements IF certain, specified requirement were still met.
I have no idea the path the OSHA may choose to take, but suspect it will be a temporary standard.
Yes, there is a 'normal' process for federal regulation, but there are also expedited processes as well when need be. For regulations, they are normally published as a draft with an open comment period when all the received comments are addressed. If the Agency moves to a 'final' regulation they will adjust the regulation based upon the input received, and they will publish a preamble to the new regulations that address the comments received and why they were or were not incorporated into the final rule. In an emergency situation, an agency can go directly to a final rule. One thing about the regulations is that they are always open for review, and can always be changed.
There is also another pathway for 'temporary' requirements. One example of this was the FDA's Guidance for Industry: Temporary Policy for Preparation of Certain Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitize) Products During the Public Health Emergency (COVID-19). FDA's idea here was that they wanted to encourage the manufacturing and availability of hand sanitizers to the general public. They relaxed the normal manufacturing requirements IF certain, specified requirement were still met.
I have no idea the path the OSHA may choose to take, but suspect it will be a temporary standard.
I must be too simple to understand the parallel between relaxing regulations to aid in the manufacture of health products and the dubious Constitutionality of requiring the vaccination of millions of Americans.
Looks like companies with remote workers could possibly avoid this mandate -
"The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is developing a rule that will require all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work. OSHA will issue an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to implement this requirement. This requirement will impact over 80 million workers in private sector businesses with 100+ employees."
I must be too simple to understand the parallel between relaxing regulations to aid in the manufacture of health products and the dubious Constitutionality of requiring the vaccination of millions of Americans.
Lurch, apologies if I caused any confusion. My intent was to discuss that aside from the normal regulatory pathway, there were also a pathway for 'temporary' requirement/standards.
Constitutionality really isn't a question in the pathway for temporary requirements/standards. That becomes a question if the Government takes an action and the person/company aggrieved sues.
Lurch, apologies if I caused any confusion. My intent was to discuss that aside from the normal regulatory pathway, there were also a pathway for 'temporary' requirement/standards.
Constitutionality really isn't a question in the pathway for temporary requirements/standards. That becomes a question if the Government takes an action and the person/company aggrieved sues.
