![]() ![]() Secretary of Labor: Well, first of all, this is a very disappointing ruling by the Supreme Court today.Īnd we are encouraging now companies to be able to do what we tried to do with this rule. In your statement this evening, in response to the Supreme Court decision, you urged all employers to put in place similar requirements on their own.īut what can you do? What can the Labor Department do to try to get employers to do that, that would have anywhere near the same coverage that the OSHA regulation would have had? ![]() The OSHA estimated that this regulation would have covered 84 million American workers. Secretary, thanks so much for joining us. Marty Walsh, who is the secretary of labor, whose department oversees OSHA, Mr. The OSHA requirement that big employers either make sure their workers are vaccinated or get tested weekly which has now been blocked by the court, was a key part of the administration's pandemic response. And they just didn't see that the secretary had the authority here. ![]() ![]() And it's also an area that has traditionally been within the realm of state power. And I think that came out in the order today, in which they're saying, OK, OSHA you're going to have to show a tighter fit between the virus hazard and the particular workplace before you regulate it.Īnd I will also say, John, on the health care workers vaccine mandate, that there - that was a 5-4 decision, and Justices - well, Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts joined with the court's three liberals to make the majority here in allowing the health care vaccine mandate to go forward, at least as the appeals proceed in the lower courts.Īnd the dissenters there felt that the secretary did not have the authority, and that this was the kind of case that has great economic and public significance, which requires a clear statement by Congress. to OSHA's authority to regulate grave dangers, new hazards in the workplace.īut he also said there was a very important underlying question, and that is, who should decide? Should it be the agency that has the expertise and has been authorized by Congress and is accountable to Congress and the executive branch, or should it be a court or courts who do not have the expertise to decide what workers' protection might be and whether they need it?Īnd, again, as the oral arguments proceeded, we saw how the court began to weed through the kinds of workplaces where you might have a greater hazard from the virus than others. And he said that he felt that this mandate for workers really fit like a T. Justice Breyer led the three dissenters, the more liberal members on the court. The majority felt that, when you put a mandate on some 80 million workers who are chosen simply because they work for employers who have 100 or more workers, in that case, you're really regulating more broadly for the public health than you are for the grave danger that a specific workplace may have. Marcia Coyle, "The National Law Journal": I think what the majority, which - were six conservative justices, were saying here is that OSHA does have the authority to regulate workplace dangers and hazards, but what it doesn't have authority to do is to regulate more broadly the public health. What are the justices saying here? What are both sides saying here? This is on the OSHA rule, which affects far more people than the health care workers rule. In the face of a still-raging pandemic, this court tells the agency charged with protecting worker safety that it may not do so in all the workplaces needed." On the other side, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented. So that was the - supporting the majority view. Under the law as it stands today, that power rests will with the states and Congress, not OSHA." "The question before us is not how to respond to the pandemic, but who holds the power to do so. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |