- 美国最高法院已经驳回了拜登政府对大型企业的疫苗要求，使雇主主要独自驾驶这一领土。
- 专家说，这将取决于各州在企业实施疫苗或测试任务。
- 美国仍然平均每天有超过450,000份共证案例。
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court hasblocked拜登政府针对大型企业的疫苗或测试任务，在联邦，州和地方要求的拼凑而成的情况下，公司将自己抵御。
While coronavirus infections are falling in many parts of the United States, the country is still平均每日424,000多个案件-enough to affect the safety and productivity of businesses’ employees.
劳伦斯·戈斯汀, JD, a public health law professor at Georgetown University, said the court’s ruling would impede the country’s response to the pandemic.
他说：“大型商业任务是拜登的最佳投篮，这大大提高了美国的疫苗接种率，这几乎落后于我们所有的同伴国家。”“随着许多未接种疫苗的美国人，正如我们在当前的Omicron浪潮中所看到的那样，它将给我们的卫生系统带来压力。”
乔·拜登（Joe Biden）总统于去年秋天宣布了由职业安全与卫生管理局（OSHA）发布的联邦统治。
It would have required businesses with more than 100 employees to ensure that their workers are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or have weekly tests.
高等法院struck down1月13日的规则和拜登政府正式掉了the rule last week.
肯尼斯·道史, JD, PhD, a labor and employment law professor at Indiana University Bloomington, said that if the Supreme Court had upheld the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate, there would have been more uniformity across the country.
他说：“我们将有一个联邦标准，然后州法律本来是无关紧要的。”“但是现在我们没有那个。”
戈斯汀说，OSHA还有其他选择，例如一个更狭窄的规则，该规则重点是高风险工作场所，例如装配线和肉类包装工厂，这些植物很困难。
“But the [Supreme Court] justices expressed hostility to federal mandates,” he said. “So I doubt very much the Biden administration will propose new OSHA mandates.”
在另一项裁决中，最高法院坚持从Medicare或Medicaid获得资金的设施的医疗人员的疫苗规则。
但是，有几个lower federal courts为联邦承包商搁置类似的疫苗授权。
疫苗规定在地方一级可能取得更大的成功。
“The courts have been antagonistic to federal vaccine and mask mandates,” said Gostin, “but they have been mostly upholding those mandates at the city and state level.”
New York City对于亲自工作或与公众互动的工人有共同疫苗接种要求。New York statehas a mandate for healthcare workers.
但是，“（在地方一级）最大的问题不是法院，而是政治，”戈斯汀说。“共和党州长似乎违反任何形式的任务。”
States such as Texas and Montana haveenacted lawsprohibiting employers from mandating vaccines. Other state legislatures may follow suit due to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In the absence of a federal or local workplace vaccination requirement, businesses are left to decide whether to require COVID-19 vaccination for employees, which Gostin said falls under the realm of workplace safety.
“Already many companies have done that,” he said, “but the Supreme Court’s ruling will put many companies off the idea of vaccine mandates.”
到目前为止，企业对最高法院的裁决的反应已经混乱。
报道说，一些公司，例如Citibank Inc.和服装公司Carhartt Inc.正在保留其COVID-19疫苗授权。华尔街日报, while Starbucks Corp. and General Electric Co. have dropped theirs.
报道，管理顾问Gartner对200多名主要雇主进行的一项调查发现，只有20％的企业放弃了与Covid-19有关的疫苗或测试政策。CNN。
Dau-Schmidt said some businesses might not want to roll out their vaccination requirement for employees because of the possibility of losing good employees who don’t want to be vaccinated. This is more of an issue for employers in tight labor markets, he added.
But he said that there are several benefits to workplace vaccine mandates, including minimizing business disruptions due to workers being out sick with the coronavirus.
疫苗要求也可以减少公司的potential liability, especially if employees interact with people at risk of severe COVID-19.
“如果您的客户特别容易受到COVID-19的影响，例如，如果您为老年人巡回演出，那么对您的未接种工人的潜在责任是重要的，”dau-schmidt。
他补充说，任何工作场所的疫苗接种要求都需要为员工提供宗教或医疗异议的空缺。