Updated federal guidance reassuring employers that they can require workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19 has done little to influence local business owners. That’s because fear of legal consequences isn’t a deciding factor in whether or not companies are mandating shots.
“The issues surrounding vaccinations are more business issues than legal issues,” said Alicia J. Samolis, who leads the labor and employment practice at Partridge, Snow & Hahn LLP in Providence
Even with the May 28 update from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, many employers are reluctant to institute mandated vaccinations because they see it as a divisive issue that could risk losing workers or even clients.
Many of the companies Samolis works with have already surveyed their employees and found that even those who have received shots oppose mandated vaccinations because they see it as an infringement on their rights.
Then there’s the matter of hiring new employees, a challenge facing businesses in many industries.
AstroNova Inc., an East Greenwich-based electronics manufacturer, has struggled to fill the 20 positions across its 340-person workforce. A vaccine mandate would only make it harder, said Matthew Cook, AstroNova vice president of human resources and organizational development.
“We can’t run a business if we’re going to exclude 30%-40% of the population from working for us,” he said.
A workforce knocked out by a virus isn’t good for business, either. But with transmission rates dwindling and vaccine numbers rising, the risk seems low, Cook said.
His sentiment is not universal, though most Rhode Island manufacturers have a similar stance, according to Stacy Childers, human resources director for General Dynamics Electric Boat and chairwoman of the newly formed Human Resources Council of Rhode Island, which represents a dozen of the state’s manufacturing companies.
In general, larger companies with low-wage, hourly workers are more likely to decide against vaccination requirements, while employers with salaried workers, particularly in academia, may be more inclined toward a mandate, Samolis said.
For those on the fence, the latest federal guidance allowing vaccine mandates could be the push they need to feel comfortable making immunization a requirement, said Andrew Prescott, a labor and employment law partner for Nixon Peabody LLP in Providence.
One wrinkle with the latest update is how employers can encourage immunization through rewards such as gift cards. The EEOC gave incentives the go-ahead as long as they were not “coercive,” but the commission didn’t define what exactly a coercive incentive is, Prescott said.
Then there’s the question of confidentiality. The EEOC maintains that employers can ask workers whether they’ve gotten the vaccination, but in the latest update the commission said the employer cannot share that information with anyone else.
Samolis called this decree “mind-blowing.” It doesn’t make sense to say this information is not confidential when employers are asking for it, but then classify it as private when it comes to sharing with others.
She cautioned that it could expose employers to potential lawsuits as it’s currently written.
Say a business enters vaccinated workers into a raffle prize, then announces the winner. Doing so essentially “outs” that person as someone who got a shot, so that person needs to give consent first, Samolis said.
Nancy Lavin is a PBN staff writer. Contact her at Lavin@PBN.com.
