So many organizations have swiftly mandated COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment, I doubt any of us can recall a time when there was this much consensus coupled with velocity in action around any given topic. It is truly remarkable how fast this train is leaving the station, or should I say, shot out of the station.
As a business owner, you might be asking yourself, “Is now the time for me to require my workers to become vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment?” You might be of two minds on this. On the one hand, you might be hesitant to do so out of fear of losing key employees who are opposed to being vaccinated. On the other hand, you understand that providing a safe working environment is not only a regulatory requirement, but also an ethical standard that you want to maintain.
Clearly it is illegal and immoral to force someone to make any individual health care decision. In our culture, health care decisions and our health care information are highly private. Yet, it is equally clear that it is reasonable and expected that your customers, partners, vendors and employees not be exposed to preventable infectious disease through you or your employees.
It’s helpful to note that vaccine mandates have been used to exclude potentially contagious health care workers from vulnerable patients for decades. Moreover, it is standard practice in our country to have students get a matrix of vaccines before they can attend school. Consider the very high compliance rate of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination shots.
There are slight alternatives to simply mandating the vaccine for all employees, as if one-size-fits-all. First, you could take the route of mandating proof of immunity. Taking this approach would allow employees to pass muster by obtaining a valid blood test that shows they have COVID antibodies in their blood stream. Some of who have previously contracted the virus and who oppose being vaccinated could be considered as equivalent to having been vaccinated.
A second route would be to implement a “soft mandate” – participation required, but employees may decline. While you may not get full participation, your participation rates may be higher than what they would have been without a mandate in place.
The third route—which most organizations are following—is a “hard mandate,” which allows only medical and religious exemptions for not receiving the vaccination.
No matter what you do, if you allow for medical and religious exemptions, your exemption process must have integrity and be thorough. It must balance current science, compassion and organizational risk. Elements which will help you achieve this include deidentified case review, internal consistency, appropriate expertise in the reviewers, standardize approach to pregnancy, recent COVID infection, civil liberty claims and an appeals process.
It may appear that the consequences for noncompliance are simple: terminate your employee. However, you may want to consider alternatives to employment termination, such as reassignment (if feasible), implementing a financial disincentive (such as Delta Airlines recently did), loss of bonus eligibility, disqualification from routine wage increases, health insurance surcharge, unpaid leave (though this is dubious under current OSHA emergency regulations) and so forth. Many of these alternatives are being tried by various employers. I suspect their methods will end up being adjudicated in our courts.
As you prepare to implement a new policy, be sure you gain stakeholder support and build your policy with the input of a broad range and depth of employees in your company. In addition, it is highly likely your vaccination rate will not be 100%, so be happy with some less percentage, such as 90% or 95%. Also, bear in mind that as we learn more about both the virus and the effects of the vaccines, your requirements and policy may need to change.
Finally, you’ll have some angry people on your team. As a leader, you’ll get more mileage by first seeking to understand their anger and their viewpoints. Responding with compassion and patience is your best path toward building real unity in your company.
Having said this, I do believe the time will come when not mandating vaccinations or proof of immunity will be considered equivalent to creating an unsafe work environment. That could happen in a matter of months or years, but I suspect that time is coming.
Currently, I serve as the CEO of one of the largest home care companies in the State of Minnesota with 650 employees. Over half are nurses. I am personally pushing out any decision to mandate because while I’m vaccinated, I’m not comfortable mandating my employees be vaccinated as a condition of employment. Honestly, I’m thinking our business community is rushing toward mandating. I would like to see us move a bit slower and allow more time for us to understand this virus and the vaccine better. There is much we don’t know. In addition, I highly favor providing proof of immunity over requiring vaccinations. Many who have contracted the virus and are past their quarantine period do not want to be vaccinated, citing their previous bout with the virus as the central reason to not be vaccinated. I believe there is real wisdom in taking this approach. This is probably the central reason why I’m not requiring vaccinations right now.
Our current policy at this home care company focuses on masking and attempts to balance the different, strong viewpoints while maintaining unity on our staff. My current policy is as follows – just for the office staff. Care providers still much mask and wear PPE where appropriate:
- Masks are mandated to be worn when employees, visitors and contractors are in public areas, such as bathroom, hallways, break rooms, lobby, conference rooms – basically any area which isn’t an office or a cubicle – or when traversing from one point in the office to another.
- If you are alone in your office or cube, you do not need to mask.
- If you are talking with someone in your office or cube, you must mask unless you and the others have been vaccinated and all agree that masks do not need to be worn.
- If a person whom you are with asks you to mask, please do so.
- If you’d prefer to work from home (WFH) as a precaution to contracting or spreading the virus, then you are approved to WFH as an exception to #6. However, you must gain your manager’s approval. Unless there is a specific, job-related reason why an employee cannot perform his/her duties from home, managers are expected to give WFH approval *only* as a precaution to contracting or spreading the virus. WFH should not be used as a matter of convenience for personal reasons or simply because someone doesn’t like wearing a mask. This arrangement must be forward-looking on a weekly basis. Requests to WFH should not be evaluated on a day-by-day basis. This part of the policy which provides an exception to #6 is strictly related to concerns about contracting or spreading the virus.
-
With #5 as an exception, the current expectation that all employees are here in the office Tuesday – Thursday remains in effect, with manager approval to WFH on Mondays and Fridays. This applies to LT members too.
I offer this real-world example to you – not because I think it’s perfect – but because it will give you a starting point on thinking through your own policy if you haven’t already done so. If you would like to discuss this with me, just ping me offline through email or my phone, which is listed elsewhere on this web site.
Bill English, Publisher
Bible and Business
