Bill Overview
Title: Prohibiting Private Sector Vaccine Mandates Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the use of federal funds to carry out the emergency temporary standard issued by the Department of Labor for preventing the transmission of COVID-19 in employment settings. Under the standard issued on November 15, 2021, employers with 100 or more employees must require their onsite employees to either be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. Labor withdrew the standard effective January 26, 2022.
Sponsors: Sen. Braun, Mike [R-IN]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals working for large private sector employers under COVID-19 vaccine mandates
Estimated Size: 116000000
- The bill directly affects large employers with 100 or more employees, as it revokes a standard that required them to enforce vaccine mandates or frequent testing for COVID-19.
- The bill impacts employees working in the private sector who would have been subject to the COVID-19 vaccination or testing requirement.
- There are about 116 million private sector employees in the United States, and companies with 100 or more employees generally form a significant portion of these.
- Globally, companies have similar mandates, but the legislation specifically refers to the US standard.
- The number of individuals impacted globally would include those in US owned companies and multinationals following US guidelines.
Reasoning
- The primary group affected by this policy are employees in large companies who would either have to be vaccinated or undergo regular COVID-19 testing. This policy will affect those individuals who prefer not to undergo vaccination or frequent testing.
- There is a significant portion of people who disagree with vaccine mandates for various reasons, including personal freedom, medical reasons, or health concerns about the vaccines. This policy would likely have a favorable impact on their wellbeing.
- For companies, the ability to set their own policies without federal mandates may lead to varied practices, with some companies potentially continuing their mandates while others do not.
- The policy may also impact public health indirectly by potentially increasing the risk of COVID-19 spread in workplace settings if vaccination and testing are not enforced as rigorously.
- Given that not all large company employees work on-site or are unvaccinated, the impact will vary. Some might feel relief from mandate pressure while others might find themselves in environments they find less safe.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's great that companies have the autonomy to decide their own policies. We should be trusted to make our own decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Construction Manager (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safer knowing that everyone is either vaccinated or regularly tested. This policy might make things riskier for me and my team.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Graphic Designer (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't agree with vaccine mandates, but I hope people still choose to protect each other.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Accountant (New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel uncomfortable knowing that not everyone might adhere to strict safety measures. I preferred the mandates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Logistics Coordinator (Ohio)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad for the change. It's one less thing hanging over our heads every week.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Office Manager (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The mandate shouldn't be forced, but companies should encourage safe practices still.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Manufacturing Plant Worker (Michigan)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I chose to get vaccinated, but I know not all my coworkers wanted to. This gives them some freedom back.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Marketing Specialist (Oregon)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies should reflect the ability of individuals to decide for themselves.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Health Services Administrator (Massachusetts)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's challenging to balance public health and individual rights, but it's crucial to plan for both safely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
IT Consultant (Georgia)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've always traveled for work, and I appreciate when businesses cater their policies to their needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $1000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $500000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill reinforces the withdrawal of an already inactive mandate, thus limiting its financial impact.
- It addresses potential future mandates, providing clarity and potentially preventing costs associated with re-implementing similar mandates.
- The inclusion of federal fund restrictions avoids federal expenditure but does not generate direct savings as the corresponding regulations were not actively implemented.