An update to Bridgestone Americas, Inc.’s corporate travel policy of April 4, 2021, is an example of how employers can leverage their influence on people to make COVID-19 vaccination necessary, even all if they don’t force it. The new policy applies to all employees who travel or meet with customers, but its implications are unavoidable. There will be two classes of employees for the foreseeable future: those who have received the vaccine and those who have not. The introduction to the policy update explicitly states this. According to internal documents provided to PJ Media by a Bridgestone employee:
The following is a summary of key policy protocol updates, which now differentiate between fully vaccinated and partially vaccinated or unvaccinated teammates. Also included are some helpful questions and answers to help you have conversations with other teammates and clients about your vaccination status.
Many companies have established travel guarantees or bans during the pandemic. Most employers prioritize the safety and health of their employees for business continuity and employee relationships. However, if an employee’s workplace requires travel and you have an ethical or medical concern about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, Bridgestone’s new policy will identify that employee as unvaccinated. This state will be evident in the internal systems of the company and in the necessary behaviors depending on its vaccination status.
First, the company offers a payment of € 100 for the vaccine. Other companies have decided to do so, but Bridgestone will track this information on Workday, its business management system. If employees do not request payment, they must report their vaccine status to the HR business partner, who will enter it into the system. Depending on the policy, employees may be required to submit their government-issued COVID-19 vaccination record as complete vaccination proof.
According to HIPAA, vaccination status is considered protected health information according to Abbye Alexander, JD, partner, Kaufman Dolowich and Voluck, Orlando:
According to HIPAA, vaccination records are protected health information, Alexander notes. Therefore, whether an employee has received a COVID-19 vaccine can only be disclosed by a health care provider if the employee has provided the provider with their written authorization.
“Employers can ask their employees if they have received the vaccine, but they can only ask for information from the employer’s medical provider with the worker’s written permission,” Alexander explains. “Once this information is obtained, the employer cannot disclose it without the consent of the worker.”
Alexander points out that the Commission’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) guide indicates that employers can require employees to prove that they have received a COVID-19 vaccine. However, disclosing information that reflects a disability could involve the Americans with Disabilities Act, she says.
It is not clear from the policy which management staff would have access to employee vaccination disclosures, although, given the requirements of the travel policy, managers and human resources should know the vaccination status of employees. to monitor compliance. It is quite surprising that Bridgestone does not handle payment for the vaccine through a health and wellness provider or their health insurance company. Any of them would put a solid wall between the company and the employee’s protected health information, which, during the 15 years I spent in HR, was always the preferred situation.
A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation goes further. The main contributions in this report question the ability of any company or private school to require a vaccine that the FDA has not fully approved and explains when mandates are subject to exemptions:
- Some private employers require influenza vaccines for employees in health care settings, unless prohibited by state law, and some employers and universities have already established mandates for COVID-19 vaccination for employees and / or students; at the same time, several states have tried to limit their ability to do so.
- More generally, however, it is unclear whether COVID-19 vaccines may be mandatory while working under a U.S. and the courts have not yet ruled on the matter.
- When in force, under federal law, vaccine warrants may be subject to exemptions based on disability or religious objection.
The report also notes that states, which have a clear authority to require vaccines as they do for school attendance, do not use warrants for adult immunizations. None have indicated their intention to change this position with the COVID-19 vaccine. Some, like New York, let private companies do it with vaccine passports. Others, such as Florida, have banned this practice.
The policy then includes questions and answers, which entrust all employees with the responsibility to inquire about the vaccination status of their colleagues to follow the necessary protocols for attending group events and dinners.
While the advice given indicates that a person’s choice to be vaccinated or not to disclose that status must be respected, the rest of the policy becomes mandatory disclosure based on an employee’s behavior. to be able to follow politics.
For example, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated employees are asked not to visit several company facilities in a single trip as far as possible. If they want, they cannot return to any company facility for at least five days and possibly ten days. After five days, if they receive a negative test and show no symptoms without further contact with a positive individual on COVID-19, they may return and are required to be masked.
At some point, partially vaccinated people will not be subject to this requirement, but, in the foreseeable future, those who are not vaccinated. Fully vaccinated employees are not subject to these restrictions unless they fail entrance checks or develop symptoms of COVID-19, a requirement for all employees. The absence of quarantine requirements indicates that Bridgestone management is confident that vaccinated employees will be well protected and not likely to be vectors of transmission.
However, when interacting with their teammates and customers, vaccinated employees must assess the vaccination status of others to follow policy guidelines. For example, when eating with your unvaccinated partners, only outdoor dining is allowed and all attendees must wear masks. Unvaccinated and partially vaccinated employees are advised to take takeaways or food on board. If they decide to eat outdoors, their group is limited to four and social distancing should be maintained while eating together.
One question that arises is who protects these requirements if Bridgestone recognizes in its quarantine requirements that an asymptomatically vaccinated individual is well protected and is unlikely to transmit COVID-19. This assumption is based on research conducted so far on vaccinated individuals. All vaccines have shown excellent protection against symptomatic and serious diseases. Why aren’t these employees allowed to take their own risk determination without doing a survey of their colleagues?
There are wide variations and legitimate debates in the medical community about the need to vaccinate recovered patients. What about employees with a history of anaphylactic reactions, an inflammatory reaction to COVID-19 infection, or any other pre-existing condition such as HIV that makes vaccination contraindicated? Will they accept the finding of robust levels of antibodies in an employee who has never had symptoms? Does Bridgestone allow patients to make the vaccination decision in collaboration with their doctor in these circumstances? The real question is how will employees who simply decide not to get vaccinated in the future be handled.
For employees whose work requires travel and interaction with customers, restrictions such as those in Bridgestone policy will affect their ability to do their job over time if they do not want or cannot be vaccinated. Meanwhile, making employees ask about the vaccination status of their colleagues seems to create a peer pressure campaign when combined with different restrictions.
When I sent these questions to Bridgestone, the company provided the following official answer:
The well-being and safety of all Bridgestone employees remain the most important value of the company. With the changing environment of COVID-19, new information on vaccine availability, and to continue adapting our processes and protocols to meet business needs, we have recently updated the company’s business travel policy.
Throughout the pandemic, our employees have done an extraordinary job of keeping each other safe, while at the same time finding innovative ways to serve our customers and communities. Bridgestone stands firm in providing educational resources and support in relation to the latest safety protocols, as well as information on the COVID-19 vaccine from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), so that employees can make informed decisions.
This updated policy aims to keep the safety of our employees, customers and the public as our top priority while our employees travel for the company’s business, and Bridgestone remains committed to this endeavor.
Bridgestone’s commitment to employee safety is commendable. However, after talking to medical providers throughout the Southeast, there are many different perspectives on vaccination and treatment. Some are very successful in early outpatient treatment. Others express caution in vaccinating those with active immunity.
Although they are willing to speak in private, they refuse to speak publicly or on record because they have seen the treatment of dissenting voices throughout the pandemic. The most recent example is that YouTube deletes a video of Governor Ron DeSantis talking to a group of highly regarded medical professionals. At the very least, they were highly valued until they raised objections to blockades and masks. Many also read and agree with little-reported or CDC-recognized research that influences the decision-making process.
Bridgestone moves forward toward these disputes within the medical community by requiring the monitoring of protected health information and by creating policies that differentiate employees based on that information. The company will also have some employees who will never be vaccinated for health reasons that they are not required to disclose. Or personal reasons that may include religious objections.
By the time the company analyzes these issues, the vaccination status of traveling employees will be known due to the updated policy requirements. Whether intentional or not, Bridgestone is creating two classes of employees with its policy updates.