Thanks to numerous GOP pushes for Right to Work and the SCOTUS gutting unions those people can enjoy being fired with zero protections. Of course most won’t do it as conservative are snowflakes
So we're done being mad about people not working when they are capable, now capable people are walking out? FFS i got crap that needs to get done on a time crunch. I don't want to have to train new employees who are replacing these guys.
The federal government has never issued a vaccine mandate applicable to private citizens generally, and if they did, I'm about 95% certain it would be found unconstitutional. People forget that the federal government cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation of authority in the Constitution. Protection of the general health, safety, and welfare of citizens (so-called "police powers") has always been the domain of the states. That's why the Supreme Court has upheld state vaccine mandates in the past. To grant general police powers to the federal government would be the greatest transfer of power from the states to the federal government that has ever occurred in our history.
That said, Biden's plan is not a vaccine mandate, so it's a moot point.
"I take offense"
the commerce cause
Don't even get me started on that nonsense. However, the trend since the Rehnquist Court has been more circumspect and less rubber stampy. E.g., U.S. v. Lopez. I still get pissed off every time I think about Wickard v. Filburn.
Biden isn't doing this by executive order. Rather, his office released a "Plan"--basically a slide deck saying he will ask the Secretary of Labor to use his (her?) emergency rulemaking authority under the OSHA enabling statute to bypass the normal notice and comment requirements. So, the way I see the analysis is: (1) Assuming the Secretary of Labor promulgates such a rule, is the rule within the rulemaking authority granted to OSHA by Congress? (2) Is the rulemaking authority granted to OSHA by Congress unconstitutional? (3) Does the emergency regulation issued by the Secretary of Labor nevertheless run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act?
I read Biden's plan and the entire Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (as amended) so that you don't have to. Obviously, I haven't read the contemplated emergency regulation that the Secretary of Labor has not yet issued, but I assume it will be carefully drafted. I concluded that the answers to the three questions above are Yes, No, and No. The three liberals on the Court will obviously agree with my brilliant analysis. Same with Roberts. So long as one of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett (in descending order of likelihood) decide to be prudent jurists, the regulation will stand, assuming the case is not moot by the time it reaches SCOTUS. I assume Thomas and Alito are not in play.
All that said, I am personally opposed to the way the Executive Branch has chosen to use an administrative agency as a major policy creation and enforcement arm. Nonetheless, my conclusion is based in part on an observable pattern throughout our history that prudential reasoning tends to take on more constitutional importance during major crises, such as in times of war, or even global pandemics.