By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD – COVID-19 protocols in the workplace were the subject of three bills heard Thursday by the House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee, including the concept of allowing an employee to use “conscientious objector” status as a protected class against being required to be vaccinated as a condition of work.
One measure, House Bill 1088 would establish COVID-19 protections in the workplace, enabling workers to wear masks and protective equipment.
Another, House Bill 1210 would establish exemptions for vaccinations and the third, HB 1351 would prohibit certain employers from requiring COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of employment.
The bills come as the state continues to grapple with the Omicron variant and is seeing, on average, about eight people die a day in the state from the virus.
As of Wednesday, there had been 2,173 deaths from the virus and 267,800 have been known to be infected since the pandemic began almost two years ago.
During the hearing, seven members of the committee and staff did not wear masks while eight did.
Discrimination Protection
State Rep. Tim Horrigan, D-Durham, introduced HB 1088 which would amend existing protective legislation related to discrimination in the workplace. He said he has a respiratory disease and arrived at the hearing in Representatives Hall out of breath from running over from the Legislative Office Building.
He called himself part of the “mask-wearing minority of the House.”
Horrigan said the committee would hear several anti-vax mandate bills. “I am on the flip side of that,” Horrigan said.
It would read “an employee shall have the right to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and the right to use personal protective equipment such as face masks and face shields while employed in the workplace. No employer shall discriminate in any way against an employee based on the employee exercising his or her rights under this section.”
Horrigan said while the masks are not 100 percent safe, both they and the vaccines are very successful and worthwhile to help prevent illness.
Terese M. Grinnell of Loudon, a nurse who has been a vocal opponent of vaccine mandates, said she felt the Constitution already protects employees and it was unnecessary.
“It makes a bigger mess for us all to unravel,” Grinnell said.
Kendra Goodwin of Sandown said she did not think there should be discrimination, either way.
“Where there is a risk there should always be a choice,” Goodwin said.
Laura Condon of Bedford said she understood it was a well-intentioned bill, but asked for an amendment for those who choose not to be vaccinated.
Employees, Students
Being a “conscientious objector” could be an exemption like medical and religious reasons for not having to comply with work mandates for vaccinations under HB 1210.
Rep. Tim Lang, R-Sanbornton, the prime sponsor of HB 1210 said the bill directs a private employer, postsecondary institution, or clinical site for educational programs to accept requests from employees or students for exemptions from vaccine mandates.
The bill also prohibits an employer from requiring any medical treatment that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for emergency or experimental use.
Lang said on its face, the bill is a “time warp bill” going back before COVID-19 when businesses dealt with accommodation requests.
Now, he said, because of the pandemic, the government has decided to put a “thumb on the scale.”
The goal is to free the business from government oversight and keep the workforce in place, Lang said.
Religious exemptions and whether they are being abused are now a business issue, he said. The same with medical exemptions. He noted a standup desk, where people could ask for that because of health issues, now he said businesses want you to release your personal medical data to determine whether the reason is good enough to be considered for an exemption.
He said the bill will help reduce lawsuits.
David Juvet, senior vice president of the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire said he came initially to oppose the bill but now is neutral and will work in the next two weeks to determine the organization’s position.
The concept of reasonable accommodation is interesting and perhaps the bill could be clarified and not be an obligation.
Employers are well versed in dealing with reasonable accommodation, Juvet said, and noted his major concern was that those employers under a federal mandate to have employees vaccinated could be in a “very tough position” if the bill was passed.
Kate Frey, opposed the bill. She is vice president for advocacy for New Futures.
The bill if passed could limit the ability of schools and businesses to manage the pandemic in their campuses and workplaces.
The government should not prevent that, she said.
Steve Ahnen of the New Hampshire Hospital Association opposed the bill.
He noted last summer the association’s membership issued a consensus statement that hospitals would support employees to be vaccinated with exemptions for medical and religious reasons.
The decision was made to ensure the health and safety of patients.
Fewer than 1 percent of all hospital employees have been separated from the work by failure to comply with mandates, he said.
“We don’t want to lose anyone,” he said. But hospitals, he said, have an inherent responsibility to protect their patients and the vaccines have been proven to be very effective.
Those who are unvaccinated have a higher risk of dying from the virus, he noted.
The bill would render moot the protocols in place by hospitals.
Debby Scire, president of the New Hampshire College and University Council, opposed the bill, saying it would eliminate the processes in place at those institutions and disrupt a successful process. It could also imperil the health of those communities.
Ed Groves Jr. who attended with his 85-year-old father, wanted to push for the exemption and supported the bill.
He said the vaccine is not safe. He said he believes his father became ill from his injection.
“This is the ‘live free or die’ state,” Groves said. “You have an opportunity to make a statement,” by passing the bill.
Kate Horgan, of the New Hampshire Association of Counties, speaking particularly on behalf of the county nursing homes, opposed the bill. She said the homes are extremely concerned about the bill and how it might impact federal reimbursements.
Right now, she said, the only Centers for Medicaid Services regulations extend to religious and medical exemptions.
“We feel that would put state or federal policy at odds,” and that if they agreed to it, the federal government could take away as much as $100 million in Medicaid reimbursements.
A representative for the New Hampshire Nurses Association opposed the bill saying it looks like a mandate and would render null and void an employer’s vaccine mandate.
Employer Prohibitions
The third bill heard by the committee, HB 1351, and sponsored by state Rep. Norman Silber, R-Gilford, prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment.
It reads “every citizen should have the right to choose what, if any, substances are injected into their bodies, including, without limitation, any federally-mandated vaccines; and…No person shall be compelled to receive an immunization for COVID-19 in order to secure, receive, or continue employment with or by any public or private employer that receives public funds, whether from the federal or state government or any subdivision thereof, and whether such funds are in the form of payment for contractual services, grants, or in any other form however denominated, and irrespective of the amount or level of such funding.”
No action was taken by the committee, which meets on Feb. 3.