An update to Bridgestone Americas, Inc.’s corporate travel policy, dated April 4, 2021, is an example of how employers can leverage their influence on individuals to necessitate the COVID-19 vaccination, even if they are not required to do so. The new policy applies to all employees traveling or meeting with customers, but the implications are inevitable. There will be two classes of employees in the foreseeable future: those who have received the vaccine, and those who have not. The introduction to the policy update states this explicitly. According to internal documents provided to PJ Media by a Bridgestone employee:
Below is a summary of the most important updates to the policy protocols, which now distinguish between teammates who have been fully vaccinated and teammates who have been partially vaccinated or unvaccinated. It also contains a useful Q&A to help you have conversations with other teammates and customers about their vaccination status.
Many companies imposed travel measures or bans during the pandemic. Most employers prioritize the health and safety of their employees for business continuity and employee relationship purposes. However, if an employee’s job requires travel and he or she has an ethical or medical concern about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the employee will identify as not vaccinated in the new Bridgestone policy. This status will be visible in internal company systems and the behaviors required based on their vaccination status.
First, the company offers a payment of $ 100 “Vaccine Support”. Other companies have decided to do so, but Bridgestone will follow the information in Workday, their enterprise management system. If employees do not apply for the payment, they must report their vaccine status to the Human Resources Business Partner, who will enter it into the system. Under the policy, employees may be required to present their government-issued COVID-19 vaccination record as proof of complete vaccination.
According to HIPAA, vaccination status is considered protected health information according to Abbye Alexander, JD, Partner, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, Orlando:
According to HIPAA, immunization records are protected health information, Alexander says. Therefore, the healthcare provider can only disclose whether an employee has received a COVID-19 vaccine if the employee has given the written authorization to the provider.
“Employers may ask their employees if they have received the vaccine, but they may only obtain information from the employee’s medical provider with the written consent of the employee,” Alexander explains. “Once this information has been obtained, it may not be disclosed by the employer without the consent of the employee.”
Alexander notes that the guidance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stipulates that employers may require employees to provide proof that he or she has received a COVID-19 vaccine. However, the disclosure of information that reflects a disability may imply the Americans with disabilities, she says.
From the policy, it is unclear which management personnel will have access to the vaccinations of the employees, but managers and human resources will need the vaccination status of employees to monitor their compliance. It is quite astonishing that Bridgestone does not manage the vaccine payment through a health and wellness provider or their health insurance company. One of these two forms a solid wall between the company and the protected health information of the employee, which has always been preferred during the 15 years I have lived in HR.
A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation goes further. The main take-away from the report questions the ability of any private company or school to develop a vaccine that the FDA has not fully approved and explains when mandates are subject to exemptions:
- Some private employers require flu vaccines for health care workers, unless prohibited by law, and some employers and universities have already mandated COVID-19 vaccination for workers and / or students; at the same time, several states have sought to limit their ability to do so.
- More generally, however, it is unclear whether COVID-19 vaccines can be ordered while operating under an EUA, and courts have not yet ruled on this issue.
- Under federal law, vaccine mandates can be exempted on the grounds of disability or religious objection.
The report also notes that states, which have clear authority to require vaccinations as for school attendance, do not use adult vaccination mandates. No one had any intention of changing this position with the COVID-19 vaccine. Some, like New York, let private companies do it for them with vaccine passports. Others, such as Florida, have banned the use.
Next, the policy contains a question and answer that gives individual employees the responsibility to inquire about the vaccination status of their teammates to follow the required protocols for attending events and dinners.
Although the advice given does state that the choice of an individual to be vaccinated or not to disclose the status, the remainder of the policy should become a required disclosure based on an employee’s behavior regarding the policy. to follow.
For example, employees who are partially vaccinated and not vaccinated are asked not to visit as many businesses as possible on a single trip. If they fly, they can not return to any company’s facility for at least five days and possibly ten days. If they receive a negative test after five days and are symptom-free without any other contact with a COVID-19 positive individual, they may return and have to mask.
At some point, the partially vaccinated will not be subject to this requirement, but for the foreseeable future, the unvaccinated will. Fully vaccinated employees are not subject to these restrictions unless they develop access screening or COVID-19 symptoms, a requirement for all employees. The absence of quarantine requirements suggests that Bridgestone management has confidence that vaccinated employees are well protected and are not likely to be vectors of transmission.
Yet, when dealing with their teammates and clients, vaccinated employees must assess the vaccination status of others to follow the guidelines of the policy. For example, if you are eating with their non-vaccinated partners, only outdoor eateries are acceptable, and all participants must wear masks. Unvaccinated and partially vaccinated employees are encouraged to take or eat meals. If they prefer to eat outdoors, their group is limited to four and should be kept socially distant while eating together.
One question that arises is who protects these requirements when Bridgestone acknowledges in their quarantine requirements that an asymptomatic individual is well protected and is unlikely to transmit COVID-19. This assumption is based on the research that has been done so far on individuals who have been vaccinated. All of the vaccines have shown excellent protection against symptomatic and serious diseases. Why are these employees not allowed to make their own risk assessment without polling their colleagues?
There are large variations and legitimate debates in the medical community about the need for vaccinated patients. What about the employees with a history of anaphylactic reactions, an inflammatory reaction to the COVID-19 infection, or another condition that already exists, such as HIV, that makes the vaccination contraindicated? Will they accept the finding of strong levels of antibodies in an employee who has never had symptoms? Will Bridgestone in these circumstances allow patients to take the vaccination in partnership with their doctor? The real question is how to deal with employees in the future who simply do not want to be vaccinated.
For employees whose work requires travel and interaction with customers, restrictions as in the Bridgestone policy will affect their ability to do their job over time if they are not willing or able to be vaccinated. Meanwhile, it looks like a peer-to-peer campaign in conjunction with various restrictions by getting employees to inquire about the vaccination status of their colleagues.
When I sent these questions to Bridgestone, the company gave the following official answer:
The well-being and safety of all Bridgestone employees remains the most important value of the business. With the changing environment of COVID-19, new information regarding the availability of vaccines, and to continue adapting our processes and protocols to meet business needs, we recently updated the company’s business travel policy.
During the pandemic, our employees did extraordinary work to keep each other safe, while also finding innovative ways to serve our customers and communities. Bridgestone remains committed to providing educational resources and support regarding the latest safety protocols, as well as information on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)’s COVID vaccine so employees can make informed decisions.
This updated policy is intended to maintain the safety of our employees, customers and the public as our top priority while our employees travel on a business industry, and Bridgestone remains committed to it.
Bridgestone’s commitment to employee safety is commendable. However, after discussions with medical providers throughout the Southeast, there are many different perspectives on vaccination and treatment. Some have tremendous success in early outpatient treatment. Others warn against vaccinating people with active immunity.
Although they are willing to speak in private, they refuse to speak in public or on the record because they have seen the treatment of dissenting voices throughout the pandemic. The most recent example is YouTube, which removed a video of Governor Ron DeSantis speaking to a panel of highly regarded medical professionals. They were at least highly rated until they made objections to locks and masks. Many also read and agree with research that is not widely communicated or recognized by the CDC and that influences their decision-making process.
Bridgestone addresses these disputes within the medical community by requiring that health information be retrieved and that policies be formulated that differentiate employees based on that information. The company also has employees who will never be vaccinated due to health reasons. Or personal reasons that may include religious objections.
By the time the company navigates these issues, the vaccination status of traveling employees is well known due to the updated policy requirements. Whether intentional or not, Bridgestone is creating two classes of employees with their policy updates.