10/05/2023 / By Ethan Huff
A top federal official at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) claims that his agency never told private companies to implement Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccine” mandates after the Supreme Court rejected the mandate.
OSHA Assistant Secretary of Labor Douglas Parker claims that his agency’s COVID jab mandate was rescinded after the Supreme Court ruling, this after House Republicans during a September 27 hearing criticized OSHA for the emergency rule it implemented in late 2021.
Tens of millions of private sector workers were impacted by this ruling, which was overturned in early 2022 after the Supreme Court blocked OSHA from enforcing the mandate.
“The federal vaccine mandate, announced in the fall of 2021, had applied to all private-sector firms with 100 or more employees, including both part-time and full-time staff,” reports The Epoch Times. “There were estimates at the time that 84 million people – or two-thirds of the private-sector workforce – would be impacted.”
You may recall that employees who refused the shots during that time period were required to show a “negative” COVID test result every week in order to continue working. The White House referred to that OSHA rule as a “vaccination requirement,” adding that unvaccinated workers would be forced to “wear a face mask while in the workplace.”
(Related: Back in 2021, OSHA did warn employers who mandated COVID injections that they could be held liable for “any adverse reaction” that occurs.)
According to Parker, all of this never actually happened – the exact word he used was that this is all “untrue.” But congress members like Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) disagree, claiming OSHA ignored the Supreme Court ruling and continued to pressure firms “to fire American workers.”
“That’s categorically untrue,” Parker shot back to Miller’s accusation. “We didn’t threaten anyone, and we didn’t demand that anyone be fired … Congresswoman, I believe that the American people expect their government to take on the big problems that are facing them.”
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) also pressed Parker about the issue, stating the he was “one of a number of officials in this administration who has come before this committee and told us now that two plus two doesn’t equal four.”
“Has there been some sort of memo going around? Why is the administration insistent on rewriting history?”
OSHA’s lies, combined with the truth of what the agency actually did during the “pandemic,” prompted Miller to state that she plans to introduce new amendments that will “strip” OSHA of its “power and funding to protect the 84 million Americans who do not want to show you their vaccine papers … they have gone far beyond their minor, limited mission.”
Parker’s argument is that OSHA’s jab mandate was not actually a mandate, but rather an “alternative” for employees who did not want to get jabbed. In other words, those who refused the jab were forced to test weekly and mask up at all times while on the job.
“All you have to do is read that rule, and you will see that it is not a vaccine mandate,” Parker scoffed, playing semantics. “It gives employees the option of testing in lieu of a vaccine mandate.”
A number of so-called Republican attorneys general at the time when OSHA implemented its COVID jab mandate for private employers tried to argue that the rule was not an overreach because OSHA is tasked “with work-related hazards, not all hazards one might encounter anywhere in the world.”
The latest news about COVID jabs can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under:
big government, chemical violence, COVID, health freedom, mandate, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, revionist history, vaccine, vaccine wars, vaccines
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
Vaccines.News is a fact-based public education website published by Vaccines News Features, LLC.
All content copyright © 2018 by Vaccines News Features, LLC.
Contact Us with Tips or Corrections
All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.