An update to the Bridgestone Americas, Inc. corporate travel policy. April 4, 2021 is an example of how employers can use their influence on individuals to make the COVID-19 vaccination necessary, even if they don’t make it mandatory. The new policy applies to all employees who travel or meet customers, but the implications are inescapable. There will be two classes of workers for 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 key updates to the policy’s protocols, which now differentiate between fully vaccinated teammates and partially vaccinated or unvaccinated teammates. Also included is a helpful Q&A to help you have conversations with other teammates and clients about their vaccination status.
Many companies introduced travel protections or bans during the pandemic. Most employers prioritize the health and safety of their employees for business continuity and employee relationships. 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 new Bridgestone policy will identify that employee as unvaccinated. This status will be evident in internal company systems and the required behavior based on their vaccination status.
First, the company is offering a $ 100 “Vaccine Support Payment”. Other companies have decided to do this, but Bridgestone will maintain that information in Workday, their business management system. If employees do not request payment, they must report their vaccination status to the Human Resources Business Partner, who will enter it into the system. Under the policy, employees may be asked to provide their government-issued COVID-19 vaccination report as proof of complete vaccination.
Under 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 notes. Therefore, whether an employee has received a COVID-19 vaccine should only be disclosed by a healthcare provider if the employee has given the healthcare provider his written consent.
“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 employee’s written consent,” Alexander explains. “Once this information is obtained, the employer should not disclose it without the employee’s consent.”
Alexander notes that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines state that employers can require employees to prove they have received a COVID-19 vaccine. However, releasing information that reflects disability could imply the Americans with Disabilities Act, she says.
It is not clear from the policy which management personnel would have access to the employees’ vaccination statements, but given the requirements of the travel policy, managers and personnel should know the vaccination status of the employees in order to verify compliance. It is quite surprising that Bridgestone does not arrange payment for the vaccine through a health and wellness provider or their health insurance company. Any of these would form a solid wall between the company and the employee’s protected health information, which has always been preferred over the 15 years I’ve spent in HR.
A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation continues. Key points from that report question the ability of a private company or school to require 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 state law, and some employers and universities have already mandated COVID-19 vaccination for workers and / or students; at the same time several states have tried to limit their possibilities to do so.
- More generally, however, it is unclear whether COVID-19 vaccines can be imposed while operating under an EUA, and courts have not yet ruled on the matter.
- When in effect under federal law, vaccine obligations may be subject to exemptions based on disability or religious objection.
The report also notes that states, which have clear authority to require vaccinations, just as they do for school attendance, do not use mandates for adult vaccinations. No one has indicated their intention to change 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 that practice.
The policy then includes a Q&A, which places the responsibility on individual employees to inquire about the vaccination status of their teammates in order to follow the required protocols for attending events and group dinners.
While the advice given says that a person’s choice to be vaccinated or not to disclose that status should be respected, the rest of the policy becomes mandatory disclosure based on an employee’s behavior to follow the policy .
For example, partially vaccinated and non-vaccinated employees are asked not to visit multiple company facilities on one trip as much as possible. When they fly, they cannot return to a corporate facility for at least five days and possibly ten days. If they get a negative test after five days and are symptom-free without another contact with a COVID-19 positive person, they can return and must mask.
At some point, the partially vaccinated individuals will not be subject to this requirement, but in the near future the unvaccinated will. Fully vaccinated workers are not subject to these restrictions unless they fail entry screening or develop COVID-19 symptoms, a requirement for all workers. The lack of quarantine requirements indicates that Bridgestone management is confident that vaccinated workers are well protected and unlikely to be a transmission vector.
But when interacting with their teammates and customers, vaccinated employees must assess the vaccination status of others to follow policy guidelines. For example, if dining with their unvaccinated employees, outdoor dining only is acceptable and all attendees must wear masks. Unvaccinated and partially vaccinated workers are encouraged to receive takeout or sidewalk meals. If they choose to eat outside, their group is limited to four and social distance must be maintained while eating together.
One question that arises is who will protect these requirements if Bridgestone recognizes in their quarantine requirements that an asymptomatic vaccinated person is well protected and is unlikely to transmit COVID-19. This assumption has been well substantiated in the study to date in vaccinated individuals. All vaccines have shown excellent protection against symptomatic and serious diseases. Why are these employees not allowed to make their own risk assessment without conducting a poll among their colleagues?
There are wide differences and legitimate debates in the medical community about the need for recovered patients to vaccinate. What about those workers with a history of anaphylactic reactions, an inflammatory response to the COVID-19 infection, or another pre-existing condition such as HIV, which makes vaccination contraindicated? Will they accept finding robust levels of antibodies in a worker who has never had symptoms? Does Bridgestone allow patients in these circumstances to make the vaccination decision in conjunction with their doctor? The real question is what will be done in the future with employees who simply choose not to be vaccinated.
For employees whose job requires travel and interaction with customers, restrictions such as those in Bridgestone policy will affect their ability to do their jobs over time if they do not want or cannot be vaccinated. In the meantime, coupled with several restrictions to get employees to inquire about their colleagues’ vaccination status, it appears to be creating a peer pressure campaign.
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 company’s most important value. With the changing environment of COVID-19, new information on vaccine availability and to adapt our processes and protocols to business needs, we recently updated the company’s corporate travel policy.
During the pandemic, our employees have done an extraordinary job protecting each other while finding innovative ways to serve our customers and communities. Bridgestone remains steadfast in providing educational resources and support regarding the latest safety protocols, as well as information about the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 vaccine, so that employees can make informed decisions.
This updated policy is designed to maintain the safety of our employees, customers and the public as our highest priority while our employees are on a business trip, and Bridgestone remains committed to this effort.
Bridgestone’s commitment to employee safety is commendable. However, after talking to medical providers in the Southeast, there are many different perspectives for vaccination and treatment. Some are very successful in early outpatient treatment. Others are cautious about vaccinating people with active immunity.
Although they are willing to speak in private, they refuse to speak in public or on record because they have seen the treatment of dissident voices during the pandemic. The most recent example is YouTube dropping a video in which Governor Ron DeSantis speaks to a panel of highly regarded medical professionals. In any case, they were highly regarded until they objected to lockdowns and masks. Many read and also agree with research that is not widely communicated or recognized by the CDC and that influences their decision-making process.
Bridgestone is heading headlong into these disputes within the medical community by demanding that protected health information be maintained and by creating policies that distinguish employees based on that information. The company will also have some employees who will never be vaccinated for health reasons that they don’t need to disclose. Or personal reasons that could be religious objections.
By the time the company addresses these issues, the vaccination status of employees who travel will be well known due to the updated policy requirements. Whether intentional or not, Bridgestone creates two classes of employees with their policy updates.