Opinion
4A
Saturday, December 12, 2020
Our View
Taking a
free market
approach to
vaccinations
hen the COVID-19 vaccine becomes
available, everyone who can get it
should.
Vaccines are not just about protecting yourself
from a disease, but about protecting others. Despite
the scare tactics of the anti-vaccination crowd, vac-
cines have proven to be an effective tool to increase
public health.
The Oregon Health Authority said it expects
some 76,000 doses of the Pfi zer vaccine, enough
for 38,000 residents, to arrive Dec. 15-22, pending
emergency use approval from the Food and Drug
Administration. Those doses will go to health
workers on the front lines.
Employers have the legal right to mandate vac-
cines. Hospitals require their staff to receive fl u
vaccinations, so getting the two shots for the
COVID-19 vaccine won’t be much of a stretch. But
whether other employers should require their work-
forces to get the COVID-19 vaccine is something
of a sticky wicket.
Oregon and the rest of the United States allow
for medical exemptions, of course, to vaccinations,
for people who may suffer a severe allergic reac-
tion to a vaccine or who have other health issues,
such as using medication that weakens the immune
system.
But Oregon and 14 other states also allow
employees to have religious and philosophical
exemptions to vaccines.
And labor contracts could limit employers from
imposing new conditions of employment, such as
demanding workers get the COVID-19 shots.
Federal laws — the Americans with Disabilities
Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — require
employers to provide reasonable accommodation
to employees with exemptions unless there is an
undue hardship on the employer. Those accommo-
dations could include the wearing of masks or face
shields in the workplace and having employees
work remotely whenever possible, which Oregon
already is mandating to deal with the pandemic.
Occupational health and safety laws also require
employers to ensure their places of business are
reasonably safe for employees.
Employers, then, should urge their workers to
get the vaccine, just as workplaces already do when
it comes to the fl u shot. Encouraging employees to
get the COVID-19 vaccination also is in line with
other risk-reducing actions. Criminal background
and driving checks are a regular part of employ-
ment today, as is passing a drug screening. Such
checks lower risks for businesses.
Yes, employers also have to consider the risk of
whether a worker would have a negative reaction to
a vaccine. That brings on the possibility of a law-
suit and public relations problems. Still, plenty of
employers and employees have experienced the
downside when their workplace is the site of an
outbreak.
Workplaces for years have incentivized
employees to behave healthier. Want to pay less
insurance? Stop smoking and lose some unhealthy
weight. Healthier employees are likely to miss less
work and be more productive.
Lowering risks and making the workplace
healthier means the business itself saves money,
even in lower premiums. And if insurance compa-
nies offer lower premiums for businesses that push
vaccinations, better get ready to roll up your sleeve.
The healthier any business is now, the better
— the free market, then, could be the key to con-
taining this public health crisis.
W
Our View
The mystery of Legislative Concept 2027
he big question about the
Oregon Legislature these
days is: Will there be a spe-
cial session?
There is certainly a need for
one to address the end of Oregon’s
eviction moratorium. But what
we’d like to discuss right now is a
smaller question: What the heck is
Legislative Concept 2027?
It’s on the list of draft bills of
the Senate Interim Committee on
Government Accountability and
Information Technology.
No sponsor of the bill is iden-
tifi ed, which we think is wrong.
Many bills do clearly identify who
sponsor them. All bills and draft
bills should.
The public should be able to
hold their legislators respon-
sible. If they don’t know who
T
is connected to what bills, how
can the public know who to hold
accountable?
We bring that up year after
year. Nothing changes.
But what’s also odd about the
bill is it directs that “no later than
December 1, 2022, the Oregon
Department of Administra-
tive Services shall create a com-
plete list of existing executive
branch regulatory boards and
commissions.”
Does it take the Legislature
passing a law to do that? No.
Doesn’t the state have a list of
all regulatory boards or commis-
sions? We asked. It does. It even
has a list of nonregulatory boards
or commissions.
So what’s going on? This is
what is called a placeholder bill.
Letter to the editor
Local landowners need to be sure they get
their money’s worth from Idaho Power
Idaho Power is contacting landowners to negotiate
payments for the unapproved Boardman to Hemingway
Transmission line. The company states it has obtained an
easement from one large landowner. Do not be pushed
into a payment for this potential transmission line that is
less than you should receive in the unlikely event the line
is ever built.
The Union County planner directed Idaho Power to
consider as forest land only land in the county that is cur-
rently growing trees (predominant use). This is not con-
sistent with the land use laws for the state. Forest land is
defi ned by the soil types, and the counties are prohibited
from basing it on predominant use. Most of the land in
Union County is by Land Conservation and Development
Commission rules “forest land,” and landowners need to
be compensated accordingly. By using predominant use,
the developer is able to categorize more than 1,200 acres
of forest land the line would cross as grazing land and
avoid paying the owners the amount they should receive.
I am writing this letter to the editor so that landowners
in Union County are made aware that it is likely their land
is legally forest land and the developer should be offering
compensation regarding the trees that could be produced
on the land during the life of the transmission line. In the
event that Idaho Power condemns land for a transmission
line, this, plus some other compensation, is the minimum
amount the judgment must include as compensation.
Irene Gilbert
La Grande
What can happen late in a session
is that somebody has an idea for a
bill. But it may be too late for new
bills to be introduced. So they
perform what is known as a gut
and stuff.
They take an existing bill, such
as LC 2027, and pass an amend-
ment to remove the language and
replace it with something com-
pletely different.
In 2017, for instance, then state
Rep. Gene Whisnant, R-Sunriver,
pulled a gut and stuff to block the
Bend Park & Recreation District
from building a pedestrian bridge
over the Deschutes near the south
end of Bend. He didn’t even tell
the district what he was doing.
Surprise!
So we will be keeping an eye
on what becomes of LC 2027.
Contact your public offi cials
GOVERNOR
U.S. PRESIDENT
Kate Brown
900 Court Street N.E, Suite 254
Salem, OR 97301-4047
503-378-4582
www.oregon.gov/gov
Donald Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
REPRESENTATIVE
Greg Barreto, District 58
900 Court St. NE, H-390
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-1458
Rep.GregBarreto@state.or.us
SENATOR
Bill Hansell, District 29
900 Court St. NE, S-415
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-1729
Sen.BillHansell@state.or.us
U.S. SENATORS
Ron Wyden
221 Dirksen Senate Offi ce Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-5244
La Grande offi ce: 541-962-7691
Jeff Merkley
313 Hart Senate Offi ce Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3753
Pendleton offi ce: 541-278-1129
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
Greg Walden
185 Rayburn House Offi ce Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
La Grande offi ce: 541-624-2400
Write to us
The Observer welcomes letters to the editor. Letters are limited to 350
words and must be signed and carry the author’s address and phone
number (for verifi cation purposes only). Email your letters to news@
lagrandeobserver.com or mail them to the address below.