(From SDWC’s new companion website, South Dakota Political News.)
Are business owners in danger of being pushed to the side as some politicians attempt to appeal to populist elements on COVID vaccination?
In 1946, a state constitutional amendment was passed to prohibit a person’s right to work from being “denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union, or labor organization.” Since then, state laws have continued to promote a laissez faire stance towards business, including provisions that labor unions cannot demand that an employer hire certain employees and not others.
Yet many years later in 2021, a movement has begun in the South Dakota House of Representatives to appeal to a populist brand of politics that considers businesses and their owners as subordinate to the demands of workers. Representing a continued wedge being driven by some conservative elements of the Republican Party who at times view business owners derisively as ‘elitist,’ and ‘chamber of commerce’ types who somehow oppose the interest of their concept of a working man, COVID politics threaten to increase the rift between economic conservatives and business owners who have traditionally been allied forces in Republican politics.
While the battleground has been previously waged in areas such as tax increment finance districts, or TIFs, or qualify of life/public amenity projects to draw business growth, the latest battleground might be one of the most fiercely fought ones – whether businesses have the right to consider an employee’s vaccination status as an element of their employment.
In recent weeks, conservative lawmakers such as Rep. Scott Odenbach (R-Spearfish), Rep. Taffy Howard (R- Rapid City), Jon Hansen (R-Dell Rapids) and Speaker of the House Spencer Gosch (R-Mobridge) have advocated and prepared proposals which would discourage private employers from COVID vaccine requirements, outlaw them, or hide the health status of employees from those who place them in public forward positions.
South Dakota State Representative Scott Odenbach argued in favor of the measures, pointing out that we already limit what business owners can do, noting “South Dakota is arguably the most pro-business state in the country, and that’s a good thing and we should keep it that way. But it is up to policy makers to strike the balance between the needs of business and the rights of individuals within Constitutional limitations.”
The conservative firebrands making these proposals have been met with criticism, as when Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck quipped “They can wait and have their bills killed in January. We don’t need a special session.”
The business community also has the support of one of the State’s most powerful political figures, Governor Kristi Noem. After the legislators began demanding a special session, the Governor launched a fusillade of criticism via social and traditional media against those who sought to bring a solution to what they saw as a problem that needed immediate government intervention, terming the proposals as “not conservative.”
As reported by South Dakota Public Broadcasting, Governor Noem noted in some of the sharpest criticism to date during her time as Governor that “It is not conservative to tell businesses what to do and how to treat their employees. Most of the Republican legislators get that in South Dakota—they get that. But, there are the vocal few, like Jon Hansen and Scott Odenbach, who are chasing headlines and are trying to tell South Dakotans how to do business. They want to make government bigger and more powerful in your life. It’s like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Businesses have been cool to the proposals as well, according to South Dakota Retailers Association Director Nathan Sanderson. According to Sanderson, “The South Dakota Retailers Association has long supported the right of business owners to determine the practices and policies best-suited for their own business and employees. The vast majority of South Dakota businesses are not mandating vaccinations for their employees, or even considering doing so, but a business owner should have the right to make the decision based on their own circumstances.”
Politicians battling over the issue aside, is South Dakota set to become a hotbed of employers demanding that their employees be vaccinated? According to industry leaders, not really. And if they are considering a requirement to do so, they are looking at such requirements with great caution. Nathan Sanderson points out that this is not a new topic for businesses as the months have gone by under the shadow of COVID and the employment market is a significant factor in how business owners determine what’s best for them.
“We’ve been talking with our members about this topic for months and featured a three-page FAQ in our February|March Retail Prophet magazine so that members could consider all the potential ramifications of implementing a vaccine mandate. One key consideration right now is, of course, the workforce shortage, and given the widespread need for workers I don’t think we’ll see widespread COVID-19 vaccination requirements as a condition of employment,” Sanderson said.
And it’s not just retailers who are treading cautiously on COVID vaccination requirements for employees. South Dakota’s health care organizations are acting with caution. As noted by Tim Rave, President/CEO of the South Dakota Association of Healthcare Organizations, his group “has members on both sides of the issue,” and “we respect the rights of all our members having the freedom to make the decision that works best for them, their employees, and most importantly their patients.”
Both businesses and legislators will be avoiding the question of vaccination restrictions on employees until next January, with neither the Governor nor the State Senate willing to call a Special Session for the topic.
Senator Lee Schoenback recently pointed out that the “phrase ‘special session’ has been getting thrown around like parade candy lately.” And while legislators will be gathering in October for a special session for redistricting, there will be no discussion of vaccinations, as the state’s Legislative Research Council pointed out in the same article that “The only legislation that can be passed is what is detailed in the proclamation.”
Until then, we will continue to see posturing from those trying to appeal to what they see as a base of voters, as well as others postulating that “that government is best which governs least” in an ongoing appeal for the hearts and minds of South Dakotans.
woo-hoo new content
Good framing of the debate.
Nothing will happen till January if ever
the “phrase ‘special session’ has been getting thrown around like parade candy lately.”
great quote!!
Well written and well taken. Somewhere, John Dale screams into a void.
I think we need a special session to pass legislation requiring any person or group who wants a special session to pay the $47,000/day cost.
But just like everybody else who wants a special session for their favorite cause of the month, I don’t have $47,000 to spare.
Under current law, an employer can not force an employee, customer, or any one else to take this vaccine. These people are as dishonest as Joe “I will leave nobody behind” Biden.
In South Dakota, an employee can terminate his employment for any and no reason. If they don’t like the terms of employment, employees have the right to quit. They do not have the right to re-write the terms of employment.
Similarly, an employer can terminate an employees employment for any and no reason, including for failure to comply with terms of employment.
And, in fairness to employees for the above, South Dakota has, with some very narrow exceptions, has the most friendly to employees with regard to non-compete agreements so they have maximum freedom to find new employment.
Finally, in a job market where there is more job openings than people unemployed, employers will be extremely careful before imposing terms of employment which could jeopardize the business’ ability to deliver its goods and services.
And then, along come these faux conservatives expanding the power of the government by getting between employers and employees regarding the terms of employment.
These people are phonies and attention seekers to be ignored.
I wonder if conservatives would have anything to say about miners who contracted black lung or railroad workers who died in inhumane working conditions or women who are harassed on the job.
To say conservatives don’t tell employers how to treat their employers is not only inaccurate but fails to acknowledge what is actually going on here: people are being stripped of their freedom to make a deeply personal health decision because they need a paycheck.
That’s not conservative. That’s coercion.
Gabe, besides being a bad anology, do you realize you are contradicting your point by your analogy?
Bad analogy: the working conditions employers had to improve did not alter the terms of employment, unlike this bill.
You contradicting yourself logically: Employment is by definition a voluntary limiting of ones personal freedom. You have to be at work for your shift and can’t fish, you have to refrain from denigrating or untrue speech, you have to wear safety glasses if required, you can’t sleep with your boss or subordinate after hours, you can’t smoke where you want, etc., all of which violating means you lose your paycheck. So, using an analogy which was a taking away of freedoms of both the employer and employees to argue for freedoms already voluntarily limited is ludicrous.
If you don’t like the terms of employment, quit.
Thanks, Troy. Appreciate your perspective. It seems to me that dictating what is injected into an employee’s body, especially when the employer is exempt from all liability for adverse reactions, is different than the list above.