Don't everyone raise your hand at once now.
Yes, it's our favorite media star, the man so elite he gets three names.
Andrew Ross Sorkin.
He's also prone to getting into shouting matches with his CNBC colleagues but that's because he's passionate.
And a little hysterical (although I am reliably informed that no one ever calls men hysterical).
Sorkin also writes for the New York Times, his most recent piece titled,
"Should Companies Require Employees to Take the Vaccine?"
Note that it is poised as a question.
It is not.
After reciting all the talking points that smart people are supposed to parrot about the pandemic, and noting that many people have reservations about taking the vaccine, Sorkin offers a possible solution in that bloodless, anodyne way tyrants always do:
"There is a way to get greater compliance: Businesses, which have spent the past several years championing their social responsibility, can require vaccination of employees and, in many cases, customers."
"There is a way..."
He adds this dark warning,
"If individuals are left to make the vaccine decision by themselves, a 75 percent compliance rate may be unattainable."
Leaving it to individuals to make a decision about their own health, permitting them to carefully consider the benefits and risks associated with being injected with a still-experimental vaccine that is only available under emergency authorization?
"This could be made compulsory for workers everywhere, from factories to offices and beyond."
He sounds so excited, doesn't he?
"Why, we could force everyone to take it!!!!!"
Well, not force. Businesses can't strap you down to a table and stick a needle in your arm.
All they can do under Sorkin's plan is to take away your ability to feed and clothe your family.
See, you still live in a free country, so calm down wingnuts.
"Some companies could even require their customers to be vaccinated, which would have a bigger impact on the compliance rate and show genuine leadership."
He can barely contain himself at this point.
He cites various legal precedents for this, further noting that,
"As for private businesses, they can choose to hire, fire and transact with anyone, unless they discriminate based on a protected category."
in case you were wondering, no you are not in a protected category. No one is. They are going to require you to get the vaccine no matter your intersectionality profile.
"There is still room for interpretation. Lawyers could argue that prior cases didn't consider a drug authorized only for emergency use by the F.D.A., as the early coronavirus vaccines will be."
"Or perhaps a more conservative-leaning Supreme Court would be open to revisiting prior precedent."
There is a possibility that ACB hates grandma.
As obviously smart as Rosskin's idea is, surprisingly enough, companies that exist in real life were much less enthused.
"Almost all said they planned to recommend the vaccine, but not make it compulsory. Several said that they have tried to create a culture of trust, and a vaccine mandate would undermine that trust. Others worried about legal liability if an employee had adverse side effects from the vaccine. Some said they would like to mandate the vaccine, but worried that a backlash could spiral into a public-relations nightmare."
Sorkin is clearly disappointed. But that's okay, he understands.
"It is understandable that executives would be anxious about courting potential controversy,..."
Sure you're scared, but it's time to be a big boy now and do what grown-ups do.
Force your will on others.
"...but leadership is about making difficult decisions when the stakes are high. Simply recommending that people take the vaccine may not be enough."
Individual choice may not be enough to ensure Sorkin's vaccination Utopia.
Plus, Sorkin has an idea!
"Indeed, the most meaningful approach could be for groups like the Business Roundtable, which represents the biggest companies in the nation with some 15 million employees, to get its members to sign a joint commitment to mandating vaccinations, which would help prevent a backlash against individual companies."
What a great idea! Let's get a powerful consortium of the largest companies in the nation to collude in order to protect themselves against individual consumers.
I certainly can't think of a single anti-trust issue here.
It gets better.
"In truth, companies may not have to publicly declare their plans just yet."
They can hide their intentions from public scrutiny which will not at all fuel mistrust.
"After all, most people won't have access to the vaccine for several months. But once one or more vaccines are available — hopefully, after demonstrating their safe use on tens of millions of people — it would be a disservice for the business community not to to use its enormous power and influence to protect the health of workers, customers and society.
It would be a disservice for the powerful not to subjugate the weak.
Just to sum up:
Media elitist proposes companies collude in secret so as to use their power and influence to force people to take an experimental vaccine against their will.
Also, if you think that, you're a conspiracy nut.