Poll backs lawmakers’ moves to restrict employer vaccine mandates

A new poll suggests legislation in the Indiana House to restrict employer COVID-19 vaccine mandates for employees would accomplish what many Hoosiers want.

The survey of 576 adult Hoosiers by the Bowen Center for Public Affairs at Ball State University shows that while 30% support employer vaccine mandates, the majority support some other approach. Forty percent want employers only to encourage vaccines and another 28% don’t want employers to encourage or require the shots.

Results of the statewide survey were released Thursday as the Indiana House Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee listened to seven hours of public testimony on House Bill 1001. The measure would effectively force employers who require COVID-19 vaccinations for employees to allow medical or religious exemptions without question.

The online survey was conducted over two weeks in mid-November, and used demographic 2020 Census data to send it out to a sample size of Hoosiers generally representative of the population of Indiana. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.2 percentage points.

Chad Kinsella, managing director of the Bowen Center for Public Affairs, said the poll results were not surprising. But he said Indiana was more of a middle ground between states such as Texas, where state lawmakers are looking to ban employer-enforced vaccine mandates altogether, and California, which has more iron-clad mandates for businesses, health care workers and schools.

Arguments from those who testified on the Indiana House bill on Thursday mirrored comments made at another lengthy public hearing on the same concepts in November.

Some Indiana doctors and health experts warned  that the Republican-backed proposal aimed at limiting workplace COVID-19 vaccination requirements would hurt efforts to stem the illness as the state’s hospitals are strained with their highest-ever overall patient counts.

Dr. Gabriel Bosslet, an Indiana University Health critical care physician, told the committee that he’s seen people “die needlessly” because they didn’t get vaccinated and was frustrated with an intensive care unit where nearly all COVID-19 patients are unvaccinated.

Jason Stockberger was among those in support of the bill. He said the job he’s worked at for 29 years requires COVID-19 vaccination. While he received an exemption, he said he hoped the bill would force his employer to uphold it.

“I was and still am prepared to lose my job over this issue. Fortunately, my exemption was accepted like last week. However, not knowing what the future holds is uncertain,” Stockberger said.

Some of the state’s largest business associations, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, the Indy Chamber of Commerce and the Indiana Manufacturers Association, again testified in opposition to such restrictions on businesses mandating vaccines. But representatives said they would be willing to work with lawmakers on amendments.

“I’m here today unfortunately to deliver a message from our members and our board of directors, and that message is, when it comes to employer vaccination policies. Please stay out of our business operations,” Indiana Chamber CEO and President Kevin Brinegar said.

A main concern of the Indiana Chamber is the language that would require alternative weekly COVID-19 testing, if offered, to be covered at no cost to the employee. Brinegar said that effectively creates a “testing tax” for employers to pay. He said it could cause employers to abandon their current vaccine requirements, and dissuade others to implement them.

Brinegar said he wanted to work with lawmakers to amend the bill to a point where the chamber could support it.

Rep. Matt Lehman, the bill’s author, said he is working on a sweeping amendment to add to the bill when the committee meets to vote on the measure once the legislature officially reconvenes on Jan. 4.

He said amendment likely would address the concerns about testing costs, among other issues raised during both rounds of testimony.

Another change Lehman, R-Berne, is considering is adding a penalty for employers who do not grant the required exemptions. He said he is looking at allowing employees who are denied exemptions and fired to be able to draw unemployment at the expense of the employer.

That is a provision Brinegar said the chamber would oppose.

Still, Lehman said he was a little more optimistic about the business community’s willingness to work with him on the legislation following Thursday’s testimony.

“I think the business community has a little bit of work to do  with us on some of those nuances of how we adopt all this,” Lehman said. “But I heard more today, I think, some additional, ‘We’re willing to work,’ than I heard two weeks ago.”

The bill is still expected to be on a fast track to passage in the House once session starts on Jan. 4. Lehman said his goal is to have an amendment ready to be adopted in committee on Jan. 4, and then have the bill on the House floor for a full vote by Jan. 10.

If the bill clears the House, it would advance to the Senate for further consideration.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.