Alaska employers who mandate COVID vaccines may be held liable


    As more and more companies, including several in Alaska, require employees to receive the experimental COVID-19 shots, they may be subject to legal action.

    New guidance from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) indicates that employers who mandate COVID shots could be held liable for ensuing adverse reactions.

    The new OSHA guidance was released last month in a section of its website answering frequently asked questions about COVID-19 vaccines. One question asks: “If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?”

    The answer: “If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.”

    The new guidance reflects growing concern as more employers around the nation are refusing to let employees decline the COVID shot. While there is no statewide mandate regarding COVID vaccines, several companies in Alaska, including Alaska Industrial Hardware and Delta Air Lines, require the experimental injections as a condition of employment.

    According to the CDC-run VAERS reporting site at least 4,057 Americans (including 22 Alaskans) have died shortly after receiving the vaccine. Another 192,954 Americans (including 869 Alaskans) have reported adverse reactions such as anaphylaxis, fainting, high fevers, strokes, shortness of breath, rashes, swollen tongue, discoloration of the skin and a litany of other side effects. According to the CDC, its VAERS website only captures a small percentage of overall adverse reactions to vaccines.

    “Underreporting is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS,” the CDC website admits. “The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.”

    Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.

    Joel Davidson
    Joel Davidson
    Joel is Editor-in-Chief of the Alaska Watchman. Joel is an award winning journalist and has been reporting for over 20 years, He is a proud father of 8 children, and lives in Palmer, Alaska.

    Share this article

    Related articles


    1. GCI communications requires this as well. (found this out from another web site).
      It’s going to get interesting when a company has to pay for their bad decisions.

    2. They should be! It’s not mandatory. It’s not tested or approved by the CDC. There’s nothing safe about it yet.

    3. The satanic globalist thought their spell was too great and we as GODS children would not remember that Coercion under the Nuremburg code carried the penalty of death in its weight… Did you hear that Governor? Did you hear that Franklin Graham?…

      • Using your position power and influence to persuade those in your charge to murder themselves is beyond an abomination to GOD. You have made your own beds….

      • Where are all the American God fearing patriots who have some common sense and aren’t going to take this??!!! Man this makes me angry …

        • I was in the emergency room a couple of nights (nothing to do with covid) ago and, due to several high risk co-morbidities, he told me NOT to get any of the vaccines!

    4. This is a Unilateral Treaty RE ratified in the U.S. in 2009 and anyone no matter who they are that mandates any medical procedure violates informed consent and are subject to federal charges for practicing medicine without a license and crimes against humanity ! BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL No 7070 Volume 313: Page 1448,
      7 December 1996.
      The judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg laid down 10 standards to
      which physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects in
      a new code that is now accepted worldwide.
      This judgment established a new standard of ethical medical behaviour for the post
      World War II human rights era. Amongst other requirements, this document
      enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The
      principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control
      his own body.
      This code also recognizes that the risk must be weighed against the expected
      benefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must be avoided.
      This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients.
      The principles established by this code for medical practice now have been extended
      into general codes of medical ethics.
      The Nuremberg Code (1947)
      Permissible Medical Experiments
      The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical
      experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds,
      conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the
      practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such
      experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other
      methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must
      be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
      1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This
      means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent;
      should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without
      the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching,
      or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient
      knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
      as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This
      latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision
      by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature,
      duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is
      to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected;
      and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his
      participation in the experiment.
      The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests
      upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is
      a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with
      2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of
      society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random
      and unnecessary in nature.
      3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal
      experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other
      problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the
      4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical
      and mental suffering and injury.
      5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to
      believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those
      experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
      6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the
      humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
      7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to
      protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury,
      disability or death.
      8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.
      The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of
      the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
      9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to
      bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state
      where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
      10.During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared
      to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe,
      in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required
      of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury,
      disability, or death to the experimental subject.
      For more information see Nuremberg Doctor’s Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.

    5. I wish those 22 alaskan families would come out to show their relative who died as a result receiving the vaccine; as well as the 869 come out showing their face.
      Thank you for this reporting. Until the 891 Alaskan families publicly show themselves, its nothing but disinformation just as the so called high numbers of alaskans committing suicide. People wont believe it unless they see it.

      • With today’s climate of harassments, threats, and DOXing, I would never suggest that the affected families post names, or anything that identifies them publicly unless they plant to, or have initiated legal actions. We have idiots just sitting around waiting to intimidate, or threaten anyone they disagree with, especially with the hysteria that some exhibit now.. I agree with the fact that we have a lot of disinformation being spread about now days, but, I disagree with making publicly identifiable information accessible to the idiots prior to initiation of legal proceedings.

    6. Gci, is a Loser of a company. Plus they tell there employees how to vote too.
      No shot for me. Wake up people, it’s your life, not the government.

      • When they stopped being owned by Alaskans – where it started in Fairbanks ; my Uncle was the third employee – the two owners were the husband & wife team -before they were GCI (it was McCaw & another name ) and now they are owned by outside Alaska interests just like everything else being sold off to non Alaskans who are heading up here to destroy our way of life…this is sad . We are first Alaskans & patriots who work and play hard under the midnight sun ☀️ and just want to enjoy our lives without all this govt overreach, along with liberal leftists whining about everything! We don’t have time for those types – go to work and contribute; no such thing as a free lunch!

    7. Good, good. Now, can they hold Fauci liable for the entire plandemic since it came out he funded the lab? How about liabilities added back to the jab-creating companies? I agree with Michael class actions, they are effective.

    8. Demand to know WHO will be the source of legal (criminal) and civil liability for ANY detriment to person receiving an irreversible vaccine into their personal biology under ‘comply or be deleted’ tyrannical edicts. Vaccines so trustworthy and unproven their creators have legal immunity from recourse over side effects. Edicts implemented, a apolitically of course, as a reaction to DECIDED fear that people ARE a defined THREAT because they DON’T KNOW, one way or another, if they are a threat or not. A based viral threat defined by a 2020 mortality rate only 4 times greater (345K/US) than the mortality rate for inflenza in 2018 (85K/US) that no one even batted an eye over (because they didn’t even know about it – that wasn’t the election year). And that still includes numbers who died of other causes, but were tallied as COVID deaths if they tested positive (Birx). Automotons, somnambulants, the timorous and those feigning fear for the perceived politically advantages – a dystopian sci-fi nightmare akin to “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. COVID is the costume that the real threat wears to advance itself. The term ‘Nazi’ has been so overused that it has less efficacy when the behavior for which metaphorically applying it ACTUALLY applies more aptly. “Comply or die” is coming, maybe even verbatum.

    9. Sean Hannity interviewed some doctors who have been receiving patients who have had the vaccine coming to them with symptoms they have never seen before ever. The vaccine is only experimental and should NOT be mandated. Who has decided that we will be the guinea pigs whether we want to or not? What gives corporations or businesses or the state or the university or the feds permission to overpower our civil liberties. Where are the judges and lawyers to protect us? We WILL NOT be vaccinated.

    10. I know too many people who have had really bad reactions. Even my own elderly mother who just finished her second shot told me not to get it as the symptoms were horrible. One guy I know now stutters, never did before. One elderly man who still lives in the woods, chopping wood to heat his home – really fit – had it early on and has been sick ever since. I am not an antivacciner, just waiting to see the true outcomes (if we ever get the truth from our “leaders”) of these are.
      A note on having to have proof of vaccines: when one travels out side of the USA, some countries require certain shots and you have to prove that you received them. HOWEVER, I for one, believe it is unconstitutional for several reasons, for us to have to do so within our own borders. The illegal aliens crossing the border are at least 50% covid positive and not only not being vaccinated but are being bussed and flown all over the country!!!!!!! (not to mention all the taxpayer money they are being given when doing so….) I refuse to live in a country going the way ours is. I thank God I am fairly ill and can stop all treatments that are keeping me alive. I am just about there….

    11. Rutgers University students had a protest in front of there as in order to attend that university you have to have had the vaccine. One of the students challenged in the news whether Rutgers will be responsible for the outcome of the vaccines since it has not even been out for a year and are still considered experimental. They have not been cleared to be used as a vaccine. How can we be forced to take an experimental drug that has not been approved. Where is the liability. Perhaps it is a question for the Governor and Lt. Gov in our state since they are promoting this experiment also.

    Leave a reply

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here


    Alaska Watchman relies on the generous support of our readers. All donations go directly to supporting and expanding our news coverage. Please consider becoming a regular supporter.


    Stay Informed

    Receive breaking stories and analysis from the Alaska Watchman directly to your inbox for free.

    No spam ever. Guaranteed.

    Latest articles

    News tips