Monday marked the first day of Joe Biden’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) forcing unvaccinated workers to mask up as other aspects of the mandates remain in the hands of the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the matter on Friday.

The masking portion of Biden’s coronavirus rule, which forces employers with 100 or more employees to require unvaccinated workers to wear a mask, went into effect on Monday. The testing requirement, which is not yet in effect, results in what essentially amounts to a work tax, as OSHA places the burden of the cost of testing on the employee.

As Breitbart News reported, “Employees who refuse to get the shot will be subject to a coronavirus test ‘at least weekly’ if they are in an office at least once a week, or ‘within 7 days before returning to work’ if away from the office for over a week. Notably, the ETS does not place the burden of testing costs on the employer, but on the unvaccinated individual. However, OSHA says employers may be required to pay some of the costs of testing because of other laws or bargaining agreements. Nonetheless, the agency itself is not requiring employers to do so. …

“Additionally, the rule requires employers to force unvaccinated individuals to wear a face covering in virtually all scenarios — when indoors or ‘when occupying a vehicle with another person for work purposes, except in certain limited circumstances.'”

According to News4Jax, “the masking requirement for unvaccinated workers is the only portion of the law taking effect” on Monday, as the vaccine and testing requirements are “on hold until Feb. 9.”

The fate of the mandates currently rests with the Supreme Court, which heard arguments regarding Biden’s large employer vaccine mandate and the rule for healthcare providers on Friday.

“The government is trying to work across the waterfront, and is just going agency by agency,” Chief Justice John Roberts, who is largely considered a swing vote, said of the challenge.

“It seems to me that the more and more mandates that pop up in different agencies, I wonder if it’s not fair for us at the court to look at a general exercise of power by the federal government,” Roberts said, adding that the court should “then ask, ‘Well, why doesn’t Congress have a say in this? And why isn’t it the primary responsibility of the states?’”