Factions of employers and employees squared off over their vision for California’s post-COVID-19 workplace Thursday, leaving state regulators caught in the middle of competing pandemic guidance and an impassioned debate over masks, social distancing and vaccinations.

But the path forward was no clearer by the end of the day, with a state workplace safety board postponing decisions on key questions, including who needs to wear a mask at work and whether employers will be required to treat vaccinated and unvaccinated workers differently. For now, Bay Area businesses are left with a perplexing mix of state, federal and county rules — and little guidance.

“I can’t tell you how many employers have been asking me the same question: What do we do?” said Dr. John Swartzberg, clinical professor emeritus of infectious diseases with the UC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Medical Program.

Californians were looking to the state’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, to clarify how employers should handle reopening. The agency had proposed new rules that would let vaccinated workers stop wearing masks and practicing social distancing while requiring unvaccinated workers to maintain those protections. But on Thursday, the agency decided it needed more time to review the latest federal guidelines before issuing its new rules.

The decision follows Santa Clara County’s order this week requiring businesses to determine their employees’ vaccination status. And it comes amid widely varied re-opening approaches around the country, from New York’s new vaccine passport to Florida’s ban on such systems and on employers requiring workers to prove their vaccination status.

Dozens of people representing employers and workers weighed in during Thursday’s video meeting of the state Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. Business lobbyists argued that regulations should be relaxed with increasing vaccination rates and plummeting COVID-19 rates, while worker advocates highlighted the  potential risks if safety mandates are lifted too soon.

“Infections are still occurring. Outbreaks at workplaces are still occurring,” said Maggie Robbins, an occupational and environmental health specialist at Oakland-based worker-advocacy group WorkSafe, who noted that many Californians are not vaccinated. “What we potentially have is lots of people not wearing masks, an inability to determine who’s vaccinated, and a relaxation of social distancing. This is going to lead to open season in the workplace for all controls in the workplace to be relaxed or most controls to be relaxed.”

Employer representatives said the burden of sorting out vaccinated from unvaccinated workers could raise privacy concerns among workers.

“Why must we have to monitor the entire workforce, with cases going down?” said Patricia Bruno, senior vice-president of public policy at the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. “If the goal is to open up because infection rates are low, why are these requirements being added?”

Cal/OSHA urged its seven-member board — a body appointed by the governor to adopt workplace safety standards — to hold off on the proposed revisions, citing this week’s announcement that the state on June 15 will start following updated guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that fully vaccinated people can go without masks in most indoor settings, and outdoors. Cal/OSHA deputy chief Eric Berg in a memo asked the board to allow his agency to present a new proposal at a future meeting.

The board agreed, scheduling another meeting for June 3. A new proposal is expected to be made public by May 28.

A key issue is how employers will determine the vaccine status of employees and how far employers have to go to accommodate workers who can’t or won’t get vaccinated, Peter Leroe-Muñoz, general counsel and senior vice president of technology and innovation for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, said after the meeting. That question could spark litigation down the road, he said.

“It can be overwhelming to companies that really aren’t getting a whole lot of guidance at this stage among the competing sets of guidelines,” Leroe-Muñoz said.

Speaking during the video meeting, Katie Hansen, senior legislative director for the California Restaurant Association, balked at language in the tabled proposal that would have allowed restaurants to take down protective barriers after July — but require them to put the barriers back up if an outbreak is reported. That’s not financially or practically feasible for restaurants struggling to hold on after a year of pandemic closures, Hansen said.

Hansen also objected to a requirement that before returning to normal operations, restaurants and other businesses must provide all unvaccinated employees with N95 masks. Several other speakers agreed, saying the masks would put an undue financial burden on businesses and could prompt a shortage of N95 masks similar to what the country saw early in the pandemic.

After listening to three hours of comments from concerned employers and workers, board chair David Thomas urged a cautious approach.

“Hopefully we’re getting to a place where we can open things up. It’s looking that way.” But, he said, “A little over a year ago we tried to open up everything. It was a disaster. Until we got the vaccine, we were in dire straits. In the back of your mind you have to say, ‘We’ve seen this before,’ and for lack of a better word, we don’t want to get stupid.”

Swartzberg, the epidemiologist, also advocated caution and applauded the board’s decision to slow down the process.

“They’re talking about a very important decision, and I think they should take all the time they feel is necessary,” he said.