www.alphadictionary.com

Today on NPR:
“ . . . pushback against the administration’s mandatory vaccine requirements . . . .”

Is this actually a tautology, or do some words just require a preposition after them? Which is odd in itself, as a PREposition really should be before things, shouldn't it?

To me, it’s simply excessive verbiage. A tautology, indeed. Your other point escapes me.

Shouldn't a preposition, that is, a thing that bears the name pre-position, come before the thing it modifies? Not a true quibble, as I get it, but that's part of why we shouldn't end sentences with one, non?

Only preposition I see is ‘against’. My point is that ‘mandatory requirement’ is just silly. I mean ‘requirement’ . . . ?
Some folk - I’ve caught myself at it - will pad the verbiage to sound like a more nuanced thinker.

Aha, therein lies the rub! I thought the point was about 'pushback against,' and completely missed the other part.

I've come up with a way to make that part legit, though. The administration is requiring companies to have mandatory vaccination policies. How's that work?

Hi, again. I was actually thinking something similar - after the fact, as I usually do my thinking - but then I sez to myself, I sez, no a requirement is necessarily mandatory.
Say, are the Finger Lakes glacial gouges? I’m from Brooklyn, but I’d been in California many years before a neighbor told me that all of Long Island is a giant moraine. Also - don’t think I ever saw them - there are rock surfaces in Central Park bearing (mini) glacial gouges - oriented more or less north-south, naturally.

Requirements are mandatory, but I'm proposing the reading of, "If you want government work, you are required to have mandatory vaccination policies in effect."

Yes, the Finger Lakes are glacial scarring, lakes yclept fingers because somehow someone pictured them from above and thought they might have looked as if a giant had plowed its fingers into the ground.