Originally Posted by
Excargodog
As I said, non smoker here - your sanctimonious anti smoking diatribe is totally wasted on me.
I'm not anti-smoking, I even light up the odd stogie. Just stating the obvious that it's a very bad habit on a regular basis
Originally Posted by
Excargodog
And I know that this is legal in Washington State, but it would not be legal in almost half the other states, including California.
But SEA is in WA. So legal.
Originally Posted by
Excargodog
But it’s not tinfoil beanie stuff to wonder where companies are going with this. As the Sutton case demonstrated, UAL was ready to fight all the way to the Supreme Court (and back then win) for their desire to impose a stricter physical standard on their candidates than the FAA believed was justified. Delta temporarily imposed an insurance surtax on people not getting immunized against COVID. So what happens if they do decide they want to do a swab on incoming candidates to check for non clinical conditions that may be costly in the future? Do you think that is a good idea? Clearly, finding out that someone was BRCA positive represents a huge potential insurance liability. Certainly more so than someone this age group simply refusing to get COVID immunization.
It's tinfoil to insinuate that a fortune 500-ish company is using tobacco screening as a smokescreen (pun intended) to genetically test and weed out weak gazelles. In blatant violation of federal law.
Originally Posted by
Excargodog
And should ALPA be preemptively getting involved with Congress to avoid the possibility of this happening? Why aren’t the FAA medical standards sufficient?
FAA regs do not address vaccination, it's not in their wheelhouse. You can be vaccinated, or not, and you're still fit to fly (after 48 hours). Not FAA's problem. And unlike most workers WE can prevent employer vaccine mandates via CBA (although force majeure would obviously apply if the destination requires it). Funny that nobody thought of that before covid.
If pilots want ALPA to fight invasive MEDICAL screening by employers, that sounds like a good idea and not just for ALPA but all unions. Actually federal law covers that already:
https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-...s-examinations
And maybe the reason they're not worried about genetic testing is because federal law covers that too
https://www.eeoc.gov/genetic-information-discrimination