Vaccine Exemption
 

Has anyone found any Doctors who will fill out vaccine medical exemption in metro Atlanta?

701EV

Who's asking you for one? If they are, I'd go find a lawyer, not a doc

Fed Contractor is enjoined

OSHA got shot down, so there is no legal top cover for the corps to mandate anymore, other than their own "reasons" which now they have no indemnity.

Which if you are at a union shop turns into a job action without being negotiated.

Again, I'd go get a lawyer

I thought a company can still require a vaccine or exemption (medical, religious)? All the SCOTUS did is make it illegal for OSHA to mandate it and thus put it on the companies.

Mongo

Probably not. An employer can still require a vaccine, they're just not REQUIRED to require a vaccine. But they can if they want to. That's been well established for many decades and has already been upheld with covid.

Union may or may not matter, devil is in the CBA details. Contracts *typically* include a catch-all allowance for management discretion for things not explicitly addressed by the CBA. That more than likely includes vaccines unless somebody had the foresight to negotiate specific vaccine language... I'm pretty sure the UAL contract had no such language. Something to think about for your next contract.

We've been thru this before and this is why the SCOTUS crushing OSHA and the enjoinment of the Fed Contractor mandate are so pivotal - corps are now fair game for lawsuits stemming from or associated with a mandate. Its their onus know, now longer covered under the Fed umbrella (see GE, 3m etc now bailing on mandates)

You keep brushing aside the CBA. It's a contract Rick. One you and your employer knowingly entered on your employ. A change such as this to ones health and care is not something that will be brushed aside. Now, if your representation throws you under the bus (highly unlikely), well there's another lawsuit.

Employees under a CBA:

1) Can sue as illegal actions thru the union representing them as conditions of employment were changed BY THE COMPANY, not by external "forces beyond their control"
2) Has to be negotiated if not already
3) Can not be terminated as such

Employees not under CBA:

1) Can sue for any malady associated with compliance, or not, or effect from
So if you get PTSD from thinking about having to comply with a mandate, you can sue the company over this and win.

Believe me, legal teams are spinning right now. Yeah Apple still mandates it, but they are a woke company not under union CBA.

Airline employees. particularly pilots, are mostly under a CBA.

Unless he's a 135 operator or something else, then he's in muddy areas. That's why I would go see a lawyer FIRST. Folks need to be careful about what medical exemptions they go for, it could boomerang on them at a later date (for example FAA could add a simple question to the 8500-8. we've seen this done already).

Now, 701EV, go find a good attorney. There are several in the ATL area representing plaintiffs against company mandates. Go get solid legal counsel first, then figure out what your next step is

Finally, Rick, jab mandates are effectively DOA. Let's move on. Legal teams way smarter than you and I are already coming to these conclusions.

How often do I have to repeat this???? CBAs often have rather large loopholes for general management actions, here's an example from a large legacy:

21-K Change in Personnel Policy Company personnel policy which affects pilots shall not be changed without giving advance notice to the Association and affording them the opportunity to comment. Further, no change shall be made to any Company personnel policy which is contrary to any of the terms of this Agreement.

So they have to *notify* the union before changing personnel policy. I'm quite certain they did that. I'm also quite certain they allowed them to "comment". Then they did what ever the hell they wanted, which in this case was a vaccine mandate.

Further, they can't change anything "which is contrary to any of the terms of this Agreement." You get just one guess what the "terms of this agreement" did NOT address :rolleyes: Maybe that would be something think to think about for the next contract.

^^^ This is all factual, and we all just watched it happen.

See how that works? It's actually of broader interest than just vaccine mandates, might also want to consider what *other* trucks the company might be able to drive through that loophole.

You can sue almost anybody for almost anything, doesn't mean you'll win... PTSD over a vaccine mandate sounds like a personal problem. It will also get you grounded long-term by the FAA, so you'd better win that lawsuit. You could say the same thing about being on reserve and the ongoing anxiety that they might call you and make you go to work.

Actually I'd talk to the union first, they all figured out many months ago where their CBA stands on this issue. Also good chance you won't find a lawyer willing to take this on contingency, so get the checkbook out. Most employers are not stupid enough to set themselves for an epic HR and legal fail. Especially the big ones.

Federal government mandates, sure looks that way.

///filllllererer

"Covered by the CBA" means the CBA has to specify that in detail. "Just having a CBA" provides no protection if this sort of loophole clause exists. The PURPOSE of the loophole is to ensure that management has full control of anything that's not specifically negotiated and detailed in the CBA. If you have no such clause then presumably the CBA should protect you against ALL changes to work conditions.

My entire point being, if your CBA is silent on something which could be remotely construed as "personnel" related, but you have this or a similar loophole clause, you might want to consider the potential ramifications and fix the loophole. Of get specific language about anything you really care about (like vaccines). The people who let management have this clause expected management to use it to force pilots to switch from a paper paycheck to direct deposit or the like, they did not anticipate a vaccine mandate.

Regardless of their personal feelings about vaccines, I think a majority of pilots would prefer that the company NOT be able to unilaterally mandate medical procedures.

It's a cart - horse; chicken-egg kinda thing Rick

Other than United, who's timing is suspect, the corporate mandates were sprung after the announcements by dot gov

Where I hang my hat, every correspondence from HQ RE: mandates was prefaced with: "DUE TO THE FEDERAL MANDATE and in order to be compliant, we will require blah blah blah"

Wasn't the other way around. So good attorneys, and a few SCOTUS justices, understand the importance of the order. Under oath it won't stand and many thousands of folks are going to be made whole again. Personally I think my place did it right. They struck a balance and surprisingly applied some common sense. Now I would like to see them drop all of it and I think that's in the works as we start our negotiations back up again today.

Take care Rick