Vaccine Exemption
01-17-2022, 06:30 AM
#2
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by 701EV
Has anyone found any Doctors who will fill out vaccine medical exemption in metro Atlanta?
701EV
701EV
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
01-17-2022, 06:58 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,290
Originally Posted by Drum
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
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
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.
01-17-2022, 09:35 AM
#5
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
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.
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.
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.
01-17-2022, 11:26 AM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,290
Originally Posted by Drum
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
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
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
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.
Originally Posted by Drum
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Drum
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
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
Originally Posted by Drum
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.
01-17-2022, 12:24 PM
#7
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
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 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.
That last sentence is pretty bold Rick. I think you misread it. What it says is the kompany can't make changes to personnel policies that is contrary (i.e. against) the PWA/CBA. Having the rug pulled over the jab mandates - which is the topic we are discussing, nothing else - is not large hole, it is salient. More akin to threading a needle. Many are not going that route. What you posted is CBA boilerplpate - you can't change things on personnel covered under the CBA without negotiating it first.
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.
That advice was not for him, that's in general for those out there not under a medical requirement to their employ. Just an example but one that is being brought to those kompanies not backing down since the devastation of the ruling against corporate edicts.
However, more and more of the major America corps are BACKING AWAY from mandates. That's a fact and the reason is all a legal one.
The legal liability shield is GONE. Recalcitrant companies will be sued. It will become in their best interests to bail on the mandate train. Remember about 7 months ago I told you this might be bigger than tobacco and asbestos? It's just beginning.
Yes, you can sue for anything Rick. Before you could not sue your kompany though for forcing the jab on you since they said the reason was "we are complying with the Federal government contractor mandate or OSHA mandate. See, it is not us, its those guys over there making us do this to you, so sorry."
There are thousands spooling up right now and many were filed on Thursday, 13 January in the afternoon. There are several other variables to the equation, but I'll stick with the legal aspects.
Finally, you should read Gorsuch's opinion on the majority in OSHA. It is very telling. This case will be one for the ages, mark my words. Private companies were put on notice as to the breadth of their ability to "mandate" what their workers must do.
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.
It got GE and 3M to back down really quick once that umbrella went *poof* now didn't it
If OP is in FL we have a string of great attorneys working on cases. If not I'm sure they can put you in contact with some in ATL area. FL is ground zero for kicking these mandates in the junk right now, so most of our attorneys representing clients here are well versed on the matters and are now buttressed with a ruling as precedent.
Most are going with a free consultation. Representation is when you start to pay. They can also hook you up with other suits if there are more than a few of you going after the same kompany
Don't be afraid to reach out for legal advice in this matter. If you are union shop, yes, you should have been talking to your reps already.
Since you posted on APC I'm guessing maybe you are not at a union shop?
Federal government mandates, sure looks that way.
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
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.
That last sentence is pretty bold Rick. I think you misread it. What it says is the kompany can't make changes to personnel policies that is contrary (i.e. against) the PWA/CBA. Having the rug pulled over the jab mandates - which is the topic we are discussing, nothing else - is not large hole, it is salient. More akin to threading a needle. Many are not going that route. What you posted is CBA boilerplpate - you can't change things on personnel covered under the CBA without negotiating it first.
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.
That advice was not for him, that's in general for those out there not under a medical requirement to their employ. Just an example but one that is being brought to those kompanies not backing down since the devastation of the ruling against corporate edicts.
However, more and more of the major America corps are BACKING AWAY from mandates. That's a fact and the reason is all a legal one.
The legal liability shield is GONE. Recalcitrant companies will be sued. It will become in their best interests to bail on the mandate train. Remember about 7 months ago I told you this might be bigger than tobacco and asbestos? It's just beginning.
Yes, you can sue for anything Rick. Before you could not sue your kompany though for forcing the jab on you since they said the reason was "we are complying with the Federal government contractor mandate or OSHA mandate. See, it is not us, its those guys over there making us do this to you, so sorry."
There are thousands spooling up right now and many were filed on Thursday, 13 January in the afternoon. There are several other variables to the equation, but I'll stick with the legal aspects.
Finally, you should read Gorsuch's opinion on the majority in OSHA. It is very telling. This case will be one for the ages, mark my words. Private companies were put on notice as to the breadth of their ability to "mandate" what their workers must do.
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.
It got GE and 3M to back down really quick once that umbrella went *poof* now didn't it
If OP is in FL we have a string of great attorneys working on cases. If not I'm sure they can put you in contact with some in ATL area. FL is ground zero for kicking these mandates in the junk right now, so most of our attorneys representing clients here are well versed on the matters and are now buttressed with a ruling as precedent.
Most are going with a free consultation. Representation is when you start to pay. They can also hook you up with other suits if there are more than a few of you going after the same kompany
Don't be afraid to reach out for legal advice in this matter. If you are union shop, yes, you should have been talking to your reps already.
Since you posted on APC I'm guessing maybe you are not at a union shop?
Federal government mandates, sure looks that way.
Last edited by Drum; 01-17-2022 at 12:38 PM.
01-18-2022, 05:49 AM
#8
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,290
Originally Posted by Drum
That last sentence is pretty bold Rick. I think you misread it. What it says is the kompany can't make changes to personnel policies that is contrary (i.e. against) the PWA/CBA. Having the rug pulled over the jab mandates - which is the topic we are discussing, nothing else - is not large hole, it is salient. More akin to threading a needle. Many are not going that route. What you posted is CBA boilerplpate - you can't change things on personnel covered under the CBA without negotiating it first.
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.
01-18-2022, 09:13 AM
#9
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
"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.
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.
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
