Excellent post, thank you for sharing.

 

Yes, and unpaid leave for an undetermined amount of time is not even close to being reasonable. Largely because it was a bait and switch.

But, I think we have found the primary motivation behind it - and it's not to just get them to take the shot - It keeps these folks squarely in one corner for manpower purposes and then not subject to reoccurring testing that could cause manpower shortages on short notice.

 

The company gets to be all core4 by not firing the people who went out. At the end of the day, they’re hoping that a month or two without pay causes them to have a religious revelation and decide to get the shot. United didn’t “force” them, they acted on their own free will. Once vaccinated, they just go back to the line. This TRO is jacking up their plan since the pay cut motivation is removed.

 

Yes, absolutely, they would much prefer that everybody just get the shot and this is interfering with that plan. The bigger point I am making here is the WHY they want them to get the shots and WHAT they wanted to do with people that refused to get the shots while they were waiting for them to have a religious experience.

 

They want us to get the shots for 2 main reasons:

1. Kirby has said that he believes in the vaccine and that every letter he has written to the family of an employ that died from covid was for an unvaccinated employee. The vaccine isn’t a magic pill, but it does significantly reduce the seriousness and mortality rate of those affected. I do however find it ironic that he tells the press that 100% of United crews are vaccinated when he knows that over 50% of United flights are operated by regional crews who face no such mandate.

2. Money. Pilots not being able to work certain flights will cost money. Some places will require vaccination. No fleet is exempt and having pilots not able to cover any assignment creates scheduling inefficiencies that they want to avoid. If we’re all vaccinated, then we’re all interchangeable parts without restrictions. Requiring frequent testing could also cost money by having people not testing negative. My son for instance just had a test and it showed inconclusive. He never had any symptoms or a positive test, but a pilot with the same results would be pulled as a precaution and put a further strain on the already thin reserve availability.

Kirby wants everyone to believe like he does, if not he was willing to bribe us. The plan was to put those few parts that are not interchangeable on a shelf and store them without cost until things change or until they decided to become interchangeable by getting vaccinated so that they could be pulled off the shelf and plugged back into the machine. For now, the TRO is interfering since those parts are on the shelf, but United is paying for storage.

 

Yes, I expect so. I have never heard anyone with a vaccine express any concerns about flying with someone who doesn't have it. When I read that, I was surprised and thought the same thing.

 

I'm sure that the company's statement is factually 'correct'. They got a few management pilots (who don't fly much anyway) to express 'concern' about flying with unvaxed pilots.

 

Sorry to hear that. Hope he'll be OK.
I had Covid and got the shot in spite of testing positive for antibodies. However, I still think it's every person's choice whether or not to get vaccinated.

 

Absolutely. Kirby necessarily weilds the kind of authoritarian control over his employees typically reserved for battlefield commanders. A family shouldn't trust their loved ones to make such critical medical decisions for themselves. Who's gonna explain to their family why they died? Who's going to be responsible for that? Every time I go to work my family understands that my life is completely in Kirby's hands. I'm glad to see it's not a responsibility he takes lightly. I know his decisions are in the best interest of our wider family and our shared mission. No one should have to receive one of these letters ever again.

 

8 Nov 21 OPINION & ORDER : Bound by precedent, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not clearly carried their burden to show they would likely suffer imminent, irreparable injury absent an injunction. The Court thus DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 11/07/2021)