Mandatory vaccination policies

C-Note

Hummingbird
Gold Member

SOUTHWEST AIRLINESMass Flight Cancelations ...SPECULATED TO BE PILOT VAXX STRIKE​

It it's true that the canceled flights are because of a soft strike, then it means that the employees had banded together and discussed this action well in advance, and Southwest's management was completely unaware of it, i.e. people are organizing resistance without the Man knowing about it. Again, if true, this is a major development.
 
At a certain point businesses still have to survive and do what is best for them.

How do people think SWA is feeling right now? These mandates will cripple their business if it continues.

What if other employees from other airlines join in?

Strength is in the numbers.

Imagine if all pilots decided to strike.

You're not correct. Even the small businesses are awaiting their next round of bailouts. Capitalism is dead from the top to the bottom.

I'm not saying this isn't good news though but keep it in perspective. You cannot hurt these companies financially. However, that's not what these strikes are really about; it's about crippling the system.

After all, you can't print more pilots.
 

budoslavic

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member
FBXvu64XoAIl-NI





 

Enoch

Hummingbird
Very familiar with union negotiations, been involved in major litigation regarding collective bargaining agreements.

Every single union's lawyer knows that the vaxx mandate is an illegal change to the CBA. For some reason, the unions are not standing up en masse, I would guess because union management is one tributary to elevating your political status in the democratic party.

I understand the pilots don't want to be accused of organizing an illegal strike, but this is in response to a unilateral change to employment conditions by the employer.
 

Caractacus Potts

Woodpecker
Gold Member
A memo came out from our city health department this morning that all city staff, volunteers, seasonal workers and interns have to get the jab by November 15th. There was the usual appeal to authority, e.g, following guidance from CDC, IDPH and other health care organizations. Then there was the short blurb about sincerely held religious conviction exemptions would be looked at on a case by case basis. Any non-jabbed would need to provide a weekly negative test that employees will need to perform on their own time.

Twenty five minutes later there was a follow up email from the City Manager stating to disregard the prior email and that they are working to form an agreement with the unions. lol

I received a similar email from an educational institution that I teach a course for. I am never on campus but they want me to get the jab or report to the campus for a test every week. I am currently ignoring the emails. Midterms are in two weeks. I am going to get the students through it and tell the college they can kiss my ass. If the kids want to keep coming to my offsite class I will continue to teach it. I doubt they will get credit for it but they seem to be enjoying the class, so who knows?
 

kamoz

Kingfisher
Gold Member
'80% of our pilots are ex-military...'



*Triumphant/hopeful Lord of the Ringsish music plays*

Keep in mind that for pilots in particular, they have to maintain FAA medical certificates. It’s an exam once or twice a year by an authorized doctor, including an EKG. It doesn’t take much to lose a medical and therefore one’s career. As a result, the choice is, do I not take the vax and lose just this job but keep my health? Or do I take the vax and risk losing this career and my health, even after the regime falls? This difficult decision is made slightly easier because of this.

However what is frightening is just how many nurses aren’t taking it. They don’t have medicals to maintain, so they must be seeing something.
 
A memo came out from our city health department this morning that all city staff, volunteers, seasonal workers and interns have to get the jab by November 15th. There was the usual appeal to authority, e.g, following guidance from CDC, IDPH and other health care organizations. Then there was the short blurb about sincerely held religious conviction exemptions would be looked at on a case by case basis. Any non-jabbed would need to provide a weekly negative test that employees will need to perform on their own time.

Twenty five minutes later there was a follow up email from the City Manager stating to disregard the prior email and that they are working to form an agreement with the unions. lol

I received a similar email from an educational institution that I teach a course for. I am never on campus but they want me to get the jab or report to the campus for a test every week. I am currently ignoring the emails. Midterms are in two weeks. I am going to get the students through it and tell the college they can kiss my ass. If the kids want to keep coming to my offsite class I will continue to teach it. I doubt they will get credit for it but they seem to be enjoying the class, so who knows?
It sounds like many institutions are running similar scripts. Sounds very much like the way my National Guard unit ran it. They mandate, then they give the illusion of dialogue, Q&A, then CDC blah blah, then exemption, then you’re replaceable so get the vaxx, slave.
 

DeusLuxMeaEst

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
Last edited:

Redcrosse

Woodpecker

Wow. So the courts are getting on board too. Once the mark comes there will be no recourse, forget about the laws or any institution protecting people in any way.
U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, declined her lawsuit. The mandate, Maloney said, didn’t violate her fundamental rights and pointed to a 1905 Supreme Court ruling.

“This Court must apply the law from the Supreme Court: Jacobson essentially applied rational basis review and found that the vaccine mandate was rational in ‘protect[ing] the public health and public safety,’” Maloney said in his order.
“The Court cannot ignore this binding precedent.”
The judge essentially went fishing for a legal precedent to justify the decision he wanted to impose all along. But the history of legal decisions is now ample and capacious enough that you can find a necessary “precedent” for any conceivable ruling you intend. If he’d wanted to rule in the plaintiff’s favor, the judge could just as easily have found a firm “precedent” for that — in each situation, his own emotionally based biases and preferences would be the real cause of his ruling, but he would rationalize the ruling to himself and the public as being rooted in facts, reason and “precedent.”
 
Top