billtaters

Our CBA is an agreement between two parties, our bargaining agent (ALPA), and the company. If both parties agree to do so, they can amend the contract. 171’s argument about needing different CBA language to protect us from some future MEC’s actions shows that they don’t understand how ALPA or RLA contracts work. The reality is that as line pilots, we’d have the same recourse in that scenario whether “unilateral” was included in this section or not.
No, that isn’t what happened with the COVID vaccine. The fact that this language had to be added in these negotiations proves its own necessity to prevent this from happening again.
Yes, this section is about not enduring the company’s COVID vaccine requirement again. There is no fire here. As Jerry said, this is much ado about nothing.

171’s hypothetical scenarios are all the equivalent of a dog chasing his tail.

hummingbear

If we’re being fair, we all know “yeah but the odds of that happening is so low” is a very unsatisfying response when it’s an issue you care a lot about. At some point, we’ve all heard that rebuttal & thought “you’re crazy if you want to leave this up to chance”, so I try not to rely on it. When you want protection, probability doesn’t feel good enough.

This issue is not my battlefield but to the small group of us for whom it’s a big deal, it’s THE big deal. The IAH letter dealt mostly with the complaint that our language is less absolute than that of DAL/AA, which is a fair complaint (I don’t want less than our peers, even in areas I’m not primarily concerned with) and they’d do well to keep the conversation in that domain. I agree the castration example only pushes the conversation into the region of the absurd. It doesn’t sound like a serious concern & so it doesn’t invite serious consideration or response.

jerryleber

There is a not so small group of pilots who think this is much ado about nothing and we have spent more than enough leverage to adequately address this group's concern. We share small cockpits with each other for hours on end so these individual decisions affect others. The union has to take everyone's interests into account. Enough already.

Race Bannon

I'm curious if the company can mandate flu shots or pneumonia shots. The CDC recommends it, therefore the company might be able to mandate it with the argument that it is not a "unilateral decision".

The simply question is, why didn't the NC achieve a much more iron clad language like what Delta and AA has?

Don't you think their language would have been significantly better?

rickair7777

In general (non gov) employers can mandate vaccines *if* they can show it's necessary to prevent significant disruption to their operations.

But there's pretty good precedent as to where that line is: flu shots generally cannot be mandated, because it's not that disruptive. Pneumonia would be even less disruptive since it's not really contagious, you normally need to have something else going on to get it in the first place.

Covid passed that test IN THE EARLY DAYS because it was disruptive if one ramper or crew member got it and then his entire team team had to stay home for ten days. Not getting into covid or the vax, but a lot of people were scared, management didn't know how bad or not it really was, so it was disruptive for a while.

Employers cannot require vaccines for motives such as increased productivity or lower health care plan costs. But for those reasons they have incentive to *encourage* vaccines, and they usually do.

Health care employers have more leeway for mandates to protect patients, and also because of disruption... many are exposed constantly and if a bunch of them get sick, they *have* to stay home so as not to infect vulnerable patients in poor health. Don't like it? Maybe look for a job at a podiatrist's office, which might not require it.

Sniper66

well said
48 hours to go before results

78% yes votes

jerryleber

Our TA language prevents that.

No. Their language overreacts to a small group of the pilots at the potential detriment of the majority. Our language allows for our MEC to best represent the interests of all United pilots in the unlikely event that such a situation arises again.

Race Bannon

I'm sorry. I may have missed it. Does it state that "unilaterally" means the only two parties are the MEC and the company? If not, why not do you think? "Good enough, don't worry" is not as good as "better" language stated unequivocally

I don't really care but just curious.

jerryleber

No need as the entire CBA is an agreement between UAL and ALPA and no other parties.

GolferNJ

It was actually pretty easy to verify this:

AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
AND THE
AIR LINE PILOTS
IN THE SERVICE OF
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
AS REPRESENTED BY THE
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL