Originally Posted by hummingbear

Okay let’s try this again. I’m not claiming anything. I’ve made no statements about contract law, nor predictions about how the policies in question will affect us now or in the future. Neither am I aggrieved over “medical freedom” policies in general. I don’t agree with the IAH council’s conclusions on this this section of the TA, but I do support their right to publish it at this point in the voting process. That’s all. If you want to argue that point, I’m game but if you want to argue the rest of the above you’re talking to the wrong guy. See you at the drawing board?

Originally Posted by hummingbear

Okay let’s try this again. I’m not claiming anything. I’ve made no statements about contract law, nor predictions about how the policies in question will affect us now or in the future. Neither am I aggrieved over “medical freedom” policies in general. I don’t agree with the IAH council’s conclusions on this this section of the TA, but I do support their right to publish it at this point in the voting process. That’s all. If you want to argue that point, I’m game but if you want to argue the rest of the above you’re talking to the wrong guy. See you at the drawing board?

Originally Posted by worstpilotever

jfc, during the pandemic pilots were doctors, now they are lawyers. Cant we just stick to flying airplanes 9 days a month for $300k a year?

Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon

Nutters are going to be nutters, but it’s a little disconcerting they were democratically elected to leadership positions and given a pulpit for this tripe instead of hanging around the dark corners of local ALPA meetings drinking free beer and spouting off their nonsense behind closed doors

Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon

I simultaneously support their right to say whatever they want while also being embarrassed at how they represent our airline/profession. Nutters are going to be nutters, but it’s a little disconcerting they were democratically elected to leadership positions and given a pulpit for this tripe instead of hanging around the dark corners of local ALPA meetings drinking free beer and spouting off their nonsense behind closed doors

Originally Posted by worstpilotever

JFC, during the pandemic pilots were doctors, now they are lawyers. Cant we just stick to flying airplanes 9 days a month for $300k a year?

Originally Posted by dailyops

It's the equivalent of a passenger saying their cousin's newphew says the weather is perfect at the destination when you're on a departure delay program.

Originally Posted by worstpilotever

JFC, during the pandemic pilots were doctors, now they are lawyers. Cant we just stick to flying airplanes 9 days a month for $300k a year?

Originally Posted by rvfanatic

Fellow Houston Pilots,

Due to the many questions we received regarding Medical Freedom, we decided to conduct outside research to help us all understand the ramifications of our choices.

What does the word "unilaterally" mean?

21-DD-1 Medical Autonomy. The Company may not unilaterally impose a vaccination, medical procedure, or medical requirement on Pilots beyond any requirements imposed by the FAA, including special issuance certificates.

Speaking in an educated manner on this topic requires due diligence. Therefore, we sought many opinions and consulted with several non-ALPA attorneys who specialize in various areas of labor, employment, and contract law. The over-arching concurrence is that without specific contract language clearly defining the exact parties who must agree, the inclusion of the word "unilateral" leaves
open the door for debate, be that at a System Board or in a Court of Law.

Specifically, any other entity's involvement satisfies the prohibition of a sole party thereby ensuring any mandate is not

"unilateral." While the intent may have been that the second party is your union, nolanguage states that the union is the only intended or required party. Consider these examples:

• If the City of San Francisco (operator of SFO) imposes a mask mandate, "Is management acting unilaterally?"
• Is a CDC vaccine recommendation enough to meet the non "unilateral" requirement?

In that case, 16,000 of us must get the latest booster. No one will ever know the language pitfalls until tested by management and decided by an arbitrator or judge.

We all know management are professionals at circumventing our collective bargaining agreement. This TA will be no different.

What is different is that management will have the right to determine exactly what qualifies as an "operational impact."

Imagine the potential ramifications in this example:

• UAL concurs with a new recommendation from the American

Medical Association stating most men over 40 are at risk for testicular cancer. Concerned for operational integrity, United decides to mandate those meeting the qualifications--males over 40--must have their testes removed. UAL argues testicular cancer treatments (chemo, radiation, etc.) take 6+ months and Will cause an "operational impact" verses removal, which results in only a few days healing time. Now what?

The new 21-DD language leaves possibilities for abuse. Some argue, "We don't think the company will do that."

Thinking management will not do something has burned everyone. We want to know they cannot with simple strong contractual language. We want to ensure the have no mechanism to violate your medical autonomy.

The AIP bullets clearly stated "No medical procedure or vaccine requirements beyond what FAA requires for a pilot medical, including Special Issuance." Somehow, that morphed into language that absolutely allows management to mandate medical procedures or vaccines, so long as they find someone--anyone--to agree with them. Keep in mind, your union leadership changes often. It is easy to imagine returning to a time the union simply agrees with management regarding your medical choices.

Some argue since ALPA was included at the negotiating table, intent will carry a grievance should this provision be tested.

The problem is this new language. There are no "past practices" on which to base any speculation of intent.

Meanwhile, we point your attention to the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nded., printed below. Without clearly identifying the parties included in the unilateral decision-makind process

inclusion of this word leaves UAL to define the second entity with whom they are conferring.

Unilateral: One-sided; ex parte; having reflation to only one of two or more persons or things. (https://openjurist.org/ law-dictionary/unilateral)

Conversely, one can easily argue the presented language means, "The company

MAY, with ALPA's approval (or any concurring body), impose a vaccination, medical procedure, or medical requirements on pilots BEYOND any requirements imposed by the FAA, including special issuance certificates.

The Delta and American contracts simply state, respectively, "The company may not require any...." or "The company may not require, at any time." These are concrete protections against medical mandates.

Good language must reflect exactly what was stated in the AIP, "United SHALL NOT..



As written today, nothing--no matter the verbal assurances--protects you. United may present anyone they choose as their second concurring entity, and you will have no legal standing in an arbitration or a court. We believe this clause allows management ample opportunities for work-arounds. Knowing reps and union officers come and go, Jamie, Steve, and I believe the risk is too great to simply trust management and or our union with our personal medical choices. Therefore, we implore you to vote "No" sending the TA back to the negotiators to fix this language.

In Unity,

Mark, Jamie, and Steve Captain Mark Crissman

Captain Rep, LC 171

Air Line Pilots Association