171 thinks we are at risk of being castrated
09-26-2023, 10:13 AM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Position: 737
Posts: 62
171 thinks we are at risk of being castrated
Our lunatics in Houston are getting more desperate and increasingly unhinged mentally. Embarrassing.
“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:
“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?”
09-26-2023, 10:23 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2023
Posts: 502
Our lunatics in Houston are getting more desperate and increasingly unhinged mentally. Embarrassing.
“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:
“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?”
09-26-2023, 10:33 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 941
Our lunatics in Houston are getting more desperate and increasingly unhinged mentally. Embarrassing.
“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:
“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?”
If this is the best you can come up with for a reason to vote "no," it is little wonder why this will pass so easily!
09-26-2023, 11:16 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 425
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:
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
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?
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
09-26-2023, 11:20 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,701
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:
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
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?
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
09-26-2023, 11:25 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,238
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
