As was widely expected, I haven't found recent numbers for vaccination percentage of workers but here in the PNW where they are a substantial employer this is pretty big news. Hopefully most already have and this will help motivate stragglers, but I'm sure some will leave.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... accinated/

125,000 employees

“Employees who are unable to meet these requirements ... may be released from the company.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boein ... uxbndlbing

Ouch. This is abrupt as the Federal requirements are brutal:

https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/contractors/

This applies to subcontractors.

There is no wiggling out for Boeing.
First Moderna must be by October 27th if my math is right, Pfizer by Nov 3rd.

No wonder my employer, a competitor to Boeing, insisted everyone have the 1st jab in October. I personally think J&J will be rare in November.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

125,000 employees

“Employees who are unable to meet these requirements ... may be released from the company.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boein ... uxbndlbing

Ouch. This is abrupt as the Federal requirements are brutal:

https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/contractors/

This applies to subcontractors.

There is no wiggling out for Boeing.
First Moderna must be by October 27th if my math is right, Pfizer by Nov 3rd.

No wonder my employer, a competitor to Boeing, insisted everyone have the 1st jab in October. I personally think J&J will be rare in November.

Lightsaber

Fortunately compliance is simple and easy to come by.

lightsaber wrote:

125,000 employees

“Employees who are unable to meet these requirements ... may be released from the company.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boein ... uxbndlbing

Ouch. This is abrupt as the Federal requirements are brutal:

https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/contractors/

This applies to subcontractors.

There is no wiggling out for Boeing.
First Moderna must be by October 27th if my math is right, Pfizer by Nov 3rd.

No wonder my employer, a competitor to Boeing, insisted everyone have the 1st jab in October. I personally think J&J will be rare in November.

Lightsaber

I think many people will end up on unpaid leave for a time as they wait. If a person is showing good faith I don’t think you can terminate them if they prefer one vaccine over another so likely if a person says I will get vaccinated the option is unpaid administrative leave until that happens

lightsaber wrote:

125,000 employees

“Employees who are unable to meet these requirements ... may be released from the company.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boein ... uxbndlbing

Ouch. This is abrupt as the Federal requirements are brutal:

https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/contractors/

This applies to subcontractors.

There is no wiggling out for Boeing.
First Moderna must be by October 27th if my math is right, Pfizer by Nov 3rd.

No wonder my employer, a competitor to Boeing, insisted everyone have the 1st jab in October. I personally think J&J will be rare in November.

Lightsaber

I'm sure a huge percentage of the 125,000 are already vaccinated. For the ones that just do it to keep their job I expect the Spirit Airlines of vaccines (aka J&J) to be very popular and agree that there could be supply issues.

planecane wrote:

I'm sure a huge percentage of the 125,000 are already vaccinated. For the ones that just do it to keep their job I expect the Spirit Airlines of vaccines (aka J&J) to be very popular and agree that there could be supply issues.

Hahaha, the "Spirit Airlines" of vaccines, love it. Well done.

Before people start posting about their "Rights" in the USA. There are no absolute rights; and the classic case is that you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or public space. People do get injured and killed in stampede type evacuations. There are real responsibilities and balances with every freedoms and rights.

In the case of Vaccines - its already been to the US Supreme Court twice:

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled by a 7-2 majority that the state can impose “reasonable regulations” to protect the public health, even when such regulations interfere with individual rights (Jacobson v. Massachusetts: smallpox vaccine case).

In 1922, the Supreme Court “settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination” in their unanimous Zucht v. King decision.

I note that both of those rulings were issued before the concept of "religious objections" existed in regards to vaccine requirements.

Federal Law has long allowed Employers to legally require vaccinations for their employers.

Thus the law has been on the side of employees, government bodies, institutions, and Schools, to determining vaccine requirement for employees and participants for over 100 years.

Also, no one in the USA has a inherent "Right" to a job.

No one is interfering with a person’s free choice to find another job (or school, etc) if they don’t like the employers or other institutions policies.

As a personal comment: No one is raising any Covid-19 vaccine objection or argument that has not been raised before in previous decades or centuries; which were all shot down by the courts. Don't any of these people read and study history?

Have a great day,

lightsaber wrote:

No wonder my employer, a competitor to Boeing, insisted everyone have the 1st jab in October. I personally think J&J will be rare in November.

Lightsaber

J&J is already pretty rare to find these days. With the Baltimore plant fiasco earlier in the year, states are getting very few shipments of it if any at all.

2175301 wrote:

Before people start posting about their "Rights" in the USA. There are no absolute rights; and the classic case is that you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or public space. People do get injured and killed in stampede type evacuations. There are real responsibilities and balances with every freedoms and rights.

In the case of Vaccines - its already been to the US Supreme Court twice:

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled by a 7-2 majority that the state can impose “reasonable regulations” to protect the public health, even when such regulations interfere with individual rights (Jacobson v. Massachusetts: smallpox vaccine case).

In 1922, the Supreme Court “settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination” in their unanimous Zucht v. King decision.

I note that both of those rulings were issued before the concept of "religious objections" existed in regards to vaccine requirements.

Federal Law has long allowed Employers to legally require vaccinations for their employers.

Thus the law has been on the side of employees, government bodies, institutions, and Schools, to determining vaccine requirement for employees and participants for over 100 years.

Also, no one in the USA has a inherent "Right" to a job.

No one is interfering with a person’s free choice to find another job (or school, etc) if they don’t like the employers or other institutions policies.

As a personal comment: No one is raising any Covid-19 vaccine objection or argument that has not been raised before in previous decades or centuries; which were all shot down by the courts. Don't any of these people read and study history?

Have a great day,

Well said. You can probably guess where I work. I completely support this mandate. I got my first and second shots in April. Hopefully we can go back to not needing masks in the office as we did for a short time around June for those who were vaccinated.

I’m glad this isn’t World War 2 with the current prevailing self-centered attitude of some people. I could see people refusing to turn off their lights and cover their blinds at night because they have “rights”.

My buddy at work was looking for J&J in Sept and couldn’t find it. Day after first Pfizer shot he went to local arts festival and there was a booth giving J&J on the spot.

ADent wrote:

My buddy at work was looking for J&J in Sept and couldn’t find it. Day after first Pfizer shot he went to local arts festival and there was a booth giving J&J on the spot.

J&J works well for pop up sights cus you can store it at a higher temp and it’s one and done. So a lot of places have been using it for that

BoeingGuy wrote:

Hopefully we can go back to not needing masks in the office as we did for a short time around June for those who were vaccinated.

We haven’t worn masks at work in a while - policy is no masks if 80% vaccinated at a given site. But our sites in Florida and Alabama aren’t close - wonder how many are going out the door there.

All companies over 100 and all government contractors are required to require the vaccine.

We were going to allow serology tests, but our government customer doesn’t allow that.

ADent wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Hopefully we can go back to not needing masks in the office as we did for a short time around June for those who were vaccinated.

We haven’t worn masks at work in a while - policy is no masks if 80% vaccinated at a given site. But our sites in Florida and Alabama aren’t close - wonder how many are going out the door there.

All companies over 100 and all government contractors are required to require the vaccine.

We were going to allow serology tests, but our government customer doesn’t allow that.

I’m in Everett. We did have to go back to wearing masking indoors in any Boeing facility when Delta ramped up. We were starting to go back in two days a week. I still do so, but people were allowed to go back to full virtual if they were uncomfortable going in.

Post respectfully. Taking cheap shots in an aviation forum is disrespecting other users.

Discuss the aviation aspects. Please take the non-aviation parts to, non-aviation.

32andBelow wrote:

ADent wrote:

My buddy at work was looking for J&J in Sept and couldn’t find it. Day after first Pfizer shot he went to local arts festival and there was a booth giving J&J on the spot.

J&J works well for pop up sights cus you can store it at a higher temp and it’s one and done. So a lot of places have been using it for that

I hadn't paid attention to supply issues when J&J made the news being shipped out.

No wonder my employer mandated first dose in October, there just isn't much J&J out there:
https://www.kfyrtv.com/2021/08/23/johns ... th-dakota/

This will be an issue due to the inevitable procrastination/avoidance at all Federal contractors. I honestly wasn't paying attention as the local pharmacies have vaccine, I wasn't asking what types.

Oh, FWIW "Spirit Airlines of vaccines" was great a.nut humor. This means a scramble.

Lightsaber

Requiring vaccination against Convid19 for someone who has had the disease is not scientifically supported. It would not make sense even if these vaccines had zero risk of harming health, which is far from true. Another bad decision by Boeing.

Nean1 wrote:

Requiring vaccination against Convid19 for someone who has had the disease is not scientifically supported. It would not make sense even if these vaccines had zero risk of harming health, which is far from true. Another bad decision by Boeing.

I'll take "Who doesn't know what he is talking about?" for 500, Alex^H^H^H Miyiam.

Good for Boeing but the writing was already on the wall. OSHA's rule for large employers has been submitted and is expected to take effect before the end of the year.

Nean1 wrote:

Requiring vaccination against Convid19 for someone who has had the disease is not scientifically supported. It would not make sense even if these vaccines had zero risk of harming health, which is far from true. Another bad decision by Boeing.

Requiring someone who has been trained once on Boeing's ethics and compliance requirements to be trained again is not scientifically supported. It would not make sense to ask people to take this training even if sitting through the virtual learning has zero harm.

You're acting like this is even Boeing's decision. Are you forgetting that Boeing is a massive government contractor? It doesn't matter what Boeing wants; they are required to have a vaccine mandate. It's like complaining about Boeing deciding that they have to meet all those pesky FAA safety regulations when building a plane (potshots about Boeing ignoring those with MCAS aside... ).

2175301 wrote:

Before people start posting about their "Rights" in the USA. There are no absolute rights; and the classic case is that you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or public space. People do get injured and killed in stampede type evacuations. There are real responsibilities and balances with every freedoms and rights.

In the case of Vaccines - its already been to the US Supreme Court twice:

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled by a 7-2 majority that the state can impose “reasonable regulations” to protect the public health, even when such regulations interfere with individual rights (Jacobson v. Massachusetts: smallpox vaccine case).

In 1922, the Supreme Court “settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination” in their unanimous Zucht v. King decision.

I note that both of those rulings were issued before the concept of "religious objections" existed in regards to vaccine requirements.

Federal Law has long allowed Employers to legally require vaccinations for their employers.

Thus the law has been on the side of employees, government bodies, institutions, and Schools, to determining vaccine requirement for employees and participants for over 100 years.

Also, no one in the USA has a inherent "Right" to a job.

No one is interfering with a person’s free choice to find another job (or school, etc) if they don’t like the employers or other institutions policies.

As a personal comment: No one is raising any Covid-19 vaccine objection or argument that has not been raised before in previous decades or centuries; which were all shot down by the courts. Don't any of these people read and study history?

Have a great day,

The unsettled legal issue is whether the Federal Government can compel people to be vaccinated and whether the use of executive agencies to force employers to mandate them constitutes a legal or constitutional overstep. There is no question that a state can mandate vaccination and there is no question that an employer can require it. In a unionized environment it has to be collectively bargained.

There's also a liability issue. Let's say a Boeing employee gets vaccinated in order to keep their job and has a serious rare side effect. Can they sue Boeing for damages for compelling them to get vaccinated? I'm not 100% sure but I think they would have a strong case.

Fortunately compliance is simple and easy to come by.

I have to disagree. Try getting compliance from the sickout pilots over at Southwest (it isn't just weather and military flights causing their system to cancel flights), or Amtrak which suddenly has staffing issues, or the truckers who aren't showing up, or the thousands of nurses and health care workers being fired for not getting the shot (New York State is going to attempt to replace them with National Guard folks, the numbers are so significant). I could go on. The bottom line is that there are people for whom this is a sore point. I know one coworker who is refusing to get vaccinated due to side effects with the carrier fluid that vaccines come in - she's literally been advised by her personal doctor to not get the shot, at least not now, due to her serious reactions. That may be a rare example, but its a real one. Time will tell what happens, but when the more necessary employees and workers in society start saying, "No," the system will become strained.

There's also the legal question of whether these federal and state vaccine mandates are even legal. This is more of a procedural question, since there are ways to require vaccinations, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, but does this mandate comply with them? The court in New York is rather skeptical, and the United employees just got a ruling saying that religious exemptions must be recognized. This is all preliminary and will doubtless work its way through the courts for awhile, but its telling that at an early stage, the employees are winning at least temporary injunctions. Again, time will tell as with all things, but I don't think that compliance will be all that easy.

planecane wrote:

There's also a liability issue. Let's say a Boeing employee gets vaccinated in order to keep their job and has a serious rare side effect. Can they sue Boeing for damages for compelling them to get vaccinated? I'm not 100% sure but I think they would have a strong case.

I do not believe so. A review would focus on whether it was appropriate and reasonable to require the shot. You already stated it would be "rare" so with the facts of billions of shots given and little to no "serious side effects" noted except in unique situations and there are options to request medical exemptions, I do not see the case having much success.

Tugg

planecane wrote:

The unsettled legal issue is whether the Federal Government can compel people to be vaccinated and whether the use of executive agencies to force employers to mandate them constitutes a legal or constitutional overstep. There is no question that a state can mandate vaccination and there is no question that an employer can require it. In a unionized environment it has to be collectively bargained.

I posted this in the airline vaccine thread, but copying this over as it is relevant to your question:

This is true, and does add some legal ambiguity, but not a whole lot. The court already determined that there is no constitutionally protected right not to get vaccinated, and then it's just a question of whether the Feds have the authority to enforce a mandate in the manner proposed. And the answer is, yes, at least as the plan is proposed, they do have the authority. Here's why:

• No court is going to decide in favor of an argument that the federal government cannot mandate its employees get vaccinated.
• No court is going to decide in favor of an argument that the federal government cannot set guidelines for how it contracts with companies so long as those guidelines are not discriminatory against protected classes (vaccine mandates are not, especially if they consider medical and sincerely held religious beliefs), they do not favor some companies over another, and they are not arbitrary.

And as it relates to the (pending) proposed OSHA guidance on large employers:

• For employers that operate their business in an interstate manner, there is no debate whatsoever. Any employer with 100+ employees does. Do they have a web presence? A Facebook page? Do they post job postings on the internet? Do they buy from suppliers across state lines? The Federal authority is clear here.
• For employers that specifically try to craft their business to be intrastate (almost impossible in this day and age), it still doesn't matter: OSHA has already withstood legal challenges even for business that operate purely in intrastate grounds (indeed, the legislation itself articulated its basis of authority and this basis of authority has stood up to judicial challenge).

Anyone can sue for anything. But these cases will be given priority, and they will ultimately lose. Airlines are currently solving for the government contractor requirements, but they will ultimately have to solve for the pending OSHA guidance. There is no real legal argument that says the Feds cannot do this. You can argue that they shouldn't be able to do it because you don't like it, but that is different than saying they can't do it.

If the federal government came out and said "All Americans must be vaccinated" and not exercising its existing regulatory and contracting authority, I would agree that it would be an interesting debate or discussion. But as construed today, there is no question that the Federal government has the authority to execute these mandates as currently planned.

And yes, in this case, Federal law will trump State law. A state cannot void an OSHA regulation because they do not like it. States can spin up their own OSHA capability, but the plan must be at least as restrictive as the Federal OSHA requirements - not less.

There's also a liability issue. Let's say a Boeing employee gets vaccinated in order to keep their job and has a serious rare side effect. Can they sue Boeing for damages for compelling them to get vaccinated? I'm not 100% sure but I think they would have a strong case.

Severe, long-term side effects are incredibly rare with these vaccines - especially if you exclude J&J for younger women. It is statistically unlikely that any Boeing employee would have any meaningful serious side effect at all. Statistically, one person may have an acute allergic reaction that would be dealt with on-site and is self-limiting (i.e. not permanent). With that said, liability for these vaccines is covered by the Federal government under the CICP. Lost wages and medical expenses are fully covered for eligible claims. Boeing would not be liable.

planecane wrote:

In a unionized environment it has to be collectively bargained.

Not everywhere. Plenty of health care systems and universities have simply imposed the mandate - prior to the exec order, actually.

MIflyer12 wrote:

planecane wrote:

In a unionized environment it has to be collectively bargained.

Not everywhere. Plenty of health care systems and universities have simply imposed the mandate - prior to the exec order, actually.

Same with the federal government (which has unions). No collective agreement was reached with them before Biden signed the mandate.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Fortunately compliance is simple and easy to come by.

I have to disagree. Try getting compliance from the sickout pilots over at Southwest (it isn't just weather and military flights causing their system to cancel flights), or Amtrak which suddenly has staffing issues, or the truckers who aren't showing up, or the thousands of nurses and health care workers being fired for not getting the shot (New York State is going to attempt to replace them with National Guard folks, the numbers are so significant). I could go on. The bottom line is that there are people for whom this is a sore point. I know one coworker who is refusing to get vaccinated due to side effects with the carrier fluid that vaccines come in - she's literally been advised by her personal doctor to not get the shot, at least not now, due to her serious reactions. That may be a rare example, but its a real one. Time will tell what happens, but when the more necessary employees and workers in society start saying, "No," the system will become strained.

I believe the poster meant that compliance is easy for the individual to achieve. Of course people may make it hard on themselves unnecessarily because they have been brainwashed to believe they are somehow doing the right thing by refusing vaccines. But that compliance itself is very easy, especially with on-site clinics most major employers are offering.

It's way harder to get your kid's vaccination schedule complete (and usually costs money!) to get them enrolled in school than it is for a grown adult to get a free vaccine at their workplace.

Polot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

planecane wrote:

In a unionized environment it has to be collectively bargained.

Not everywhere. Plenty of health care systems and universities have simply imposed the mandate - prior to the exec order, actually.

Same with the federal government (which has unions). No collective agreement was reached with them before Biden signed the mandate.

Law supersedes contract rights. Outside of legal protections for unions (primarily oriented around the right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining), unions rely on contract rights. If the Federal government has the authority to mandate as it has (which it does, per my posts above), then the union agreement is irrelevant. The only grey area here is whether or not an airline (or Boeing) could reasonably be expected to "isolate" non-contractor employees to limit the impact of the mandate. Based on how the mandate is written, it is not reasonable to do so.

It works both ways. If the FAA extended crew rest requirements to exceed an airline's negotiated contractual union obligations, then it isn't like the negotiated rule wins. The FAA rule supersedes.

ethernal wrote:

Polot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Not everywhere. Plenty of health care systems and universities have simply imposed the mandate - prior to the exec order, actually.

Same with the federal government (which has unions). No collective agreement was reached with them before Biden signed the mandate.

Law supersedes contract rights. Outside of legal protections for unions (primarily oriented around the right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining), unions rely on contract rights. If the Federal government has the authority to mandate as it has (which it does, per my posts above), then the union agreement is irrelevant. The only grey area here is whether or not an airline (or Boeing) could reasonably be expected to "isolate" non-contractor employees to limit the impact of the mandate. Based on how the mandate is written, it is not reasonable to do so.

It works both ways. If the FAA extended crew rest requirements to exceed an airline's negotiated contractual union obligations, then it isn't like the negotiated rule wins. The FAA rule supersedes.

From the local 751

"We were officially notified today (Oct. 12, 2021) that Boeing would be moving forward with a vaccine mandate in line with Executive Order 14042 and President’s Biden’s COVID-19 action plan. The Company announced they will require all U.S. based Boeing employees to either show proof of being fully vaccinated from COVID-19 or have an approved reasonable accommodation (based on a medical or religious belief) in place by Dec. 8, 2021.

We have demanded to bargain the effects of this decision. The Executive Order includes the ability to request religious and medical exemptions for those unable or unwilling to receive the vaccine. We will ensure that these processes are well communicated in order that any member can follow the process to request an exemption. In addition, we will work to enforce just cause provisions within our bargaining agreement and for those denied their requested exemptions who are still unable or unwilling to accept the vaccine, we will investigate each on a case-by-case basis.

As we’ve just received this official notice, we have demanded to bargain the effects. We are currently looking for dates to meet with the Company to address these issues that impact you. This is a decision that Boeing has made, and we have a right to bargain the impacts of this and as we know more, we will share information.

751 Member Communications"

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

ethernal wrote:

Polot wrote:

Same with the federal government (which has unions). No collective agreement was reached with them before Biden signed the mandate.

Law supersedes contract rights. Outside of legal protections for unions (primarily oriented around the right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining), unions rely on contract rights. If the Federal government has the authority to mandate as it has (which it does, per my posts above), then the union agreement is irrelevant. The only grey area here is whether or not an airline (or Boeing) could reasonably be expected to "isolate" non-contractor employees to limit the impact of the mandate. Based on how the mandate is written, it is not reasonable to do so.

It works both ways. If the FAA extended crew rest requirements to exceed an airline's negotiated contractual union obligations, then it isn't like the negotiated rule wins. The FAA rule supersedes.

From the local 751

"We were officially notified today (Oct. 12, 2021) that Boeing would be moving forward with a vaccine mandate in line with Executive Order 14042 and President’s Biden’s COVID-19 action plan. The Company announced they will require all U.S. based Boeing employees to either show proof of being fully vaccinated from COVID-19 or have an approved reasonable accommodation (based on a medical or religious belief) in place by Dec. 8, 2021.

We have demanded to bargain the effects of this decision. The Executive Order includes the ability to request religious and medical exemptions for those unable or unwilling to receive the vaccine. We will ensure that these processes are well communicated in order that any member can follow the process to request an exemption. In addition, we will work to enforce just cause provisions within our bargaining agreement and for those denied their requested exemptions who are still unable or unwilling to accept the vaccine, we will investigate each on a case-by-case basis.

As we’ve just received this official notice, we have demanded to bargain the effects. We are currently looking for dates to meet with the Company to address these issues that impact you. This is a decision that Boeing has made, and we have a right to bargain the impacts of this and as we know more, we will share information.

751 Member Communications"

Of course the union is going to try to get what they can out of it - that's why people pay union dues after all, to try to get every concession they can from an employer - and the union will use it as a potential justification to re-negotiate provisions. But my point still stands: law supersedes union agreements. There is no need to consult with the union before making the decision, although the union can use this as a way to enter into re-negotiation.

planecane wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Before people start posting about their "Rights" in the USA. There are no absolute rights; and the classic case is that you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or public space. People do get injured and killed in stampede type evacuations. There are real responsibilities and balances with every freedoms and rights.

In the case of Vaccines - its already been to the US Supreme Court twice:

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled by a 7-2 majority that the state can impose “reasonable regulations” to protect the public health, even when such regulations interfere with individual rights (Jacobson v. Massachusetts: smallpox vaccine case).

In 1922, the Supreme Court “settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination” in their unanimous Zucht v. King decision.

I note that both of those rulings were issued before the concept of "religious objections" existed in regards to vaccine requirements.

Federal Law has long allowed Employers to legally require vaccinations for their employers.

Thus the law has been on the side of employees, government bodies, institutions, and Schools, to determining vaccine requirement for employees and participants for over 100 years.

Also, no one in the USA has a inherent "Right" to a job.

No one is interfering with a person’s free choice to find another job (or school, etc) if they don’t like the employers or other institutions policies.

As a personal comment: No one is raising any Covid-19 vaccine objection or argument that has not been raised before in previous decades or centuries; which were all shot down by the courts. Don't any of these people read and study history?

Have a great day,

The unsettled legal issue is whether the Federal Government can compel people to be vaccinated and whether the use of executive agencies to force employers to mandate them constitutes a legal or constitutional overstep. There is no question that a state can mandate vaccination and there is no question that an employer can require it. In a unionized environment it has to be collectively bargained.

There's also a liability issue. Let's say a Boeing employee gets vaccinated in order to keep their job and has a serious rare side effect. Can they sue Boeing for damages for compelling them to get vaccinated? I'm not 100% sure but I think they would have a strong case.

Negative on the liability. Federal law shields employers from this except in the case employers administer the vaccine themselves. Most companies are partnering with healthcare providers or outside vendors if offering onsite, and even more are just asking employees to ensure they have had the vaccine administered anywhere.

ethernal wrote:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

ethernal wrote:

Law supersedes contract rights. Outside of legal protections for unions (primarily oriented around the right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining), unions rely on contract rights. If the Federal government has the authority to mandate as it has (which it does, per my posts above), then the union agreement is irrelevant. The only grey area here is whether or not an airline (or Boeing) could reasonably be expected to "isolate" non-contractor employees to limit the impact of the mandate. Based on how the mandate is written, it is not reasonable to do so.

It works both ways. If the FAA extended crew rest requirements to exceed an airline's negotiated contractual union obligations, then it isn't like the negotiated rule wins. The FAA rule supersedes.

From the local 751

"We were officially notified today (Oct. 12, 2021) that Boeing would be moving forward with a vaccine mandate in line with Executive Order 14042 and President’s Biden’s COVID-19 action plan. The Company announced they will require all U.S. based Boeing employees to either show proof of being fully vaccinated from COVID-19 or have an approved reasonable accommodation (based on a medical or religious belief) in place by Dec. 8, 2021.

We have demanded to bargain the effects of this decision. The Executive Order includes the ability to request religious and medical exemptions for those unable or unwilling to receive the vaccine. We will ensure that these processes are well communicated in order that any member can follow the process to request an exemption. In addition, we will work to enforce just cause provisions within our bargaining agreement and for those denied their requested exemptions who are still unable or unwilling to accept the vaccine, we will investigate each on a case-by-case basis.

As we’ve just received this official notice, we have demanded to bargain the effects. We are currently looking for dates to meet with the Company to address these issues that impact you. This is a decision that Boeing has made, and we have a right to bargain the impacts of this and as we know more, we will share information.

751 Member Communications"

Of course the union is going to try to get what they can out of it - that's why people pay union dues after all, to try to get every concession they can from an employer - and the union will use it as a potential justification to re-negotiate provisions. But my point still stands: law supersedes union agreements. There is no need to consult with the union before making the decision, although the union can use this as a way to enter into re-negotiation.

Unfortunately, the dates are set.
Last 1st moderna October 27
Last 1st Phizer November 3rd
Johnson & Johnson (Jansen) seems to be difficult to find, but I only found regional examples. Anyone have a quantifiable link?

Everyone, please read the FAQ, there is no time to be negotiated other than paid time off as far as I can tell (I am not a lawyer).

https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/contractors/

As I read it, all subcontractors, including consultants must follow the guidelines. I also read the company can set the bar on religious guidelines, but as I interpreted the FAQ, there must be a doctor's signature for the medical certifying certain conditions that mostly have an expiration date. e.g., not within 14 days of documented Covid19. There are even quantifiable disages of certain medicines, at least per the booster forms I was sent.

Lightsaber

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

As we’ve just received this official notice, we have demanded to bargain the effects. We are currently looking for dates to meet with the Company to address these issues that impact you. This is a decision that Boeing has made, and we have a right to bargain the impacts of this and as we know more, we will share information.

751 Member Communications"

Thanks, but it just reinforces the prevailing point:

This is a done deal - declared unilaterally by Boeing.

The Local can talk about the nature of forms, educate members on the nature of religious exemptions, ask for time off and other minor details. It isn't going to change the broad outcome: get vaccinated, be granted a religious or medical exemption, or be subject to termination.

Negative on the liability. Federal law shields employers from this except in the case employers administer the vaccine themselves.

Not quite. A lot depends upon whether the mandate is legal and constitutional. If it is, then fine. If if isn't, and a business complies with an illegal law or order, then the waters get murky and a company might, under some liability theories, still be liable. The constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with this one, is all I'll say. In the end, they'll be making tons of money for several years.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Negative on the liability. Federal law shields employers from this except in the case employers administer the vaccine themselves.

Not quite. A lot depends upon whether the mandate is legal and constitutional. If it is, then fine. If if isn't, and a business complies with an illegal law or order, then the waters get murky and a company might, under some liability theories, still be liable. The constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with this one, is all I'll say. In the end, they'll be making tons of money for several years.

Why would constitutional lawyers be involved in this, outside of maybe some debate around the edges on what should qualify as exemption for sincerely held religious beliefs (which is already a pretty well litigated area)? The only legal questions here at play are compliance options (e.g., segmentation of the workforce). There isn't really any major constitutional questions at play unless there is something major I am missing.

There's a lot of folks on this forum that believe they are suddenly qualified lawyers on this topic. I wasn't aware that Airliners.net had such a general legal following...

And, again, liability for adverse reactions are covered under the CICP program. Even if you were to somehow tie liability back to an employer (you won't), there's not a lot of damages left after the CICP as it would cover both medical expenses and lost wages (including from disability if applicable).

ADent wrote:

My buddy at work was looking for J&J in Sept and couldn’t find it. Day after first Pfizer shot he went to local arts festival and there was a booth giving J&J on the spot.

Costco pretty much has it everywhere. That and urgent care centers or some medical facilities are the best place to find it

lightsaber wrote:

ethernal wrote:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

From the local 751

"We were officially notified today (Oct. 12, 2021) that Boeing would be moving forward with a vaccine mandate in line with Executive Order 14042 and President’s Biden’s COVID-19 action plan. The Company announced they will require all U.S. based Boeing employees to either show proof of being fully vaccinated from COVID-19 or have an approved reasonable accommodation (based on a medical or religious belief) in place by Dec. 8, 2021.

We have demanded to bargain the effects of this decision. The Executive Order includes the ability to request religious and medical exemptions for those unable or unwilling to receive the vaccine. We will ensure that these processes are well communicated in order that any member can follow the process to request an exemption. In addition, we will work to enforce just cause provisions within our bargaining agreement and for those denied their requested exemptions who are still unable or unwilling to accept the vaccine, we will investigate each on a case-by-case basis.

As we’ve just received this official notice, we have demanded to bargain the effects. We are currently looking for dates to meet with the Company to address these issues that impact you. This is a decision that Boeing has made, and we have a right to bargain the impacts of this and as we know more, we will share information.

751 Member Communications"

Of course the union is going to try to get what they can out of it - that's why people pay union dues after all, to try to get every concession they can from an employer - and the union will use it as a potential justification to re-negotiate provisions. But my point still stands: law supersedes union agreements. There is no need to consult with the union before making the decision, although the union can use this as a way to enter into re-negotiation.

Unfortunately, the dates are set.
Last 1st moderna October 27
Last 1st Phizer November 3rd
Johnson & Johnson (Jansen) seems to be difficult to find, but I only found regional examples. Anyone have a quantifiable link?

Everyone, please read the FAQ, there is no time to be negotiated other than paid time off as far as I can tell (I am not a lawyer).

https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/contractors/

As I read it, all subcontractors, including consultants must follow the guidelines. I also read the company can set the bar on religious guidelines, but as I interpreted the FAQ, there must be a doctor's signature for the medical certifying certain conditions that mostly have an expiration date. e.g., not within 14 days of documented Covid19. There are even quantifiable disages of certain medicines, at least per the booster forms I was sent.

Lightsaber

Yes - I am saying the union will use this as an opportunity to try to get concessions elsewhere (whether they will be successful or not is TBD). They have no ability to change the actual vaccine mandate or requirement (which is what I meant re: general law superseding contract law).

Aptivaboy wrote:

Negative on the liability. Federal law shields employers from this except in the case employers administer the vaccine themselves.

Not quite. A lot depends upon whether the mandate is legal and constitutional. If it is, then fine. If if isn't, and a business complies with an illegal law or order, then the waters get murky and a company might, under some liability theories, still be liable. The constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with this one, is all I'll say. In the end, they'll be making tons of money for several years.

There is no - zero - question that the mandate is legal for government contractors, which Boeing is.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Not quite. A lot depends upon whether the mandate is legal and constitutional. If it is, then fine. If if isn't, and a business complies with an illegal law or order, then the waters get murky and a company might, under some liability theories, still be liable. The constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with this one, is all I'll say. In the end, they'll be making tons of money for several years.

Con law degree here.... Some may question the constitutionality of the law (spoiler alert: it's constitutional), however compliance with the law, while the law is in effect, is unquestionable.

Cubsrule wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

Negative on the liability. Federal law shields employers from this except in the case employers administer the vaccine themselves.

Not quite. A lot depends upon whether the mandate is legal and constitutional. If it is, then fine. If if isn't, and a business complies with an illegal law or order, then the waters get murky and a company might, under some liability theories, still be liable. The constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with this one, is all I'll say. In the end, they'll be making tons of money for several years.

There is no - zero - question that the mandate is legal for government contractors, which Boeing is.

The suing lawyers will be earning lots of fees.


Now UA must put back on the payroll those actively seeking exceptions, per the court:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-fed ... uxbndlbing

The government has a lot of burdensome requirements. Only religion and medical are being considered.

The companies may sue back for fees.

Minnesota judge declined to block mandates:
https://www.kare11.com/amp/article/news ... 0811c6ed5d

New York forgot a religious exemption, so that mandate must restart:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/follo ... NewsSearch

Federal mandate must allow religious exemption:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/federal-judg ... to-vaccine

So as long as there is a process for medical and religious exemptions, there is no reason any future lawsuit will win against anyone.

There is a fully approved vaccine, so the experimental bit is now off the table.

What I am shocked about is how few subvendors are on the ball. Please read the Federal FAQ. It is an allowed variation of Federal contract law.
1. Have a medical exemption, I truly feel sorry for those that qualify as those are people we must protect.
2. Show you actually attend religious services and belong to a religion that hasn't already said, "nah, you're good" (as most mainline religions have).
3. Be vaccinated on time


Vaccines have been super easy to get for six months. I know this as when I received dose two, the sites were half full (1st jab was insanely busy). A month later, a third full on the first day of age 12+. Free Uner, required extra paid time off from any big company (all the airlines we are discussing), vaccine lotteries, vaccine bonus...

The smallpox vaccine mandates were found legal. This will be too.

Will some quit? A tiny number like UA.

There isn't much time left and I see a will for this mandate. My employer starts the separation process for those who haven't had jab #1 or applied for an exemption first workday of November.

This is a not nice Christmas present by both sides.

Lightsaber

Why would constitutional lawyers be involved in this, outside of maybe some debate around the edges on what should qualify as exemption for sincerely held religious beliefs (which is already a pretty well litigated area)? The only legal questions here at play are compliance options (e.g., segmentation of the workforce). There isn't really any major constitutional questions at play unless there is something major I am missing.

There's a lot of folks on this forum that believe they are suddenly qualified lawyers on this topic. I wasn't aware that Airliners.net had such a general legal following...

Welll, some of us have been to law school... I'm not practicing attorney, but I know enough to be dangerous.

Constitutional scholars will argue whether an executive order is constitutional or not in court. For example, does a federal action intrude into the realm of a state's protected 10th Amendment reserved powers? Does a mandatory jab result in a 4th Amendment violation? Maybe, maybe not. That can lead to lawsuits being viable, or not. After that, the litigators may take over. I make no predictions and take no sides, I'm just scratching the surface of what could be argued and litigated.

And remember, just because the federal gov't orders something doesn't mean that its legal, and that private industry is shielded from liability. There are exceptions to every "rule."

I wonder population demographic-wise how many of the 125K Boeing EEs are at risk? More than 75% of deaths occurred among those over the retirement age. Do any on this board know if Covid call-offs/illness has been a challenge for the company?

airzona11 wrote:

I wonder population demographic-wise how many of the 125K Boeing EEs are at risk? More than 75% of deaths occurred among those over the retirement age. Do any on this board know if Covid call-offs/illness has been a challenge for the company?

I don't know about Boeing, but we have had issues where whole teams were exposed and all had to quarantine, delaying production as one whole skill set was out (a lab that all of certain parts had to go through). It became worse as the lab sent out was the highly staffed lab whom neighboring labs borrowed skilled people. When the people returned, those that returned who became ill were too tired to work overtime.

This has been a significant issue in manufacturing. A significant cost The higher the fraction vaccinated, the fewer exposures. A UK study show fully vaccinated have a 50% to 60% lower risk of infection with Covid19, including asymptomatic cases:
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/englis ... 021-08-03/

So if I have a team of 40, and one employee comes in and exposes all 40, if everyone is vaccinated, worst case I have 16 people out vs. all unvaccinated. Since not all unvaccinated would get it, it might mean say 6 show symptoms, but nothing more than sniffles and the production continues instead of prior halts for weeks, often restarting with reduced and staff suffering from the coronavirus fatigue.

This mandate is taking responsibility from "me" and going to "we". No vaccine is perfect, but with the Swiss Cheese model, including vaccines, we should return to normal aerospace production.

IMHO Boeing delaying and not having as crisp and clear direction as my employer is going to create. Problems. My employer laid out the government dates and there dates and was quite clear that first dose in October was to prevent a paperwork issue.

Everyone has become a master of "what if" debates. There is no debate on this.

Oh, thank you to the poster who noted Costco has J&J.

Lightsaber

In terms of vaccination rates, Snohomish County, where Paine Field is located, is just over 59% vaccinated per State and County data. King County, where Boeing Field and Renton are located, is just over 69% vaccinated.


As for prior infection negating the need for vaccination, the Medical Car driver for Formula One has not been vaccinated (by personal choice) and he has contracted COVID-19 twice, so there is direct evidence that having been infected with COVID does not prevent re-infection so also having a vaccination should arguably provide additional protection.

Stitch wrote:

In terms of vaccination rates, Snohomish County, where Paine Field is located, is just over 59% vaccinated per State and County data. King County, where Boeing Field and Renton are located, is just over 69% vaccinated.


As for prior infection negating the need for vaccination, the Medical Car driver for Formula One has not been vaccinated (by personal choice) and he has contracted COVID-19 twice, so there is direct evidence that having been infected with COVID does not prevent re-infection so also having a vaccination should arguably provide additional protection.

Well, there is plenty of evidence that having been vaccinated against COVID-19 does not prevent infection either so there isn't necessarily a difference.

With regard to the county data, is that percentage of total population or percentage of vaccine eligible. I'd assume the former but you know what happens when you assume.

planecane wrote:

With regard to the county data, is that percentage of total population or percentage of vaccine eligible. I'd assume the former but you know what happens when you assume.

The data at the county level does not say (I am looking at the Seattle Times website).

For the State, 60% of all residents are fully vaccinated and 69% of those 12 and older (so vaccine eligible) are fully vaccinated. Add another 5% to both figures for those who have their first shot.

lightsaber wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

I wonder population demographic-wise how many of the 125K Boeing EEs are at risk? More than 75% of deaths occurred among those over the retirement age. Do any on this board know if Covid call-offs/illness has been a challenge for the company?

I don't know about Boeing, but we have had issues where whole teams were exposed and all had to quarantine, delaying production as one whole skill set was out (a lab that all of certain parts had to go through). It became worse as the lab sent out was the highly staffed lab whom neighboring labs borrowed skilled people. When the people returned, those that returned who became ill were too tired to work overtime.

This has been a significant issue in manufacturing. A significant cost The higher the fraction vaccinated, the fewer exposures. A UK study show fully vaccinated have a 50% to 60% lower risk of infection with Covid19, including asymptomatic cases:
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/englis ... 021-08-03/

So if I have a team of 40, and one employee comes in and exposes all 40, if everyone is vaccinated, worst case I have 16 people out vs. all unvaccinated. Since not all unvaccinated would get it, it might mean say 6 show symptoms, but nothing more than sniffles and the production continues instead of prior halts for weeks, often restarting with reduced and staff suffering from the coronavirus fatigue.

This mandate is taking responsibility from "me" and going to "we". No vaccine is perfect, but with the Swiss Cheese model, including vaccines, we should return to normal aerospace production.

IMHO Boeing delaying and not having as crisp and clear direction as my employer is going to create. Problems. My employer laid out the government dates and there dates and was quite clear that first dose in October was to prevent a paperwork issue.

Everyone has become a master of "what if" debates. There is no debate on this.

Oh, thank you to the poster who noted Costco has J&J.

Lightsaber

Washington has very generous FMLA laws as well, which on the lower paid jobs keeps staffing more difficult.

Another company using the EO as an excuse to apply it to the entire company

smokeybandit wrote:

Another company using the EO as an excuse to apply it to the entire company

The bigger the organization is, the more sense it makes for management to apply a blanket policy. Anything else is too difficult to monitor and implement - remember your average unpopular HR folks are handling benefits administration, investigations, coordination with legal, coordination with recruiting and other ad hoc projects on the regular.

smokeybandit wrote:

Another company using the EO as an excuse to apply it to the entire company

In Boeing’s case, there’s not many people in the US that would be exempted. Every working at a site where government contract works is performed must be vaccinated. That covers Everett and Renton. Everyone who indirectly supports a government contracts, like in accounting or HR, must be vaccinated. That covers any BCA back office employee. The one site that I don’t see a direct connection to government work is CHS, but if there’s one government contract there…

At the end of the day, Boeing’s biggest customer is the US government and you need to listen to the customer.

planecane wrote:

Stitch wrote:

In terms of vaccination rates, Snohomish County, where Paine Field is located, is just over 59% vaccinated per State and County data. King County, where Boeing Field and Renton are located, is just over 69% vaccinated.


As for prior infection negating the need for vaccination, the Medical Car driver for Formula One has not been vaccinated (by personal choice) and he has contracted COVID-19 twice, so there is direct evidence that having been infected with COVID does not prevent re-infection so also having a vaccination should arguably provide additional protection.

Well, there is plenty of evidence that having been vaccinated against COVID-19 does not prevent infection either so there isn't necessarily a difference.

With regard to the county data, is that percentage of total population or percentage of vaccine eligible. I'd assume the former but you know what happens when you assume.

Vaccination - just like getting COVID - definitely prevents infection. But neither prevent 100%. For both, protection from infection wanes over time. This is why boosters are slowly being rolled out, and also why people with a COVID infection should get vaccinated as well - especially if you were infected a long time ago.