Get jabbed or get fired...

swamt

Veteran
Oct 23, 2010
12,244
4,788
Ok, thx, wanted to get that verified, thanks to you both.
This is what most folks don't know. Sure you can claim and get awarded the exemptions by medical or religious however, that still does not mean you will be showing up and reporting for work. Medical leaves and Approved Leave of Absences will be used for the folks that don't get vaxed is what we are hearing. As far as paid or unpaid, I think (but do know for fact) that any Medical Leave can get paid with benefits, sick, vac, f/h's. Approved Leave of Absences under the religious exemption is unpaid unless the co. allows the employees to use vac and f/h's until they are exhausted.

Yes E just heard the news about Abbotts order, however, we have not yet heard from the WH on this order he is trying to implement in Tx. Not sure if that will include AA and SWA since they are Gov contracted entities.
With all the back and forths I foresee the deadlines getting pushed out until all this is ironed out.

And BTW; I do believe Federal Law overrides States Laws...
 
Last edited:

T5towbar

Veteran
Sep 24, 2008
586
214
I also understand that you can't file for FMLA either for the medical exemption. The company won't sign off on that option either. Just like the unemployment situation. That was stated when the announcements were made about this during a Q&A.
I think you can use any vacation or sick time that you have in your bank, until that is exhausted. I haven't heard anyone or anybody that has been approved by the religious exemption, though.

Maybe there will be temporary stays in all of this, but nothing long term. like I said, these are private companies (that are large interstate and multinational) making these decisions. It's more of a bottom-line issue to them and their best interests. They need to see this virus gone, as it is affecting their profits.
 

swamt

Veteran
Oct 23, 2010
12,244
4,788
Also just announced that AA and SWA will in fact follow the feds mandate and NOT Gov Abbotts executive order.
 
OP
eolesen

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,539
9,280
A little civics lesson might be in order here. Executive orders are not laws.

If the Texas legislature follows through on Governor Abbott executive order and turns it into law, then Southwest and American have no choice but to follow state law over Federal Executive Order.

The airlines might be private entities, however state laws are regularly passed to protect citizens of the state, including employees of multistate companies.
 

swamt

Veteran
Oct 23, 2010
12,244
4,788
And then what happens If or WHEN the Biden admin makes it Fed Law?
I believe Fed Law supersedes State Laws, does it not??
I agree with your statement, BUT, it's true for both. Neither one is law as of yet, correct???
Biden would have to get it thru the Senate and House where Abbott says it'll be at the next session (to become law?) I believe. All this crap is still very fluid.
With all that said the airlines are claiming to follow the Feds recommendations not Abbotts executive order... The drama continues on.
 

T5towbar

Veteran
Sep 24, 2008
586
214
A little civics lesson might be in order here. Executive orders are not laws.

If the Texas legislature follows through on Governor Abbott executive order and turns it into law, then Southwest and American have no choice but to follow state law over Federal Executive Order.

The airlines might be private entities, however state laws are regularly passed to protect citizens of the state, including employees of multistate companies.
What about the Interstate Commerce Clause? Just throwing that into the mix.
If a law is passed, I think that this still be hard to enforce. Between the State; the Company; and the Feds, this will wind up in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (and even though it is a conservative court) precedent is already sent. If Justice Barrett's decision (in IND) is any indication, this won't go to the full court. Of course all of this, even if expedited will take time to sort out.

My issue in all of this is the unemployment claim in this, like I gave in my earlier post about a company denying a claim and if the State can force said company to pay that claim. People may not have enough sick or vacation accrued to survive while waiting for a final decision. This is very messy, but money rules over everything, and I think that the companies will win on this in the end. Just like Kyrie won't be playing for the Nets this year..........
 
  • Like
Reactions: swamt
OP
eolesen

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,539
9,280
Towbar, unemployment is issued and managed by the state, although the Feds have helped provide funding. The company can challenge a firing "for cause" but if that cause is a violation of state law, I'd think that challenge would be overturned.

SWAAMT, good luck getting a federal law out of this. They can't even pass the infrastructure bills, which have bipartisan support.
 

swamt

Veteran
Oct 23, 2010
12,244
4,788
Towbar, unemployment is issued and managed by the state, although the Feds have helped provide funding. The company can challenge a firing "for cause" but if that cause is a violation of state law, I'd think that challenge would be overturned.

SWAAMT, good luck getting a federal law out of this. They can't even pass the infrastructure bills, which have bipartisan support.
I know and hear ya.
I too don't think they can get it into law, at least definitely not in a timely manner. Some folks are saying they will not take the vax by the deadline because it is not law at time of deadline given.
Now here's another interesting thought; what if Abbotts get his put into State Law and Biden admin mandate is still just an executive order and still not law? That is where it will get interesting. If this is the case I would see local courts following States Law and backing the employees who might get fired for not getting vaxed. As long as there is not a Fed Law at time they are put on leaves or fired. Now if anyone retires or voluntarily quits (of course do to the mandates to vax) would they be able to get their jobs back? I do not know the answer to that.

Breaking News: Just announced United loss in court over putting employees with medical and religious exemptions on leaves.
 
Last edited:

Glenn Quagmire

Veteran
Apr 30, 2012
4,841
4,428
I know and hear ya.
I too don't think they can get it into law, at least definitely not in a timely manner. Some folks are saying they will not take the vax by the deadline because it is not law at time of deadline given.
Now here's another interesting thought; what if Abbotts get his put into State Law and Biden admin mandate is still just an executive order and still not law? That is where it will get interesting. If this is the case I would see local courts following States Law and backing the employees who might get fired for not getting vaxed. As long as there is not a Fed Law at time they are put on leaves or fired. Now if anyone retires or voluntarily quits (of course do to the mandates to vax) would they be able to get their jobs back? I do not know the answer to that.

Breaking News: Just announced United loss in court over putting employees with medical and religious exemptions on leaves.
A TRO until 10/26 to allow for briefings is not a "loss."

"But for the small portion of employees that refused to get a coronavirus vaccine and requested either a medical or religious exemption from United, the company said it would place those workers on unpaid leave."


There is long-standing precedent in the law on these cases. If you've ever dealt with reasonable accommodation, you know how this ends.
 

Glenn Quagmire

Veteran
Apr 30, 2012
4,841
4,428
Airlines, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon, Union Pacific...I could go on. It will be very hard to find any large employer that does not have some sort of government contracting as part of its business plan.

Anti-vaxxers can choose to get shut out of the workplace, or get a safe and effective vaccine.
 

T5towbar

Veteran
Sep 24, 2008
586
214
Towbar, unemployment is issued and managed by the state, although the Feds have helped provide funding. The company can challenge a firing "for cause" but if that cause is a violation of state law, I'd think that challenge would be overturned.

SWAAMT, good luck getting a federal law out of this. They can't even pass the infrastructure bills, which have bipartisan support.
That's what I thought. You can still receive unemployment, even if the company contests it, because it will be a violation of State law. I just wanted that clarified. So TX will have to pass a law to make sure that one would receive it. Makes sense.

I don't know the breakdown (workgroups) of the 200 plus people that are affected.

As far as Judge Pittman's temporary decision (till 10/26), I will wager that someone will get this to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (and even though that Circuit is very conservative). And who knows what will happen. Like I said in previous post, Justice Barrett gave you a clue on how this will wind up.
 
Last edited:
OP
eolesen

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,539
9,280
Given that Southwest and American have both come out and said they won't use the unpaid leave option, it wouldn't surprise me if United blinks on this.