Bear96

The EEOC has recently spoken on this. I am sure UA will make appropriate exceptions / accommodations for disability and religious issues. If it is not, I agree with you, but it is a large, sophisticated corporation and a target for lawsuits so I am sure it is following all legal guidance about accommodations.

I don't see a valid WC claim with this. The injury would not have occurred on the employer's premises; would not have occurred during the course of employment or because of work-related duties; etc. The basics of a WC claim are missing from your theory.

And liability for side effects and adverse reactions would be to the vaccine manufacturer. What valid cause(s) of action are you thinking of against the employer? It would be like an employer requiring an employee coming back from an injury to get a return-to-work physical from a medical clinic, and the employee gets injured at the clinic while getting the exam. Sure s/he could sue the employer instaead of the clinic under some bogus theory, but it wouldn't go anywhere.

In fact, recent WC law developments would suggest the opposite. States are modifying their WC regulations to encourage Covid prevention and protect employees from getting Covid at work. In many states there is now a presumption that an employee caught Covid at work under certain circumstances, and the burden is on the employer to show that the employee did not catch it at work. It seems to me that having a mandatory employee vaccination policy is a good way to rebut that presumption and show that the employer is maintaining a Covid-free workplace.

I agree that is the simpler approach. Perhaps UA is balancing the negatives of any risks against the positives of the ability to advertise that "all of our employees have been vaccinated" (with asterisks for religious accommodations, etc.), and to protect itself from employees who might argue they caught Covid at work.

What percentage of people who have had the vaccine so far have been killed by it?

CALMSP

no idea, but it only takes 1 for a lawsuit to happen.

LifetimeGS

The evolving employment legal opinion seems to be that an employer can require an employee to be vaccinated. The employee can choose not to be vaccinated but may then either forego employment or be reassigned to a new role that may be of lower compensation. The feeling is that employers will not require vaccination while the vaccines are under Emergency Exemption use because of liability but once the conditional approvals change to regular approvals employers will be on fairly safe legal grounds

CALMSP

yeah, been a lot of discussion around that over the past few months, but I really can't see that coming online. There's such a fine line if people claim religious reasons, and I think it'd be hard for that not to be heard.

Bear96

If UA were that scared of frivolous lawsuits that have almost no chance of happening, they would ground all flights immediately and cease operations.

Lots of things can go wrong with launching aluminum tubes into the air crammed full of people traveling at 90% of the speed of sound over big oceans.

It only takes one!

CALMSP

ok, if you say so. as soon as companies start mandating, lawsuits will come. thats the kind of society we live in today, regardless if its UA or bobs bakery.

Doppy

This flu season the University of California system required all students and employees who live, attend classes, or work on campus to get a flu shot, and it is a public employer. I think when we get past the EUA period we are going to see a lot of requirements by companies whose business involves people in indoor spaces requiring proof of vaccination for employees and customers, with some very narrow exceptions. (Whether we have a system that can accurately record vaccinations and be a secure and reliable source for proof is another matter. The airlines and others are working on this, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the organizations and agencies that are administering the vaccinations.)

fumje

This is somewhat complicated.

For UA, I doubt it would be imposed universally by fiat without any exceptions.

Many hospitals require all employees and affiliates to have the flu vaccine unless some exemption (religious, health, etc.) is claimed. I have never heard of an issue from any of the hospital groups I've known. Employees who have genuine issues are not compelled, but overall the workforce has a very high vaccination rate.

However, the vaccines for COVID are currently only being administered under EUA. I don't know the exact laws, but I don't know of any organization requiring a vaccine that has not been fully approved, and it may not be legal to mandate a treatment that is not approved. So I wouldn't expect UA to require it under the current authorization.

Generally, I think it is positive for institutions and organizations to encourage, even forcefully, the vaccine.

Bear96

I agree. Kirby actually UA may require it "at some point." I am sure it wouldn't be while it is still under EUA status.

Agree again. It's a matter of public health, just like childhood vaccinations against various communicable diseases.

I have been working from home since March. When they do call us back I know I would feel a lot more confident about returning if my employer had a mandatory vaccination policy in effect. All employers in the US have the legal obligation to maintain a safe workplace. Requiring vaccinations would be a big step towards that.

lincolnjkc

As a non-public employer (e.g. they aren't the feds/state/local government or one of their instrumentalities) I'm not sure that an employee's religious beliefs are relevant as a general statement. Probably the most compelling thing would be risk of PR blowback (but which is the bigger PR risk? "UA persecutes people with religious objections to vaccinations" vs. "UA puts passengers at risk by not mandating employee vaccinations"? I'm not sure anyone would know the answer until it came down to it). On a legal basis some states may have laws making employees' religious beliefs something the employer has to make accommodation for but that's far from universal.

For example, in Virginia -- which happens to be home to the UA IAD Hub and whos Jefferson-drafted "Statute for Religious Freedom" was the forerunner of the 1st Amendment -- there is an existing provision on the books since 1979 (VA Code 32.1-48) allowing "the Commissioner [to] requir[e] immediate immunization of all persons in case of an epidemic of any disease of public health importance for which a vaccine exists other than a person to whose health the administration of a vaccine would be detrimental as certified in writing by a physician licensed to practice medicine in this Commonwealth." -- this is different than other "required immunization" provisions i VA law which allow for a religious objection -- this legislative session at least two bills have been introduced that would add a religious exception to the medical exception and none that I'm aware of made it out of the committee process. That's not giving a company the right to require it -- it's giving the state the right to compel it

Of course other states may allow more room for religious objections but given the locations of hubs I doubt a significant number of employees would have that exception available to them and I don't think it would be impossible to craft a claim that those were preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act ("Except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a [...] service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.").

Certainly those who have a medical condition or where vaccine administration runs counter to medical advice would be in a stronger position under all scenarios.

exp

AA has supposedly said they will encourage but not require employees to vaccinate.

As for as countries requiring it, apparently some Greece minister wrote to the EU about vaccine passport idea but the WHO and some segments of the EU are hesitant because they think it will cause inequality for people who don't or can't get vaccinated.

If vaccines prove not only to protect the vaccinated but also prevent transmission to others, how is it such a big problem? Travel is not essential. People don't have to travel. And getting vaccinated is not such an onerous requirement for being allowed to visit countries.

ISTFlyer

I completely agree with this paragraph.

Having the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission to others so being vaccinated should definitely be the decision of the individual.
If someone could take the risk of smoking and being cancer, that person should also be able to take the risk of not being vaccinated and being COVID as it doesn't harm anybody else than the individual.

However, it would be much fairer if UA didn't cover their employees' COVID-19 treatment or isolation expenses if they test positive and do not have the vaccine rather than to mandate it. Also AFAIK, UA has an hourly pay system for a significant number of their employees so this means that someone in isolation/quarantine would not be paid for their sick time.

Doppy

It's not at all clear that being vaccinated doesn't reduce transmission, in fact there is good reason to believe that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit it. In that case, requiring vaccinations for employees is similar to prohibiting employees from smoking on the plane: it does carry the potential risk of harm to others.

lincolnjkc

Virtually every UA employee the average UA passenger is likely to interact with at any stage of their journey (reservations, airport, ticket/lobby/gate agents, ramp, pilots, flight attendants) is compensated on an hourly basis but they're also union represented and AFAIK all of the contracts provide for sick time.

For example the IAM contract (covering Customer Service Reps, Lead CSRs, Baggage Resolution Center, Airport Services Rep, Customer Service Clerks, Valet Room Attedants, Reservations Sales and Service Representatives, RRAs and CTO repreentatives, ...) provides "Active full-time employees will accrue paid sick leave of 8 hours per month of paid status, up to a maximum sick leave bank of 1200 hours." (part timers get a prorated value between 4-8 hours per month) (Article 6(B)(2)(a) and (B)(3)(a) if you're as bored/intrigued buy he business side of aviation as I am)

WineCountryUA

Whether a vaccinated person can be a carrier or not is interesting topic BUT for a different forum. Let's stick to discussion of what UA is doing

Also without actually knowing what the UA employee vaccination requirements and exemptions are, let's not go too deep into broad speculation of the legal / labor contract issues before we have more knowledge of UA plans

Again, Let's stick to discussion of what UA is doing

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator