Flying and federal laws

[JonC]

no sir ... I stated it as clearly as I know how.

If you're going to defend a mandate, the mandating authority has to be responsible for the mandate. That includes the liability of an employee's adverse reaction/death/disability. No one is offering that which is why these jabs aren't "FDA approved" but continue under the EUA. (authorized, but not approved)

There's a policy to wear a high vis vest on the ramp at the airport. I don't buy my own, the company provides it. it's their rule, they provide.

There's a rule on some aircraft to have a boom mic for operations in certain situations. They provide the boom mic on the airplane.

See?

Your rejection of the government mandate isn't stripping rights (as you say it) is simply ludicrous. It is the definition of stripping individual rights to make such a requirement.

The government's mandating everyone aspirate is not such an example.

This is what you are missing- I'm not defending a mandate. I am defending the right a business owner has to make decisions concerning employment requirements.

The reason it is "defending" is because business owners have historically had this right and a few socialistic minded anti-covid-vaxers are trying to strip this right from business owners.

They are just using covid to further chip away at our freedoms.

 

[Two Wings]

We are talking about employment. You ate arguing against allowing men to make decisions regarding their businesses and instead giving those rights to the individual citizens.

This is socialistic.

mercy. no matter how many times you repeat this ... it isn't necessarily so.

Decisions are not made in a vacuum. Not even the Captain's.

 

[Two Wings]

I am defending the right a business owner has to make decisions concerning employment requirements.

I am not challenging that ... but you repeatedly stop short at understanding that such a decision has consequences.

You don't get the freedom to make edicts without consequences.

 

[carpro]

no sir. crews are saying that because they are now compelled to enforce the policy from the government. .

Do you have any proof they are required to use the words "federal law"?

 

[JonC]

I agree...up to a point.

Living in Texas, a business may require their customers to wear masks. I leave when they do. There are lots of shopping alternatives available.

I agree.

This is the good thing about capitalism. You require a mask? I can comply or take my business elsewhere.

Men should keep the right to make business decisions within legal limits. BUT citizens keep the right over their resources, whether labor or money.

 

[Two Wings]

Do you have any proof they are required to use the words "federal law"?

the short answer is "this is the script you will use" period. So, I'll adjust your fire to those who are writing policy in the management of the airlines ...

and as I said ... if a crewmember is telling you to do something, federal law requires compliance, then it's federal law. aboard an aircraft is NOT the place to be executing civil disobedience ... let alone violent/verbal disobedience.

 

[JonC]

I am not challenging that ... but you repeatedly stop short at understanding that such a decision has consequences.

You don't get the freedom to make edicts without consequences.

All decisions have consequences.

When I was vacvinated as a consequence I was subjected to the risks of the vaccine.

Those who refuse the vaccine need to understand all choices have consequences.

Right now men have the right to make these decisions for their businesses.

But men do not have the right of employment, the right to be employed by a particular company, the right to attend a sporting event, the right to shop at a particular store, etc. Those are not rights.

What the anti-covid-vaxers are advocating is socialistic. They want to create individual rights that do not currently exist and remove rights that do exist to give power to the people rather than the men and women who own companies.

 

[carpro]

the short answer is "this is the script you will use" period. So, I'll adjust your fire to those who are writing policy in the management of the airlines ...

and as I said ... if a crewmember is telling you to do something, federal law requires compliance. aboard an aircraft is NOT the place to be executing civil disobedience ... let alone violent/verbal disobedience.

Meaning you have no proof they are required to use the words "federal law".

Just another opinion. And yours is worth no more than that of anyone else.

But Now, it's time to put up or shut up. Quote the statute in law that says passengers have to obey whatever crew members order them to do..

 

[Two Wings]

What the anti-covid-vaxers are advocating is socialistic.

wrong again.

I won't speak for all who oppose this cv vax nor even those who oppose the cv vax mandate.

I will tell you expecting an employer to make good policy is reasonable. An employer who makes such a demand and does not provide for his own demand is making bad policy. We have plenty of such examples and we're beginning to see the results of bad policy.

your continued repetition of presumption/projection is diminishing your argument. You're becoming a loud clanging cymbal.

What you're conflating, too, is a lacking discernment between a wholly owned private business and a corporation. There's a difference and it matters in more ways that just a particular medical procedure.

 

[Two Wings]

Meaning you have no proof they are required to use the words "federal law".

Just another opinion. And yours is worth no more than that of anyone else.

But Now, it's time to put up or shut up. Quote the statute in law that says passengers have to obey whatever crew members order them to do..

whew ... I thought you were a reasonable feller but just hung up on nomenclature.

I tell ya what ... you do whatever you think you are empowered to do by whatever source you think you're empowered to do it on your next flight.

They offer internet even in supermax ... report back ok. Good luck.

 

[JonC]

@Two Wings

Maybe we are talking past one another. Let's see with this example.

Tom owns a small business. He has 50 emoyees. Tom decides to make the flu vaccine and the covid vaccine a condition of employment. He explains that as a work requirement his employees would be covered by workman's compensation should they have a reaction.

Do you believe Tom's right make this decision for his business should be removed?

Mike does not want the vaccines. He insists Tom is violating his rights.

Do you believe Mike should be given the right to force Tom to maintain his employment?

 

[JonC]

wrong again.

I won't speak for all who oppose this cv vax nor even those who oppose the cv vax mandate.

I will tell you expecting an employer to make good policy is reasonable. An employer who makes such a demand and does not provide for his own demand is making bad policy. We have plenty of such examples and we're beginning to see the results of bad policy.

your continued repetition of presumption/projection is diminishing your argument. You're becoming a loud clanging cymbal.

What you're conflating, too, is a lacking discernment between a wholly owned private business and a corporation. There's a difference and it matters in more ways that just a particular medical procedure.

The problem is you are making yourself, not the business owner, the one who determines what is a good or bad decision.

 

[Two Wings]

@Two Wings

Maybe we are talking past one another. Let's see with this example.

Tom owns a small business. He has 50 emoyees. Tom decides to make the flu vaccine and the covid vaccine a condition of employment. He explains that as a work requirement his employees would be covered by workman's compensation should they have a reaction.

Do you believe Tom's right make this decision for his business should be removed?

Mike does not want the vaccines. He insists Tom is violating his rights.

Do you believe Mike should be given the right to force Tom to maintain his employment?

you're framing the questions pejoratively, Jon. Classic. Are you aware of this?

Tom can institute this rule if he wants, assuming he doesn't have a contract with his employees, right? He should be willing to support the decision. Workman's comp is laughable to any but an entry level part time high turnover position.

Never mind the BASIS of this entire exercise is of a pandemic where public health is the first priority. Can you see that public health is NOT the basis of any of these things which have been foisted upon us since March '20?

 

[JonC]

you're framing the questions pejoratively, Jon. Classic. Are you aware of this?

Tom can institute this rule if he wants, assuming he doesn't have a contract with his employees, right? He should be willing to support the decision. Workman's comp is laughable to any but an entry level part time high turnover position.

Never mind the BASIS of this entire exercise is of a pandemic where public health is the first priority. Can you see that public health is NOT the basis of any of these things which have been foisted upon us since March '20?

Workman's Compensation is the standard we have for protecting workplace injuries.

It is not about public health.

 

[Two Wings]

The problem is you are making yourself, not the business owner, the one who determines what is a good or bad decision.

you're apparently in favor of capitalizing business freedom, but socialize the bad results.

 

[Two Wings]

Workman's Compensation is tge standard we have for protecting workplace injuries.

and that standard is woefully inadequate as I said. particularly for a life long disability resulting from an arbitrary mandate.

 

[Reformed1689]

Anti-covid-vaxers just follow their lead.

First, not an anti-vaxxer. It is not for me. I took this position when Trump was in office and when Biden is in office. It has nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with prudence.

 

[carpro]

whew ... I thought you were a reasonable feller but just hung up on nomenclature.

I tell ya what ... you do whatever you think you are empowered to do by whatever source you think you're empowered to do it on your next flight.

They offer internet even in supermax ... report back ok. Good luck.

Meaning once again, you have no proof.

Just an opinion.

Moving on.

 

[Two Wings]

Do you have any proof they are required to use the words "federal law"?

Meaning you have no proof they are required to use the words "federal law".

Just another opinion. And yours is worth no more than that of anyone else.

But Now, it's time to put up or shut up. Quote the statute in law that says passengers have to obey whatever crew members order them to do..

14 CFR § 121.533 - Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121/subpart-T

 

[carpro]

14 CFR § 121.533 - Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121/subpart-T

Nice sources.

Unfortunately they don't back up your assertion that passengers, by federal law, have to obey any order given by a crew member.