Jump to content





Sign in to follow this  
DavzinSoCal

Exemptions

Recommended Posts

According to the 5 page letter all locals received this weekend there will be accommodations for religious exemptions.

That will save Ford all the lawsuits and loss of employees we’re starting to see elsewhere. So here’s a couple sites providing templates to help you help them.

Forunitedsolutions.org

Perk-group.com

AmericasFrontlineDoctors.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the UAW can establish a religion? Tithing will be required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friends daughter filed to become an ordained minister.

 

My wife who is permanently disabled, so she's not affected has been advised by her Univ of MI primary care doc, do not get the jab.  BUT, he also added he is forbidden to issue a medical waiver, or he will be terminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, road turtle said:

Friends daughter filed to become an ordained minister.

 

My wife who is permanently disabled, so she's not affected has been advised by her Univ of MI primary care doc, do not get the jab.  BUT, he also added he is forbidden to issue a medical waiver, or he will be terminated.

As usual "freedom of speech" is checked at the door when employed by an organization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect our daily survey choices to update to: 1) Vaccinated or 2) Exempt.

And yes, medical exemptions too. Probably lose the “prefer not to respond”

option. I’ll attach the letter:

8FEC934C-6474-453B-A4B5-B57F02C19147.jpeg

BD6E3C89-CA79-4493-801B-3608485C6AB7.jpeg

803EA2AB-CC46-4782-8A8B-D6C197202B8B.jpeg

388C2368-12F3-48ED-95AE-177BCCD32B04.jpeg

39B23F01-B06C-4E09-9F94-1DA467C9E224.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon the interruption- just wanted to point out that Ford is a federal government contractor and as such they are required to enforce a vaccine mandate.  The company has no choice at this time but exemptions are allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, akirby said:

Pardon the interruption- just wanted to point out that Ford is a federal government contractor and as such they are required to enforce a vaccine mandate.  The company has no choice at this time but exemptions are allowed.


The top of page 4 is interesting. It seems to imply that the federal contractor is facility based. This is the first I’m hearing of this detail from any source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supply a Ford product to any federal agency from any Ford facility and that facility is under government contract. Ranger, F Series Trucks, Transit and Explorer`s are purchased under federal contracts. Is a facility strictly  under the mandate ruling, if the facility is not producing only government contracted products?  Even Lockheed Martin produces for civilian agencies, would the company enforce the mandate on all production facilities and/lines of production? This will be a sticking point in general for the legal intervention, if there is any... 

 

A great recent post stated it completely and without any gray area "Nothing Makes any Sense Anymore".   

Edited by Decker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BlueBird302 said:


The top of page 4 is interesting. It seems to imply that the federal contractor is facility based. This is the first I’m hearing of this detail from any source. 

Not sure how exclusionary that is for Ford. Which of our vehicles are not used by the federal government? Then what about parts facilities, services, design, etcetera?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rangers are being supplied to numerous bases for both pool and active duty, Transits are being supplied to the same duty and being supplied to foreign government armed services under federal contract. The Army`s 2nd Intel Command has undisclosed numbers of Black F250`s rolling around Germany with the 66th MI Batt.. Explorer`s rollin all over the middle east as patrol units and response team units. 

 So is it a government blanket mandate? Like you brought up paintguy  parts to fulfill these contracted products would be in the mix also? Sub contracting to fulfill contracts is common so like every other less than thought out decree by the emperor... who knows.   

Edited by Decker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks akirby, I believe we are still in a pile of confusion even with it spelled out government guidelines. Ford is still working on how the IUAW will swallow the terms of employment. But I`m sure the phrase will be coined "Health & Safety" and all will shake hands in Dearborn. 

 

Time will tell the story. As with Pilots, RN`s etc. etc. maybe the resistant's may add Auto Workers to the list.  

Edited by Decker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets really tricky to try and separate what is or isn’t covered by a federal contract.  My company just said it applies to everybody but has made it easy to get an exemption (for now).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2021 at 12:59 PM, paintguy said:

Maybe the UAW can establish a religion? Tithing will be required.

 

 

We already pay the monthly "offering" ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cal50 said:

 

 

We already pay the monthly "offering" ~

 

Annnd you never hear anything about reducing our offerings back to the 2 hours of juice money....  

Edited by Decker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Decker said:

 

Annnd you never hear anything about reducing our offerings back to the 2 hours of juice money....  

 

 

Or why we get hit again for profit sharing or any other distribution in addition to our monthly offering~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After another review by the Fifth Circuit, the temporary ban on the OSHA rule is now permanent.
The three-judge panel’s ruling permanently blocks OSHA from enforcing their COVID-19 jab mandate on employers -->nationwide.<--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cal50 said:

After another review by the Fifth Circuit, the temporary ban on the OSHA rule is now permanent.
The three-judge panel’s ruling permanently blocks OSHA from enforcing their COVID-19 jab mandate on employers -->nationwide.<--

if it's only the 5th circuit, how is it a nationwide ban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, road turtle said:

if it's only the 5th circuit, how is it a nationwide ban?

Appealing a ruling by an appellate district court would require a hearing by the Supreme Court. So governing bodies in other districts (nationwide) have to ask themselves, do we really want to fight a battle that’s already lost? The chances of the ruling getting over turned by the Supreme Court are very low, that is if the Supreme Court even accepts to hear the case. Think of the appellate courts as the backstop to the Supreme Court; they are there to uphold constitution and years of precedence from case law. Hope that helps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, cal50 said:

After another review by the Fifth Circuit, the temporary ban on the OSHA rule is now permanent.
The three-judge panel’s ruling permanently blocks OSHA from enforcing their COVID-19 jab mandate on employers -->nationwide.<--


OSHA just officially suspended the rule in response to the court ruling. 

 

https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, nswan said:

Appealing a ruling by an appellate district court would require a hearing by the Supreme Court. So governing bodies in other districts (nationwide) have to ask themselves, do we really want to fight a battle that’s already lost? The chances of the ruling getting over turned by the Supreme Court are very low, that is if the Supreme Court even accepts to hear the case. Think of the appellate courts as the backstop to the Supreme Court; they are there to uphold constitution and years of precedence from case law. Hope that helps.

 

It doesn't, because my understanding of how the federal courts system works, the ruling only holds true to that district.  It needs to go to SCOTUS to get a nationwide stay.

 

Friend of mine started researching scotus decisions and found that a very large percentage of decisions came down in favor of the govt, federal, state, and even local.  That would make this a very interesting case to see how they decide it.  the often quoted previous decision on vaccines, according to a law school professor friend was a mess, and doesn't really pertain to the current mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, road turtle said:

It doesn't, because my understanding of how the federal courts system works, the ruling only holds true to that district.  It needs to go to SCOTUS to get a nationwide stay.


I thought once it moved beyond the federal district court and into the circuit court it became National. I don't believe SCOTUS necessarily needs to even hear the case for the stay to be nationwide. Anyone know a good attorney who has experience dealing with the federal court system who could really explain this better? 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, road turtle said:

Friend of mine started researching scotus decisions and found that a very large percentage of decisions came down in favor of the govt, federal, state, and even local.  


Hmm, the system watching out for itself you say? Color me surprised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, road turtle said:

It doesn't, because my understanding of how the federal courts system works, the ruling only holds true to that district.  It needs to go to SCOTUS to get a nationwide stay.

 

Friend of mine started researching scotus decisions and found that a very large percentage of decisions came down in favor of the govt, federal, state, and even local.  That would make this a very interesting case to see how they decide it.  the often quoted previous decision on vaccines, according to a law school professor friend was a mess, and doesn't really pertain to the current mandate.

You’re not wrong. But notice how I said that other governing bodies in other districts have to ask themselves the question of whether or not they want to fight a losing battle by implementing contrary rules. For example, if you’re a Gov in the 3rd Circuit, would you ignore a ruling from the 5th circuit knowing that the people could use that as case law in a lawsuit against you? In theory the people could take you directly to the Supreme Court. The ruling from a district’s circuit court of appeals sets so much precedence, and in this case it caused OSHA to suspend its temporary standard for vaccine mandates.

Edited by nswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×