DavzinSoCal Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 No medical exemptions? That's not good, I know a number of people whose can't get it for medical reasons 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintguy Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Maybe the UAW can establish a religion? Tithing will be required. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
road turtle Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintguy Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavzinSoCal Posted November 10, 2021 Author Share Posted November 10, 2021 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: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueBird302 Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decker Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) 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 November 11, 2021 by Decker 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintguy Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decker Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) 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 November 11, 2021 by Decker 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/contractors/ 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decker Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) 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 November 11, 2021 by Decker 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 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). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 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" ~ 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decker Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) 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 November 11, 2021 by Decker 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 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~ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 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.<-- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
road turtle Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nswan Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueBird302 Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
road turtle Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nswan Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 (edited) 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 November 18, 2021 by nswan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.