9 ms·

So why would everyone hide it?

nafix 5y ago
Because when the public hears about other reasonable people showing hesitancy, it shows that the media narrative isn't as true as it is made to be. I imagine it is to the advantage of both pilots and SW to not admit it is about the vaccine, because the media would take advantage of that fact otherwise. Also the pilots can't admit to a sick-out one way or another to avoid legal repercussions. Not saying this issue is because of the vaccine mandate, but it would make sense with the way this story is playing out.
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  [dead]
- sharkmerry 5y ago
  Wouldn't the union then take credit to try to give an example of people showing hesitancy? The union president is denying its a walkout, official or un-official
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    They legally aren't allowed to do it, officially or unofficially. So the union cannot "take credit" for it.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    If they can get hit really hard for it, it's better to play along and not admit anything.
- mynameishere 5y ago
  Why are you using the painfully obvious propaganda term "hesitancy"? There is very little "hesitancy" at this point. There are people saying, "I am the sovereign of my body and you will not force your unnecessary medical interventions on me, period. This is the hill i die on." That is not hesitancy.
bmarquez 5y ago
I don't know if it applies in this specific instance, but I've heard in other cases that employees are not allowed to participate in official strikes without approval from their union first. If it's not an "official" strike then no union negotiation is needed.
sbierwagen 5y ago
Pilots are covered by the Railway Labor Act, which prohibits wildcat strikes and sickouts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act If the head of the union said an unofficial sickout was happening, he'd go to jail.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > If the head of the union said an unofficial sickout was happening, he'd go to jail. No, saying that other people are breaking the law is not a crime. He’d have some internal problems with membership to deal with, though... If he said that the union and he as its president endorsed the sickout and encouraged members to participate in it...that might be a different story.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Because the executives at Southwest can't just make that accusation without enormous evidence that it's true. It's legally dangerous ground for a lot of reasons, because the pilots are federally prohibited from pulling sick-outs. Falsely accusing someone of breaking a federal law, a law that is very important to their job and industry, can come back on you in an epic way given the stakes here. That would be an opening for a giant lawsuit and that's the best case scenario for Southwest if they did something that stupid. > saying that other people are breaking the law is not a crime. You do not want that claim to be false - you do not want to be wrong and or unable to prove your out-on-a-ledge position - if you go around making very substantial accusations like that (eg stating the pilots are pulling a sick-out), which can directly threaten the livelihoods/careers of the pilots. If you're wrong or otherwise can't back up your claims, you just made a mistake that will cost shareholders an expensive legal settlement and possibly get you fired.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Because the executives at Southwest can't just make that accusation without enormous evidence that it's true. Of course they can. Executives and unions make accusations of illegal labor relations conduct on the other side on flimsy evidence all the time. And especially when it is nonspecific as to individuals (e.g., alleging a sick-out is occurring without alleging any particular employees sick leave was abused), it is safer, legally, than many of the accusations routinely made between labor and management. (There might be good political and labor relations reasons for declining to characterize it that way with, or even with, strong evidence that it is true, but that's a different issue than legal reasons.) > You do not want that claim to be false Honestly, false or true, it would be suicide for a union President to say it, unless it was part of an internal factional fight in the Union and the faction doing it was already irrevocably opposed to the union president. And even then, its basically admitting that that faction has the power to bring the firm to its knees and you can't constrain them...
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I've heard that airlines don't face penalties for weather related delays/cancellations. It would make business sense to try and attribute it to inclement weather as to avoid paying fines and related fees.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  That's true. And the weather in this case only affected Southwest flights. Weird.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Not weird. Southwest famously doesn't do hub-and-spoke routing, so they're much less resilient to events like this; cancelled flights in one region cause cascading failures on other legs of the routes they're on.

Because when the public hears about other reasonable people showing hesitancy, it shows that the media narrative isn't as true as it is made to be. I imagine it is to the advantage of both pilots and SW to not admit it is about the vaccine, because the media would take advantage of that fact otherwise. Also the pilots can't admit to a sick-out one way or another to avoid legal repercussions. Not saying this issue is because of the vaccine mandate, but it would make sense with the way this story is playing out.

fidesomnes 5y ago
[dead]
sharkmerry 5y ago
Wouldn't the union then take credit to try to give an example of people showing hesitancy? The union president is denying its a walkout, official or un-official
- jaywalk 5y ago
  They legally aren't allowed to do it, officially or unofficially. So the union cannot "take credit" for it.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  If they can get hit really hard for it, it's better to play along and not admit anything.
mynameishere 5y ago
Why are you using the painfully obvious propaganda term "hesitancy"? There is very little "hesitancy" at this point. There are people saying, "I am the sovereign of my body and you will not force your unnecessary medical interventions on me, period. This is the hill i die on." That is not hesitancy.

bmarquez 5y ago

I don't know if it applies in this specific instance, but I've heard in other cases that employees are not allowed to participate in official strikes without approval from their union first. If it's not an "official" strike then no union negotiation is needed.

sbierwagen 5y ago

Pilots are covered by the Railway Labor Act, which prohibits wildcat strikes and sickouts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act If the head of the union said an unofficial sickout was happening, he'd go to jail.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> If the head of the union said an unofficial sickout was happening, he'd go to jail. No, saying that other people are breaking the law is not a crime. He’d have some internal problems with membership to deal with, though... If he said that the union and he as its president endorsed the sickout and encouraged members to participate in it...that might be a different story.
- adventured 5y ago
  Because the executives at Southwest can't just make that accusation without enormous evidence that it's true. It's legally dangerous ground for a lot of reasons, because the pilots are federally prohibited from pulling sick-outs. Falsely accusing someone of breaking a federal law, a law that is very important to their job and industry, can come back on you in an epic way given the stakes here. That would be an opening for a giant lawsuit and that's the best case scenario for Southwest if they did something that stupid. > saying that other people are breaking the law is not a crime. You do not want that claim to be false - you do not want to be wrong and or unable to prove your out-on-a-ledge position - if you go around making very substantial accusations like that (eg stating the pilots are pulling a sick-out), which can directly threaten the livelihoods/careers of the pilots. If you're wrong or otherwise can't back up your claims, you just made a mistake that will cost shareholders an expensive legal settlement and possibly get you fired.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Because the executives at Southwest can't just make that accusation without enormous evidence that it's true. Of course they can. Executives and unions make accusations of illegal labor relations conduct on the other side on flimsy evidence all the time. And especially when it is nonspecific as to individuals (e.g., alleging a sick-out is occurring without alleging any particular employees sick leave was abused), it is safer, legally, than many of the accusations routinely made between labor and management. (There might be good political and labor relations reasons for declining to characterize it that way with, or even with, strong evidence that it is true, but that's a different issue than legal reasons.) > You do not want that claim to be false Honestly, false or true, it would be suicide for a union President to say it, unless it was part of an internal factional fight in the Union and the faction doing it was already irrevocably opposed to the union president. And even then, its basically admitting that that faction has the power to bring the firm to its knees and you can't constrain them...

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I've heard that airlines don't face penalties for weather related delays/cancellations. It would make business sense to try and attribute it to inclement weather as to avoid paying fines and related fees.

jaywalk 5y ago
That's true. And the weather in this case only affected Southwest flights. Weird.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Not weird. Southwest famously doesn't do hub-and-spoke routing, so they're much less resilient to events like this; cancelled flights in one region cause cascading failures on other legs of the routes they're on.