Maybe I'm too optimistic but, I remember Airlines being against the mask mandates. I Also remember the mask mandate being ruled as illegal in Federal court and also losing on appeal from pResident Burden's admin.
I'm no fan of the airlines but anything they go along with will be forced on them and I think the legal precedent for the mandates have already been decided as illegal.
But for the airlines to claim they are simply complying as a result of a mandate is a cowards act. They have plenty of power/money and many lobyist that have used their weight for their gains in the past.
Holding private company's to account for their capitulation is, in my opinion, their cost of doing business. They should be fighting for their fundamental rights just as we are. If they should fail to do so then they should cease to exist. They have a duty to their employees and should be held to account by their customers should they simply comply.
If we have a fundamental right to exist and fight for said right then a private organization, run by private citizens, should also fight for their right to exist. Should their existence be contingent on their employees freedoms then their obligation should be to that end also. Or cease to exist.
Simply complying is, by extension, their willingness to become a participating arm of the governmental structure that is also violating The Peoples rights to be free if said freedom should also include the right to prosperity since 'prosperity' is a component of sustenance gotten at the expense of relinquishing hard work in return for a paycheck.
The People, you and I, are fully aware that ensuring said right may include a temporary suspension, at our own will and choosing, of luxuries like flying on an airline. If The People accept these terms then let the airlines or any other private organization pay the price for participating in a whole of government and private sector attempt to subvert our God given freedoms.
The airlines complied because they benefited in some way. Fascism works that way: you do want the government asks, and the government structures laws and spending to help you get what you want.
But for some reason the airlines are first for the behavioral modification
Because they have a monopoly.
You want to fly from A to B, on this one date only;
only one or a few carriers fly that route;
this airport is the only place to catch those planes;
so you will do as you're told, when you're told, to our liking, or we will fuck up your plans for business or vacation.
And here's the cruncher: They know for a fact, those business or pleasure plans are EXTREMELY, ACUTELY important to you, so you will do almost ANYTHING to MAKE THAT FLIGHT.
They know they have you by the pubic hairs and don't have to let go. They own you. What are you going to do, hop in your OWN airplane?
You mask up, shut up and don't act up, or your plans get fucked up.
Can confer that point. Have a wedding for a lovely nephew and his bride next week. Tickets already bought, and I hate to disappoint by not showing up to support their Union, but also for my benefit of seeing family I haven’t seen for a long time. They do have us by the balls.
That's what I kept asking here/on other posts about, the judge's ruling on the mask mandates. I thought they couldn't bring the mandates back because of the ruling.
I'm wondering if they are "suggesting" it right now to see if everyone will blindly follow like before and have those try to shame others into wearing them. So that way they don't have to actually mandate them. I still won't wear them, even if I lose my money from tickets I bought for a trip in a few months if they try to mandate them. Someone on another post told me that the gov will just bail them out with our tax money. Which is likely true.
What I remember is the court ruling on the unconstitutionality of the Executive using EO.s to tell agencies under control of the Legislative branch what to do. This was specifically w.r.t. OSHA. I don't remember if that applied to the FAA or TSA.
Here's the pdf of the ruling, it's 59 pages long, so if you go to page 58 & 59 you will see the conclusion, I was trying to copy & paste the conclusion so you wouldn't have to click link, but it wouldn't let me...
Maybe I'm too optimistic but, I remember Airlines being against the mask mandates. I Also remember the mask mandate being ruled as illegal in Federal court and also losing on appeal from pResident Burden's admin.
https://www.businessinsider.com/airline-executives-ask-biden-to-drop-mask-mandate-on-planes-2022-3?op=1
https://nypost.com/2021/12/16/two-airline-ceos-question-need-for-mask-mandates-on-planes/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/19/politics/cdc-mask-ruling-legal-explainer/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-vacates-travel-mask-mandate-ruling-2023-06-22/
I'm no fan of the airlines but anything they go along with will be forced on them and I think the legal precedent for the mandates have already been decided as illegal.
But for the airlines to claim they are simply complying as a result of a mandate is a cowards act. They have plenty of power/money and many lobyist that have used their weight for their gains in the past.
Holding private company's to account for their capitulation is, in my opinion, their cost of doing business. They should be fighting for their fundamental rights just as we are. If they should fail to do so then they should cease to exist. They have a duty to their employees and should be held to account by their customers should they simply comply.
If we have a fundamental right to exist and fight for said right then a private organization, run by private citizens, should also fight for their right to exist. Should their existence be contingent on their employees freedoms then their obligation should be to that end also. Or cease to exist.
Simply complying is, by extension, their willingness to become a participating arm of the governmental structure that is also violating The Peoples rights to be free if said freedom should also include the right to prosperity since 'prosperity' is a component of sustenance gotten at the expense of relinquishing hard work in return for a paycheck.
The People, you and I, are fully aware that ensuring said right may include a temporary suspension, at our own will and choosing, of luxuries like flying on an airline. If The People accept these terms then let the airlines or any other private organization pay the price for participating in a whole of government and private sector attempt to subvert our God given freedoms.
So be it. Let them fall.
Who owns controlling shares in these airlines? Is it Blackrock? Vanguard? If it is then there's your answer......follow the $$$!
The airlines complied because they benefited in some way. Fascism works that way: you do want the government asks, and the government structures laws and spending to help you get what you want.
Because they have a monopoly.
You want to fly from A to B, on this one date only;
only one or a few carriers fly that route;
this airport is the only place to catch those planes;
so you will do as you're told, when you're told, to our liking, or we will fuck up your plans for business or vacation.
And here's the cruncher: They know for a fact, those business or pleasure plans are EXTREMELY, ACUTELY important to you, so you will do almost ANYTHING to MAKE THAT FLIGHT.
They know they have you by the pubic hairs and don't have to let go. They own you. What are you going to do, hop in your OWN airplane?
You mask up, shut up and don't act up, or your plans get fucked up.
Can confer that point. Have a wedding for a lovely nephew and his bride next week. Tickets already bought, and I hate to disappoint by not showing up to support their Union, but also for my benefit of seeing family I haven’t seen for a long time. They do have us by the balls.
I concur
yep, but i also think people wanting convenience is what helped get us where we are today. society is getting too soft.
We’re way beyond too soft. It’s time to water the tree of liberty
That's what I kept asking here/on other posts about, the judge's ruling on the mask mandates. I thought they couldn't bring the mandates back because of the ruling.
I'm wondering if they are "suggesting" it right now to see if everyone will blindly follow like before and have those try to shame others into wearing them. So that way they don't have to actually mandate them. I still won't wear them, even if I lose my money from tickets I bought for a trip in a few months if they try to mandate them. Someone on another post told me that the gov will just bail them out with our tax money. Which is likely true.
I believe this is all about ranking up fear to give the DS an excuse for mail-in voting and drop boxes for 2024 elections - mandates or not.
What I remember is the court ruling on the unconstitutionality of the Executive using EO.s to tell agencies under control of the Legislative branch what to do. This was specifically w.r.t. OSHA. I don't remember if that applied to the FAA or TSA.
What was that court case?
Here's the pdf of the ruling, it's 59 pages long, so if you go to page 58 & 59 you will see the conclusion, I was trying to copy & paste the conclusion so you wouldn't have to click link, but it wouldn't let me...
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21636220/047124235804.pdf
Here's an article about the ruling from April 19, 2022 ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61145045
Thank you :-)