Originally Posted by
Itsajob
Telling someone that the jumpseat isn’t available without reason is one thing, but if you call them a scab or tell them that you don’t give scabs a ride is another. I doubt the CP or pro standards would do much, but HR doesn’t look though a union pilot lense. Being super polite and telling a pilot that you don’t want a scab in your jumpseat could be viewed the same as telling someone that you don’t allow people of color or of alternative lifestyles in your jumpseat. You do have a right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t pay a price for exercising it. There are conditions to our employment.
FWIW, there is a pre-merger letter from the company to UAL ALPA referencing the Supreme Court case and re-affirming the ability to use the word scab in the UAL workplace. I'll see if I can find my copy.
Considering that the pre-merger UAL contract, including all precedents, survived the merger it must still be in effect absent revised guidance.
The key issues:
1) The word can only use used in reference to a person that crossed the picket line as the word scab itself has a defined meaning (i.e. the scab really has to be a scab.) If a person that crossed a picket line simply does not like the word "scab" that's too bad in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court.
2) It cannot be used with an adjective (i.e. you can't call anybody a "****** scab", for example.). The adjective is what crosses the line, as it does for most other instances.
All that said, from a practical standpoint a Captain that denies the JS to
anybody for
any reason simply has to say the word, "no," and
nothing else.
It is simple, straightforward, and not open to interpretation. In specific reference to a scab, he/she is not required to receive, nor deserves, any further explanation anyway.