Originally Posted by
Vito
Don’t you think an employer can reason that an employee is NOT “outside of work” on a layover where said employer is paying for hotel, per diet etc..I wonder if that case can be made by lawyers?
Honestly I don’t know. I’m sure a legal team could and would argue a definition in the best interest of their respective party. FARs clearly define rest requirements and crew member obligations to their employer while in rest. The company can try and contact you, but you can’t be disciplined if they can’t reach you.
If a company is given the legal right to control alcohol consumption while on a layover to protect their best interests... what’s to stop them from denying a crew member the ability to:
-take a paragliding lesson.
-hike a mountain top with steep cliffs
-rent a Porsche 911 and go 185MPH on the autobahn
-rent Harley’s and drive through downtown Detroit with no helmets on.
-go for a submarine underwater water excursion trip in Hawaii.
-ride mules down the Grand Canyon
-go white water rafting
-run with the Bulls in Spain
All of these activities could be extremely dangerous and could easily impact flights if a crew member got hurt.
As for hotels... we are under no obligation to use the provided room. We can hope a train, bus, plane or scooter and go wherever we like, you just better be back at showtime.
When anyone in life makes a bad decision and the consequences are catastrophic... it stinks. His family, friends and coworkers all suffer a sadness from seeing someone jeopardize their career. But just because one person takes a huge poo in their pants, doesn’t mean everyone they work with has to wear diapers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk