Originally Posted by
StoneQOLdCrazy
I'm not sure how this speciation is good for the accused pilot. Give the guy a break.
He'll either be vindicated or he won't, but I really don't see how it's any of my business either way
The individual's specifics aren't our business, except to the extent that there is systemwide fallout. Then it's all our business. I got maxed out SC for an entire summer after those 747 guys got caught. And ALPA had to burn a lot of green stamps to get them thier jobs back. That IS our business.
But yes, we probably shouldn't speculate their specifics without actual knowledge.
Originally Posted by
Hotel Kilo
We have a judicial system for a reason. Matters not if he called out sick for every assignment. The company has to prove he wasn't sick. They don't get to speculate, they have to prove it. Under oath. In sworn testimony and present their case to a judge. I certainly hope this pilot has an attorney(s) and is going to fight them on this as it's an easy win. You can't retaliate, no matter the circumstance, for taking sick time. It's been set in precedent and law. It's in our contract. This is an easy win for this pilot.
Again, if there's more here to this story other than the pilot calling out sick, then I'm all ears.
Seems a strange hill to die on for the company if it's nothing other than one of our pilots using their sick time benefit.
Let's not forget, they said KP was crazy. She took them to court and won.
Well, this is really all academic, since we don't actually know what the ground truth is (and we may never know). I'm discussing it in the broad strokes/general sense, not this specific individual's circumstances. But IF it is a situation where there is some combination of zero evidence of any commuting (like the aforementioned 747 pilots) while living 3 states away, and/or
only calling in sick once an assignment is actually give, but (virtually) every time? That's not about "using thier sick benefit", that's very likely abusing. Again, enough circumstantial evidence can still legitimately convict someone of actual crimes like capital murder. If some/all of those things are true here, that's good enough to get a deep dive into an individual's actions, and if they substantiate their suspicions with evidence, then once again, I have zero sympathy or loyalty to defend them 'to the death'. There comes a point where even some of our own can cross a line. Sorry, not sorry.
But again, I totally agree they need to have a pretty open/shut case to fire someone for that. And they deserve at least a defense by ALPA.