Skywest
09-22-2014 | 12:10 PM
#6822
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
From: Another RJ FO
I can honestly say I've never once even read through 1/4 of one of Nevets' posts. Someone needs to start providing TL;DRs. They must give you guys a lot of time off over there at XJT if you have time to research, read and write all of that. I definitely don't have time for it.
09-22-2014 | 12:16 PM
#6823
Banned
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
I can honestly say I've never once even read through 1/4 of one of Nevets' posts. Someone needs to start providing TL;DRs. They must give you guys a lot of time off over there at XJT if you have time to research, read and write all of that. I definitely don't have time for it.
It's 90% cut and paste. It doesn't take long.
09-22-2014 | 12:21 PM
#6824
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,293
Likes: 0
I can honestly say I've never once even read through 1/4 of one of Nevets' posts. Someone needs to start providing TL;DRs. They must give you guys a lot of time off over there at XJT if you have time to research, read and write all of that. I definitely don't have time for it.
Word. Let's make this a thing. C'mon my brosephs. Tl;dr it!!!!
09-22-2014 | 01:10 PM
#6826
MK Ultra Candidate
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
From: Prime Leader of Boko Harumph
That's exactly what I said, they can ask for a note but cannot ask for the medical details.
The PPM says "may require"...that's just there to scare you into thinking that you'll have to:
1) go to the doctor and
2) get a note with the medical details.
They're trying to discourage "sickacations" with scare tactics. Putting that in the PPM does NOT violate any law...they have to actually act on it to get in trouble.
But just because the PPM says "may require" does not mean their lawyers will actually let the CP's inquire into your medical history. Worst case you'll have to get a note saying you need X number of days off, and that's all it will say.
The PPM says "may require"...that's just there to scare you into thinking that you'll have to:
1) go to the doctor and
2) get a note with the medical details.
They're trying to discourage "sickacations" with scare tactics. Putting that in the PPM does NOT violate any law...they have to actually act on it to get in trouble.
But just because the PPM says "may require" does not mean their lawyers will actually let the CP's inquire into your medical history. Worst case you'll have to get a note saying you need X number of days off, and that's all it will say.
Do the DD research, read the case and decision, very interesting stuff. When individuals stand up to the behemoth, with sound legal basis they will win, not that DD "won", but he did prevail.
"Sickations" are already addressed in 3006.6 4(D).
09-22-2014 | 02:48 PM
#6827
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
From: Big foot
I can honestly say I've never once even read through 1/4 of one of Nevets' posts. Someone needs to start providing TL;DRs. They must give you guys a lot of time off over there at XJT if you have time to research, read and write all of that. I definitely don't have time for it.
09-22-2014 | 03:32 PM
#6829
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Whats the average length new guys are sitting reserve in the CRJ?
09-22-2014 | 03:41 PM
#6830
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,895
Likes: 690
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
And what I said was as it relates to SKYW. With a CBA there is the opportunity to give and take things that may not be in line with labor law. The airlines with CBAs and the Dr. note thing is a negotiated item, lacking a CBA, labor law/case law will dictate how the employer operates. My point was and still is, as it relates to SKYW, the PPM directly is contradictory to case law as are more than a few other points, what they have going for them is that even the government has few data points as to how the RLA, Federal Labor Law, State Labor Law apply to a non CBA controlled airline labor group. With very little precedent established with regards to the unique situation of non CBA airline employees, they are free to do almost whatever they want. That's why the F/As lost the last lawsuit.
Do the DD research, read the case and decision, very interesting stuff. When individuals stand up to the behemoth, with sound legal basis they will win, not that DD "won", but he did prevail.
"Sickations" are already addressed in 3006.6 4(D).
Do the DD research, read the case and decision, very interesting stuff. When individuals stand up to the behemoth, with sound legal basis they will win, not that DD "won", but he did prevail.
"Sickations" are already addressed in 3006.6 4(D).
SKW is not going to win a lawsuit based on confusion as to how the RLA applies to non-union airlines. RLA amends certain federal labor laws that apply to unionized workforces.
An informal CBA (like SAPA has) actually has some slight advantages. Unlike a union CBA, it cannot give away individual rights to protection under routine labor law (like union CBAs which for example can allow less-than-minimum wage for duty time, and limit employee lawsuits). But it's still an enforceable legal contract like any other business agreement between various parties.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
