|
CAL MIL questions
CAL Mil guys--does the company allow you to keep your CAL ID during a MIL LV period? --specifically I'm asking about availability of the jumpseat while out on MIL.
How is the company to work with for shorter term mil lv usage? Are they flexible if you give as much notice as possible or do they make it difficult? Thanks in advance. I'm not in a class yet but am contemplating options as these classes are offered. |
PM me. I'll give you the scoop.
|
PM sent. Hope it helps.
|
Originally Posted by leftcoast
(Post 1088167)
CAL Mil guys--does the company allow you to keep your CAL ID during a MIL LV period? --specifically I'm asking about availability of the jumpseat while out on MIL.
How is the company to work with for shorter term mil lv usage? Are they flexible if you give as much notice as possible or do they make it difficult? Thanks in advance. I'm not in a class yet but am contemplating options as these classes are offered. Remember that MIL LOA is NOT a request, it is a notification. You are to give advance notice, if possible. I will argue till I'm blue in the face that I must be fit to fly at both jobs and therefore my MIL LOA will be adjusted accordingly. If you are out less than 30 days, you are not penalized for sick or vacation time. Anything longer and you may not accrue either. |
What about the UAL furloughed who are using mil leave differal when called by call? They get id and benefits?
|
reCALcitrant--got the PM--thank you.
UAL was very easy to work with for Mil LV previously and I hope that carries over with the merger. I know it's a notification of Mil duty and not a request but the flt office can still make it difficult or unpleasant to get things done. As far as mil deferal for a CAL job offer--no other rights are involved as far as I know. Since you're not an employee yet, you don't have an ID card to keep while on mil orders. There will probably be a few guys who show for new guy class, get their ID card, and then go right out on long term orders. They've been screwed enough and if this makes their lives better--more power to them. |
Originally Posted by leftcoast
(Post 1088797)
reCALcitrant--got the PM--thank you.
UAL was very easy to work with for Mil LV previously and I hope that carries over with the merger. I know it's a notification of Mil duty and not a request but the flt office can still make it difficult or unpleasant to get things done. As far as mil deferal for a CAL job offer--no other rights are involved as far as I know. Since you're not an employee yet, you don't have an ID card to keep while on mil orders. There will probably be a few guys who show for new guy class, get their ID card, and then go right out on long term orders. They've been screwed enough and if this makes their lives better--more power to them. |
Apparently you haven't read this; http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...05-CV0.wpd.pdf
|
Originally Posted by watching6
(Post 1091142)
Apparently you haven't read this; http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...05-CV0.wpd.pdf
From Fifth Circuit: Section 4311(a) of USERRA provides that service members “shall not be denied . . . any benefit of employment by an employer on the basis of that membership . . .”* USERRA defines “benefit of employment” to include “any advantage, profit, privilege, gain, status, account, or interest.”* Because nothing in the express language of the statute provides for a hostile work environment claim, the Fifth Circuit examined USERRA’s legislative history, case law, and other anti-discrimination statutes...Noting that the breadth of USERRA allows aggrieved employees to bring actions for constructive discharge and for other contractual benefits, the Court found “no reason for an additional non-textual harassment cause of action.”* The Court thus affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Carder’s hostile work environment claims under USERRA and remanded the case for further proceedings on Carder’s other claims. ...Accordingly, the Court finds that, under a plain language interpretation, USERRA does not provide for a hostile work environment cause of action. As such, it is not necessary to look to extrinsic evidence [of a hostile environment] to construe this statute. Under these considerations, the claim must be dismissed. VI. Conclusion Based on the preceding discussion, the Court hereby GRANTS Continental’s motion to dismiss in-part and DENIES the motion in-part. It is so ORDERED. http://pilotlawcorp.com/pdfs/Petitio...Cert-Final.pdf |
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1091163)
Yea. No kidding. The Fifth Court found that YES Continental was a hostile work environment for reservists but NO it didn't violate the law because USERRA only covered working status, not working conditions. Crazy. A "victory" for the company that they can mistreat reservists as long as their actual employment there is not affected. Must have popped the champagne on that one.
From Fifth Circuit: It went to Supreme Court: Can you imagine going to court and saying, yes, we had a hostile work environment for Americans serving their country, but that isn't against the law. Where's 60 Minutes when you need them? |
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1091163)
Yea. No kidding. The Fifth Court found that YES Continental was a hostile work environment for reservists but NO it didn't violate the law because USERRA only covered working status, not working conditions.
|
Wow--nothing hostile or difficult about this from CAL pilot managers:
"comments by Continental managers such as the following: “If you guys take more than three or four days a month in military leave, you’re just taking advantage of the system.”; “I used to be a guard guy, so I know the scams you guys are running.”; “Your commander can wait. You work full time for me. Part-time for him. I need to speak with you, in person, to discuss your responsibilities here at Continental Airlines.”; “Continental is your big boss, the Guard is your little boss.”; “It’s getting really difficult to hire you military guys because you’re taking so much military leave.” This is quoted from the lawsuit link. |
Originally Posted by leftcoast
(Post 1091320)
Wow--nothing hostile or difficult about this from CAL pilot managers:
"comments by Continental managers such as the following: “If you guys take more than three or four days a month in military leave, you’re just taking advantage of the system.”; “I used to be a guard guy, so I know the scams you guys are running.”; “Your commander can wait. You work full time for me. Part-time for him. I need to speak with you, in person, to discuss your responsibilities here at Continental Airlines.”; “Continental is your big boss, the Guard is your little boss.”; “It’s getting really difficult to hire you military guys because you’re taking so much military leave.” This is quoted from the lawsuit link. BTW, I only used 30 days my first year. All for a PME course. |
Originally Posted by leftcoast
(Post 1091320)
Wow--nothing hostile or difficult about this from CAL pilot managers:
"comments by Continental managers such as the following: “If you guys take more than three or four days a month in military leave, you’re just taking advantage of the system.”; “I used to be a guard guy, so I know the scams you guys are running.”; “Your commander can wait. You work full time for me. Part-time for him. I need to speak with you, in person, to discuss your responsibilities here at Continental Airlines.”; “Continental is your big boss, the Guard is your little boss.”; “It’s getting really difficult to hire you military guys because you’re taking so much military leave.” This is quoted from the lawsuit link. Poor planning on their part does not constitute an emergency on ours. Hire 500 more pilots. |
more hostility
As alleged in Petitioners’ complaint, Respondent’s harassing conduct and comments towards Petitioners have included the following:
1. Placing onerous restrictions on taking military leave and arbitrarily attempting to cancel military leave. 2. Respondent’s disapproval and denial of military leave notices. 3. Phone calls to pilots’ homes while off duty in order to question pilots about their military leave. 4. Comments by Respondent’s managerial employees, such as: • “If you guys take more than three or four days a month of military leave, you’re just taking advantage of the system.” • “We don’t hire part-time pilots. Their first commitment is to CAL [Continental Airlines].” • “I’m trying to run a business here, and if you’re only available to me half the time, then I have to hire another half an employee to make up for you.” • “I used to be a Guard guy, so I know the scams you guys are running.” • “Continental is your big boss, the Guard is your little boss.” • “You don’t do anything but protect the state of Michigan against the Canadians” in response to a Michigan Air National Guardsman’s request for military leave. • “You take too much military leave.” • “Continental is not happy with many military reservists right now. Short notice orders and short notice requests screw up their staffing formula and any short notice issues (in some cases 50 days notice) will throw a monkey wrench in PBS [preferential bidding system].” • “You need to choose between CAL and the Navy” Remember, this was happening at the height of the Iraq/Afganistan wars. And, the courts did not determine this behavior by the company did not happen, only that it didn't matter whether it happened or not. The company lawyers stood proud that day. |
Fixing the hole in USERRA
|
The good news now is that all MIL LV drops outside of 24 hours can be accomplished online. I rarely do greater than 30 days at a time, but occasionally do 2-3 week stretches. I don't call them and they don't call me, so as of late it has been no hassle. This may all depend on who is your ACP is of course.
|
.............
|
Originally Posted by ugleeual
(Post 1088648)
What about the UAL furloughed who are using mil leave differal when called by call? They get id and benefits?
|
A lot of the hostilities have disappeared. All of the offenders have been removed or retired from the CPO. It was wrong what they did and some got worried that it was going to get ugly. I even had a run in back I the day with the old IAH CP. He wanted to intimidate me about my military obligation. I was on probation but didn't buy his hard sell. Told him I would be happy to talk more about it with a Union rep and my lawyer. He backed down immediately and even tried to joke around with me.
Also, I put my military time on after PBS awards and not before. I make my schedule livable and enjoyable. No one has called me about it. |
Originally Posted by flybynuts
(Post 1405222)
A lot of the hostilities have disappeared. All of the offenders have been removed or retired from the CPO. It was wrong what they did and some got worried that it was going to get ugly. I even had a run in back I the day with the old IAH CP. He wanted to intimidate me about my military obligation. I was on probation but didn't buy his hard sell. Told him I would be happy to talk more about it with a Union rep and my lawyer. He backed down immediately and even tried to joke around with me.
Also, I put my military time on after PBS awards and not before. I make my schedule livable and enjoyable. No one has called me about it. |
It was 6 years ago and a lot has changed for the better and that was the only time I was ever questioned. I was dropping about 3
20 days a month too. Shrek love the urban massage concept. Giggled half the day. Mind if I use it? |
Originally Posted by flybynuts
(Post 1405308)
It was 6 years ago and a lot has changed for the better and that was the only time I was ever questioned. I was dropping about 3
20 days a month too. Shrek love the urban massage concept. Giggled half the day. Mind if I use it? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:56 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands