Discrimanation or not?

[A Squared]

Hog,

Regarding your lawyer friend.

>>He said that is discrimination under federal labor law.

Really?? What federal labor law is that a violation of? Ask him to tell you the title, part and section, then please post it here so we can see for ourselves. I think that you will find that he can't come up with a federal regulation which prohibits this. What's more likely, is that your ambulance chasing friend (like many attorneys) has lost the ability to distinguish between "violation of the law" and "something an attorney can make money from by filing frivolous lawsuits"

Regarding your inability to see that a furloughee is a higher risk to leave than someone else; it would apear that your are letting your personal involvememt prevent you from seeing what is painfully obvious to everyone else. Let's take the case of a non-furloughee applicant to a regional airline. If he meets the minimums for United (I'm assuming from your first post that you were furloughed from United, if not substitute in the name of whatever airline you worked for), there is a good chance that he will also have an application on file with them. OK, so he's got an app. on file with United, alright, if he's qualified, then that neans there's a chance he might get called for an interview....maybe a 5% chance. Let's suppose he gets called, now, there's what? a 25% chance he will get hired? I think 5% and 25% is optimistic for the average pilot applicant to United, but let's use those numbers. 5% chance of getting interviewed, then a 25% chance of getting hired, if interviewed, means a 1.25% chance of gettng offered a job at United. That's not very likely. But long before United starts looking through the stack of applications, they are required to offer you your job back. That means that long before this other guy gets his 1.25% chance to be offered a job at United, there's a 100% chance that you WILL be offered a job at United. So, be realistic; who's a greater risk of leaving? you or him?

As far as your question: "what valid reason to (sic) they have for not hiring someone who is furloughed and is willing to give them a year or two commitment.?" Please, let's be honest here. we all know that a "year or two commitment" from you is totally meaningless. When United calls, you're going to go back. It doesn't matter if it's next year, next month, or next week, you're going to drop what you're doing and go back. I think we all know it's very unlikely that you're gonna say, "gee I'd like to come back and fly Airbuses again, but I have a commitment to stay here at Gulfstream as a Beech 1900 FO for less than minimum wage for 9 more months"

You know that, I know that, and rest assured the HR types at the regionals know that too.

 

[Marko Ramius]

Please, let's be honest here. we all know that a "year or two commitment" from you is totally meaningless. When United calls, you're going to go back. It doesn't matter if it's next year, next month, or next week, you're going to drop what you're doing and go back. I think we all know it's very unlikely that you're gonna say, "gee I'd like to come back and fly Airbuses again, but I have a commitment to stay here at Gulfstream as a Beech 1900 FO for less than minimum wage for 9 more months"

You know that, I know that, and rest assured the HR types at the regionals know that too.

The two year commitment that Hog and many of us UAL furloughees often refer to is from our contract which allows us to take a two year leave of absence. We could give a copy of that to any potential employer as proof of commitment to their operation. UAL is looking at dumping another 1200 or so furloughees on top of the 591 already on the street, so those us in the first round will be streetside for quite some time. Two years won't even likely be an issue because right now it's looking like 3-5 years if you're optimistic, 5-7 or never if you're not. Unlike the other majors(except UsAirways), we simply don't have the aircraft to accomplish quick recalls because we completely retired our B727 and 737-291 fleets. This amounts to 1380 jobs, and the replacement aircraft don't start coming in until 2004, and even then those orders won't replace them all and there are no orders for beyond 2004.

While I don't think all of this stuff qualifies as discrimination legally, I do not agree with them not even giving us the fair shake of interviewing us. Hey if you interview us and we don't fit into your operation because of our furloughed status, personality, we smell bad, look funny, or whatever I can live with that, but it looks like we won't even be getting a shot at an interview. As far as Hog saying that he was more than qualified, I think he was simply reffering to the minimums to get an interview with a regional which is true. I don't feel he was trying to brag about his flight time or past experiences.

P.S. For the one guy who posted about that Space Shuttle position, are they interviewing and do you know if they make you resign seniority? Also, is training paid, are the layover hotels nice, and are they ALPA?

 

[Sleepyhead]

Thanks Marko.
You are right. When I said I am more than qualified
I was speaking about the experience needed for a regional.
I spent 4 years at a large regional with over 3000 hours
including 1500 as a Captain and 1300 at another regional
before that. I don't think it's bragging to say I'm more than qualified to work at a regional.

To A Squared:
Your example is not realistic. In your example you are assuming
the other pilot is only applying to United. When in fact most pilots
at the regional have their apps out with many companys. When the industry turns around many companies will be hiring. It is more likely that the other pilot would get a job offer at some other company before I got called from United. In reality I would probably stay longer than many of their new-hires because I am wait for one company. The other pilots are waiting for anybody to call.

"Please, let's be honest here. we all know that a "year or two
commitment" from you is totally meaningless. "

Not true, and why does it matter, if I sign a training contract
I owe them money when I leave. They have nothing to lose.

The fact is when hiring at the majors is hot, everyone at the regionals is jumping ship regardless how long they have been there. During those times do the regionals say we are not going to hire the guys with 10,000 hours because they will leave as soon as a major calls. Now when times are slow they say we don't want furloughed guys because they will leave when their old company calls back. And guess what, 95% of the rest of their pilots will leave when ANY company that offers them more money calls

As for the law, if you really want to know I will find out for you.
It is basic labor law that an employer can not deny you an interview if you meet the requirments for the job. Now of coarse they can find a reason not to hire you. The original post was refering to the practice of denying even an interview and saying outright. "We do not hire furloughees".

 

[Little Bubba]

Hog,

Used to work for Atlas and we had around 7000 app that met our min requirements on file, are you saying some "basic law" requires Atlas to call each and everyone for a interview?

How come United didn't call after the got my app (I met their rec.), it took them 4 friggin years to call me (after I gained some TP and Heavy Jet PIC time).

 

[AlbieF15]

Ref: Lawyers and employment issues

Since we are dicussing "discrimination", "rights", and "lawsuits", I have a few questions.

Before I became a bit older and more settled, I wanted to be a porno star, but had a short fuse/average equipment, don't have tattoos, and am a one each avg white male. I also am a bit fat. I don't tan well and my white pasty skin would look bad on 8mm. I also don't want to have to do SOME of the things they do on those shows. However, I still got denied my dream job. Can I sue someone?

I also wanted to be a rock star--played the drums in high school. Played in small groups with guys who did more drugs than I would do (zero) and had much more musical talent (I have almost zero). However, I feel my lack of opportunity in the field has cost me untold millions of royalty checks and the missed opportunity to sleep with countless groupies (see above goal) while I was still young, wild, and un-churched. Can I sue?


I joined the USAF who insisted on an 8 YEAR committment for just over 18 months of initial flight training. During that period, I was coerced into signing another 7 year contract that eliminated the possibility of working for Delta, a long time goal of mine (I missed the entire 96-01 hiring window). To add insult to injury, there were even periods of time when others were rewarded with awards, assignments, and upgrades in front of or instead of me! Some months, other pilots who WORKED NO HARDER THAN I DID got to fly more or better sorties. Now I'm sure someone out there with a good lawyer friend can help me right these terrible injustices in my life! If anyone can help me get some compensation for my past pain please send me a pm.



Fly safe

 

[Sleepyhead]

You guys are missing the point.

I fully understand I can send my resume in to a company and never hear from them. (in fact that has happen many times)
Also, they can make up a reason why they didn't hire you.
ie. you need more night time, more IFR, your socks are the wrong color,etc. That's life and it happens all the time.

My point was simply this, when I called a company and asked about employment they said, " we are getting a lot of calls from furloughed pilots, are you a furloughed pilot?" I said "yes".
They said, " Sorry we don't hire furloughed pilots."
That is illegal.
Now of coarse they can take my resume and never call me.
But to say out-right they will not hire furloughed pilots is like saying, "sorry we don't hire Army pilots".

 

[A Squared]

Sigh!!!!!!....Hog, you just don't seem to be getting it:

>>>>This is a clear case of discrimination under federal law.

>>>>>>It is basic labor law that an employer can not deny you an interview if you meet the requirments for the job.

>>>>> " Sorry we don't hire furloughed pilots." That is illegal.

OK, you are obviously in need of a lesson in the law. I thought this was obvious to everyone, but apparently you missed this. In order for something to be illegal, there must be a law against it.

Example: You may really hate people who chew gum while they are flying. You may even think it ought to be against the law, but unless there's an FAR against chewing gum while flying, it isn't illegal. You can scream "it's illegal, it's illegal", beat your tiny fists on the floor and hold your breath until you're blue in the face (much like you're doing now about discrimination"), but until you can cite the "no gum chewing FAR", the rest of us will just laugh at you. (much like we are doing now)

You want to be taken seriously? Quote any Federal, State, or Local labor law which specifically or by inclusion, prohibits discrimination against furloughees. Until then, stop wasting bandwidth with your silly rant

Warmest regards and Merry Christmas

 

[TurboS7]

Business is business, all business's when they hire someone must recoup the cost of training. This includes groundschool, sim, oe, and all the other cost involved with hiring. It usually takes one year minimum to recoup this expense, to have a person leave is a high risk and useless. No one owes you a job, so unless you are willing to resign senority you are a risk. The main exception to this would be seasonal work, like in UK for the summer, they don't want you there long term and don't care.

 

[Airbus300]

Hog,
I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you have the time and money, go ahead and sue. Let us know how it all turns out. It may cost you $2500 in legal fees. If nothing else, you will get your recall in x years, and won't have to worry about burning any bridges, because they weren't going to hire you anyway.

 

[Wiggums]

Now of coarse they can take my resume and never call me.
But to say out-right they will not hire furloughed pilots is like saying, "sorry we don't hire Army pilots".

Yes, it is the same, and both reasons are LEGAL reasons not to hire someone. It's up to HR to decide who they want to hire; unless the criteria they are using is specifically outlawed they are safe.