Discrimanation or not?

[Sleepyhead]

I had a thought about the situation where companys
will not hire someone who is furloughed.

According to UAL management, furloughees are not employees.
(Their reason why furloughees can't have travel benefits)
So the way I see it, I'm no longer a UAL employee, the only thing I have is my name on a list and promise to hire me again when they need more pilots. In other words I'm in the same situation I was one year ago. I'm in a hiring pool.

So, when I was sitting in the pool for 7 months last year, I would have had no problem being hired by another airline. In fact I know several people who were in the pool and hired by another airline and then resigned when UAL called with a class date. None of the airlines seem to have a problem with this.
Also consider that many companys ask you in the interview if you have had any other offers. If you say yes, they don't kick you out of the room.

So why is it different because now I am called a furloughee?

The companys say the reason they don't hire furloughees is because they will leave as soon as they are called back.
Well is it any different with the 95% of their current pilots that are waiting for a call from a major. Every one of them would leave tomorrow if their favorite major called. If their big concern is pilots leaving, they could simply have new hires sign a commitment contract. Some companys already do this. I am perfectly willing to do this, but by denying me an interview when i'm qualified for the job,
I say it is hiring discrimination pure and simple.

I am more than qualified for a job at any regional, but
yet none will even give me an interview because I'm a furloughee. This is a clear case of discrimination under federal law.

Maybe I should call Jonnie Cockren and tell him I know where
he can get a few thousand clients for a class action law suit.

 

[Jeff G]

There's a difference between being in a pool and being furloughed, so your analogy is flawed. If you're in a pool and accept new employment, your status as a poolee is only potential and not part of your employment record. As a furloughee, you're a past employee (a verifiable fact), and far more likely to be recalled, and it's far more likely you'll accept the recall. In that case, the company which hires you loses their investment in you when you dump them to go back to your old job. In other words, you're a poor risk. There's always some small percentage of pilots hired who are in the pool at another company, and that's a risk of doing business. But if the risk is known, then it can be avoided. You're being avoided.

You don't seem to realize that nobody owes you a job, and that discrimination is not only legal, it's utterly necessary. Discrimination means exercising a choice. You are wailing about the unfairness of it all, but perceived unfairness isn't a basis for a lawsuit. Only illegal discrimination, as defined by federal or local law, is a basis for a lawsuit. I'm afraid that being furloughed doesn't put you in a protected class under the law. I am truly sorry that you're out of a job for the moment. However, it sounds to me that these companies that are turning you down are doing themselves a favor by not even interviewing you. If you're this militant when merely applying for a job, I shudder to see what'll happen when you meet adversity on the job. Get over it, and find a job the way the rest of us had to the last time this happened: scrounge for it. You're "more than qualified" so it should be no problem, right?

 

[avbug]

I think the basic premise of the origional post is flawed. The posting asks why it is acceptable to bail out on a company before being furloughed, but not afterward.

It's not acceptable to bail out, period. If you commit to an employer, are taken into the employer's confidence, accept the training, and go on the line, then show some backbone and integrity and do your job. Do you think that employers are babysitters there for your convenience? Do you have any idea what this does to the industry at large?

On several occasions I've been approached by companies with an offer of employment. Each offer provided more income, more security, better benifits, and in many cases, some very nice equipment. In addition, better hours and schedules were also available. However, on each occasion, I informed these companies that I couldn't simply drop everything and walk away from my employer. If a replacement could be found and put in my position, and suitable notice given, fine. However, one doesn't simply jump overboard when greener grass comes along. Such a person shows no spine.

There is no discrimination in hesitating to hire an individual who will most likely jump ship. Loyalty is a desirable characteristic. I don't care if you were furloughed, or if you're in a "pool" and will go elsewhere. It's the same. Unless you're willing to commit your loyalty, time, and services to me, I certainly wouldn't hire you. Pilots are nomads and gypsies and drift with the tide; it's in our blood to some mythical degree. But character and honor still count for something in my book. Character is who you are when the lights are out and you're on your own, and nobody will see what you do. If those unseen actions and impulses include the tendency to do as you've posted, feel no animosity toward those who would pass you over in favor of a prospect who shows enough backbone and character to stick it out. They're within their discretion.

Remember; what goes around, comes around. You have no hesitation taking a job knowing you won't commit, that you'll walk away. You don't care enough about that employer to commit...but strangely you feel that the employer owes you something; they should commit to you. It's a two way street, friend. Drive it carefully, or pay the consequences. But while you do so, don't cry discrimination or foul; you make the rules, you drive by them. Good luck to you!

 

[tdvalve]

hog, your basic premise is flawed. Discrimination is perfectly legal in most circumstances and is practiced by every employer on the face of the earth. However, discrimination that pertains to race, religion, gender, age, etc. is illegal unless there is a valid purpose for the discrimination. (For example, it's perfectly acceptable for airlines to discriminate against pilots over age 60, and for movie producers to refuse to consider males for female movie roles.) But, furloughed airline pilots are not a protected class under discrimination laws in the U.S.

 

[Blasted]

The companys say the reason they don't hire furloughees is because they will leave as soon as they are called back.

Hog, although I do understand the previous posters' views, I can also understand your concern in the current hiring enviroment. The bottom line is that there are very few companies that have enough confidence in their product, work conditions and employee force that aren't worried that you won't leave when you find "something better." I guess I would be asking why there is something better out there and why they can't fix their own backyard to keep employees when times are good? Large airlines have very small voluntary employee turnover issues when it comes to pilots. With smaller outfits, it appears that they want you to make all sorts of changes, sacrifices and adjustments, but they sure aren't willing to do the same...and they can afford to do this in tough times. The bar for working conditions, lifestyle, and "nicities" is lowered significantly in poor times. In my opinion, this speaks volumes about the company and how "good" they really are once you start working for them. Of course no company can be perfect to everyone and everything...just look at your previous employer. Even at the top, some would certainly view Alaska Airlines as far superior to maybe Delta. However, there is a company that does have the where with all (one word or three?) to display this level of confidence in what they offer. Southwest, as I understand, does not make you resign any seniority numbers. They believe that if you're hired, you'll like it, and enjoy the atmosphere enough that you won't want to leave. Of course you usually come with your own type-rating, but they still put plenty of money into you. I guess when you're at the top of the industry, you don't worry about people wanting to leave. It's all about confidence in their product and their view on employees being and asset rather than a cost sucking liability. Unfortunately, the many long established companies at the "top" of the airline industry aren't hiring, with the exception of Southwest. If you decide to leave them, they view it as money saved rather than money spent. It's a great perspective and one that few companies have the fortune of sharing, and only the best can share it. Food for thought. Certainly hope that you can make the best of the situation and keep up a good attitude. Best of luck. P.S. As most of the other posters already alluded too...I'd forget about any lawsuit issues. This isn't about discrimination, it's about a free market economy.

 

[Little Bubba]

On top of the world a year ago, now on the bottom, either way I could care less, but PLEASE stop crying like a bay!! Is that what they teach you at United, cry then sue if you don't get your way?

 

[328dude]

More then qualified? What is that? Maybe you should paste Space Shuttle under your aircraft flown.

Just be glad to have the chance to go back, as the rest of us scrape up all hope of ever having that job.

I hate crybaby's

 

[Little Bubba]

More then qualified

We all know that United are well known to hire "More then qualified" pilots...

 

[1900laker]

Couple observations from reading these posts:


First of all, I don't believe the new companies will "discriminate" so much in interviewing furloughees of other companies, just hiring them. Usually, the fact that you are a furloughee wouldn't come up until the interview anyway. And when you turn in your letter of resignation to your former company, then you are no longer a furloughee, but a former employee. That is why most employers will require that action to protect their interest.

I am absolutely opposed to committment contracts. It equals indentured servitude it what it amounts to. The company has a responsibility to train its perspective employees and if it is an attractive package for an employee, there will be less of a turnover rate.... period. This concept of whoring yourself away to an airline has got to stop if we are to preserve our profession. Just because you are willing to do it for less than the next guy, does not mean you are helping your situation out. The long term impact of what this does to you in your profession is far more **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ing.

A lot of us tend to hold the idea that the airline we work for is "the bread and butter", while the airline views us as "numbers". You may have a great deal of loyalty to your company, which is fine. As long as you realize that the collective group of the company will never hold as much loyalty to you, you'll be ok. At the end of every two weeks when you get your check, and they have their services rendered, call it even! You don't owe them a thing, just like they don't owe you a thing. It's business! Do a good job, take pride in your work, and don't expect anymore from the job than you knew when you signed up and you'll be ok. Run your professional career like you would a business. If another company is offering you an opportunity that would be better for your situation, I strongly suggest that you don't pass it up on the basis of courtesy to your present employer. If your current employer is not set up to better your situation, to equal your new value on the market, then they are continuing to get your services at a bargain.

Good luck all, and fly safe.

I am fortunate enough to be getting called by to my position Jan14 after a Dec01 furlough. Godspeed to all the other furloughees out there on your quick return as well

 

[Sleepyhead]

Chill out

First of all, some of you need to chill out.
My post was not whining but just some food for thought to start a discussion. I guess it worked.

To clarify a few points:

The idea of discrimination came from a lawyer friend of mine. I was telling him about my current situation. He said , why don't you just get a job with one of the regionals that is hiring. I told him they will not hire furloughed pilots. He said that is discrimination under federal labor law. The case is clear, if an employer has posted a job offering they must make it available to any individual that is qualified and interested. Now I know in the real world an employer can interview you and then give any reason he wants for not hiring you. But when one says "we do not hire furloughees", and they won't give you an interview,that is a violation of the law.

As for the point about a furloughee being a high risk, I say why is a furloughee any higher risk to leave than some other new hire? 90% of the pilots at a regional would leave tomorrow if a major offered them a job. (To clarify, I'm speaking of a pilot at a major who is applying at a regional. ) The situation is no different than before 9/11 when hiring at the majors was hot. At my company the attrition rate was 30 per month. (think about it, that's one pilot leaving every day!) The CEO was complaining about high turnover and training cost, so he put a training contract in place for all new hires and anyone upgrading. If you left before a year you owed the company money to cover what they spent on training you. A lot of poeple complained about it. Personnally I thought it was fair. I signed 2 contracts, one as a new hire and one on upgrade. So if the companys that are hiring are worried about furloughees leaving, just have them sign a contract to commit to a year or two.

To the point about giving a letter of resignation.
How do you resign from a company that you are no longer employed by?
Furlough is just a fancy word for laid-off. The only difference between a furloughee and the poor guy in catering that got laid-off is the furloughee has his/her name on a pilot seniority list.
The airlines could care less about seniority. The seniority lists were created by the unions. The contract is what gives the furloughee the right to be called back first when hiring is resumed.

My basic point is simple. If for example Skywest is hiring, what valid reason to they have for not hiring someone who is furloughed and is willing to give them a year or two commitment.?

 

[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.