My intent was for ALPA brother and sisters not to judge a fellow pilot.....
Are we judging this guy? Or supporting him? When we get ourselves in the companies sights... do we want support or condemnation from our fellow pilots...
Actually, that's an excellent question, and one that many members get VERY angry about.
It costs tens of thousands of dollars to defend a termination all the way to arbitration. That dues money could go to other things if the grievances for people who are obviously guilty of theft, sexual non-consensual assaults (like whipping it out in front of a flight attendant's hotel room door to see if she's interested or a girl who is DATING and sleeping with a guy regularly then calls "rape" after she gets drunk and wakes up in bed with him on some random overnight that they DELIBERATELY bid together - those are actual PCL stories).
Yes, I know ALPA carries a due dilligence to defend ALL its members, at least to System Board, and I'm not making a judgment about this guy's issue, I'm speaking rhetorically: When do you say "This guy just stepped WAY over the line, and we're not spending dues money on a case this egregious and save the dues money for use elsewhere"....?
Like I said before, I'm pretty certain this guy will get canned unless he JUMPED into a HIMS program like PCL-128 was talking about and the company otherwise likes him, and I'm almost 100% certain he can get his job back in grievance (given PCL's p*ss-poor track record in upholding terminations).
But the larger question remains, outside of this incident. For those who ask that question, I will answer it from the perspective of being in the middle of a termination grievance:
I was terminated under conditions the company ALLEGED were fraud and theft, and the company publicized it to the employees at airTran because of the anti-TA work I had done, trying to discredit me. Some people were very openly hostile, buying into anything that was said, without finding out the WHOLE STORY.
Those who knew me were supportive, but my union wasn't warmly supportive until they had enough medical evidence to win a civil case as well. I felt very isolated and it has been a VERY difficult 9 months, with another 9 or so to go in all likelihood. Now that they have all the information and know that I didn't do what the company accused me of, they are completely supportive, but it's still difficult at times.
Because it takes time for ALL the information to come out, the union HAS to represent these pilots, to the BEST of their ability, until they get enough information to make a decision.
Sometimes the union elects to "drop" the pilot after System Board, but only if the evidence is OVERWHELMING that the pilot did what the company alleged. In my case, I'm lucky, there's lots of written evidence from medical professionals on my side. In other cases, it might not be so cut and dry.
That's why you elect a MEC who will be able to not play a popularity game and do the morally- and ethically-correct thing when it comes to a grievance, whether it's "winnable" or not. THAT is the ONLY definition of whether a grievance should or should not be fought all the way to arbitration.
Most times you and me, the line pilots, won't have enough information to make that judgment about someone else.
In this case, just because I think he was immature and being punch-drunk-stupid doesn't mean I think he shouldn't get his job back if he is terminated. I simply know how long and tortuous this route is and he could save himself a lot of heartache. If he were at a major, different story,,, Hard to explain on an interview why you left a major to go fly at a regional or supplemental or 135 company then try to go back to a major years later.
If you work for Pinnacle for over 12 months... sooner or later you are going to be in your supervisors office.....
That's about as true as it gets.
