Headline Reads:

A federal court just ordered the pilots who fly your Amazon Prime packages to stop calling in sick excessively and refusing to work overtime

Because it is illegal!

https://www.businessinsider.in/a-federal-court-just-ordered-the-pilots-who-fly-your-amazon-prime-packages-to-stop-calling-in-sick-excessively-and-refusing-to-work-overtime/articleshow/70134783.cms

overtime bro. The rest of that stuff is totally unenforceable, yet effective.🙂

What's atlas going to do? Call a cop or fire them? lol 

you could make tuesday and the sun coming up illegal, too.

but that does not exist, so, again, academic at this point.

on their contract and employee hand book.

This was not. 

on your CBA, employee handbook and other contracts or papers to which both parties agreed prior to a difficulty arising.  Legal or not, what you agree to can be a real PITA down the road.

The use of suck time and voluntary workover are NOT the Same. The court lacks jurisdiction and the ruling has already been appealed and overturned. good try though. 

Federal Court Sides With Atlas Air In Dispute With Pilots

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a lower court ruling that pilots for Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Inc....

The decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for the union. Last summer, two arbitrators separately rejected the Atlas pilots' request to negotiate their next contract and instead imposed an arbitrated contract process. A U.S. appeals court also affirmed a district court decision that ordered the union to stop work slowdowns and related tactics, such as taking excessive sick days on short notice or refusing to volunteer for overtime shifts.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/federal-court-sides-atlas-air-223720660.html>

to 'volunteer' for overtime shifts?

Bit paradoxical but maybe that's just between my ears.  If an overtime shift is voluntary and one does not volunteer is that really a 'voluntary' OT shift?  Sounds more like a mandatory requirement, they ask, you do.  Sounds like employment to me but contracts and CBA and employee handbooks can be interpreted.

dThe norm is that the company has become accustome to a certain amount of overtime/workovers being conducted each pay period/month.   Just like the airlines do for pilot picking up Open Time.   They build it into the schedule.   it is predictible.   It is expected.   There is an economic norm established.

So, now you send the company official negotiation letters and enter into bargaining, and at the same time, CHANGE the norm to put pressure on the company.   That is a work action when you should be operating STATUS QUO (no changes).  You have union pilots calling for a "no overtime/workover" effort in order to put pressure on the company at the table.   It was openly stated.   They are attempting to call it "voluntary", but hey have established a normal to what "voluntary" means.   A simple statistical analysis from HR/Payroll can easily show a correlation to Section 6 vs the amount of overtime/workover that is being covered.   If there is a "norm" established, any deviation from that "norm" is easily correlated to a hush-hush economic workaction.   

That why the courts ordered them to cease and decist, and ordered the Union to denounce it offically and control their (militant) members from acting in a wildcat fashion.   It is ILLEGAL under the RLA to take action against your company until released by the NMB to enter self-help.   And, the quickest way for that to happen is for either of the two parties to enlist the mediation services of the NMB.   Seems the company did just that while the union complained they did.   Seems the company is seeking to come to a conclusiong in negotiation than the union, judging by that action.

BTW, seeking NMB mediation is generally a normal part of the process in negotiations, and is not considered to be bypassing it, as the union accused them of doing.

Each party is "required" to meet and confer on initial meeting dates and locations and then "required" to engage in "direct negotiations" between both of those parties. Only once either party is unwilling to continue or a stalemate is reached can either party break from direct negotiations and apply for mediation. Again, the more you speak it becomes abundantly clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Mediation is common in most all civil processes, howevwe, other requirements are to be met prior to getting to that point. Once one party says the "refuse" to engage in direct bargaining or work with the other party then it would seem you could apply. Only further proving the letter that it is AMC who is NOT willing or wanting to ratify the contract and they are the ones reusing to bargain. 

Mr Mayors I thought you would have learned all of this when the union crushed you and your false claims in court with the DOL several years ago....I see you are up to the same things trying to be a lawyer and wearing your tin foil hat. No one takes you serious and no one trusts what you have to say and for good reason.

Upon Section 6 Notice, parties are required to meet, but not necessarily on their own.  If you read the RLA carefully, EITHER party can request NMB mediation anytime.  Since the company has had experience dealing with this non-Transportation (ie, little experience in RLA labor relations), they know up front to simply/quickly solicit the aid of a mediator.   The message by the union claiming the company was bypassing policy was simply hyperbole, false, and antagonistic!   

Second, what "court case" are you referring to?   DOL had a court case?   They are an administration, not a court.   But, even then, what case are you referring to?   A peruse of the DOL website doesn't document any case.  You keep like bringing it up, but you keep it a secret as well.   Propaganda?

Open shift.

A judge can not make me work more than my scheduled shifts.  A judge can not make me do anything.  If I want to do extra work, whatever you want to call it, I will. If I don't want to do extda work, I will. Sounds like you are pressuring me to do something that I am not obligated to do.  

There must be a law against it

Contrary to that, the laws of my state PROTECT workers being able to choose whether or not to participate in voluntary overtime shifts

Your bringing union business public is a violation of the law and your oath as a union member. So, there that. Good Luck Jimmie the Mayors

unless you do more than just express your 1st Amendment Rights with respect to the matter.  

If you 'organize' an illegal action, well, then, it is probably not going to be received well, especially if you impact the companie's bottom line.

There is not law saying you can't talk about union business on a public forum, you are correct.  But there is a law (the RLA) saying you can't encourage work stoppages, interruptions of service, work slowdowns, or any other economic actions against your company during negitiations, since that is a form of self-help.   The two are very different, with the latter being ILLEGAL

For voluntary overtime is not in violation.

Sometimes I pick up a bunch of extra flying, sometimes I do not....it is legally my choice to determine when those happen

Don't think the Feds can do that unless the Wartime Powers Act is put into effect.  But in this Brave New Woke World I guess they can do what ever they want, none of the Milleys will question it.

To do whatever a court likes.  Doesn't alter the fact that I am the one who chooses when to pick up a shift 

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/disgruntled-pilots-blast-5-year-contract-with-atlas-air

Disgruntled pilots blast 5-year contract with Atlas Air

Wednesday, September 15, 2021

Limited by law from striking, the pilots worked to the minimum required by the contract to pressure the company to make concessions. Federal courts in 2019 ordered the union to stop work slowdowns and related tactics, such as taking excessive sick days on short notice or refusing to volunteer for overtime shifts. The courts also required the sides to follow an arbitrated contract process, much to the chagrin of pilots. 

"The pilots were excessively calling in sick, choosing not to work overtime, and other work-slowdown actitivies. Airline pilots are barred from most strikes under the Railway Labor Act, a law dating back to the 1920s and '30s that limits striking that could interrupt interstate commerce."

Don't think EMS pilots are barred from striking under RLA. 

Air Carriers and their employees are subject to the RLA.

Public operators and their employees are not subject to the RLA.

If you are subject to the RLA, you cannot strike until the NMB releases you to do so (releases you to self-help)

If you work in this industry, and desire to economically or operationally hurt your employer anytime, but especially during Section 6 negotiations, you should read the whole thing:

https://cite.case.law/f-supp-3d/280/59/

Finally, in a variation of its minor dispute argument, the Union makes glancing reference to provisions of the existing CBA that, in its view, permit or authorize the conduct that Atlas seeks to enjoin. It argues, for example, that the existing CBA bars pilots from refusing to work “‘normal’ overtime,” giving rise to an inference that pilots may refuse to work “unusual overtime.” Dkt. 56 at 10. But that position, once again, misunderstands the nature of Atlas’s claim. Atlas is not arguing that certain pilots were required to work overtime, or to volunteer for open time, under the existing CBA. Nor is it arguing that certain pilots violated the CBA by blocking out at the last minute or by calling in sick or fatigued. Rather, it is claiming that the Union'is violating the RLA by encouraging its members to engage in a concerted effort to do less — to stop helping out Purchase — in order to obtain leverage in the ongoing contract negotiations. That claim is not dependent on whether the underlying conduct is prohibited by the existing CBA but, rather, turns on whether the Union has orchestrated a concerted change in the status quo to influence the negotiations. See Delta Air Lines, 238 F.3d at 1307-08; cf. Elevator Mfrs.’ Ass’n of New York, Inc. v. Local 1, Int’l Union of Elevator Constructors, 689 F.2d 382, 386 (2d Cir. 1982) (“That the overtime was designated as voluntary in the contract does not ... render the concerted refusal *83to' perform it any less a strike.”) (citation omitted).

c. Open Time Flying

Atlas next alleges that the Union has violated the RLA by encouraging pilots to decline to volunteer for open time flying assignments. Open time flying is a common feature of airline operations, see Delta Air Lines, 238 F.3d at 1302, and begins with a flight that lacks a crew.. This can occur for a variety of reasons, such as sick calls, fatigue calls, delays due to maintenance issues, last-minute customer requests, or lack of sufficient staff. Dkt. 5-3 at 15-16. Regardless of the cause, Atlas attempts to fill open space in two ways. First, it has a supply of reserve crew members available each day. Dkt. 5-3 at 15-16. These pilots are required to be available to fly, but will not necessarily be close enough to cover a particular flight. Dkt. 5-3 at 16. In addition, there are occasions when the reserve is already fully utilized. Id. That leads to the second method of staffing open time: volunteers. Atlas sends out requests for volunteers for a given flight, and available pilots, who are offered premium pay to cover the open time, are then given the opportunity to bid on the available flight. Dkt. 5-3 at 16. When multiple pilots bid on the same flight, the open time trip is given (or, at least, should be given) to the pilot with greatest seniority. Id. It goes without saying that unfilled open time damages the company, which cannot complete the flight as scheduled.

...

Atlas has presented convincing evidence that, since the Union served its Section 6 notice, (1) the company has faced greater difficult in filling open time trips, and' (2) it has been unable to fill a greater proportion of its open time trips...

[bold emphasis added]

...

Reviewing these statements in the context of the overall record and in light of the Union’s recognition of the risk of making more explicit assertions, the Court is left with little doubt that the increased difficulty that Atlas has had in filling open time strips is a product of the Union’s campaign to apply pressure on Atlas in the ongoing CBA negotiations.

...

[finally]

For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over this dispute and that Atlas has carried its burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo while the parties engage in the process mandated by the RLA for resolving major disputes.

Which would be very easy to do, given the big effort here and statistical analysis if the amount of workovers change subsequent to Section 6 and this hush-hush campaign!

Overtime is voluntary.  

Charles Manson but that doesn't make it illegal yo

You guys are stepping in a hole you won't be able to get out of!

Fact - overtime, shift coverage and work over are voluntary.  They were voluntary a month ago and will remain voluntary.  

Can not force me to fly if I am sick.

Straight from the AIM

1. 1. The CFRs prohibit a pilot who possesses a current medical certificate from performing crewmember duties while the pilot has a known medical condition or increase of a known medical condition that would make the pilot unable to meet the standards for the medical certificate.

2. Illness.</strong>
   1. Even a minor illness suffered in day‐to‐day living can seriously degrade performance of many piloting tasks vital to safe flight. Illness can produce fever and distracting symptoms that can impair judgment, memory, alertness, and the ability to make calculations. Although symptoms from an illness may be under adequate control with a medication, the medication itself may decrease pilot performance.
   2. The safest rule is not to fly while suffering from any illness. If this rule is considered too stringent for a particular illness, the pilot should contact an Aviation Medical Examiner for advice.
3. Medication.
   1. Pilot performance can be seriously degraded by both prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications, as well as by the medical conditions for which they are taken. Many medications, such as tranquilizers, sedatives, strong pain relievers, and cough‐suppressant preparations, have primary effects that may impair judgment, memory, alertness, coordination, vision, and the ability to make calculations. Others, such as antihistamines, blood pressure drugs, muscle relaxants, and agents to control diarrhea and motion sickness, have side effects that may impair the same critical functions. Any medication that depresses the nervous system, such as a sedative, tranquilizer or antihistamine, can make a pilot much more susceptible to hypoxia.
   2. The CFRs prohibit pilots from performing crewmember duties while using any medication that affects the faculties in any way contrary to safety. The safest rule is not to fly as a crewmember while taking any medication, unless approved to do so by the FAA.