Business Conduct And Ethics Policy

[PITbull]

My point, i guess was difficult to follow, is that I'm getting the impression that folks feel that corporations can make any policy they choose, even if it circumvents the laws, because they are outside gov. domain. I am fully aware that anyone can sue for any reason, if it is proven that no laws were broken, then the case could be thrown out or lost.

My point is that I don't get intimidated that easily, on these boards OR in real life. I don't plan on changing my tone OR what I post regardless of policy. If I personally get terminated for some new corporate policy, make no mistake, I will certainly sue, with all the "bells and whistles" that go along with that.

 

[Bear96]

My point, i guess was difficult to follow, is that I'm getting the impression that folks feel that corporations can make any policy they choose, even if it circumvents the laws, because they are outside gov. domain. I am fully aware that anyone can sue for any reason, if it is proven that no laws were broken, then the case could be thrown out or lost.

My point is that I don't get intimidated that easily, on these boards OR in real life. I don't plan on changing my tone OR what I post regardless of policy. If I personally get terminated for some new corporate policy, make no mistake, I will certainly sue, with all the "bells and whistles" that go along with that.

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that corporations can make policy that circumvents the law. However, they CAN make policy that does NOT break any law, and this new U policy, from what I understand of it, does not seem to break any law.

Of course it remains to be seen if U will actually try to enforce their policy. They may just wisely decide it isn't worth the hassle. My guess is you will not see it as the primary reason for disciplining anyone, but probably as a secondary reason. For example, they will probably not start any proceedings because someone posted something on the internet, unless it is extremely egregious. But if they are going after someone primarily for something else, they might just throw in this along with the kitchen sink as they are making their argument to get rid of the person.

 

[burghlaw1]

There is nothing that I need to add to what Bear 96 said.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Some better go back to 11th grade U.S. History class.

Yes, I agree that someone needs to go back to 11th grade history class. Only this time try to stay awake when they go over the Bill of Rights.

 

[nycbusdriver]

My point, i guess was difficult to follow, is that I'm getting the impression that folks feel that corporations can make any policy they choose, even if it circumvents the laws, because they are outside gov. domain. I am fully aware that anyone can sue for any reason, if it is proven that no laws were broken, then the case could be thrown out or lost.

My point is that I don't get intimidated that easily, on these boards OR in real life. I don't plan on changing my tone OR what I post regardless of policy. If I personally get terminated for some new corporate policy, make no mistake, I will certainly sue, with all the "bells and whistles" that go along with that.

No. Your original point was that USAirway's policy was unconstitutional and a violation of your freedom of speech rights. Now that your original tirade has been so thoroughly debunked, you want to backpedal and say that the freedom of speech issue was not your point. It was.

There are other laws that might apply, as has been pointed out. But in your original tirades you did not mention anti-discrimnatory laws, you said "freedom of speech" and "unconstitutional." And THAT was incorrect.

Live up to what you post. It's all here for anyone to read. And it's not difficult to follow what you said. What you said was easily understood, and was incorrect.

 

[nycbusdriver]

A few pages back someone mentioned a court case, which was not cited, regarding a similar matter on which a judge reportedly ruled. If a judge did indeed rule, now the incident(s) have been suppressed by the force of government, and it may then be a Constitutional case reviewable on freedom of speech grounds by the federal court system.

On another note, I recall many years ago that during his heyday, Texas Air Holdings under the management of Frank Lorenzo, was jokingly referred to as a "law firm which operated an airline as a sideline." This was said because Texas Air spent most of its time fighting with anyone and everyone in court, but especially fighting with labor. It certainly looks like Siegel is indeed using the Lorenzo playbook, as most of us have suspected for over a year. It finally took a judge to remove him from his throne, and Congress to remove him from the industry. Are you next, Mr. Siegel? Did you not read the final chapter? All the money being spent on lawyers and lawsuits is money down the toilet which could be better spent fixing the airline. Lorenzo learned that lesson the hard way. Will that be necessary for you, too, Mr. Siegel?

 

[USlurker]

If a judge did indeed rule, now the incident(s) have been suppressed by the force of government, and it may then be a Constitutional case reviewable on freedom of speech grounds by the federal court system.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Primarily because the court isn't preventing you from speaking, merely ruling that it is OK for your employer to fire you because of it. There is also a pesky problem that courts cannot be sued for anything arising out of their rulings (or any judicial act - Bradley 80 US 347)

Perhaps that aspect might help those still confused by the constitution. You are indeed to free to say whatever you like, but the company is free to fire to you based on what you say. Heck, I'd imagine more people get fired for saying something their company doesn't like than any other reason.

There are a number of specific exceptions, but "free speech" is certainly not one of them.

 

[Dog Wonder]

My concern with this whole issue isn't the legality of it. There is a corporate posture here that the only opinion that should see the light of day is a corporate position.

Given the conforntational approach management takes in both proposing and executing changes, the rank and file is steamrolled at every turn. At some point in time it is in the interest of the company to allow employees to speak their minds.

This rule is entirely separate from the one forbidding releasing proprietary information, it is much broader.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Primarily because the court isn't preventing you from speaking, merely ruling that it is OK for your employer to fire you because of it. There is also a pesky problem that courts cannot be sued for anything arising out of their rulings (or any judicial act - Bradley 80 US 347)

Perhaps that aspect might help those still confused by the constitution. You are indeed to free to say whatever you like, but the company is free to fire to you based on what you say. Heck, I'd imagine more people get fired for saying something their company doesn't like than any other reason.

There are a number of specific exceptions, but "free speech" is certainly not one of them.

I see the logic. It makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Peeky]

I've been reading this board for some time now, but have yet to post. However, after reading a copy of the Conduct/Ethics Policy booklet, I can not longer remain silent. I find the entire idea of this booklet comical coming from a group of amoral unethical corporate mongers like Dave and his CCY flunkies. Get a clue, guys, you'll get far more flies with honey than with vinegar. :angry:

Just my humble opinion...

 

[delldude]

A few pages back someone mentioned a court case, which was not cited, regarding a similar matter on which a judge reportedly ruled. If a judge did indeed rule, now the incident(s) have been suppressed by the force of government, and it may then be a Constitutional case reviewable on freedom of speech grounds by the federal court system.

i mentioned the case but i'll be dogged if i can find it...it was posted on another thread several months ago when everyone was spooling up about striking over the bus' issue. it was a warning to IAM types about getting too overly riled and what the consequences could be.
maybe some honorable squire could help??
i believe the issue was over an illegal walkout threat and several shop stewards had their hard drives taken.

 

[700UW]

This all may be for nothing

The link that was posted to report does not work.

I think someone might be messing with us.

 

[delldude]

This all may be for nothing

The link that was posted to report does not work.

I think someone might be messing with us.

you mean...WE ARE BEING WATCHED?COULD THIS BE WHY THE SERVERS WERE DOWN?

 

[tug_slug]

i believe the issue was over an illegal walkout threat and several shop stewards had their hard drives taken

Taking one's hard drive is a concept I don't quite understand. If you clean your temporary Internet files out, delete the cookies that are downloaded on to your harddrive what would be the point of taking someone's harddrive?

I realize that just because you delete material from you harddrive that it still exists and it can be retrieved provided the person working on the HD knows what their doing, but by simply buying the right software even that information can be deleted without the possibility of ever being recovered.

 

[delldude]

Taking one's hard drive is a concept I don't quite understand. If you clean your temporary Internet files out, delete the cookies that are downloaded on to your harddrive what would be the point of taking someone's harddrive?

I realize that just because you delete material from you harddrive that it still exists and it can be retrieved provided the person working on the HD knows what their doing, but by simply buying the right software even that information can be deleted without the possibility of ever being recovered.

but everyone doesn't use that software....best way i've heard to clear a hard drive is to use an aceylene torch or a good blast furnace if you have "compromising info".