DL Terminates Labor Activist Kip Hedges

[700UW]

The state of MN found he didn't violate policy and made him eligible for unemployment benefits.

I see a nice lawsuit.

 

[WorldTraveler]

BTW Kip just posted his Unemployment Insurance Approval letter. It stated that he was NOT fired for any misconduct or violations of company policy. There findings determined that he was fired for making disparaging remarks against his employer. 

He was fired for exercising his First Amendment rights in other words.

Maybe Kev can get Kip's approval to post the letter?

more accurately, DL did not contest that he was fired for cause which means DL is willing to have his unemployment charged against DL.

The state of MN might have come to the conclusion as to why he was fired but that does not mean it is DL's reason or that DL did not have the right to terminate him.

That also does not mean there is a basis for a willful termination lawsuit.

You might double check how often DL indicates that it has terminated an employee for cause.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out just on this site, there are no free speech rights in the private sector workplace.
Free speech rights apply to the government regarding its citizens.

 

[700UW]

How do you know what HR at DL did?

I think Kip should contact DL and show them your post, you should have zero access to what DL had done with his case.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I have repeatedly said I don't know.

you and others have come to the conclusion that DL fired him for speaking out.

I don't know all of the reasons but have said that there is always more to the story, any story, than what is publicly known.
you and the IAM also have ZERO access to what has taken place in the case.

and, once again, all DL has said is that they will not contest the terms of Kip's unemployment compensation claim.

 

[WeAAsles]

I have repeatedly said I don't know.

you and others have come to the conclusion that DL fired him for speaking out.

I don't know all of the reasons but have said that there is always more to the story, any story, than what is publicly known.
you and the IAM also have ZERO access to what has taken place in the case.

and, once again, all DL has said is that they will not contest the terms of Kip's unemployment compensation claim.

Big Corporations retain an army of Lawyers that fight for every measure of the company's behalf and agenda. They almost never not fight an unemployment claim and when they do the success rate for that employee against the company is almost nill.

Why do you believe then in this instance they either didn't win or didn't even respond to the former employee's claim against them?

Keep trying to swim upstream man. You aren't a Salmon fish.

 

[WeAAsles]

no, he didn't call himself that at all.

You were the source of the use of the term regardless of how it was intended.

He wants to make a change and I can respect that.

Martyr is a bit much.

 
The word martyr is used in English to describe a wide variety of people. However, the following table presents a general outline of common features present in stereotypical martyrdoms.
 
Common features of stereotypical martyrdoms[6]

1. A hero A person of some renown who is devoted to a cause believed to be admirable. 2. Opposition People who oppose that cause. 3. Foreseeable risk The hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause. 4. Courage and Commitment The hero continues, despite knowing the risk, out of commitment to the cause. 5. Death The opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause. 6. Audience response The hero's death is commemorated. People may label the hero explicitly as a martyr. Other people may in turn be inspired to pursue the same cause.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr



 

 

[WorldTraveler]

Big Corporations retain an army of Lawyers that fight for every measure of the company's behalf and agenda. They almost never not fight an unemployment claim and when they do the success rate for that employee against the company is almost nill.

Why do you believe then in this instance they either didn't win or didn't even respond to the former employee's claim against them?

Keep trying to swim upstream man. You aren't a Salmon fish.

non-sense.

companies routinely do not challenge unemployment claims because they don't want to air internal dirty laundry or inhibit an employee's ability to find other employment.

It is also routinely why companies will not provide any more information in an employment verification than to confirm whether an employee worked for them or not.

 

[WeAAsles]

non-sense.

companies routinely do not challenge unemployment claims because they don't want to air internal dirty laundry or inhibit an employee's ability to find other employment.

It is also routinely why companies will not provide any more information in an employment verification than to confirm whether an employee worked for them or not.

Under the current situation that Delta finds itself in regarding organizing drives and knowing full well that Kip is a strong Labor advocate they absolutely would have fought his claim to quell any momentum to the cause it would have propelled.

Ridiculous to claim they wouldn't.

 

[WorldTraveler]

that is what YOU think. psst. you don't work in DL's HR dept.

but you still haven't answered the question about DL's practices for contesting UC. can you tell us the percentage of cases where they do that?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Big Corporations retain an army of Lawyers that fight for every measure of the company's behalf and agenda. They almost never not fight an unemployment claim and when they do the success rate for that employee against the company is almost nill.
Why do you believe then in this instance they either didn't win or didn't even respond to the former employee's claim against them?
Keep trying to swim upstream man. You aren't a Salmon fish.

Big Corporations retain an army of Lawyers that fight for every measure of the company's behalf and agenda. They almost never not fight an unemployment claim and when they do the success rate for that employee against the company is almost nill.
Why do you believe then in this instance they either didn't win or didn't even respond to the former employee's claim against them?
Keep trying to swim upstream man. You aren't a Salmon fish.

I think they will be working on a settlement with Mr. Hedges. They will offer him a severance package in the form of a settlement offer. Part of the settlement will be a "hold harmless", non-disparagement clause where he will go away quietly and never speak of, nor step foot on Delta property again. I have seen this done many times before to silence someone who is a thorn in the side of the company. It is worth it to them to do this. I have done several case studies on this exact situation. I have also seen judges issue consent decrees doing this covering small groups of a targeted class.

Whether he accepts this or not will be entirely dependent on how far the IAM is willing to go to support him. I suspect they will tell him not to accept any settlement offer. They will then hire him as a full time IAM organizer so he will have a job, and he can still pursue a wrongful termination suit using the IAM legal team as advice counsel.

This way, the IAM could use him as a chip to show what can happen to someone without any grievance process. Of course the company will use him as the same pawn, tacitly showing what can happen to you if you fail to fall in line at the wonderful widget.

Of course, I could be wrong on all of this.

 

[700UW]

WT You don't work for DL you aren't in HR and you stated DL so where did you get the information they didn't challenge it?

More than likely you are lying again.

And the IAM is involved as he was organizing and is protected by federal law and they are providing him with legal assistance. It's against the law to fire someone for organizing.

And once again you are making more claims or shall I say lies about there is more to the case.

I will make sure Kip gets a copy of your posts of lies about him and the situation so he can give it to the lawyers so he can challenge DL about them providing confidential information to you or it will prove your just lying once again.

 

[Kev3188]

That also does not mean there is a basis for a willful termination lawsuit.

You sure you didn't mean wrongful termination?

ACS employees are all At Will employees. We can all be "willfully" terminated by the company at any time, for any reason.

companies routinely do not challenge unemployment claims because they don't want to air internal dirty laundry or inhibit an employee's ability to find other employment.

Lol.

How magnanimous of them.

...Or maybe, they just don't want to be on the wrong end of a liability issue...
 
 

that is what YOU think. psst. you don't work in DL's HR dept.

Psst: Neither do you. "Making some calls" doesn't count.

I think they will be working on a settlement with Mr. Hedges. They will offer him a severance package in the form of a settlement offer. Part of the settlement will be a "hold harmless", non-disparagement clause where he will go away quietly and never speak of, nor step foot on Delta property again. I have seen this done many times before to silence someone who is a thorn in the side of the company. It is worth it to them to do this. I have done several case studies on this exact situation. I have also seen judges issue consent decrees doing this covering small groups of a targeted class.

Whether he accepts this or not will be entirely dependent on how far the IAM is willing to go to support him. I suspect they will tell him not to accept any settlement offer. They will then hire him as a full time IAM organizer so he will have a job, and he can still pursue a wrongful termination suit using the IAM legal team as advice counsel.

This way, the IAM could use him as a chip to show what can happen to someone without any grievance process. Of course the company will use him as the same pawn, tacitly showing what can happen to you if you fail to fall in line at the wonderful widget.

Of course, I could be wrong on all of this.

A completely plausible scenario.

 

[eolesen]

A completely plausible scenario.

Entirely agree. It's one thing to have someone from another company coming in to sell you on a union, but it would be hard to top someone DL fired for being that guy trying to look out for his fellow co-workers' interests.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL has its own employees trying to sell the IAM right now - on top of the paid IAM organizers.

It's nice to hear the confirmation that the IAM would pay someone to be an organizer - exactly as we have said exists all along.

I'm still waiting for the statistic from the HR experts on here regarding how often DL challenges UC claims.

and if your statement, 700, is correct, then it runs counter to the argument that weAAsles made.

could you all get in a corner and get your story together?

 

[WeAAsles]

DL has its own employees trying to sell the IAM right now - on top of the paid IAM organizers.It's nice to hear the confirmation that the IAM would pay someone to be an organizer - exactly as we have said exists all along.I'm still waiting for the statistic from the HR experts on here regarding how often DL challenges UC claims.and if your statement, 700, is correct, then it runs counter to the argument that weAAsles made.could you all get in a corner and get your story together?

And we're still waiting for you to admit that you're being paid by Delta for whatever it is you think you're doing here on this site.

Care to come clean?