DL Terminates Labor Activist Kip Hedges

[Kev3188]

In this case, "lost wages and benefits"'might also mean future earnings. Also, he's getting WC, so that factors in as well.

I suspect E is right in that he is more interested in getting a RLA ruling against DL than he is anything for himself.

 

[topDawg]

thanks for the update, Kev.

but honestly, if all he is asking for is $75K, the case is finished esp. since he is apparently on workman's comp.

$75K is a year's salary and benefits for a topped out employee. He doesn't apparently even seek reinstatement.


DL will assert it has the legal right to hold its employees to their own policies but a $75K settlement doesn't speak terribly loudly to major wrongdoing on DL's part.

why would he? 
 
that is one of those things, if i were him the only reason i would try to come back is so that i could just turn around a quit on my terms. 
 
when a company fires me, right or wrongly, i have no interest coming back. Chance are you will have to watch your back 24/7/365 and will still be treated like crap. JMO. 
 
(and im not referring to Delta, just in general.) 

 

[Kev3188]

Agreed.

On top of that, besides organizing at DL, he's very involved with other social justice causes. It's not like he's sitting at home with nothing else going on.

 

[WorldTraveler]

why would he? 
 
that is one of those things, if i were him the only reason i would try to come back is so that i could just turn around a quit on my terms. 
 
when a company fires me, right or wrongly, i have no interest coming back. Chance are you will have to watch your back 24/7/365 and will still be treated like crap. JMO. 
 
(and im not referring to Delta, just in general.)

because he worked for DL on DL's terms and DL gets to dictate the terms of when he goes if he didn't follow their rules.

The case is going to court just like the DAL issue.

since even Kip acknowledges that he was counseled by DL regarding its advocacy policy and then apparently given another warning which he chose to ignore, the chances are very high that DL will argue that its policy is valid and supersedes anything in the RLA.

even the RLA does not give an employee carte blanche freedom to do what they want and when they want to do it.

DL has been running an airline longer than any of us here have been alive and they have been largely non-union for that entire time.

given that the illustrious ex-VP of labor relations and supposedly anti-labor lawyere is apparently not sitting on a porch in N. Georgia, it is likely he has had a look at his case.

It is very unlikely that someone can now come along and pull a "we found a loophole you never saw, DL" argument.
 

In this case, "lost wages and benefits"'might also mean future earnings. Also, he's getting WC, so that factors in as well.

I suspect E is right in that he is more interested in getting a RLA ruling against DL than he is anything for himself.

you can't have lost what you don't have. He hasn't worked for DL for a year and one half.

and the chances that DL will be found guilty of an RLA violation are somewhere between the chances of a meteor hitting MSP this morning and nil.

given the relatively small amount of the suit, DL will settle it if there is even a chance that DL would be convicted.

or, he might just lose the suit and be sent packing.

an conviction against a company in an HR case is highly unlikely.

a private settlement with no admission of wrong doing is far more likely if DL even feels like settling.

 

[topDawg]

because he worked for DL on DL's terms and DL gets to dictate the terms of when he goes if he didn't follow their rules.

The case is going to court just like the DAL issue.

What are you rambling about? 
Try to read my post again and say something that makes sense 

 

[WorldTraveler]

I have simply said that Kip apparently thinks he is smarter than DL's lawyers who have clearly been over DL's policies over and over again to make sure they conform with applicable laws.

I believe it is highly unlikely that DL will be found to have taken away rights that an employee was supposed to have.

as such, DL absolutely has the right to dictate the terms of its employees' employment, including via the advocacy policy.

and if DL was right in terminating him even AFTER warnings, which he acknowledged that he received, then he doesn't get a chance to get rehired and leave on his terms.

 

[topDawg]

I have simply said that Kip apparently thinks he is smarter than DL's lawyers who have clearly been over DL's policies over and over again to make sure they conform with applicable laws.

I believe it is highly unlikely that DL will be found to have taken away rights that an employee was supposed to have.

as such, DL absolutely has the right to dictate the terms of its employees' employment, including via the advocacy policy.

Delta has never screwed up is what you are saying? 
 
 
More importantly WT, I didn't say a thing about that. I simply said Kip probably didn't try to get his job back because he didn't want it back. Thats all. Unlikely you I am not a lawyer and a judge and the NMB and someone who has the smallest clue what happened in the case. Thus i wont comment on if Delta is right or wrong. 

 

[700UW]

I have simply said that Kip apparently thinks he is smarter than DL's lawyers who have clearly been over DL's policies over and over again to make sure they conform with applicable laws.

I believe it is highly unlikely that DL will be found to have taken away rights that an employee was supposed to have.

as such, DL absolutely has the right to dictate the terms of its employees' employment, including via the advocacy policy.

You have no clue about Kip's case, what evidence he and his LAWYER have with the backing of the IAM.
 
You are just anti-worker and anti-union and you have zero information on what will happen.
 
You worship DL like its cult.

 

[Kev3188]

I simply said Kip probably didn't try to get his job back because he didn't want it back. Thats all.  

That's entirely plausible. Personally, I agree with the earlier post about coming back just long enough to resign/retire/whatever, but that's up to him, not us.

 

[robbedagain]

I wish him all the best and good luck in his lawsuit    hopefully he wins it

 

[eolesen]

I'm with Dawg - I wouldn't want to return to a working relationship they chose to make hostile.

It's also why I never bought into the recall/reinstatement crap in the seniority system. Lay me off if you have to, but don't expect me to bother waiting around for you or for me to quit the job I found in the meantime.

 

[jimntx]

E, surely you don't apply that negative attitude about recall to Flight Attendants.  The alternative to waiting around for recall is going out and finding a real job. Go to the same place every day?  At the same time, every day?  Work with the same people, EVERY DAY?  EWWW.   

 

[eolesen]

Yeah, well, I guess you might say flight attendants can be an anomaly...

 

[WorldTraveler]

There is no length of time that makes a working environment good or bad. Some can sour on their work in hours while others can spend decades and still be happy
And given that there are plenty of DL employees who never are counseled about following DL policies let alone have to receive a final warning, attwmpts to generalize a bad situation created by the company fall flat on their face

No one know the specifics but when even Kip acknowledges that he was counseled about following DL policies and he chose not to do so only to argue the legality of what DL required, I will put my faith that ANY large corporation has a far better grasp of what they can require than an employee who thinks he can do what he wants

The more of the case that Kip chooses to share publicly the more apparent it is that he doesn't have much if any case

 

[Kev3188]

I'm with Dawg - I wouldn't want to return to a working relationship they chose to make hostile.

Exactly.

And I'm still waiting to hear what specific policy he allegedly broke.

Let's also remember that he has already received a favorable ruling in MN employment court. Obviously not the same, but a good sign nonetheless, IMO...