DL Terminates Labor Activist Kip Hedges

[WorldTraveler]

Kip himself has acknowledged that DL's advocacy policy is the issue with which he was told he must comply and about which he did not.

I can't reproduce DL's advocacy policy here but you can certain access it if you have doubts about it.

I can reproduce this paragraph from the article which you linked and which provides the details from Kip, not DL, about the issues involved.

"In early 2012, Hedges said he was questioned by Delta management after he made critical comments about Delta’s use of part-time workers in ground jobs. Later, Hedges said he was given a “final warning” for violating Delta’s “advocacy policy” for attempting to get workers to sign union authorization cards. His appeals were denied."

again, Kip may be trying to regain lost wages etc based on his assertion that DL's internal policy violates federal law but I will strongly bet that DL has more than carefully made sure its internal policy does meet federal laws.

and if it doesn't, the court hearing Kip's case will not overturn DL's policy and even if that court decides to challenge DL's internal policies, the case will go to an appeals court because it is outside the scope of Kip's case.

 

[700UW]

But DL's policy doesn't superced Federal Law ie RLA.

 

[Kev3188]

I'll hear no more of your common sense & logic.

Still waiting to hear what specific portion of any company policy he allegedly violated.

Or maybe the company just doesn't like its people gettin' all uppity...

 

[WorldTraveler]

supersede, 700.

and that is exactly what DL believes. DL's rules don't supersede federal law.

Kip things he knew better and apparently tried to act as he wanted and then get a lawyer to find some way to make DL pay.

If Kip believed DL's regulations were invalid, breaking co. regulations, getting fired, and then trying to sue the company to prove it is a strategy that has been used by ex-employees in court many times and almost always fails.

just saying.

he or the IAM could have taken DL to court while he was still employed.

Seems like we just had a thread on the AA forum about learning to work within established structures or deciding that the laws aren't right and deciding intentionally to break them on your own.

and if you find enough people to agree with you and all do the same thing, then perhaps the company will blink.

or everyone pays the consequences.

uppity as in expecting an employee to do what DL wants? like clocking in at the beginning of a shift, securing the workstation when leaving for lunch, using appropriate language when communicating with fellow employees, letting the company speak for the company...

yep, they sure do have "uppity" expectations of their employees.

You have agreed to dozens of them for years as a DL employee just as you did an equally long list as a NW employee.

You just don't personally happen to like this particular policy but that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to decide you are going to do as you wish.

and the court can't take away DL's right to run its business in a way that it believes is right an d in conformity with the law.

and with which tens of thousands of DL employees have no problem in complying.

 

[700UW]

Total bull crap.

You are makes by crap up once again.

 

[Kev3188]

#IAMstandingwithKip

 

[WorldTraveler]

IOW- 700 can't admit that you just might be right, so you'll just throw dirt instead.

How big boy of you.

Will you be posting a copy of the check when Kip gets it?

yes, private companies DO have the right to dictate the terms of what their employees can and can't do.

btw, I have a copy of DL's advocacy policy on another tab of my computer at this moment.

It is easily accessible to anyone that has access to DL's internal employee systems.

It is also highly doubtful that there is anything in DL's policy that has been or can be found in violation of any federal law.

it is a pretty easy policy to follow... unless someone has specifically decided they will intentionally not follow it.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

................ he's very involved with other social justice causes.

 
Social Justice:  Word used mainly by American teenagers and those without a college education to describe the frustration they feel at their own failures in life.
 
Social Justice:  A Utopian fantasy based on the Leninist concept of "equality of outcome." It says that since you have more, it must be taken away from you to give to those who have less, so that you are both equal.
 
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social+justice

 

[southwind]

Social Justice is found right next to "Living Wage".....what ever the f$%& that means!

 

[Kev3188]

More brilliant analysis. Please continue to post.

 

[WorldTraveler]

actually, Kevin, the two posts before yours are devoid of brilliance altogether.

Social Justice isn't just about teenagers who can't find a decent job or finding a job that pays a living wage - but those things might be part of it.

Social justice is a commitment to ensuring that people are treated with respect with which they are endowed as humans in all aspects of their life and that massive inequalities in society are eliminated or addressed which limit the ability of some people to ever achieve a life that reaches the minimum standards that society says exists.

It involves addressing systematic failures of society. Social justice is part of the moral compass that drives compassionate society and it has been around for a very long time.

It is not a labor or governmental effort alone but also encompasses religious and moral elements.

Examples include minimum wage and job protection laws, the right to a certain level of education, access to healthcare, the war on illicit drugs and prostitution, etc etc.

While intelligent people have varying interpretations of what the minimums of social justice are for each element of social justice as well as the mechanisms for how to achieve it, only the most barbaric would argue there is no place for social justice in one form or another in modern society.

Those who repeatedly try to argue that I am anti-worker could not be more wrong.

My criticisms regarding the union movement reflect the inability of American labor unions to make progress in pushing a social justice agenda against what other organizations have done including governmental, community, and religious organizations which in many ways have been more successful in modern times than the labor movement.

Because rampant, uncontrolled, and amoral capitalism is creating more inequality in the developed world even while many of the poorest of the poor are benefitting, there has never been more of a need for social justice.


specific to Kip's case, the only real question based on what Kip has said is whether DL has the right to dictate how, where, and when its employees and non-employees can engage in advocacy on DL property and on DL time. Kip asserts DL violated that right. I say that based on DL's policy, it is very unlikely that DL's policy will be found to be illegal. Kip's claim for damages against DL appears to hinge entirely on whether DL was in the right to dictate a policy that Kip apparently chose to ignore even after a final warning.

The court will decide.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Those who repeatedly try to argue that I am anti-worker could not be more wrong

 
poser:  1.one who pretends to be someone whose not.  2. who tries to fit in but with exaggeration
poser:  someone who acts like someone theyre not,but not realizing that there being fake, basically a loser trying to fit in
 
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poser

 

[WorldTraveler]

and you have no idea who anyone is here or what they believe.

but let's throw stones at others, esp. me since that seems popular here, since two of us have thrown water on your childish comments about social justice.

We don't often talk about the values behind the union movement but I have repeatedly noted that I agree with many of the values of the union movement. I do not necessarily agree with the specific goals to achieve those values but I don't necessarily do that within a governmental or religious framework either.

once again, my criticism with the labor movement is that it is not achieving its goals.

if you would put your stones down you might actually have read what I have written on those topics.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

and you have no idea who anyone is here or what they believe.

 
There is plenty of information on here (e.g. almost 19k posts) for everyone to fairly accurately infer (deduce/conclude) what you believe.
Unless what you type is not true. 
But then that would make you a poser.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you have been more engaged in badger and taunt than fair assessment, so, no, you couldn't accurately assess anything.

again, you are the one that made the stupid comments about social justice and thankfully Kev finally threw cold water on them.

He and others need to bring the fire hose that is supplied by Lake Michigan water in January.