DL Terminates Labor Activist Kip Hedges

[WorldTraveler]

if DL acted against the law, the word convict is appropriate whether it is legally correct or not.

again, you want to throw stones instead of admit that DL might be right and Kip might have pushed the limit that DL said and got caught in the process.

either outcome is possible.

I'm leaning far more to the side that Kip crossed the line DL set while DL had more than enough eyes watching the case to make sure they did what they legally could while catching Kip when he did exactly what was needed to fire him.

Again, let us know when you have evidence and the basis of law that shows DL screwed up.

and that is exactly why the case is going to court.

 

[700UW]

The facts will come out in court.
 
Nice try on trying to get inside information from Kip's side from the boards.
 
Not gonna happen.
 
Learn the RLA and the NMB on how certain types of behavior are protected under Federal Law which take precedence over DL's policies.

 

[Kev3188]

Why do any of that when you can just cast aspersions?

 

[eolesen]

Amazing how much runway people will use to try and cast doubt...

We used to call that "giving you enough rope to hang yourself"....

I'm guessing that Kip isn't looking for a settlement. What he's looking for is a chance to prove that DL was harassing and building a case for termination against someone solely because he was a union protagonist.

 

[WorldTraveler]

here's an aspersion for you, Kev

 

Nice try on trying to get inside information from Kip's side from the boards.

but he got one part out of 3 right: the facts will come out in court.

his final statement is the most problematic because 700 doesn't realize that companies DO have the right to limit the actions and activities of their employees and can do so without violating any other laws, including the RLA and NMB

DL absolutely has the right to limit its employees advocacy activities and restrict it to specific times and locations.

If Kip's intent was to challenge DL's policies, then I fully suspect that he will be proven wrong.

DL has been running an airline for 85 years and has managed to remain one of the least unionized airlines in the industry even post WWII when unions had their greatest strength in the US.

DL's advocacy policy has existed for decades and tens of thousands of employees have been able to live with it.


For ANYONE to think that DL hasn't COMPLETELY and FULLY identified what it can and can't do regarding employee advocacy and thinking that a sole employee can challenge it is nothing but foolish behavior that is asking for that person to get fired.

and as much as some want to believe otherwise, the answer would be the same regardless fo the company involved.

Large companies including DL have the resources to know what they can and can't do and only when either the employee or employer ignores a mountain of law and precedence can either side think they can change what has been the norm for decades.

I expect that DL's advocacy policy will be unchanged and if Kip thinks he is going to succeed based a challenge to DL's advocacy policy, it will be he who will fail.

the best part of a court is that a decision will be rendered unless one side or the other decides to drop the case or settles before a ruling is made.

It's not personal as much as some people here want to make it.

One side is either right or wrong and the other is the opposite. The court will figure out who unless the case is settled without a ruling or one party or the other backs out.

 

[Kev3188]

I'm guessing that Kip isn't looking for a settlement. What he's looking for is a chance to prove that DL was harassing and building a case for termination against someone solely because he was a union protagonist.

...And I'm guessing that you're correct...

 

[WorldTraveler]

good afternoon, Kev.
well then E, you, and I all agree on that part.

The part that remains to be seen is if DL believed that was what he was after and made sure that his strategy bit him instead. Given that he has spoken rather freely about the issues despite the fact that the case is going to court says the chance is there that he spoke his mind to DL mgmt. at various times as well letting them exactly what he believed.

Remember, we're talking about one person vs. a massive corporation.

You don't hesitate to paint the company as ruthless in other instances; I'm not sure why there is any doubt they could pull out all the stops if they felt like he was trying to frame them.

 

[700UW]

His actions are protected by federal law.

 

[Kev3188]

Apparently, that fundamental idea is (conveniently) lost on some people...

 

[WorldTraveler]

the only thing that is lost is that NO RIGHT can be used at any time and without restraint.

Let the case play out.

I will bet you your next profit sharing check, Kevin, that if the point of Kip's action was to challenge the legality of DL's advocacy policy, then Kip will not win.

DL absolutely has the right to limit when and where advocacy is done and DL doesn't violate any federal laws by doing so.

Are you in or not?

I'll show you bank statements that I am good for an equal amount of your 2014 profit sharing since that is known.

You and 700 can huddle and determine what part he is in since he doesn't get profit sharing or a retirement check.

It's time to fish or cut bait, gentlemen. Either you two are willing to back up your assertions or sit back and wait until the decision is made in court and let us know.

 

[Kev3188]

#IAMStandingWithKip