US Pilots Labor Discussion

[BoeingBoy]

Charlie, you , are liar. The company did NOT give that to them and you are a liar. I bet you in your situational ethics now term Scherff "THE COMPANY" to make your schitzy case.

You're to the frothing from the mouth like a rabid dog now. "The company" is an inanimate object and thus can't do anything but exist. "The company" can't issue a paycheck, pay vendors, hire and fire, etc.

People in various levels of management act for the company, so they are the hands, feet, brains, etc of the company. So in that capacity, they are effectively "the company".

Jim

 

[Metroyet]

Luv, you've gone over the top. Care to cite the state law that you can prove has been broken? Care to offer proof of the the person passing the list to AOL knew there was more than name and address in the data. Care to offer proof that AOL knew that there was more than name and address in the data.

Proof is all that counts in court and all you have a 1 assistant chief pilot breaking company rules by giving the data to AOL. You can rant all you want here but it doesn't prove criminal liability.

I wonder if you carry on this way if you go to a restaurant, pay with a credit card, and the waitperson disappears for several minutes with your card? From what is known at this point, that waitperson can do a lot more damage to you than AOL could ever hope to.

Jim

Jim, it's not even worth the keystrokes. They're screaming because that's all they can do. USAPA was a huge mistake and a failure. I suspect the most vocal East posters here stuck their necks out to promote USAPAS lies and now they are personally having to answer very hard questions...so like true cowards, they grasp at anything to divert attention away from the fact that they're lies duped their brethren out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Me thinks they protest too much.

As per normal, AOL is 3 steps ahead of USCABA on this one. I promise you, no one is losing any sleep in the AOL camp.

 

[Black Swan]

Jim, it's not even worth the keystrokes. They're screaming because that's all they can do. USAPA was a huge mistake and a failure. I suspect the most vocal East posters here stuck their necks out to promote USAPAS lies and now they are personally having to answer very hard questions...so like true cowards, they grasp at anything to divert attention away from the fact that they're lies duped their brethren out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Me thinks they protest too much.

As per normal, AOL is 3 steps ahead of USCABA on this one. I promise you, no one is losing any sleep in the AOL camp.

Sleep tight! We are getting the donations right now. You are going to enjoy being on the other end of the legal spectrum this time. Your cries of harm are just that cries. We have got AOL on violation of federal and state law. Hard and fast.

 

[CallawayGolf]

DENIAL. It doesn't matter if they used it. The fact they got it from a company source, and possessed them is in itself, a crime. You can possess a submachine gun and not use it and still be prosecuted. Possession in itself is criminal behavior.

Possession of what exactly? Possession of names and addresses is not illegal.

There is a process that must be followed. First a law enforcement agency would need to believe that a crime was committed. Second that agency would need to get a search warrant with probable cause to go on a searching expedition. Third, if any incriminating evidence was found, that would need to be turned over to the DA/AG for review. Fourth, the DA/AG would need to decide if a law was broken and if the evidence supports a prosecution on behalf of the people they represent. Fifth, a judge would have to hold a trial based on the evidence and ultimately render a verdict. Then and only then could you make a claim that a crime was committed.

If Leonidas requested a list of names and address and the Company supplied the list then no crime was committed. If the company inadvertently included PII in the list, then they may have something to answer for, not Leonidas. Even at that, Identity Fraud laws require proof that criminal acts or intentions were the purpose behind the PII information to be considered a violation of the law. That is a very high burden of proof considering the circumstances as we all know them to be based on statements made thus far. So far the only known purpose of the information was to send factual mailings to private addresses - no crime there.

 

[Metroyet]

Sleep tight! We are getting the donations right now. You are going to enjoy being on the other end of the legal spectrum this time. Your cries of harm are just that cries. We have got AOL on violation of federal and state law. Hard and fast.

Swing for the fences there Scabby.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim, it's not even worth the keystrokes.

I know. It's just hard to believe that what are supposed to be sane, rational adults can behave the way they do. All emotion and no reasoning. Makes one wonder if they're this way in the real world, outside the fantasy they've constructed. They weren't this rabid over the RICO suit and we all know what happened with that.

Jim

 

[crazystnic]

Interesting...

So the company is committing a crime by merely possessing your SS#? How about the credit bureaus? Your bank? The IRS? Your mortgage lender? Whoever financed your car? Your credit/debit card issuer? All of those and many more possess your SS#, so they're all guilty of a crime?

You Easties have gone off the deep end this time...

Jim

******************************

Jim, the compnay I don't think commited a crime, but individuals employed by the company appear to have.

And AOL was a co conspirator.

the people you cite you applied for a mortgage a loan... I didn't apply for anything.

In fact I sent my mailor back...

but


Mortgage companies like the one I work for are obligated to follow the Graham - Leach ACT.

I just finished my continuing ED for this year and privacy is a big hot topic now.

so it's not just a little mistake.

It's Theft.

but what to expect from a group who is trying to steal our senority...

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Here we go with the co-conspirator crap again.

 

[CallawayGolf]

******************************

Jim, the compnay I don't think commited a crime, but individuals employed by the company appear to have.

And AOL was a co conspirator.

the people you cite you applied for a mortgage a loan... I didn't apply for anything.

In fact I sent my mailor back...

but


Mortgage companies like the one I work for are obligated to follow the Graham - Leach ACT.

I just finished my continuing ED for this year and privacy is a big hot topic now.

so it's not just a little mistake.

It's Theft.

but what to expect from a group who is trying to steal our senority...

Whatever is or isn’t going on here has nothing to do with the GLB Act. The Company has a duty, both regulatory and contractually, to ensure safeguards are in place to protect employee and customer PII. That doesn’t mean that the Company doesn’t share certain portions of employee or customer data while still maintaining regulatory and contractual compliance. There are no small number of governmental agencies and private businesses that have this information supplied to them by the Company (FAA, IRS, United Health Care, etc.).

If you are like me you probably have received mailings from companies like Metlife, whom I never did business with, but they know that I received a paycheck from US Airways and had special discounts to offer me. Does this represent a criminal act? If not, why is it okay for Metlife to have my name, address, and employment status with US Airways but not Leonidas? Legally, what constitutes the difference?

 

[BoeingBoy]

******************************

Jim, the compnay I don't think commited a crime, but individuals employed by the company appear to have.

Perhaps you'd like to cite the law that was broken based on what's known at this point. As I've said, name and address lists are almost everywhere. If you can prove that complete SS# was in the file we're discussing, and that the data was known to be in the file, you might have a case, but no one has offered a shred of proof yet.

If it turns out that a law was broken, I'd disagree with you statement that the company didn't commit a crime. Again, if the law was broken, the asst. chief pilot was acting as a representative of the company.

So far, though, I haven't found any reference that says distribution of name and address is illegal - that is not non-public information. It's my opinion that if neither side of the transaction was even aware that partial SS# were included it would be difficult getting a conviction.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Legally, what constitutes the difference?

That is a key question. As I've said at least twice now, sharing of name and address is not illegal. There's a question about SS# but it is unclear whether full SS# were even inadvertently shared.

There IS a lot of Easties hanging a few West pilots without investigation, trial, or verdict.

Jim

 

[Barrister]

Perhaps you'd like to cite the law that was broken based on what's known at this point. As I've said, name and address lists are almost everywhere. If you can prove that complete SS# was in the file we're discussing, and that the data was known to be in the file, you might have a case, but no one has offered a shred of proof yet.

If it turns out that a law was broken, I'd disagree with you statement that the company didn't commit a crime. Again, if the law was broken, the asst. chief pilot was acting as a representative of the company.

So far, though, I haven't found any reference that says distribution of name and address is illegal - that is not non-public information. It's my opinion that if neither side of the transaction was even aware that partial SS# were included it would be difficult getting a conviction.

Jim

You sir are just dumber than dirt if you don't recognize the seriousness of this.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[BoeingBoy]

You sir are just dumber than dirt if you don't recognize the seriousness of this.

NICDOA
NPJB

OK B, what facts do you know and laws can you cite that make this so serious?

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Silence?

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

Whatever is or isn’t going on here has nothing to do with the GLB Act. The Company has a duty, both regulatory and contractually, to ensure safeguards are in place to protect employee and customer PII. That doesn’t mean that the Company doesn’t share certain portions of employee or customer data while still maintaining regulatory and contractual compliance. There are no small number of governmental agencies and private businesses that have this information supplied to them by the Company (FAA, IRS, United Health Care, etc.).

If you are like me you probably have received mailings from companies like Metlife, whom I never did business with, but they know that I received a paycheck from US Airways and had special discounts to offer me. Does this represent a criminal act? If not, why is it okay for Metlife to have my name, address, and employment status with US Airways but not Leonidas? Legally, what constitutes the difference?

You guys are extremely slippery when it comes to the truth. Here is the BIG difference. Read carefully. An employee of Metlife did not, did not, give another Metlife employee your addresses bundled with your social security number. You know the importance of a social security number. You repeatedly, with your cronies continue to ignore the basic truth that an asst chief pilot, gave 2 other employees addresses, and social security numbers. All of which is a violation of corporate ethics, for starters. As usual, you conveniently leave out the SOCIAL SECURITY number issue.