DL Terminates Labor Activist Kip Hedges
- Thread starter eolesen
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
Kev3188
Veteran
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
and what none of us know is if what he is saying were the issues regarding his violation of the advocacy policy are the sum total of what DL says he violated.
He might choose to NOT indicate all that DL told him he did which resulted in the violation.
If the charge is solely advocating on his own time on airport roadways, then he might be right.
But the ins and outs of what is and is not DL property is very complex.
and it is also very likely that DL has been watching him for years and was waiting for when he violated DL rules and on which DL could act.
I don't know the facts of the case and neither does anyone else because it is in his personnel file but I would strongly bet that DL acted within its policy and DL knows what it can and cannot legally require of its employees.
He might choose to NOT indicate all that DL told him he did which resulted in the violation.
If the charge is solely advocating on his own time on airport roadways, then he might be right.
But the ins and outs of what is and is not DL property is very complex.
and it is also very likely that DL has been watching him for years and was waiting for when he violated DL rules and on which DL could act.
I don't know the facts of the case and neither does anyone else because it is in his personnel file but I would strongly bet that DL acted within its policy and DL knows what it can and cannot legally require of its employees.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
how many decades old is that case? and she was rehired was she not?
you are so willing and wanting to throw stones instead of deal with the facts.
I am not anti-worker. I am not even anti-union. I am critical of unions for failing to achieve their goals relative to other systems which are doing a better job.
I also cannot pretend to ignore that every company has the right to dictate the terms of employment for its own employees, whether it be how long they can take for lunch breaks, use of personal communications devices while on company time, or what they can and can't say to customers and other employees at defined times and places that the company controls, including both company space when an employee is off the clock and on the clock activities in any location.
what you can't accept, and none of us know with certainty because none of us except DL and Kip know - is that DL very well might have caught Kip acting against company policy which he either did not want to believe applied to him or because he crossed a line which he did not correctly know where it existed while trying to push his cause even though he admits having been counseled by DL about his advocacy efforts.
the case is going to trial and the judge is likely the only one that will know the full details of what took place - but as I have repeatedly said there is information in Kip's personnel file that will provide insight that no one here has been willing to exist might have put Kip on a whole lot slippier slope than he has been willing to admit.
again, tens of thousands of other employees have been able to work within DL's restrictions and no one else has been successful in proving that DL is wrong.
Perhaps this is the first time someone will succeed against DL.
but it is also possible and probably likely that DL knew what it was doing, Kip was trying to push the limits, and DL caught him in the process.
that is not anti-worker or anti-union.
it is PRO-working within established structures which is the basis of organized society.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
once again you demonstrate that you would rather fight and be obtuse than read and understand.
it is no surprise that all you can do is throw stones based on your incorrect understanding of what is said.
it is no surprise that all you can do is throw stones based on your incorrect understanding of what is said.
Kip and his lawyers know exactly what they are doing, they know all the ins and outs of the case and most of all the facts.
And Kip and his lawyers know exactly what they are looking for from the courts, you dont.
You on the other hand arent a DL employee, dont work in Labor Relation or Human Resources for DL and never have.
You know nothing and making up crap from what you read in the paper.
You worship DL like its a God.
And Kip and his lawyers know exactly what they are looking for from the courts, you dont.
You on the other hand arent a DL employee, dont work in Labor Relation or Human Resources for DL and never have.
You know nothing and making up crap from what you read in the paper.
You worship DL like its a God.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
they don't need to know most of the facts.
They need to know ALL of them.
You can only throw a charge of worshipping DL because you can't admit that maybe, just maybe, Kip really did screw up after DL told him to walk a very straight line and he refused to do so while DL was watching and ready to pounce the first time he screwed up.
maybe, just maybe that was what happened
If what Kip says is the paper is not accurate, then there is no basis for knowing anything about the case.
They need to know ALL of them.
You can only throw a charge of worshipping DL because you can't admit that maybe, just maybe, Kip really did screw up after DL told him to walk a very straight line and he refused to do so while DL was watching and ready to pounce the first time he screwed up.
maybe, just maybe that was what happened
If what Kip says is the paper is not accurate, then there is no basis for knowing anything about the case.
Kev3188
Veteran
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
I have posted no contradictions.
just like FF, you bring your own bias and prejudice to the conversation and cannot accept that maybe there is a truth which you can't hear because you don't want to.
IN this case, I have repeatedly noted that you, I, and everyone else except Kip and DL HR do not know what has gone on in this case.
I have also said that it is very, very likely that DL knew exactly what it was doing and told Kip what he could and could not do and Kip either refused to obey or pushed the limits either knowingly or accidently and stepped over the line which DL had drawn and beyond which DL had the right to fire him.
DL isn't talking. Kip has said his part but there is no way to know if he has told all of the truth.
that is the reason why the case is going to court.
What is certain is that this case went all the way up to executive if not the CEO level before DL fired him. They undoubtedly had so many eyes looking at the case making sure no one missed anything that the chances of DL screwing up are slim.
The only doubt being cast is by this who are convinced that DL is the one at fault despite having plenty of resources and legal counsel and not a sole employee.
If Kip was as certain of his case, then he should be asking for a whole lot more than he is.
I suspect his lawyer is simply hoping that DL will find it a nuisance case based on a relatively small amount and settle with him with no admission of guilt.
let's see but I doubt very, very seriously that you or anyone else will ever see DL convicted of or settle the case by admitted a violation of the RLA or any other laws.
Given Kip's public attempts to challenge DL and its policies, it is very likely that DL will push the case as far as necessary to make absolutely certain it is proven right and no precedent is or can be set.
let me know if/when you have court documents that say otherwise.
I absolutely can admit it if DL overstepped its legal authority to regulate its employees' actions.
I'm not sure that others can make the same admission if the case turns out with the employee losing instead of DL.
just like FF, you bring your own bias and prejudice to the conversation and cannot accept that maybe there is a truth which you can't hear because you don't want to.
IN this case, I have repeatedly noted that you, I, and everyone else except Kip and DL HR do not know what has gone on in this case.
I have also said that it is very, very likely that DL knew exactly what it was doing and told Kip what he could and could not do and Kip either refused to obey or pushed the limits either knowingly or accidently and stepped over the line which DL had drawn and beyond which DL had the right to fire him.
DL isn't talking. Kip has said his part but there is no way to know if he has told all of the truth.
that is the reason why the case is going to court.
What is certain is that this case went all the way up to executive if not the CEO level before DL fired him. They undoubtedly had so many eyes looking at the case making sure no one missed anything that the chances of DL screwing up are slim.
The only doubt being cast is by this who are convinced that DL is the one at fault despite having plenty of resources and legal counsel and not a sole employee.
If Kip was as certain of his case, then he should be asking for a whole lot more than he is.
I suspect his lawyer is simply hoping that DL will find it a nuisance case based on a relatively small amount and settle with him with no admission of guilt.
let's see but I doubt very, very seriously that you or anyone else will ever see DL convicted of or settle the case by admitted a violation of the RLA or any other laws.
Given Kip's public attempts to challenge DL and its policies, it is very likely that DL will push the case as far as necessary to make absolutely certain it is proven right and no precedent is or can be set.
let me know if/when you have court documents that say otherwise.
I absolutely can admit it if DL overstepped its legal authority to regulate its employees' actions.
I'm not sure that others can make the same admission if the case turns out with the employee losing instead of DL.
