On the AMP contact list is a Steve Stocker from TUL, and he even has a video. His contact for email is Steve.Stocker @aa.com. Is he a company man with AA's support or is he in violation of labor laws for organizing on the company's dime by using his AA email? Who is behind AMP if the TUL man is a company man?
who's your daddy
- Thread starter Observer
- Start date
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Some non-management employees have email with AA.com addresses. Hardly a new phenomena. Flight attendants who used to do restricted duty work at HDQ got email addresses, and I seem to recall guys in training having them as well.
If they're non-management, it's simply a bad idea to be using a company email address, not a violation of labor laws.
This is not about non-management using aa.com as their email home. If AMP is undertaking an organizing drive, which he advertises (Mr. Stocker), then there are labor laws that are in play. So if the Company is giving him a wink and a nod to organize using aa.com, then who's AMPs daddy?
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
A very weak argument, Observer....
If the company provided this guy a company email address as part of his normal job responsibilities, you're going to really have to try and prove how that constitutes management interference.
If management were reading all emails sent to him and taking action against those who emailed him about AMP, you might have a case. That's one reason I think it's a bad idea to use a company address.
If management all of the sudden revoked this one person's email privileges, you might also have a case for interference.
Anyway, since the conventional wisdom amongst the anti-TWU crowd seems to be that that the company will go to any length to keep the TWU in place, I'm actually curious to hear your half-baked theory on why the company would be anxious to see the TWU removed....
If the company provided this guy a company email address as part of his normal job responsibilities, you're going to really have to try and prove how that constitutes management interference.
If management were reading all emails sent to him and taking action against those who emailed him about AMP, you might have a case. That's one reason I think it's a bad idea to use a company address.
If management all of the sudden revoked this one person's email privileges, you might also have a case for interference.
Anyway, since the conventional wisdom amongst the anti-TWU crowd seems to be that that the company will go to any length to keep the TWU in place, I'm actually curious to hear your half-baked theory on why the company would be anxious to see the TWU removed....
Kev3188
Veteran
Maybe he checks his work email all the time as it is? Maybe he figured it'd be easy for people to remember? Who knows?
Not the brightest move, but it seems more like an oversight on this guy's part, rather than something conspiratorial...
Not the brightest move, but it seems more like an oversight on this guy's part, rather than something conspiratorial...
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
I can see how observer is fearful of a professional standing up for his craft and profession and using his real name. Darn it! Why hasn't the twu thought of that before!!!!!!!!!!! :angry:
To answer your last question in the above post the people behind AMP are individuals who do not believe in an undemocratic, unccountable union that puts dues collection before the membership. They are also people who believe in standing up and letting people know who they are when they speak. Don't you just hate that?
The activity of campaigning for representation, and objecting to perceived union and company malfeasance, is protected under both the RLA and the LMRDA.
The fact that the company gives many hourly Union represented workers a corporate email account does not equate to corporate interferance.
The fact that the company gives many hourly Union represented workers and Management the ability to receive and send personal emails, not AA business related, opens the door to behaviour that cannot be identified as abuse.
The fact that the company gives many hourly Union represented workers and Mangement the ability to access the Internet, for purposes other than AA business, opens the door to behaviour that cannot be identified as abuse.
I would not have used a corporate email account for organizing something to replace the TWU, and I have never bothered asking for Internet access; but, the fact that someone else did doesn't really mean anything other than AA needs to equally apply the rules, to both labor and management, for accessing corporate resources to the extent that they are only used for legitimate business purposes.
The fact that the company gives many hourly Union represented workers a corporate email account does not equate to corporate interferance.
The fact that the company gives many hourly Union represented workers and Management the ability to receive and send personal emails, not AA business related, opens the door to behaviour that cannot be identified as abuse.
The fact that the company gives many hourly Union represented workers and Mangement the ability to access the Internet, for purposes other than AA business, opens the door to behaviour that cannot be identified as abuse.
I would not have used a corporate email account for organizing something to replace the TWU, and I have never bothered asking for Internet access; but, the fact that someone else did doesn't really mean anything other than AA needs to equally apply the rules, to both labor and management, for accessing corporate resources to the extent that they are only used for legitimate business purposes.
Finally someone has found the smoking gun. Good job Observer. You have fulfilled the wishes of the International to prove their claim AMP is a "company union". Your real name will be written in the annals of TWU history.
Man of the People
Advanced
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 11
In addition, because AA owns the email addresses, they can go into a person's email address (without their consent). People should avoid using their aa email for personal use. Just a word to the wise.
D
DallasConehead
Guest
Again another rookie mistake, this guy should not be using AA email for organizing activities. There are enough other avenues for email, unless he doesn't have internet access while at work, which means he is opening his company email and responding to union organizing emails while at work. Is this allowed? Maybe so, in any case , it is bad form. The company has access to view those emails.
D
DallasConehead
Guest
Somehow I missed that part of it, where did the "ratting out" enter into the picture?
I strongly suspect the compAAny monitors this site. What other motive would Observer have, considering his posts are pro TWU, than to rat out Steve.
Right rookie mistake ha, we are very well aware the company is montioring this site and the company e-mail niether of which would be used for disscussions about our plans unless we wanted them to know,tell me how many people do you know that had information about the plans of AMP or when we would start our drive, if we had been routinely using company e-mail they would have known and informed the TWU.
From what I have seen the TWU was caught completely off guard as was the company, while you may fill your postion somehow allows you perspective on the inner workings of the commitee I assure you it does not. Tell us as the pro that you are what should be our next move and if it cost money are you going to pony up.
