Originally Posted by
pinseeker
You can say "don't do XYZ" all you want and the government isn't going to come and arrest you. You can say that your boss is a #&!)* all you want, and the government isn't going to arrest you. That is freedom of speech. It doesn't mean that that speech can't have consequences such as your boss firing you if he/she hears it or the company suing the union or firing you if they think that you are the cause of an illegal job action because of your speech. Don't confuse freedom of speech with speech without consequences, they are not the same.
As far as the RLA goes, I don't think there is a list of forbidden speech in the text. It does forbid illegal job actions.
I think you are confusing two things I’ve said in regards to legality versus consequences. First, I’m talking about a theoretical first amendment right in the context of someone telling their fellow pilots to commit an illegal job action. Rick said it’s not because that only applies to government. My point is that it’s the government who has passed, enforced, and interpreted the RLA so you can’t write things online because they violate the RLA. So is it not a first amendment issue at that point?
My second point is a hypothetical wherein the RLA doesn’t exist. You would be free to tell pilots to go on wildcat strikes. But like you said, you may still run afoul of your company rules and be punished. And lastly, that in this scenario, the company wouldn’t have grounds to ask a judge to subpoena APC in order to find out who the person is.
To be clear, I’m not referring to consequences. I’m solely speaking to legality. It’s government that has made certain speech in this context illegal. Like I said earlier, before the RLA, you could legally encourage wildcat strikes. And again, what the company does with that is up to the company rules at the time.