Originally Posted by
Guppydriver95
While I understand your position, did she actually violate the policy? I didn’t get all the way through, but it seemed that she was very careful never to mention her employer, Kirby, or anything that ties her to UAL. She was also in plain clothes. I’m thinking it was carefully done to avoid violating the social media policy.
It would be exceptionally easy to argue that she violated:
VIII.1.A(1) Willful violation of this Constitution and By-Laws;
VIII.1.A(3) Willful disobedience or failure to comply with an established policy or any other decision of the Board of Directors, the Executive Board, the Executive Council, or the member’s Master Executive Council, Local Executive Council, or Local Council;
VIII.1.A(6) Entering into an employment agreement, or any contract that might injure the Association.
VIII.1.A(9) Acting in any manner to circumvent, defeat or interfere with collective bargaining between the Association and an employer or with existing collective bargaining agreements.
VIII.1.A(10) Doing any other act that undermines the Association as an institution or interferes with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations. (emphasis mine)
(10) is kind of the catch all for anything the Association considers bad, and I can guarantee you that this would be the one they got her on.
As far as United, apparently she did slip up at one point and mentioned United, but beyond that, our media policy requires that she gain approval for "[discussing] United,
matters related to United, or our industry with the media." (again, emphasis mine) So even if she didn't mention United by name, it's still against policy.
I don't know that she didn't go through this process, but I have my serious doubts given her loose cannon nature and how much she clearly thinks she's bulletproof.