More Repression now from ATL Chief pilot
06-26-2015, 06:59 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Here:
You purposely conflated Union organizing, with member criticism of their union, and then talked about the courts upholding it. Pure FUD. Union organizing isn't allowed, but nobody was discussing that. Criticizing your union is specifically allowed ANYWHERE by the NLRB.
Being anti-TA is protected by the NLRB. Your questioning of it is a scare tactic.
Carl
You purposely conflated Union organizing, with member criticism of their union, and then talked about the courts upholding it. Pure FUD. Union organizing isn't allowed, but nobody was discussing that. Criticizing your union is specifically allowed ANYWHERE by the NLRB.
Being anti-TA is protected by the NLRB. Your questioning of it is a scare tactic.
Carl
06-26-2015, 07:07 PM
#32
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Gomerglideslope
I think the point is that "constitutional thingy" doesn't give you the right to set up a table or pass out information in the pilot lounge if ALPA forbids it (or requires permission for such activity)
Carl
06-27-2015, 02:34 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,299
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Here:
You purposely conflated Union organizing, with member criticism of their union, and then talked about the courts upholding it. Pure FUD. Union organizing isn't allowed, but nobody was discussing that. Criticizing your union is specifically allowed ANYWHERE by the NLRB.
Being anti-TA is protected by the NLRB. Your questioning of it is a scare tactic.
Carl
You purposely conflated Union organizing, with member criticism of their union, and then talked about the courts upholding it. Pure FUD. Union organizing isn't allowed, but nobody was discussing that. Criticizing your union is specifically allowed ANYWHERE by the NLRB.
Being anti-TA is protected by the NLRB. Your questioning of it is a scare tactic.
Carl
06-27-2015, 05:23 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Decoupled
Posts: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by orvil
Considering the situation, I think the majority of us have shown admirable restraint. I know I have been very conscious of where the line is drawn.
On the other hand, we do have a right to freedom of speech. It's that inconvenient constitutional thingy.
Sailingfun,
As it was explained to me by a LEC rep, when the Company allows the P2P guys access to the lounge area, they have in effect converted the lounge area into a de facto union hall. This is covered in the Wagner, Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Acts.
By extension any member in good standing is allowed to freely express his opinion and voice his dissent in a union hall. This is considered protected speech and activity.
These union members in good standing only wanted to provide dissenting views and materials. They consulted with ALPA legal and DALPA Contract Administration prior to approaching the CPO and the P2P desk as to proper procedure and conduct.
This places the Company in an awkward position. They are a big Company with a lot of moving parts. They have to formulate a response. They haven't had the time to do this. They have not faced this issue before. They haven't made a decision either way. They have simply said stand by.
The greater question is the distribution of the materials from other DALPA councils. The ATL LEC does not want these distributed in the lounge. That is the legal question. Was this an MEC event or an LEC event? Given that the P2P guys are supplied and sanctioned by the MEC and that the LEC Chairman stated it was an MEC event, any materials on the DALPA website are appropriate to distribute.
The ATL LEC correctly did not prevent the dissenting members from participating in the lounge. They did object to the distribution of the materials from the other LEC's. The dissenters complied with this request. The ATL LEC's position was these other LEC communications were not accurate and did not come from the MEC. It's a sad state of affairs when one LEC doesn't honor another LEC's opinions.
It's a fascinating legal issue that has large implications.
Originally Posted by orvil
Considering the situation, I think the majority of us have shown admirable restraint. I know I have been very conscious of where the line is drawn.
On the other hand, we do have a right to freedom of speech. It's that inconvenient constitutional thingy.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
It's been consistently upheld in the courts that unions do not have the right to organize or promote other activities at company worksites or on the property. That is why you have never seen flight attendant Union organizers in the lounges. I believe even Dalpa has to get permission from the company to set up in the lounge every time. Did the anti TA group ask for permission to use the lounges would be the first question to ask. If on the other hand you set up in the terminal the company would have no say. You might however need a permit from each airport.
As it was explained to me by a LEC rep, when the Company allows the P2P guys access to the lounge area, they have in effect converted the lounge area into a de facto union hall. This is covered in the Wagner, Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Acts.
By extension any member in good standing is allowed to freely express his opinion and voice his dissent in a union hall. This is considered protected speech and activity.
These union members in good standing only wanted to provide dissenting views and materials. They consulted with ALPA legal and DALPA Contract Administration prior to approaching the CPO and the P2P desk as to proper procedure and conduct.
This places the Company in an awkward position. They are a big Company with a lot of moving parts. They have to formulate a response. They haven't had the time to do this. They have not faced this issue before. They haven't made a decision either way. They have simply said stand by.
The greater question is the distribution of the materials from other DALPA councils. The ATL LEC does not want these distributed in the lounge. That is the legal question. Was this an MEC event or an LEC event? Given that the P2P guys are supplied and sanctioned by the MEC and that the LEC Chairman stated it was an MEC event, any materials on the DALPA website are appropriate to distribute.
The ATL LEC correctly did not prevent the dissenting members from participating in the lounge. They did object to the distribution of the materials from the other LEC's. The dissenters complied with this request. The ATL LEC's position was these other LEC communications were not accurate and did not come from the MEC. It's a sad state of affairs when one LEC doesn't honor another LEC's opinions.
It's a fascinating legal issue that has large implications.
06-27-2015, 05:40 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
Originally Posted by orvil
Quote:
Originally Posted by orvil
Considering the situation, I think the majority of us have shown admirable restraint. I know I have been very conscious of where the line is drawn.
On the other hand, we do have a right to freedom of speech. It's that inconvenient constitutional thingy.
Sailingfun,
As it was explained to me by a LEC rep, when the Company allows the P2P guys access to the lounge area, they have in effect converted the lounge area into a de facto union hall. This is covered in the Wagner, Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Acts.
By extension any member in good standing is allowed to freely express his opinion and voice his dissent in a union hall. This is considered protected speech and activity.
These union members in good standing only wanted to provide dissenting views and materials. They consulted with ALPA legal and DALPA Contract Administration prior to approaching the CPO and the P2P desk as to proper procedure and conduct.
This places the Company in an awkward position. They are a big Company with a lot of moving parts. They have to formulate a response. They haven't had the time to do this. They have not faced this issue before. They haven't made a decision either way. They have simply said stand by.
The greater question is the distribution of the materials from other DALPA councils. The ATL LEC does not want these distributed in the lounge. That is the legal question. Was this an MEC event or an LEC event? Given that the P2P guys are supplied and sanctioned by the MEC and that the LEC Chairman stated it was an MEC event, any materials on the DALPA website are appropriate to distribute.
The ATL LEC correctly did not prevent the dissenting members from participating in the lounge. They did object to the distribution of the materials from the other LEC's. The dissenters complied with this request. The ATL LEC's position was these other LEC communications were not accurate and did not come from the MEC. It's a sad state of affairs when one LEC doesn't honor another LEC's opinions.
It's a fascinating legal issue that has large implications.
Originally Posted by orvil
Considering the situation, I think the majority of us have shown admirable restraint. I know I have been very conscious of where the line is drawn.
On the other hand, we do have a right to freedom of speech. It's that inconvenient constitutional thingy.
Sailingfun,
As it was explained to me by a LEC rep, when the Company allows the P2P guys access to the lounge area, they have in effect converted the lounge area into a de facto union hall. This is covered in the Wagner, Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Acts.
By extension any member in good standing is allowed to freely express his opinion and voice his dissent in a union hall. This is considered protected speech and activity.
These union members in good standing only wanted to provide dissenting views and materials. They consulted with ALPA legal and DALPA Contract Administration prior to approaching the CPO and the P2P desk as to proper procedure and conduct.
This places the Company in an awkward position. They are a big Company with a lot of moving parts. They have to formulate a response. They haven't had the time to do this. They have not faced this issue before. They haven't made a decision either way. They have simply said stand by.
The greater question is the distribution of the materials from other DALPA councils. The ATL LEC does not want these distributed in the lounge. That is the legal question. Was this an MEC event or an LEC event? Given that the P2P guys are supplied and sanctioned by the MEC and that the LEC Chairman stated it was an MEC event, any materials on the DALPA website are appropriate to distribute.
The ATL LEC correctly did not prevent the dissenting members from participating in the lounge. They did object to the distribution of the materials from the other LEC's. The dissenters complied with this request. The ATL LEC's position was these other LEC communications were not accurate and did not come from the MEC. It's a sad state of affairs when one LEC doesn't honor another LEC's opinions.
It's a fascinating legal issue that has large implications.
06-27-2015, 07:55 AM
#39
Get's Every Day Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by DFW Refugee
Interesting stuff.
I might suggest hanging a TA Facts sign/poster from your roll aboard handle to get other pilot's attention. Pair up if possible. Also, have a smartphone setup ready to film any 'interaction' with CPO and P2P types... Just might throw some water on their fires, so-to-speak.
Good Luck to Us!
DFW
I might suggest hanging a TA Facts sign/poster from your roll aboard handle to get other pilot's attention. Pair up if possible. Also, have a smartphone setup ready to film any 'interaction' with CPO and P2P types... Just might throw some water on their fires, so-to-speak.
Good Luck to Us!
DFW
06-27-2015, 09:32 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: 73 lifer
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Hey guys, a quick note about the scare tactics posted by guys like sailingfun, hitimefurl, KnotSoFast, etc...there are no worries about speaking your mind on social media. The ONLY thing you need to refrain from is criticizing your employer. That's it. From what I've read, almost nobody is doing that. In fact, most are amazed at how adept our management was at winning.
The criticism on this is clear, and that is of our union leadership and their behavior. That is, and always will be, 100% protected speech and unquestioned by your employer.
Carl
The criticism on this is clear, and that is of our union leadership and their behavior. That is, and always will be, 100% protected speech and unquestioned by your employer.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
