Republic sues the pilot union
03-29-2012, 11:32 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Stage Left
Posts: 366
Funny thing, this business of law. Interesting that their point of contention mentions as statement of fact that potential employees have withdrawn their interest in the company or have quit calling all together as a DIRECT RESULT of reading that website.
I'm pretty sure that they would have a very hard time convincing any judge or jury that a single person, let alone multiple people, were directly dissuaded from seeking employment 100% due to the fact that this website existed. In addition to that, there is no requirement by anybody related to either party to force anyone to go to and / or read the contents.
At worst, change a bit of the wording. Instead of, "If the pilots should strike while you are on probation, you will face a very difficult choice: strike with us and be fired by the company, or cross a picket line and earn the black mark of a scab."
..make sure you use words such as, "...could be...", or even, "..likely be", if precedent has been set.
If statements of fact are indeed fact, you will be fine.
I'm pretty sure that they would have a very hard time convincing any judge or jury that a single person, let alone multiple people, were directly dissuaded from seeking employment 100% due to the fact that this website existed. In addition to that, there is no requirement by anybody related to either party to force anyone to go to and / or read the contents.
At worst, change a bit of the wording. Instead of, "If the pilots should strike while you are on probation, you will face a very difficult choice: strike with us and be fired by the company, or cross a picket line and earn the black mark of a scab."
..make sure you use words such as, "...could be...", or even, "..likely be", if precedent has been set.
If statements of fact are indeed fact, you will be fine.
Last edited by DeltaPaySoon; 03-29-2012 at 11:50 PM.
03-30-2012, 12:18 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: B-73N FO
Posts: 532
Originally Posted by DeltaPaySoon
Funny thing, this business of law. Interesting that their point of contention mentions as statement of fact that potential employees have withdrawn their interest in the company or have quit calling all together as a DIRECT RESULT of reading that website.
I'm pretty sure that they would have a very hard time convincing any judge or jury that a single person, let alone multiple people, were directly dissuaded from seeking employment 100% due to the fact that this website existed. In addition to that, there is no requirement by anybody related to either party to force anyone to go to and / or read the contents.
At worst, change a bit of the wording. Instead of, "If the pilots should strike while you are on probation, you will face a very difficult choice: strike with us and be fired by the company, or cross a picket line and earn the black mark of a scab."
..make sure you use words such as, "...could be...", or even, "..likely be", if precedent has been set.
If statements of fact are indeed fact, you will be fine.
I'm pretty sure that they would have a very hard time convincing any judge or jury that a single person, let alone multiple people, were directly dissuaded from seeking employment 100% due to the fact that this website existed. In addition to that, there is no requirement by anybody related to either party to force anyone to go to and / or read the contents.
At worst, change a bit of the wording. Instead of, "If the pilots should strike while you are on probation, you will face a very difficult choice: strike with us and be fired by the company, or cross a picket line and earn the black mark of a scab."
..make sure you use words such as, "...could be...", or even, "..likely be", if precedent has been set.
If statements of fact are indeed fact, you will be fine.
03-30-2012, 05:51 AM
#26
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by Luv2Rotate
Where's the link? I'd like to check it out
, or go to http://rahcontractnow.org/
03-30-2012, 06:01 AM
#27
Underpaid...
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: French-Canadian
Posts: 2,101
Originally Posted by block30
Well, one could reference my snazzy new position , or go to http://rahcontractnow.org/
, or go to http://rahcontractnow.org/
03-30-2012, 06:07 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Position: Taco Rocket Operator
Posts: 2,485
Originally Posted by Emb170man
After 9/11 they "Fired" all the Chq probationary pilots, precident is there.
03-30-2012, 07:40 AM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by DeltaPaySoon
Funny thing, this business of law. Interesting that their point of contention mentions as statement of fact that potential employees have withdrawn their interest in the company or have quit calling all together as a DIRECT RESULT of reading that website.
I'm pretty sure that they would have a very hard time convincing any judge or jury that a single person, let alone multiple people, were directly dissuaded from seeking employment 100% due to the fact that this website existed. In addition to that, there is no requirement by anybody related to either party to force anyone to go to and / or read the contents.
At worst, change a bit of the wording. Instead of, "If the pilots should strike while you are on probation, you will face a very difficult choice: strike with us and be fired by the company, or cross a picket line and earn the black mark of a scab."
..make sure you use words such as, "...could be...", or even, "..likely be", if precedent has been set.
If statements of fact are indeed fact, you will be fine.
I'm pretty sure that they would have a very hard time convincing any judge or jury that a single person, let alone multiple people, were directly dissuaded from seeking employment 100% due to the fact that this website existed. In addition to that, there is no requirement by anybody related to either party to force anyone to go to and / or read the contents.
At worst, change a bit of the wording. Instead of, "If the pilots should strike while you are on probation, you will face a very difficult choice: strike with us and be fired by the company, or cross a picket line and earn the black mark of a scab."
..make sure you use words such as, "...could be...", or even, "..likely be", if precedent has been set.
If statements of fact are indeed fact, you will be fine.
It's a great capitalist goal to bring your wages down to these levels, but the law of supply and demand is rapidly catching up. The airline industry is renowned for treating their employees shabbily and making every effort to compensate poorly and THAT is the reason most people won't invest an extra $50-75K for flight training. Even if the airlines footed the bill, it's really not worth all the hassle for most anymore. Even the shiny metal of a new E190 wears off after 6-12 months and faster under constant abuse.
Soon they're ALL going to have a real problem with their businesses. My guess is they'll wait till it becomes a crisis and cry for help from someone.
03-30-2012, 08:01 AM
#30
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by What
I'm going to jump seat with ya, look at my new position!
Anyone else miss the 60's and 70's? 
Love train - The O'Jays (HQ) with lyrics - YouTube
People all over the world
Join hands
Start a love train, love train
Ride, let it ride
Let it ri-de
Let it ri-de
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
