Merged: Joe Eakins: Brave?....or....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe's colleagues certainly stood by him; by joining the union movement to ensure levels of membership higher than ever before in this airline and by donating their own money directly to his cause.
To presume that the remaining 600 or so pilots in JQ have wronged Joe by not walking off the job is naive and misses the following points;
1) It is illegal to do so.
2) It leaves each individual pilot open to legal action and liable for their share of damages caused by such a breach of the Fair Work Act.
3) It would potentially have invited Federal Government intervention in much the same way as occurred during whatever year that was in the late 1980s which would have put the entire profession back decades. Just as it arguably did before.
4) It wouldn't have in any way, shape or form helped Joe's unfair dismissal case.
5) It wouldn't have in any way, shape or form caused Qantas, Virgin, VAustralia, Tiger, Alliance, Skywest or any other airline's pilots from joining the cause for the same reasons as 1-4 above.
Some of you have so arrogantly decried Joe's actions but forget that you are using the veil of anonymity to mask your attacks and I have no doubt have not done a thing to back up Joe yourself other than say some warm-and-fuzzy words of support on one of these PPRUNE threads.
Yet the second Joe does something to help his own personal fortunes (after taking so many hits it would make any lesser man's head spin), you immediately attack him? Shame on you!
Have a good hard look at yourselves and try to calculate who is really guilty of hurting the cause here and as you do, remember this. Joe has his career back, AIPA has a moral victory and Jetstar look as if they've publically caved to the pressure of professional airline pilots and their industrial organisations for the first time. Regardless of what 'words' Joe chose to put his name to.
The wheel turns slowly, but turning it is. This will prove to be one very strong spoke in that wheel as time moves on.
To presume that the remaining 600 or so pilots in JQ have wronged Joe by not walking off the job is naive and misses the following points;
1) It is illegal to do so.
2) It leaves each individual pilot open to legal action and liable for their share of damages caused by such a breach of the Fair Work Act.
3) It would potentially have invited Federal Government intervention in much the same way as occurred during whatever year that was in the late 1980s which would have put the entire profession back decades. Just as it arguably did before.
4) It wouldn't have in any way, shape or form helped Joe's unfair dismissal case.
5) It wouldn't have in any way, shape or form caused Qantas, Virgin, VAustralia, Tiger, Alliance, Skywest or any other airline's pilots from joining the cause for the same reasons as 1-4 above.
Some of you have so arrogantly decried Joe's actions but forget that you are using the veil of anonymity to mask your attacks and I have no doubt have not done a thing to back up Joe yourself other than say some warm-and-fuzzy words of support on one of these PPRUNE threads.
Yet the second Joe does something to help his own personal fortunes (after taking so many hits it would make any lesser man's head spin), you immediately attack him? Shame on you!
Have a good hard look at yourselves and try to calculate who is really guilty of hurting the cause here and as you do, remember this. Joe has his career back, AIPA has a moral victory and Jetstar look as if they've publically caved to the pressure of professional airline pilots and their industrial organisations for the first time. Regardless of what 'words' Joe chose to put his name to.
The wheel turns slowly, but turning it is. This will prove to be one very strong spoke in that wheel as time moves on.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just went and had a look in the mirror. Suitably amused.
How many Jetstar pilots are members of AIPA? I dont know the actual figure, but I think you will find there are only enough to show a clear "disengagement" with AIPA. How many Jetstar pilots voiced their opinions alongside him? If all 600 "talked" to the media in the way Joe did, it wouldnt be industrial action, but they couldnt sack all 600 could they? The airline would be crippled. But no-one apart from Joe had the backbone.
As are you.
Please, explain to me how, because I just cannot see it. They lost. Big time. Despite their ridiculous emails to the contrary.
No they dont! Re-read the news article. Joe looks like a fool, Jetsh1t look like they've won. Read it the way a mug punter does! They dont know the ins and outs of our industrial situation, and nor do they care. All they saw is that Joe apologised. That equates to "I'm wrong!" Good grief, what part of that dont you understand?
It is turning, but in the wrong direction! Wake up and smell the coffee!
Joe's colleagues certainly stood by him; by joining the union movement to ensure levels of membership higher than ever before in this airline and by donating their own money directly to his cause.
veil of anonymity
AIPA has a moral victory
Jetstar look as if they've publically caved to the pressure of professional airline pilots and their industrial organisations for the first time.
The wheel turns slowly, but turning it is. This will prove to be one very strong spoke in that wheel as time moves on.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont believe people are crucifying Joe on this place, most negative criticism is directed at the lack of support offered by his Jetstar colleague. It's disappointing to read his letter, but, considering his options I would probably done the same, maybe sooner.
How any person can justify their inaction simply due to making a small donation, or because they might burn an extra 100 KG of fuel highlights their lack of character.
Action could have come in many forms.
How any person can justify their inaction simply due to making a small donation, or because they might burn an extra 100 KG of fuel highlights their lack of character.
Action could have come in many forms.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: oz
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the claim that the FWA application would have come to anything significant, well I'm pretty sure his going to the media is a breach of his employment contract, one that could easily be proven to have done damage to the organisation, simply by showing his article as cut directly out of one of our nations newspapers, game set and match really.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if Joe fought his employer all the way through the system, and it was a nasty public fight, and he eventually won is argument with a ruling in his favour by the FWA, it doesn't mean he would necessarily get his job back. The employer could then appeal to the FWA by saying that the relationship between employer and employee was parlous, unmanagable, untennable, unworkable and severely fractured to the point that a professional working relationship was not viable, likely or possible. The FWA could agree (actually happens very very often) and order that the employer pay the employee a redundancy and they part ways. So Joe although a winner in the original fight is K.O'd by a ****e system that can be easily manipulated by big business, and yesterdays winner actually becomes tomorrow's loser.
The debate over Joe will remain a lively debate for some time I guess. He started out well, very very gutsy, but in the end the need to feed his family is the likely cause of his backdown, and nobody should be critisized for needing to feed hungry mouths. I would walk over desert covered in razors wearing no shoes to feed my family.
As for his employer, they don't win in this. Having an employee eat a public sh#t sandwich which has quite obviosuly been scripted by the employer, having an employee publicly humiliated and have to back down from some serious pointed safety concerns only shows that Joe works for a bully who is prepared to quash any dirty secrets so as to remain technically free from scrutiny. Joe wore a huge pineapple over this but life goes on.
Remember, at the end of the day you 'cant polish the turd'. You can scrub it, coat it in honey and sugar, even cover it in caramel sprinkles and hundreds and thousands, but underneath it still remains a turd....
The debate over Joe will remain a lively debate for some time I guess. He started out well, very very gutsy, but in the end the need to feed his family is the likely cause of his backdown, and nobody should be critisized for needing to feed hungry mouths. I would walk over desert covered in razors wearing no shoes to feed my family.
As for his employer, they don't win in this. Having an employee eat a public sh#t sandwich which has quite obviosuly been scripted by the employer, having an employee publicly humiliated and have to back down from some serious pointed safety concerns only shows that Joe works for a bully who is prepared to quash any dirty secrets so as to remain technically free from scrutiny. Joe wore a huge pineapple over this but life goes on.
Remember, at the end of the day you 'cant polish the turd'. You can scrub it, coat it in honey and sugar, even cover it in caramel sprinkles and hundreds and thousands, but underneath it still remains a turd....
Last edited by gobbledock; 21st Dec 2010 at 10:19.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone said joe put his name to absolute dribble... foolish or not, he made a point, with no one behind him for support he did what he had to. I'm glad you can pay the bills again Joe. I don't believe anyone can criticise you for taking your old job back, unless they were willing to sponsor you for the rest of your days. Sorry for you the support wasn't there in the "GROUP". Unfortunately thats the fragmented qantas group all over... happy to be gone. kimir. By the way skynews you don't have the authority to hang anyone...tool.
Last edited by kimir; 21st Dec 2010 at 10:21.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on you Joe!
I am ashamed to read the accusations against Joe.
Joe had a couple of choices:
1. Get employment elsewhere. Success rate: Low
2. Continue with FWA proceedings. Success rate: Unknown
3. Get his job back. Success rate: High (in hindsight)
Christmas and the holiday season are upon us. I don't know Joe, but I am led to believe he has a family. Can you imagine the financial pressure of being unemployed at this time of year?
How can you crucify a family man that has made a shorterm decision to keep his family with the necessities of life?
Joe is not stupid. He has survived to fight another day. Jetstar have won the battle, they have not won the war.
He will regroup and rethink his strategy with the knowledge that his family won't starve. Therefore he can make rational and considered decisions without the financial pressure.
To accuse him behind a veil of secrecy is disgusting and cowardly.
Family comes first - end of story. If you disagree, please explain how he is to feed his children over the next year?
Joe made a start down the path - lets continue with the way forward we know we must take.
I am ashamed to read the accusations against Joe.
Joe had a couple of choices:
1. Get employment elsewhere. Success rate: Low
2. Continue with FWA proceedings. Success rate: Unknown
3. Get his job back. Success rate: High (in hindsight)
Christmas and the holiday season are upon us. I don't know Joe, but I am led to believe he has a family. Can you imagine the financial pressure of being unemployed at this time of year?
How can you crucify a family man that has made a shorterm decision to keep his family with the necessities of life?
Joe is not stupid. He has survived to fight another day. Jetstar have won the battle, they have not won the war.
He will regroup and rethink his strategy with the knowledge that his family won't starve. Therefore he can make rational and considered decisions without the financial pressure.
To accuse him behind a veil of secrecy is disgusting and cowardly.
Family comes first - end of story. If you disagree, please explain how he is to feed his children over the next year?
Joe made a start down the path - lets continue with the way forward we know we must take.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am happy you got your job back Joe.
The whole thing was an absolute F u c K u p.
If Joe was advised by the union and in fact his public statement were vetted and approved by the said union, then they are a joke. Surely we would expect our union to have some idea of the pilot agreement and if as has been reported the minute Joe signed his name as a line pilot rather that a Union rep he was in clear breach of his employment contract.
I expect better of our representatives, I agree with an earlier comment by LR 3. It was not his flight deck collegues who let Joe down it was AIPA. Not the first time a Union has given bad advice to a pilot or pilots in this industry is it boys and girls?. I also agree with Mr Hat and I have a feeling Joe may have lost at FWA.
A massive victory for Jetstar and a further kick in the guts to the pilots , who it would appear are represented by people with no clue of Industrial Relations.
I am not at Jetstar and in fact the actions of Jetstar , the pilot group and the loss of mainline flying would seem to indicate it will be while before i move to a right seat but i bear no real grudge.(I'm doing ok just accepting that i will unlikely make command)
As for the "statement" sickening. Reminds of me Pilots shot down in Desert Storm who were forced to make propoaganda statements by their captors. No blame on them they were scared for there lives.
Similar to Joe, he was gone and quite probably unemployable.
What do we do? I don't have a clue, but maybe Chimbu Chuck is right, just bend over and say thank you sir may I have another, thank you sir may I have another.
If you are reading this Joe, good luck to you but in future when it comes to advice on industrial tactics from your AIPA mates, measure twice and cut once.
The whole thing was an absolute F u c K u p.
If Joe was advised by the union and in fact his public statement were vetted and approved by the said union, then they are a joke. Surely we would expect our union to have some idea of the pilot agreement and if as has been reported the minute Joe signed his name as a line pilot rather that a Union rep he was in clear breach of his employment contract.
I expect better of our representatives, I agree with an earlier comment by LR 3. It was not his flight deck collegues who let Joe down it was AIPA. Not the first time a Union has given bad advice to a pilot or pilots in this industry is it boys and girls?. I also agree with Mr Hat and I have a feeling Joe may have lost at FWA.
A massive victory for Jetstar and a further kick in the guts to the pilots , who it would appear are represented by people with no clue of Industrial Relations.
I am not at Jetstar and in fact the actions of Jetstar , the pilot group and the loss of mainline flying would seem to indicate it will be while before i move to a right seat but i bear no real grudge.(I'm doing ok just accepting that i will unlikely make command)
As for the "statement" sickening. Reminds of me Pilots shot down in Desert Storm who were forced to make propoaganda statements by their captors. No blame on them they were scared for there lives.
Similar to Joe, he was gone and quite probably unemployable.
What do we do? I don't have a clue, but maybe Chimbu Chuck is right, just bend over and say thank you sir may I have another, thank you sir may I have another.
If you are reading this Joe, good luck to you but in future when it comes to advice on industrial tactics from your AIPA mates, measure twice and cut once.
but they couldnt sack all 600 could they?
For everyone else, walk a mile in Joe’s shoes before you criticize. Joe wrote an article that was vetted by AIPA and AIPA assisted in the publication of said article with a Fairfax online outlet. Jetstar sacked Joe. To get an idea of where Joe was:
Cancel company sponsored ASIC.
Hand back car par passes / access cards.
Hand back uniform.
Hand back manuals.
Kiss goodbye any chance of working for any Aus based operator.
Register at centerlink for benefits.
It is unbelievable that there are pilots out there that are unhappy that Joe has been reinstated. Did you want him to be a martyr? What perceived cause did you want him to fight as an unemployable pilot? I reckon Brian McCarthy might have a few wise works for Joe if ever their paths cross.
Anger should be directed at AIPA for piss poor advice in the first place. It is sickening reading the latest missive from AIPA legal. I’m sure the multi billion-dollar corporation was ****ting themselves with the top gun lawyers AIPA had on their books. AIPA members that I know are not that naïve, Philip V.D.H needs to pull his head in. Sound advice in the first place would have prevented this mess in the first instance.
Were AIPA involved in the mediation meeting that took place on Friday? If not – WHY?? Was your priority to get Joe reinstated or was it to prove a point? Spending money on court cases is good for recruitment PR, win or lose. Who organized the mediation?
Lets just hypothesize for a moment – say the Jetstar pilots actually got their **** together for one week and walked out, are you telling me that the 2500 Qantas pilots wouldn’t operate extra services to carry the disrupted Jetstar passengers? Can you see how fanciful and naive this idea is?
Attacking Joe is pathetic grandstanding. Anyone who has the holier that thou attitude has an agenda that didn’t put the welfare of Joe first.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truth or Rumour
KM,
Is that actually true? If so, who vetted it and who authorised the publication? The implication that AIPA was prepared to sacrifice a member to make some unidentified point is a very serious issue that I presume you will have the courage to follow up outside the PPRuNe shield of anonymity?
But in the main, I agree with your sentiments about the most recent events.
As for the public statement, only two sorts of people will notice it: first, the uninitiated who know nothing of the facts and who will have neither the wit nor the circumstances to make anything of it; and second, those who recognise the a typical "hostage survival" statement (typical of the middle east scenarios) and who have the wit to make nothing of it for itself but note the fire that created the smoke.
From what I understand of the situation as publicly available, Joe was technically defenceless. Morally, he was in a debatable position. Jetstar on the other hand appears to have played a sledgehammer hand, particularly in the face of the Senate Inquiry, which was technically defensible but a potential public relations disaster. Shooting a whistleblower in the face of Wilkie and Xenophon is a particular piece of brinkmanship that I am sure Boston Bruce will be reviewing with those who cleared him to pull the trigger, Messrs Clifford and Joyce.
Who won? Pragmatically, no one really does. Joe is employed again but probably is blackballed for command within the so-called merit system. Jetstar has reversed a bad decision by eating a little humble pie (suitably obfuscated by the hostage survival statement) and potentially diverted some of the impending heat about its employment climate in the Senate Inquiry. Qantas has probably avoided some heat over its offshoring strategy by getting its carrier of choice to back out of the limelight a little.
Did Joe's stand generate any supporting submissions to the Senate Inquiry? I guess we will have to wait and see. But I'm guessing that not too many people felt encouraged by Joe's lead, even when protected by Parliamentary privilege and the option of confidential or anonymous contributions.
I suspect that even fewer actually took a virtual walk in Joe's shoes and contemplated the options for when you find yourself in front of what should have been a crowd but turned out to be a lot of unidentified voices from the shadows. I reckon it would be a bit like a suicide bomber standing alone in the middle of the desert - who would really notice the sacrifice?
Joe, you tried to make the point and you have recovered as best as you could have hoped for. Thank you for your courage and please accept my respect for achieving a sensible outcome for you and your family.
Joe wrote an article that was vetted by AIPA and AIPA assisted in the publication of said article with a Fairfax online outlet.
But in the main, I agree with your sentiments about the most recent events.
As for the public statement, only two sorts of people will notice it: first, the uninitiated who know nothing of the facts and who will have neither the wit nor the circumstances to make anything of it; and second, those who recognise the a typical "hostage survival" statement (typical of the middle east scenarios) and who have the wit to make nothing of it for itself but note the fire that created the smoke.
From what I understand of the situation as publicly available, Joe was technically defenceless. Morally, he was in a debatable position. Jetstar on the other hand appears to have played a sledgehammer hand, particularly in the face of the Senate Inquiry, which was technically defensible but a potential public relations disaster. Shooting a whistleblower in the face of Wilkie and Xenophon is a particular piece of brinkmanship that I am sure Boston Bruce will be reviewing with those who cleared him to pull the trigger, Messrs Clifford and Joyce.
Who won? Pragmatically, no one really does. Joe is employed again but probably is blackballed for command within the so-called merit system. Jetstar has reversed a bad decision by eating a little humble pie (suitably obfuscated by the hostage survival statement) and potentially diverted some of the impending heat about its employment climate in the Senate Inquiry. Qantas has probably avoided some heat over its offshoring strategy by getting its carrier of choice to back out of the limelight a little.
Did Joe's stand generate any supporting submissions to the Senate Inquiry? I guess we will have to wait and see. But I'm guessing that not too many people felt encouraged by Joe's lead, even when protected by Parliamentary privilege and the option of confidential or anonymous contributions.
I suspect that even fewer actually took a virtual walk in Joe's shoes and contemplated the options for when you find yourself in front of what should have been a crowd but turned out to be a lot of unidentified voices from the shadows. I reckon it would be a bit like a suicide bomber standing alone in the middle of the desert - who would really notice the sacrifice?
Joe, you tried to make the point and you have recovered as best as you could have hoped for. Thank you for your courage and please accept my respect for achieving a sensible outcome for you and your family.
Last edited by scrubba; 21st Dec 2010 at 14:59.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
For the misinformed who are bagging AIPA.....
*Joe wrote the original article without AIPA's knowledge or input.
* It was AIPA that got the article pulled from the SMH website in an attempt to minimize the damage.
* It was through the efforts of AIPA that Joe got his job back; nothing else, especially considering the situation he put himself in.
I started this thread with the title, Brave or.......?
Thanks to the efforts of the AIPA team I think the final epitaph to this thread should be Brave and Lucky....!
*Joe wrote the original article without AIPA's knowledge or input.
* It was AIPA that got the article pulled from the SMH website in an attempt to minimize the damage.
* It was through the efforts of AIPA that Joe got his job back; nothing else, especially considering the situation he put himself in.
I started this thread with the title, Brave or.......?
Thanks to the efforts of the AIPA team I think the final epitaph to this thread should be Brave and Lucky....!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kremin - factual, succinct, most importantly, 110% correct.
If you think conscience alone will level the playing fields in Australian Industrial matters - think again.
Brave AND Lucky.
If you think conscience alone will level the playing fields in Australian Industrial matters - think again.
Brave AND Lucky.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I started this thread with the title, Brave or.......?
Probably a good time for the MODS to merge this thread with "Brave or ......? to keep it all on track.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Keith, you and I might agree to disagree on a few points.
Firstly, let me say that Joe's reinstatement is a good thing, and again, I congratulate him on standing up and being heard in the first place. Having said that, it does appear from Capt K's post that Joe's original publication perhaps wasnt that sensible. Shed Dog has pretty much stated that all along.
For the record, I am VERY pleased that Joe has been reinstated. Gobbledock (in a very reasoned post) stated: "I would walk over desert covered in razors wearing no shoes to feed my family" and I wholheartedly agree. I would do the same for my family and I expect that Joe would for his. What I am not pleased with is the way he was reinstated. That statement was absolute shiite, and and embarassment to Joe, to AIPA, and indeed to Jetstar.
A bit different here, I think. This isnt about a significant pay rise, this is and was about safety. The Qantas Group is NOT going to sack anybody over that, let alone 600 pilots. They would face a PR disaster. Who would be accountable? That hopeless CEO of Jetstar Aust? He comes across so badly on TV my screen almost cracked. Trouble is, 599 of the 600 Jetstar pilots are spineless cowards apparently, because we didn't hear peep out of them, so we will never know, will we?
Well, apparently, all evidence to the contrary, because Joe did this without advice in the first place. If that is the case, one must ask themselves, why was AIPA left holding the baby, with not a peep from Joe's Jetstar collegues?
I'm angry. Not at Joe. At Jetstar. At Qantas. At the pathetic Australian Government. I've every right to be, because whilst we all sit around slapping each other on the back over Joe's reinstatement, Rome is burning, and rapidly.
Keith, given the last few posts, I wonder if you might care to reconsider your latest?
Firstly, let me say that Joe's reinstatement is a good thing, and again, I congratulate him on standing up and being heard in the first place. Having said that, it does appear from Capt K's post that Joe's original publication perhaps wasnt that sensible. Shed Dog has pretty much stated that all along.
For the record, I am VERY pleased that Joe has been reinstated. Gobbledock (in a very reasoned post) stated: "I would walk over desert covered in razors wearing no shoes to feed my family" and I wholheartedly agree. I would do the same for my family and I expect that Joe would for his. What I am not pleased with is the way he was reinstated. That statement was absolute shiite, and and embarassment to Joe, to AIPA, and indeed to Jetstar.
the Qantas group would not sack 600 pilots, study some history mate
Anger should be directed at AIPA for piss poor advice in the first place.
I'm angry. Not at Joe. At Jetstar. At Qantas. At the pathetic Australian Government. I've every right to be, because whilst we all sit around slapping each other on the back over Joe's reinstatement, Rome is burning, and rapidly.
Keith, given the last few posts, I wonder if you might care to reconsider your latest?
People here critical of Joe and his statement clearly:
1. Don't know how the system works, and;
2. Don't know how the game is played.
If you listened to Joe's radio interviews, he clearly states that the article he wrote was also industrial. The type of statement Joe made to return to work was typical for the situation. Anyone who expected Joe to be reinstated without such an empty statement is not really thinking the issue through fully. The statement is simply a face saving exercise, and anyone with more than three working neurons in their head would see that. Having his job back will make his industrial efforts more effective than being a soon-forgotten sacked pilot. In a conflict situation, brinkmanship can lead to two losers.
1. Don't know how the system works, and;
2. Don't know how the game is played.
If you listened to Joe's radio interviews, he clearly states that the article he wrote was also industrial. The type of statement Joe made to return to work was typical for the situation. Anyone who expected Joe to be reinstated without such an empty statement is not really thinking the issue through fully. The statement is simply a face saving exercise, and anyone with more than three working neurons in their head would see that. Having his job back will make his industrial efforts more effective than being a soon-forgotten sacked pilot. In a conflict situation, brinkmanship can lead to two losers.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cpt Kremin
*Joe wrote the original article without AIPA's knowledge or input.
So...is somebody lying then...