Jumseating on US Carriers for CX Crew
Guest
Posts: n/a
I only can tell one applicant's background; mine. Military, currently at the regionals.
Although I have contributed to the deterioration of this thread, I still wonder if there can be one thread that will not result in the heated discussion of the ban and ultimately in name calling.
As far as the SCAB calling concerned, idiots who use the label in this particular issue don't deserve any reply. If one of the "49ers" himself would use the term, I would actually understand, but would disagree. None of the new hires or the Captains who toke the fired pilots position by upgrades fit the term.
Funny, how some make the statement "the majority of US pilots", "the real CX pilots", "all of the pilots" and such. Where do these "scientific" studies are coming from?
The fact is that most of the US pilots I have talked to were not even familiar with the ban. If they were, they said they support the ban, but had no idea about the "49ers" or why and how the ban started. Only a very few read the one-sided article in the ALPA magazine, and none were familiar with dissenting view on the ban.
Not an exact study, but sure does not reflect the supporting opinion of "the majority".
Off my soap box.
Best of luck to the dismissed pilots. If I get hired at CX, I will do anything in my ability to contribute to their re-hiring, regardless of any black listing or crap talking.
Although I have contributed to the deterioration of this thread, I still wonder if there can be one thread that will not result in the heated discussion of the ban and ultimately in name calling.
As far as the SCAB calling concerned, idiots who use the label in this particular issue don't deserve any reply. If one of the "49ers" himself would use the term, I would actually understand, but would disagree. None of the new hires or the Captains who toke the fired pilots position by upgrades fit the term.
Funny, how some make the statement "the majority of US pilots", "the real CX pilots", "all of the pilots" and such. Where do these "scientific" studies are coming from?
The fact is that most of the US pilots I have talked to were not even familiar with the ban. If they were, they said they support the ban, but had no idea about the "49ers" or why and how the ban started. Only a very few read the one-sided article in the ALPA magazine, and none were familiar with dissenting view on the ban.
Not an exact study, but sure does not reflect the supporting opinion of "the majority".
Off my soap box.
Best of luck to the dismissed pilots. If I get hired at CX, I will do anything in my ability to contribute to their re-hiring, regardless of any black listing or crap talking.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, I, I, I, I...
No "I" in "team", bud. You're planning on batting for the wrong side.
Ex military, eh? A flyer? Not likely.
EVERY ex-military flyer (US) I have met is a man of honour and integrity. No exceptions.
You? No way.
No "I" in "team", bud. You're planning on batting for the wrong side.
Ex military, eh? A flyer? Not likely.
EVERY ex-military flyer (US) I have met is a man of honour and integrity. No exceptions.
You? No way.
Last edited by Cpt. Underpants; 25th Jul 2002 at 17:13.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't met many scabs/"replacement workers" during the course of my career, but the ones I have met have always been eager to share their long, complicated, sad stories of how they really, technically, did nothing wrong. It's all a big misunderstanding. Some misinterpreted nuance in a letter from their MEC caused them to cross a picket line. Or some eloquente posting on PPRune convinced them to ignore an IFALPA hiring ban. They knowingly sell out their fellow pilots, then spend the rest of their careers denying it.
Last edited by bkany; 25th Jul 2002 at 20:34.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: N. America
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh bkany give it a rest. The same "long, complicated, sad stories of how they really, technically, did nothing wrong" are offered as explanation of why upgrades HAD to be accepted to replace the 49'ers....you know, the terrible anti-labour climate in HK..we just had to do it... they would have hired DE captains if we didn't....just following AOA orders....etc etc etc.
"They knowingly sell out their fellow pilots, then spend the rest of their careers denying it." How dramatic! I commend you on your flare for rhetoric. But sorry to have to introduce some grey into your world of black and white - some guys really just plain need the job..time to face realities of the current pilot labour market!
"They knowingly sell out their fellow pilots, then spend the rest of their careers denying it." How dramatic! I commend you on your flare for rhetoric. But sorry to have to introduce some grey into your world of black and white - some guys really just plain need the job..time to face realities of the current pilot labour market!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals added its voice to the increasingly sensitive arena of federal labor law and state law libel/defamation. The Eleventh Circuit, in Dunn v. Air Line Pilots Association, (11th Cir., Oct. 25, 1999), outlined the applicable analysis in evaluating allegations that one side used words, not as a legitimate tool, but as an unfair weapon in a labor dispute.
In Dunn, the pilot's union called a sympathy strike against Eastern Airlines in 1989. While most of Eastern's pilots refused to work, a substantial number crossed the picket line and flew during the strike. The pilot's union compiled a "scabs" list, a list of pilots who worked during the sympathy strike, and distributed 50,000 copies of the list after the strike ended. A group of airline pilots who flew during the strike sued the pilot's union alleging, among other causes of action, that the union libeled them when the union listed them as "scabs."
The United State Supreme Court held in Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat'l. Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. Austin (1974) that state libel and defamation law is partially preempted by federal labor law when the state libel/defamation claim is asserted in the context of a labor dispute. The rationale for the preemption rule is that labor policy "favors free speech, open communication and robust debate...."
The Dunn court recognized that the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed several questions about how the pre-emption rule in labor-defamation cases has changed the litigation landscape. Most importantly, the Court incorporated the actual malice test into labor libel analysis that was originally used in defamation cases involving public figures and issues of public concern and first adopted in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). The Court also consistently expanded the type of labor activities included in the pre-emption doctrine. Currently, almost all organized labor or union activities fall within the labor preemption rule when evaluating state libel claims.
To prevail on a libel/defamation claim in a labor dispute, a plaintiff must show that the person or organization such as a union or company acted with actual malice. Actual malice means that one must have made the statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard or whether it was false or not." The plaintiff also must make this showing by clear and convincing evidence.
In Dunn, the Court of Appeals held that labeling the pilots who crossed the picket line "scabs" was factually true (i.e., the pilots did cross the picket line to work). In addition, the court in Dunn found no evidence that the defendants subjectively believed that the pilots labeled "scabs" were not really "scabs." In the end, the Dunn court affirmed summary judgment for the union and dismissed the libel claim.
The Dunn case has repercussions for corporations that face ongoing labor issues and strong unions. The Dunn case, in the name of promoting free speech, gives both management and labor great latitude in advancing their causes directly and indirectly in labor negotiations. However, often the issue for corporations and management is how to stop, or at least minimize, the unfair use of strong language and allegations of corporate misconduct that often typify labor activities during strikes or periods of labor conflict. The Dunn case limits the ability of a company to use state libel claims to reign in overly aggressive and vocal labor organizations. The clear message of Dunn is that federal labor preemption in the area of libel law is alive and well in the Eleventh Circuit.
In Dunn, the pilot's union called a sympathy strike against Eastern Airlines in 1989. While most of Eastern's pilots refused to work, a substantial number crossed the picket line and flew during the strike. The pilot's union compiled a "scabs" list, a list of pilots who worked during the sympathy strike, and distributed 50,000 copies of the list after the strike ended. A group of airline pilots who flew during the strike sued the pilot's union alleging, among other causes of action, that the union libeled them when the union listed them as "scabs."
The United State Supreme Court held in Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat'l. Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. Austin (1974) that state libel and defamation law is partially preempted by federal labor law when the state libel/defamation claim is asserted in the context of a labor dispute. The rationale for the preemption rule is that labor policy "favors free speech, open communication and robust debate...."
The Dunn court recognized that the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed several questions about how the pre-emption rule in labor-defamation cases has changed the litigation landscape. Most importantly, the Court incorporated the actual malice test into labor libel analysis that was originally used in defamation cases involving public figures and issues of public concern and first adopted in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). The Court also consistently expanded the type of labor activities included in the pre-emption doctrine. Currently, almost all organized labor or union activities fall within the labor preemption rule when evaluating state libel claims.
To prevail on a libel/defamation claim in a labor dispute, a plaintiff must show that the person or organization such as a union or company acted with actual malice. Actual malice means that one must have made the statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard or whether it was false or not." The plaintiff also must make this showing by clear and convincing evidence.
In Dunn, the Court of Appeals held that labeling the pilots who crossed the picket line "scabs" was factually true (i.e., the pilots did cross the picket line to work). In addition, the court in Dunn found no evidence that the defendants subjectively believed that the pilots labeled "scabs" were not really "scabs." In the end, the Dunn court affirmed summary judgment for the union and dismissed the libel claim.
The Dunn case has repercussions for corporations that face ongoing labor issues and strong unions. The Dunn case, in the name of promoting free speech, gives both management and labor great latitude in advancing their causes directly and indirectly in labor negotiations. However, often the issue for corporations and management is how to stop, or at least minimize, the unfair use of strong language and allegations of corporate misconduct that often typify labor activities during strikes or periods of labor conflict. The Dunn case limits the ability of a company to use state libel claims to reign in overly aggressive and vocal labor organizations. The clear message of Dunn is that federal labor preemption in the area of libel law is alive and well in the Eleventh Circuit.
Last edited by SOLO; 28th Jul 2002 at 08:06.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Vanuatu
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BLue E. The lists that have been referred to in the past are ALL on PUBLIC WEBSITES in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. This is not secret squirrel stuff . How on earth can a mention of or a link to a public website leave you open to a libel law suit??? People have a right to know, don't they?
Just asking.
questions
There is no ban on sending your resume or taking the interview. In fact it's encouraged. Lots of ALPA guys on the list in the AOA's office who've interviewed and waiting for the ban to lift.
Just asking.
questions
There is no ban on sending your resume or taking the interview. In fact it's encouraged. Lots of ALPA guys on the list in the AOA's office who've interviewed and waiting for the ban to lift.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Middle, may be so, but Danny does not want them here on HIS website. All you are saying is that, so far, (excluding the EAL case), no one mentioned on such lists has been to court but that does not automatically make such lists legal. PPRuNe does not have funds to cater for even the possibility of a court case so the BB policy is to avoid even the slightest chance of one.
By all means feel free to access these public websites you refer to if you need the information, just don't use PPRuNe to try and spread it.
By all means feel free to access these public websites you refer to if you need the information, just don't use PPRuNe to try and spread it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To those it applies.
Obviously, you don't have the intelligence to see that I am disengaging from your dumbas* innuendos. If your opinion was important to me I would have titled the thread accordingly.
You may want to take into consideration that trying to intimidate the wrong person with your ignorant, lopsided opinions may achieve the opposite effect.
Obviously, you don't have the intelligence to see that I am disengaging from your dumbas* innuendos. If your opinion was important to me I would have titled the thread accordingly.
You may want to take into consideration that trying to intimidate the wrong person with your ignorant, lopsided opinions may achieve the opposite effect.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good old Us of A, don't you love their legal system. Man murders his wife and lover hires top attorneys - gets off, taken on in a civil suit is found guilty and heavily penalised. Battered wife in Texas murders husband while he sleeps after husband starts on daughter, she is poor, court appointed attorneys lose her case she is sentenced to death and no appeals upheld she is murdered by the 'system', Governor who turned down final appeal is a Bush of course. Woman sues Maccas because coffee is hot and wins lmao, group actions pending against fast food manufacturers by great big fat people, lol. If I was a yank I wouldn't ever skite about my legal system, undoubtedly the best that money can buy - if you have money that is.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yeah, Like I'm saying.
Age: 56
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Jump..
Good thing your original question got answered......
What the hell is wrong with you guys? Just answer the friking question.....Can it be that hard?
Good thing your original question got answered......
What the hell is wrong with you guys? Just answer the friking question.....Can it be that hard?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Can.UK.US
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Dunn, the Court of Appeals held that labeling the pilots who crossed the picket line "scabs" was factually true (i.e., the pilots did cross the picket line to work).
Picket Line, where is the picket line at CX ... hey has the AOA MEC even polled the members on support for a strike vote? Hmmm
Oh that's right - I'm supposed to strike for them ... stay unemployed ... support the Ban so some Anti-Union pilot can take the job ... because management will lock them out if they strike.
This of coarse is the right of management even in the democratic North America.
You have the right to deny your services and if you do they have the right to ban you from the property.:confused
Zoolander 3% Body Fat 1% Brain Activity
Picket Line, where is the picket line at CX ... hey has the AOA MEC even polled the members on support for a strike vote? Hmmm
Oh that's right - I'm supposed to strike for them ... stay unemployed ... support the Ban so some Anti-Union pilot can take the job ... because management will lock them out if they strike.
This of coarse is the right of management even in the democratic North America.
You have the right to deny your services and if you do they have the right to ban you from the property.:confused
Zoolander 3% Body Fat 1% Brain Activity
