Freedom of Speech, blogging, and your employer

alaskaflyer

alaskaflyer

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
7,544
Location
Smith Valley, Nevada
Display Name
Display name:
Alaskaflyer
I was reading the flight attendant thread and pulled up the blog linked by Scott. It is authored by a FA who had been terminated by Delta allegedly because of her writing activities on the Internet. I read this post:

Hi All,
I get a lot of requests for interviews from college students. Here's the latest... I thought it might interest you. It's specifically about internet censorship:
  • When did you begin writing your blog? What was your purpose for starting it up?
I began my blog in January of 2004. It started out as therapy for me, since I had just lost my mother to cancer in Sept. of 2003.
  • Were you aware that the airline had any censorship rules in place when working for them?
No, I still am not aware of any censorship rules. The only policy that they were able to show me in connection with my termination was a very vague policy that prohibits "inappropriate behavior." Delta has no blogging policy.
  • If they had such regulations, were these made clear to you?
I still am not clear on the definition of "inappropriate behavior." I have asked Delta management repeatedly to elaborate on that and they have refused.
  • What is your opinion on companies having control over there employees freedom of speech over blogs?
My opinion is that companies should implement blogging policies and make their employees aware of them before they take any action against them. And, in my opinion, termination of employment is too harsh a punishment for bloggers, unless they were intending to do harm to their company through their blog.
  • With the number of bloggers growing daily, do you think that company censorship policies are going to become more common?
Yes, I HOPE more companies implement blogging policies so that employees know where they stand.
  • What do you think about censorship over the internet as a whole, not just blogging? Do you think that we will become more restricted in what we read and what we can say?
I think that it is up to each company to determine where they draw the line in the sand. The important thing is that they draw the line in the sand by implementing blogging and internet policies so that employees know where they stand and are not randomly and arbitrarily fired/disciplined. I now self-censor, since half the world reads my blog. It's not as fun when you know all your friends and family (and possibly ex-boyfriends) are reading your blog. You can't be as open. It was more fun when my blog was anonymous.
  • Do you see this as limiting peoples freedom of speech?
I feel that my freedom of speech was limited because Delta did NOT have a blogging policy. If they had had a policy that I had been made aware of, I could have self-censored. As it was, the company decided to take matters into its own hands and censor me by firing me.​
Click to expand...
Anyone else been exposed to this problem?
 
Non-Union, right to work. They don't need to give her a reason.

Having said that, employers can impose reasonable restrictions. If at any time she was using employers equipment to post, then that's misuse of resources. People have been fired for less.

Likewise, if she were disparaging the employer, that may be grounds for firing. Or there were something in her posts that disclosed confidential company information.

People in other lines of work have been fired for what they post about the company or their work. And some companies go to great lengths (including lawsuits) to determine who has posted about them. Right or wrong, the employer usually has the ability to impose reasonable work conditions (except where there is collective bargaining or laws to the contrary). Witness the school teachers that were fired for posting nude photos of themselves online. Tamara Hoover Fired (link)

Now, having said all that, if this FA had beefs about her job or otherwise insulted the passengers, it's best for her to find another line of work. Just my opinion.
 
I would imagine that there's a pretty good chance Delta had received one or more complaints about the pics; given the cost of training a FA, and the inevitable brain damage a contested discharge creates, they likely did not do this without some consideration.

Still, does seem a trifle trivial.

Nice legs, though.

(nyuk nyuk)
 
Those were certainly some pretty offensive photos! :rolleyes:

I agree with the "right to work" format. I'm not at all thrilled with unions for the most part. I'm also not thrilled with companies who treat employees like a pile of barnyard waste. Hence, compare the "warped triangle" with SWA. Perhaps even Jet Blue from what I'd heard.

I would never make it in such an organization as I do not adapt well to the politics in such companies. To put it another way, I'm a lousy player when it comes to kissing ass.
 
I think I had her on one of my flights. ;)

Lives in Austin. What is it about Austin? (see schoolteacher link, above). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
As the Delta FA's are currently non-unionized and have no contract, they constitute "employees at will," and have far fewer mechanisms to deal with questions of discipline and discharge than the FA's at other airlines where their contracts under the National Railway Act provides greater protections. Essentially, that means Delta may discharge FA's for any reason except one that violates:
  • Discrimination laws
  • "Public policy" - Jury duty, refusal to give false testimony, whistleblowing, legal union activity
  • Implied contract of long-term employment
Note that "freedom of speech" is not protected vis a vis employment in the private sector -- employees at will can be discharged for publicly saying something that annoys their boss outside the exceptions listed above.
 
Where's National Airlines when you need 'em?

lg_18b_FlyMe.jpg
 
Ron Levy said:
Given that it's been 30 years since PanAm bought National, I doubt Cheryl still looks this good.:eek:
Click to expand...
The ad was from 1971, according to the place that (hopefully) provided fair use of it. If she was 30 back then, she'd be 66 now.
 
I checked out the website, pictures, and story. While I can't say that she used the best judgement in this case, I do think that firing her was overreacting. In my job, were I to post pictures of me on the job on the internet I might expect to get fired, but that's because we have a policy that no pictures are to be taken at my job period, not because of the clothes I wear and the manner in which I pose. I don't see a problem with what she did.

I couldn't tell by looking at her pictures which airline she works for, so I don't see that having any effect, either. I found the pictures humorous, and if anything it would make more sense for them to try to use her idea for advertising, not fire her. Something about friendly skies and all that.
 
BTW...just a point of order, "Freedom of Speech" is in regards to the GOVERNMENT controlling what you say, it has no bearing on a non-governmental entity.
 
smigaldi said:
Well she would be in her 60's or 70's now. That is prime American Airlines FA age. I sometimes think the drink cart is really a walker. :eek:;)
Click to expand...

Agreed re AA. Especially International.
 
smigaldi said:
Well she would be in her 60's or 70's now. That is prime American Airlines FA age. I sometimes think the drink cart is really a walker. :eek:;)
Click to expand...


That's very true. And I'd bet her dad is just about the age to be an American pilot.
 
The link appears to no longer be working - at least not from my work computer.
 
Yes, in a way, I have been through a similar ordeal, but it wound up not being a big deal, and I really can't go into details, except to say that there was a misunderstanding and I explained myself to those that were concerned.
 
tdager said:
BTW...just a point of order, "Freedom of Speech" is in regards to the GOVERNMENT controlling what you say, it has no bearing on a non-governmental entity.
Click to expand...
Well, the Constitutional concept certainly does.

How many of you have said something on here that could negatively impact your employer? :eek: ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I couldn't tell by looking at her pictures which airline she works for, so I don't see that having any effect, either.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but maybe Delta could, and I can see them being annoyed that an employee was using their planes for her purposes.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Well, the Constitutional concept certainly does.

How many of you have said something on here that could negatively impact your employer? :eek: ;)
Click to expand...

Huh? The Freedom of Speech right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights has to do with the governments stifling of speech, it has nothing to do with a private entity.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Well, the Constitutional concept certainly does.
Click to expand...
The First Amendment is not binding on the private relationship between employer and employee unless the employer is the US Government:
US Constitution said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[emphasis added]
Click to expand...
 
tdager said:
Huh? The Freedom of Speech right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights has to do with the governments stifling of speech, it has nothing to do with a private entity.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
The First Amendment is not binding on the private relationship between employer and employee unless the employer is the US Government:
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that, and I was rather clumsily trying to agree with you - not enough coffee. But the phrase has additional connotations beyond the Constitutional concept.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I'm aware of that, and I was rather clumsily trying to agree with you - not enough coffee. But the phrase has additional connotations beyond the Constitutional concept.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, but I think they would be only social, not legal, and that won't help her show wrongful discharge before the NMB or NRLB, or in a courtroom.
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps so, but I think they would be only social, not legal, and that won't help her show wrongful discharge before the NMB or NRLB, or in a courtroom.
Click to expand...
This might. Rut roh.

-I had also filed a sex discrimination complaint with the EEOC three weeks PRIOR to being fired. That's called retaliation, folks.
Click to expand...
 
alaskaflyer said:
This might.
-I had also filed a sex discrimination complaint with the EEOC three weeks PRIOR to being fired. That's called retaliation, folks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
As noted above, termination for filing a discrimination complaint is unlawful, and she can have Delta's butt (or at least their wallet) if she can show that she was fired for making that complaint. However, her blog indicates she was suspended a month before she was fired, so it sounds like the wheels were already in motion based on prior acts when she filed that complaint. In fact, given the slowness with which government wheels turn, Delta might not even have known about the EEOC action when they gave her the axe.
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps not, but maybe Delta could, and I can see them being annoyed that an employee was using their planes for her purposes.
Click to expand...

I sure could tell the airline. I'll go a step further and state that the airplane involved flies one of the international routes. The plane and uniform are instantly recognizable.

Using the employer's property to generate personal business (the pictures are intended to promote her book) is, IMHO, sufficient for the employer to take action.
 
KennyFlys said:
How long ago was Hitler's reign? That doesn't stop discussion of such matters.
Click to expand...


But his heart was in the right place...just his execution was bad. :hairraise:




Yes...that was a joke, and no I did not know this was three years ago or I would not have even cared to comment. Hell three weeks is OLD news, let alone three years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top