ATNMEC closes pilot web board

[Lear70]

I haven't heard of a 458.2.a.2 complaint being filed before regarding a message board issue with the DoL.

Do you have a case to cite? I'd be curious to know what prior precedent there is for such an issue, as ALPA isn't required to have a separate internet message board apart from the ALPA board (which is still up but no one uses) and has the right to either have an external one, not have one, or put it up and pull it down at their discretion.

With the ALPA server board still up and running on the ALPA site, you'd have a hard time citing lack of freedom of speech per the OLMS guidelines...

 

[scoreboardII]

Nuguy, first; what are the monetray damages going to be? Thought so, none.

Second; you have to get the DOL to agree to take the claim, very tough and how much extra money do they have to fight a rich guy (airline pilot) fight for a website infraction when they are out trying to keep ACORN and others dutifully employed? Thought so, no action by DOL.

Lear has it right, there are no cases citing freedom of speech outside of a union election as a problem, it has never been challenged in court.

Now, if this was an election, there are plenty of cases to backup those type of claims, but freedom of speech on a union website can and is censored regularly to suit the unions needs.

 

[NuGuy]

I haven't heard of a 458.2.a.2 complaint being filed before regarding a message board issue with the DoL.

Do you have a case to cite? I'd be curious to know what prior precedent there is for such an issue, as ALPA isn't required to have a separate internet message board apart from the ALPA board (which is still up but no one uses) and has the right to either have an external one, not have one, or put it up and pull it down at their discretion.

With the ALPA server board still up and running on the ALPA site, you'd have a hard time citing lack of freedom of speech per the OLMS guidelines...

Heyas Lear,

My point was you can't single out individuals and ban or suspend them.

You have either let it run, and leave the "offenders" be to rant and/or rave, or pull the plug on the whole thing, which is what they did.

Nu

 

[Lear70]

True dat.

 

[scoreboardII]

contrary opine, yes, a union can single out offenders and ban them. It's up to the effended one to bring claim, not the union to "hold harmless". I don't agree with this, i think let whatever is said be said, but they don't ask me.

 

[Lear70]

Well of course you can ban someone, the problem comes in what you ban them for, requiring a seconding opinion on the board rule that they violated and does the punishment fit the crime, etc, plus common enforcement for everyone who does the same thing.

You have to get pretty far out of whack to get banned from an ALPA forum, but people were pushing the limit.

 

[NuGuy]

Well of course you can ban someone, the problem comes in what you ban them for, requiring a seconding opinion on the board rule that they violated and does the punishment fit the crime, etc, plus common enforcement for everyone who does the same thing.

You have to get pretty far out of whack to get banned from an ALPA forum, but people were pushing the limit.

Heyas Lear,

I think we are talking past each other.

You can ban and pull posts.

But you ban someone, or pull a post, it had better be for a violation of the T&Cs at log in. These are pretty general, but the biggies are "don't say you want to kick out ALPA" or advocate some kind of illegal self help.

But beyond that, if one guy or a dozen get on the board, and say they've seen the SLI, and it consists of man-on-man combat with ahn-woons for 1000 quatloos a piece, then there isn't much you can do.

If I recall, there has been at least one case where this HAS been run all the way up to the EC, and it was kicked back, reinstating the guy and his posts.

If you want to stop rampant rumors, your only option is to pull the plug on the whole forum. You can't single out people for posting their opinion or what they think, as long as it steers clear of the "third rails".

Nu

 

[PCL_128]

My point was you can't single out individuals and ban or suspend them.

Sure you can, as long as they've violated the Terms and Conditions of Use more than once after being warned. Those terms include anything that could jeopardize ALPA's legal obligations. It's not just advocating illegal self help. That legal obligations provision allows a wide latitude for determining when someone is in violation, and it could easily be argued that a lot of the stuff that was being said on the web board could violate those legal obligations by causing problems for the SLI negotiations. The MEC could easily delete posts and suspend members' access for violations without taking down the whole web board.

 

[NuGuy]

Sure you can, as long as they've violated the Terms and Conditions of Use more than once after being warned. Those terms include anything that could jeopardize ALPA's legal obligations. It's not just advocating illegal self help. That legal obligations provision allows a wide latitude for determining when someone is in violation, and it could easily be argued that a lot of the stuff that was being said on the web board could violate those legal obligations by causing problems for the SLI negotiations. The MEC could easily delete posts and suspend members' access for violations without taking down the whole web board.

Heyas PCL,

It had better be a clear violation, and not something "well, you could say it violated". Some spurrious argument about "making life difficult for the NC" won't cut it.

People have fought and won this argument infront of the EC, and the board admins were overruled.

The Labor Department has given extremely wide lattitude to "freedom of speech in a Union Hall", which they have held is what a union sponsored web forum is.

If you start pulling pilots or posts, you'd better have a good paper trail with clear violations of the T&Cs. Anyone who reads up and gets motivated and follows the appeals process and files the right paperwork can make for a LOT of work for the people who did the pulling, as well as exposing them to potential damages.

Not saying it can't be done, but if you start down that trail, it had better be for LEGIT reasons, like organizing an illegal sickout, and not because a person, or a group of people have different political or union views.

Nu

 

[RLAblows]

actually I think I know the answer. Is it, who gives a rip?