jbs2886 wrote:

Lol can't even spell the airline name correctly.

BWIAirport wrote:

Gonna be hard to keep this thread clear of politics but still worth a discussion. Essentially, the letter seems to ask why are employees prohibited from expressing political views but the company itself can do whatever they want. Which is a valid question, and also one that transcends any one industry.

maverick4002 wrote:

You usually know you have a point when people start commenting on your looks, or your language....or your spelling typos and not the actual subject of your complaint / argument.

gregn21 wrote:

Not the most well written letter by any means, but I do agree with the general sentiment toward Bastian, DL, and other US airlines getting way too political over the last few years. Totally unnecessary and very likely counterproductive from a sales and marketing standpoint.

gregn21 wrote:

Not the most well written letter by any means, but I do agree with the general sentiment toward Bastian, DL, and other US airlines getting way too political over the last few years. Totally unnecessary and very likely counterproductive from a sales and marketing standpoint.

maverick4002 wrote:

You usually know you have a point when people start commenting on your looks, or your language....or your spelling typos and not the actual subject of your complaint / argument.

joeblow10 wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

Gonna be hard to keep this thread clear of politics but still worth a discussion. Essentially, the letter seems to ask why are employees prohibited from expressing political views but the company itself can do whatever they want. Which is a valid question, and also one that transcends any one industry.

Fully agree. This thread will descend and probably be gone in an hour... but it’s a very valid discussion. Even if the letter sounds kind of kooky.

The second to last paragraph raises the valid point that Ed has been expressing his views in public for the past year, but it’s frowned upon for the employees who may feel the opposite

Brickell305 wrote:

gregn21 wrote:

Not the most well written letter by any means, but I do agree with the general sentiment toward Bastian, DL, and other US airlines getting way too political over the last few years. Totally unnecessary and very likely counterproductive from a sales and marketing standpoint.

I disagree on the sales/marketing. Thanks to market consolidation, passengers have very few options. If people don't like what the airlines are doing, they can drive, walk, sail or swim to their destination. I doubt many people will choose one of those alternatives.

PANAMsterdam wrote:

Can you imagine still misspelling your employer’s name, Delta Air Lines, after 20+ years?

Brickell305 wrote:

maverick4002 wrote:

You usually know you have a point when people start commenting on your looks, or your language....or your spelling typos and not the actual subject of your complaint / argument.

On the subject of the letter itself, the writer sounds like a nutjob. CEOs/corporations have been publicly expressing political views for decades now. We even have a Supreme Court ruling that enshrines that first amendment right. The issue now seems to be that people who previously agreed with what those corporations and CEOs were saying and the causes to which they were donating, no longer agree and now want them to keep out of politics. As for employees being able to express their political beliefs, companies are allowed to set whatever restrictions they please on their employees in that regard. That's been the case forever. The first amendment does not protect you against action taken by private entities. Again, it only seems to be an issue now because one side no longer seems to agree with that.

jbs2886 wrote:

maverick4002 wrote:

You usually know you have a point when people start commenting on your looks, or your language....or your spelling typos and not the actual subject of your complaint / argument.

Quite the opposite with writing. If the writer cannot even spell the airline name and CEO name correctly, it is a fair assumption that the entire premise of the document is similarly faulty, which is precisely the case here.

jbs2886 wrote:

maverick4002 wrote:

You usually know you have a point when people start commenting on your looks, or your language....or your spelling typos and not the actual subject of your complaint / argument.

Quite the opposite with writing. If the writer cannot even spell the airline name and CEO name correctly, it is a fair assumption that the entire premise of the document is similarly faulty, which is precisely the case here.

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Lol, I can't imagine how many letters and emails just like this the executives at airlines get. Tons of kooks working for them, I know many who talk about how the airline was better pre-merger or the good ol days, etc etc etc and these are usually the people who get paid the most and work the least. Nixon once said “To me, the unhappiest people in the world are those... Drinking too much, talking too much, thinking too little.”

Brickell305 wrote:

maverick4002 wrote:

You usually know you have a point when people start commenting on your looks, or your language....or your spelling typos and not the actual subject of your complaint / argument.

On the subject of the letter itself, the writer sounds like a nutjob. CEOs/corporations have been publicly expressing political views for decades now. We even have a Supreme Court ruling that enshrines that first amendment right. The issue now seems to be that people who previously agreed with what those corporations and CEOs were saying and the causes to which they were donating, no longer agree and now want them to keep out of politics. As for employees being able to express their political beliefs, companies are allowed to set whatever restrictions they please on their employees in that regard. That's been the case forever. The first amendment does not protect you against action taken by private entities. Again, it only seems to be an issue now because one side no longer seems to agree with that.

jbs2886 wrote:

maverick4002 wrote:

You usually know you have a point when people start commenting on your looks, or your language....or your spelling typos and not the actual subject of your complaint / argument.

Quite the opposite with writing. If the writer cannot even spell the airline name and CEO name correctly, it is a fair assumption that the entire premise of the document is similarly faulty, which is precisely the case here.

maverick4002 wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

maverick4002 wrote:

You usually know you have a point when people start commenting on your looks, or your language....or your spelling typos and not the actual subject of your complaint / argument.

On the subject of the letter itself, the writer sounds like a nutjob. CEOs/corporations have been publicly expressing political views for decades now. We even have a Supreme Court ruling that enshrines that first amendment right. The issue now seems to be that people who previously agreed with what those corporations and CEOs were saying and the causes to which they were donating, no longer agree and now want them to keep out of politics. As for employees being able to express their political beliefs, companies are allowed to set whatever restrictions they please on their employees in that regard. That's been the case forever. The first amendment does not protect you against action taken by private entities. Again, it only seems to be an issue now because one side no longer seems to agree with that.

The whole point was that an employee was allegedly fired for political comments (a republicant at that), outside of work, not wearing the uniform or anything and the CEO does the same. I cant believe yall have me here defending a Republican!

BWIAirport wrote:

Gonna be hard to keep this thread clear of politics but still worth a discussion. Essentially, the letter seems to ask why are employees prohibited from expressing political views but the company itself can do whatever they want. Which is a valid question, and also one that transcends any one industry.

Newark727 wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

Gonna be hard to keep this thread clear of politics but still worth a discussion. Essentially, the letter seems to ask why are employees prohibited from expressing political views but the company itself can do whatever they want. Which is a valid question, and also one that transcends any one industry.

In any other circumstance, the right would be rushing to explain why treating management (the company) and labor (the employees) differently is highly necessary and how the corporation's freedoms have to be protected. If this thread stays open we're going to have a whole lot of accidental radical leftists!

Jetport wrote:

If Hobby Lobby can reach into your bedroom, Delta can certainly fire you for political statements.

Newark727 wrote:

...also, "mandate how customers chew their food?" There is something I'm missing here.

LCDFlight wrote:

The one decent point many of us might agree with is that private companies should not become merged with political regimes. That happens in enough terrible countries. We don't need it in the USA.

The employee has one vote. Delta has zero. Employee 1, Delta 0 (and accurately called on it).

ltbewr wrote:

Large companies have employees with a wide range of political and social views. The 'writer' of this letter probably objects to Delta executive decisions to the attempts by Republican politicians in their HQ state of Georgia to limit the right to vote, something that may hurt them from recruiting employees, especially Black persons and to work in Georgia.

LCDFlight wrote:

The one decent point many of us might agree with is that private companies should not become merged with political regimes. That happens in enough terrible countries. We don't need it in the USA.

The employee has one vote. Delta has zero. Employee 1, Delta 0 (and accurately called on it).

B777LRF wrote:

Until such time a company is paying for my services 24/7/365 they have no place interfering with, or having an opinion on, what I do in my free time, provided it's within the boundaries of the law. They are, naturally, free to regulate my behaviour (up to a certain point) when I'm on the clock which, in my neck of the woods and in my current job, is Monday to Friday from 0800 to 1600.

If I, in my own time, decide to become political and espouse my political views that's absolutely none of their business, and should they decide to terminate me for legal acts carried out in my own time, we would soon meet in court and they would lose the case big time.

Then again, I live in a civilised country.

LCDFlight wrote:

The one decent point many of us might agree with is that private companies should not become merged with political regimes. That happens in enough terrible countries. We don't need it in the USA.

n9801f wrote:

The rub is that Delta claims it encourages diversity and citizenship. But punishing people for political participation would strongly suggest otherwise.

n9801f wrote:

@Aaron747

It may not be nearly so clear cut as you make it sound. See attached from the Harvard Business Review.

If employees sued after being discharged for moderate off-duty, out-of-uniform political speech, depending on the situation (and possibly state), HBR makes it sound like they might win.

Code: Select all

hbr.org/1988/01/when-can-you-fire-for-off-duty-conduct

But there would probably be negative image and labor relations consequences well before that. (Unionization?)

The rub is that Delta claims it encourages diversity and citizenship. But punishing people for political participation would strongly suggest otherwise.