Alaska Airlines Fires Flight Attendants over MySpace Pages

[rsmith6621]

http://www.ktuu.com/cms/anmviewer.asp?a=7267&z=1

Three Alaska Airlines flight attendants were fired after their MySpace accounts were discovered by the company. Alaska Airlines defended the terminations, claiming its expectation that employees represent the company positively at all times.



Alaska Airlines would not comment on specifics in these cases, but said that people who identify themselves as company employees must behave professionally. MySpace is a popular online community where people can look at pictures and post comments, and it's a way to keep in touch with friends.

[mike_c]

1. working for a company 24/7 = wage slavery....

If an employer wants to dictate employees' behavior "all the time" then it should enter into a contract that includes paying them "all the time."

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. Absolutely right. Not that it should be legal, mind you, in any case.

[napi21]

3. It depends on what they posted. If they were slamminhg their employer

on a public web site, it's justified. MySpace is after all a VERY public web site!

[Greyhound]

4. Wrong place. oops.

[Greyhound]

6. You are out of your mind. What country do you think you live in?

[napi21]

13. You missed the point. If they hadn't identified themselves as

employees of Alaska Air, there would be no problem. THAT was the real error in what they did.

[Greyhound]

22. There was no error at all, nobody has the right to suppress or punish

a citizen exercising their right to free speech, outside of the workplace, and even in the workplace the company's rights do not supersede the employee's.

[angry_chuck]

7. A corporation doesn't own you

even if the fuc*ed up courts consider them as entities equivalent to persons. Drafting such provisions into employment contracts should be illegal. MySpace is a website for private individuals to converse publicly. Down with the hegemony of corporate paymasters!

[wtmusic]

9. Of course not. But they are free to fire your ass. nt

[Greyhound]

10. You are not your job, your value has nothing to do with your stuff.

You are wasting your life to enrich the undeserving and unappreciative, and they hate you for it.

[napi21]

15. No they don't own YOU, but they DO own THEIR NAME.

Would you really want to continue to pay employees who bad mouth you in public? It was identifying themselves as AA employees that got them in this mess.

[Greyhound]

23. Please look into the law on this, your position is just wrong.

The employees were not selling the company name, nor were they using it in order to sell another product or service, nor did they make any claim to represent the company in any capacity, therefore there was no damage to the company.

This is the stuff that happens when we blindly accept the implicit superiority of the organization over the individual.

[angry_chuck]

26. their ownership of their name does not

constitute ownership of all discussion related therein. Do we live under Franco? Have you read the 1st amendment? Don't be a fascist apologist, we have enough in the MSM. If you insist go here...freeper

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Most contracts have stipulations...

...that you can't bad-mouth the company in the public sphere. At least in my industry (technology.) I don't know how it is for airlines.

[angry_chuck]

27. the legality of such provisions

is an impediment to genuine transparency. They don't want you to say negative things because those things can have ramifications to the paymasters pocketbooks, and that is unacceptable. Now, stifling free speech, no problem there. Fascists.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. The impediment to transparency is our failure to protect whistleblowers.

I work in a job that is occasionally customer-facing, and I have from time to time had to tread a very fine line between accepting and supporting criticism of my employers and actively insulting them.

I understand your point. But I've also had to deal with situations where an employee is unfairly and unjustly trashing my employer for reasons that amounted to personal belligerence. If you, as an employer, are faced with an employee who is fundamentally trying to sabotage your business, I really don't see any other course than disciplinary action. Dismissal might be a bit harsh, especially if it's been the case that the employees have otherwise been upstanding.

I don't know what to think in this case because I don't have enough information. I do know, however, that this ariline's reputation precedes it, and it ain't a pretty sight.

[napi21]

29. I don't know about the airline industry either, but I can tell you from

experience that when I was hired at several differnt places, I was told "You are the Company image, and any time you are perceived to be an employee of THIS Company, ...." and there were several restrictions attached, depending on which company. I had the option of taking the jobs or not.

Also, if you aren't a union member, your employer can terminate you for anything except race, creed, or sex.

My son is an airline employee, and he was told when you fly standby, you must wear a suit and tie, and NO DENIM! They have since relaxed that requirement bit, but STILL NO DENIM, even though, unless someone is paying really close attention, they would never know he was an employee.

[mike_c]

14. why should they not have the right to publicly slam their employer...?

Unless they signed a contract that says otherwise, their employer pays them a salary in exchange for their labor, in essence buying their time. Setting aside-- for a moment-- the issue of what that entails during the hours the employer is paying for, if the employer only buys eight hours a day or forty hours a week, what right to they have do regulate the employee's conduct during the time they are not compensating the employee at all? One might make a decent argument that the employer has a right to regulate conduct by default if it affects the employee's ability to perform during work hours, but otherwise not.

Now for the other question-- does an employer have a fundamental right to regulate an employee's human rights at any time? I don't know the legal issues involved, so I'll defer to a labor lawyer if any want to chime in, but it seems to me that even during working hours fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld. In the present instance, an employee might post a derogatory comment during their off hours-- clearly exercising their constitutional right to free speech-- but a reader might access that comment on a public web site during the employees work shift. Therefore, it seems that if the employee must forfeit their constitutional rights when they are being compensated, those rights are also impinged upon during their personal time.

Either way you look at it, it's an uncompensated intrusion of the company into the employee's private life. If an employee is to be expected to provide something to the employer at any time-- including control of their constitutional freedoms-- then that sacrifice should be compensated.

[Occulus]

33. That's the part that shouldn't be legal.

Employers should have no right whatever to punish you for saying what you have to say, regardless of the topic of your free speech.

If they do even so much as try to punish you for what you say- even if about them- while "off the clock", it should be law that you are automatically considered "on the clock", 24/7, from your date of hire, and you should be entitled to that back pay in a civil suit PLUS overtime for all time over 40 hours AND time PLUS for working outside your schedule.

Edited to add: that would put and end to this kind of shit OVERNIGHT.

This has never been tried to my knowledge, but I'll side with the employees. It sounds as if they were under their employer's rules even during their private life, and that means they should be paid their wage for that time.

Why? Because their time wasn't really THEIRS.

[krispos42]

5. Ooohh, let's do the math

168 hours a week= 40 hours regular time PLUS 128 hours overtime = 40 + 1.5*128
40+1.5*128=40+192=232 hours of straight time equivilent.

Nice. I'd be making nearly 200k a year!

[file83]

12. I'd say that's the case if she hadn't stated on her page that she worked for Alaska Airlines...

...but she did. Once she does that, she's appointing herself as a public relations representative for AK Airlines. That opens her up to Corporate scrutiny to anything she says on her page that the company finds inappropriate.

Now, had she never said anything about that - then firing her would be off limits. For example, she could have simply said, "I work as a flight attendent for a major Airline." That way, she's not representing the corporation, just stating her occupation.

If you owned a company and you had an employee that stated they worked for your company by name, you lose control of your public relations. That employee could totally embarrass the company any number of ways and hurt your business - you should have a right to fire that person to protect your business, but ONLY if they identify themselves as employees of your company.

On the other hand, would it be any different if she was at a bar, got drunk, and on the kareoke microphone publicly stated, "I work for Alaska Airlines, WOOHOO!!!"???? Could they fire her for that? I guess if they found out about it they could.

[mike_c]

17. but if a company wants to regulate how their employees...

..."represent" them on their own time, then they should compensate them for that representation and clearly state that in their contract with the employee.

[file83]

25. I see the double standard on behalf of the companies - good point.

If the companies like how you represent their company on your own time, they are fine with it. But if they don't like it, they fire you!

In other words, companies will accept FREE positive PR from their employees all day long and say nothing about it to the employee. But as soon as that employee says or does something they don't like in their private life, they fire them.

Do you think that if the companies are going to take it upon themselves to fire people that provide "NEGATIVE PR", because the employee is stepping outside the bounds of their contract (by appointing themselves as PR reps without authorization), then they need to fire employees that provide positive PR as well because they too are stepping outside the bounds of their contract?

Or are you saying that in order for them to reserve the right to fire people who appoint themselves as "PR reps" in their private lives, they need to be compensating ALL people that do that (meaning the ones that provide positive PR)?

[mike_c]

28. neither-- I'm saying that it is none of the company's business....

I am not an employee of Alaska Airlines. If I make derogatory statements about AA, based on my experience as a private citizen, AA must either ignore me or it can, if my statements are egregious enough, perhaps sue me. But the point is that as a private citizen with no contractual agreements with AA, I can say more or less whatever I want. Those statements are part of the AA public relations lexicon if I make them publicly available.

If I was an employee of AA, then it is arguable that during the time I am being compensated for my labor AA also asks that I represent them in a certain way, particularly since fulfilling my labor contract requires that I deal with the public using AA's services. That is reasonable because I am being compensated for my time. My labor-- the labor AA is paying for-- includes creating positive PR.

But during the hours when I am uncompensated-- during my personal time-- I am once again a private citizen unless I am still bound by specific contractual requirements to my employer. In the present instance those contractual requirements would be uncompensated. They would constitute free regulation of an employee's private life. That is intrusive at best, and involuntary servitude at worst. If an employer wants to regulate an employee's private life-- including statements the employee might make as a private citizen on their own time-- then the employee in effect has no private time and should be compensated fully.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. That's not always the case.

If the companies like how you represent their company on your own time, they are fine with it. But if they don't like it, they fire you!

I've previously been taken to task for defending my (former) employer after publically declaring myself to be an employee of the firm and defending their actions. Even though my comments were extremely level-headed and positive for my employer, the simple fact is that they like to control the message, be it good or bad.

[TlalocW]

8. Oh, noes!

A person I will maybe 5 times on a four hour flight had a randy quote in her MySpace account. How can I possibly bring myself to purchase services and/or goods from the company that employs her?

Oh, wait, I'm not a fucking loony with an ass tight enough to create diamonds out of coal.

TlalocW

[Nikki Stone1]

11. THe quote is from Grey's Anatomy

"According to Warner, the quote came from “Grey’s Anatomy” and said “Enough! This is not dating. I want candlelight, moonlight and flowers and candy, and people trying to feel me up. Nobody is trying to feel me up. Nobody is even looking at me.”"

Firing her for this is ridiculous. I could see if she worked for a convent, but this is just insane. She wasn't breaking any laws. Does Alaska Airlines have a morals clause?

[Greyhound]

16. Do you know they are one of those religious whack-job companies, right?

In addition to the stale sandwich you get yourself out of the bin at the gate, there is a little piece of "Christian" propaganda included.

Back when I traveled for my sustenance, I refused to fly Northwest, USAir, and Alaska Airlines. The first two because of their disregard for their employees, passengers, and their safety, and Alaska because of this. The traveldepartment loved me.:rofl:

[Nikki Stone1]

32. Aha! That makes more sense now

I didn't know that about Alaska Airlines

[bpj1962]

18. Prayer Card.

All you need to know about Alaska Airlines is that they give you a prayer card with you in flight meal. I did know whether this was due to there safety record or because the owner's are very religious. They are a conservative airline and they may very well have a morals clause in their terms of employment. Never state your employers name on these websites. Human Resource department routinely troll My Space looking for dirt on existing or potential employees. The internet is like herpes the stuff you put out there never goes away.

[Marnieworld]

21. David Cross" I don't remember ordering the Jesus sandwich"

"If I had a choice I would have preferred the Buddhist pasta."

That's how I heard of them.

[Nostradammit]

20. Alaska Airlines Customer Contact Info

https://www.alaskaair.com/www2/ssl/help/ConsumerAffairsForm.asp?Company=Horizon

Let 'em know what you think.

[Trillo]

24. I'd much rather have the truth

than the optimist and/or the pessimist views.

What bothers me most about this is that off-the-clock hours are being regulated by tyrants who refuse to pay for those hours. If employers want to regulate an employee, shouldn't hourly payment be required for all the hours said regulation applies thereto?

24/7 payment for employees? Maybe Democrats should consider it in their fixing the middle class plan.