I haven’t commented on the Delta stewardess fired for blogging (technically, fired for sporting an “inappropriate” picture of herself in her Delta uniform) but had to at least respond to this post . My problem is with the inane comment of J.H. Verkerke, professor of law and Director of the Program for Employment and Labor Law Studies and UVA. He’s quoted as saying, “Nonunion employees enjoy very little legal protection for their off-duty activities.” That’s funny, but I’m not aware of too many union contracts protecting members’ off-duty misconduct either. If the point is that an arbitrator won’t find that this incident is “just cause” for a termination, that is fine (just like the EEOC could find that this termination is discriminatory, or a jury might find that Delta wrongfully terminated the stewardess based on its handbook, policies or prior actions). But the implication that unions somehow provide great protection for improper off-duty conduct (holding for a moment the question of whether this blog was improper – I don’t think it was) is just flat wrong. Finally, maybe I’ve been taking crazy pills, but I thought Delta’s flight attendants were represented by the AFA. This may sound a little shrill, but I get a little sensitive about the academic bias in favor of organized labor (especially when it is based on the empirically false notion that unions provide greater protection than individual remedies for workplace problems).
