5 ms·

Rather than blame the goon squad, you should blame the king for ordering them into action. Or, in this case, the subcontracting sheriff's deputy. I think the

by fatbird 10y ago

Rather than blame the goon squad, you should blame the king for ordering them into action. Or, in this case, the subcontracting sheriff's deputy. I think the more serious error here is the error you display: "people are asked/told to get off planes every day." That may be true, and maybe in most cases results in only a grumpy exit, but this situation seems to have exposed that it is not a legal requirement, and that people's generally co-operative nature has led to routine infringement of consumer's rights. Dr. Dao was not clearly obligated to exit the plane, and the justification for the "police"'s removal of him depends upon the now-questionable claim that they were okay to do so. Certainly we are putting too much of a premium on peacefully resolving situations at the expense of fair treatment. Your story should start with whether Dr. Dao was, in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip.

true_religion 10y ago
> Certainly we are putting too much of a premium on peacefully resolving situations at the expense of fair treatment. I think we're not. In the civil world, you are expected to resolve the on-scene dispute without violence, and then later bring your case for damages. Attempting to mitigate damages often does not go as far as violence, since after all (a) that'd result in criminal claims and (b) medical recovery is often more costly than whatever civil damages you were trying to protect against.
- fatbird 10y ago
  "you are expected to resolve the on-scene dispute without violence" Only to a limited degree, and this forbearance is itself subject to abuse. When everyone politely agrees to "grieve later", it creates an organization-level moral hazard where large companies can pay less in lawsuits than they can save in expenses by abusing the individual's restraint. Walmart during the 1980s practiced a scorched-earth legal defence against any and all employment claims, clearly aimed to exhausting the ability of plaintiffs to sue, regardless of the legitimacy of their claims and depending upon their financial endurance to eke out a net win, which they did for a decade.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    I'm not sure that's a great example. If Walmart employees had started to 'grieve' in store, they'd have been arrested for trespassing unless they moved away to a public street and picketed the location. Picketing the location is a-okay, and counts as aiming to resolve the dispute without violence. Resolving it "with violence" would mean attacking some floor manager who gets paid $13/hr, and immediately being imprisoned. This doesn't seem like it'd change corporate's strategy at all. My real issue here is violence vs non-violence.... not necessarily using lawsuits as the only option---there are others, but I am a bit biased to believe lawsuits are best.
    - fatbird 10y ago
      I agree that's not a great example from the perspective of what the individual should do. It's just the best example off the top of my head of an organization using its size to make lawsuits largely worthless as a remedy. That said, I disagree that Dr. Dao is responsible for the violence that occurred or that he chose violence. His was a classic act of civil disobedience: he simply didn't comply, even when violence was used against him, and it's turning out that the predicates for using violence against him are falling apart. He wasn't trespassing, the police acted incorrectly, the gate agents acted incorrectly, and the whole airline business leading up to that moment has built up a faulty expectation of what's allowed and expected. The Walmart equivalent wouldn't be attacking a floor manager, it would be staging a sit-in, which would be much more clearly a simple case of trespassing because it's a store rather than an airplane.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      Careful. Even in the most "business friendly" parts of the US, workers still have some federal-level protection for organized action, meaning there are things workers can do which the business cannot just decree to be off-limits and force them out.
kem 10y ago
Not an expert, but my understanding after reading that article was that at an important level, whether or not Dr. Dao was obligate to exit depends on whether or not he was appropriately told to exit. If he was, he was trespassing; if not he was not. In this way, it does come back to the police action, because they should have treated it more as an investigation, asking all the parties involved about what was going on, and attempting to mediate, and then when that failed, taken him off the plane. Overbooking policy in the US is heinous, but at some legalistic level this seems to me to be more about how Dr. Dao's removal occurred, rather than about the overbooking per se. Honestly, I'm disturbed by the classism that's run rampant throughout the coverage of this and subsequent events. Airline overbooking practices, security unprofessionalism, etc. are all just part of the system until it happens to a physician (whose services for a day or so should not in fact be critical, even if they are inpatient or critical care--a hospital or clinic needs to be able to cover for illness, etc.), or as in the case of a subsequent LA Times story, a wealthy businessman. But for everyone else? The plumber whose livelihood depends on scheduled appointments? Who cares.
- fatbird 10y ago
  The article raises the point about whether or not the police were acting under the controlling authority's (i.e., the pilot's) instructions, but that's not the only consideration. Other expert opinions have raised the point that the carriage of contract does not explicitly equate being denied boarding with being removed. In other words, the gate agents are acting like denying boarding allows them to remove Dr. Dao, when that seems to be a false but (until now) unchallenged assumption. Once you're seated, different rules apply. Your point about classism is very fair, but a plumber would have an equally valid claim to Dr. Dao, insofar as being forced to accept a voucher incurs a much more real cost in lost business.
- briandear 10y ago
  Why do we use "plumber" as an example of a "non wealthy" person? Ironically, your argument itself is classist by suggesting plumbers are somehow lower class in terms of wealth or financial status. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851673,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851673,0...
engx 10y ago
Aren't cops supposed to be a neutral party? Shouldn't they have inquired what was happening and tried to find all possible ways to communicate without force? Cops in the US seem way too ready to snap into a confrontation. They could have spent 30 minutes discussing with the guy and it would had caused less disruption and delay to the other passengers. This concept of a comply or die mentality is a real problem.
- briandear 10y ago
  Do we not know how much discussion happened before the video was taken? The man was already asked to deplane multiple times and he aggressively refused. Would a pretty please have really helped?
  - IIIIIIIIIIII 10y ago
    > he aggressively refused. No comment necessary, you already did it yourself.
PeterisP 10y ago
It does matter, because the airline is not a king that can order police into action. The airline can (and occasionally should) call the police. However, the police have a duty to investigate the dispute - if they instead act like a hired goon squad, then they should be blamed (and punished) for that, it's a violation of how they are allowed to work.
- fatbird 10y ago
  Agreed. I only wanted to dispute that the primary blame should be on the police themselves. And "Chicago police" is a whole topic itself.
- brewdad 10y ago
  Funnily enough, these "police" were actually rent-a-cops, not sworn officers. In effect, they were a "hired goon squad."
masondixon 10y ago
> in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip. But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does. If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat. Now the fact that it can be argued legalistically that he was not "denied boarding by bumping", but was "deplaned", is something he can pursue in the courts if he chooses to. But I don't think he was even arguing this at the time. His behaviour was simply childish.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Did you miss the part where the law says they were not only under the legally mandated entitlement, but also not fulfilling the part where the law demands they pay out cash?
  - masondixon 10y ago
    Did they not pay out the compensation? I can't seem to find that part.
    - fatbird 10y ago
      They offered $800 vouchers, which are limited flying coupons. Legally they're required to offer cash up to $1350. They'd already failed to exhaust their legal duties in this situation, and if this actually ends up in court, one argument sure to be raised is that they used the police and an abuse of the "deny boarding" part of the contract of carriage to keep their expenses down, which was what they seemed to actually be doing: Republic is a subcontractor operating under bankruptcy protection.
      - masondixon 10y ago
        > abuse of the "deny boarding" part of the contract of carriage to keep their expenses down If they keep their expenses down is does benefit customers in paying less for tickets. > They offered $800 vouchers, which are limited flying coupons. Legally they're required to offer cash up to $1350. Legally, they can negotiate with customer. If they refused to offer cash that is illegal. But they can offer whatever they like. "As you can see, in many cases you’re entitled to a sizable cash payment, up to $1,350. However, here’s the dirty secret of the airlines. In a vast majority of cases they’ll only offer cash compensation if you specifically ask for it. Otherwise they’ll offer you the same voucher they gave anyone who was voluntarily denied boarding." http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/what-are-your-rights-if-you-get-bumped-from-a-flight/ http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/what-are-y...

by fatbird 10y ago

true_religion 10y ago

> Certainly we are putting too much of a premium on peacefully resolving situations at the expense of fair treatment. I think we're not. In the civil world, you are expected to resolve the on-scene dispute without violence, and then later bring your case for damages. Attempting to mitigate damages often does not go as far as violence, since after all (a) that'd result in criminal claims and (b) medical recovery is often more costly than whatever civil damages you were trying to protect against.

fatbird 10y ago
"you are expected to resolve the on-scene dispute without violence" Only to a limited degree, and this forbearance is itself subject to abuse. When everyone politely agrees to "grieve later", it creates an organization-level moral hazard where large companies can pay less in lawsuits than they can save in expenses by abusing the individual's restraint. Walmart during the 1980s practiced a scorched-earth legal defence against any and all employment claims, clearly aimed to exhausting the ability of plaintiffs to sue, regardless of the legitimacy of their claims and depending upon their financial endurance to eke out a net win, which they did for a decade.
- true_religion 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's a great example. If Walmart employees had started to 'grieve' in store, they'd have been arrested for trespassing unless they moved away to a public street and picketed the location. Picketing the location is a-okay, and counts as aiming to resolve the dispute without violence. Resolving it "with violence" would mean attacking some floor manager who gets paid $13/hr, and immediately being imprisoned. This doesn't seem like it'd change corporate's strategy at all. My real issue here is violence vs non-violence.... not necessarily using lawsuits as the only option---there are others, but I am a bit biased to believe lawsuits are best.
  - fatbird 10y ago
    I agree that's not a great example from the perspective of what the individual should do. It's just the best example off the top of my head of an organization using its size to make lawsuits largely worthless as a remedy. That said, I disagree that Dr. Dao is responsible for the violence that occurred or that he chose violence. His was a classic act of civil disobedience: he simply didn't comply, even when violence was used against him, and it's turning out that the predicates for using violence against him are falling apart. He wasn't trespassing, the police acted incorrectly, the gate agents acted incorrectly, and the whole airline business leading up to that moment has built up a faulty expectation of what's allowed and expected. The Walmart equivalent wouldn't be attacking a floor manager, it would be staging a sit-in, which would be much more clearly a simple case of trespassing because it's a store rather than an airplane.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Careful. Even in the most "business friendly" parts of the US, workers still have some federal-level protection for organized action, meaning there are things workers can do which the business cannot just decree to be off-limits and force them out.

kem 10y ago

Not an expert, but my understanding after reading that article was that at an important level, whether or not Dr. Dao was obligate to exit depends on whether or not he was appropriately told to exit. If he was, he was trespassing; if not he was not. In this way, it does come back to the police action, because they should have treated it more as an investigation, asking all the parties involved about what was going on, and attempting to mediate, and then when that failed, taken him off the plane. Overbooking policy in the US is heinous, but at some legalistic level this seems to me to be more about how Dr. Dao's removal occurred, rather than about the overbooking per se. Honestly, I'm disturbed by the classism that's run rampant throughout the coverage of this and subsequent events. Airline overbooking practices, security unprofessionalism, etc. are all just part of the system until it happens to a physician (whose services for a day or so should not in fact be critical, even if they are inpatient or critical care--a hospital or clinic needs to be able to cover for illness, etc.), or as in the case of a subsequent LA Times story, a wealthy businessman. But for everyone else? The plumber whose livelihood depends on scheduled appointments? Who cares.

fatbird 10y ago
The article raises the point about whether or not the police were acting under the controlling authority's (i.e., the pilot's) instructions, but that's not the only consideration. Other expert opinions have raised the point that the carriage of contract does not explicitly equate being denied boarding with being removed. In other words, the gate agents are acting like denying boarding allows them to remove Dr. Dao, when that seems to be a false but (until now) unchallenged assumption. Once you're seated, different rules apply. Your point about classism is very fair, but a plumber would have an equally valid claim to Dr. Dao, insofar as being forced to accept a voucher incurs a much more real cost in lost business.
briandear 10y ago
Why do we use "plumber" as an example of a "non wealthy" person? Ironically, your argument itself is classist by suggesting plumbers are somehow lower class in terms of wealth or financial status. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851673,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851673,0...

engx 10y ago

Aren't cops supposed to be a neutral party? Shouldn't they have inquired what was happening and tried to find all possible ways to communicate without force? Cops in the US seem way too ready to snap into a confrontation. They could have spent 30 minutes discussing with the guy and it would had caused less disruption and delay to the other passengers. This concept of a comply or die mentality is a real problem.

briandear 10y ago
Do we not know how much discussion happened before the video was taken? The man was already asked to deplane multiple times and he aggressively refused. Would a pretty please have really helped?
- IIIIIIIIIIII 10y ago
  > he aggressively refused. No comment necessary, you already did it yourself.

PeterisP 10y ago

It does matter, because the airline is not a king that can order police into action. The airline can (and occasionally should) call the police. However, the police have a duty to investigate the dispute - if they instead act like a hired goon squad, then they should be blamed (and punished) for that, it's a violation of how they are allowed to work.

fatbird 10y ago
Agreed. I only wanted to dispute that the primary blame should be on the police themselves. And "Chicago police" is a whole topic itself.
brewdad 10y ago
Funnily enough, these "police" were actually rent-a-cops, not sworn officers. In effect, they were a "hired goon squad."

masondixon 10y ago

> in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip. But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does. If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat. Now the fact that it can be argued legalistically that he was not "denied boarding by bumping", but was "deplaned", is something he can pursue in the courts if he chooses to. But I don't think he was even arguing this at the time. His behaviour was simply childish.

Mithaldu 10y ago
Did you miss the part where the law says they were not only under the legally mandated entitlement, but also not fulfilling the part where the law demands they pay out cash?
- masondixon 10y ago
  Did they not pay out the compensation? I can't seem to find that part.
  - fatbird 10y ago
    They offered $800 vouchers, which are limited flying coupons. Legally they're required to offer cash up to $1350. They'd already failed to exhaust their legal duties in this situation, and if this actually ends up in court, one argument sure to be raised is that they used the police and an abuse of the "deny boarding" part of the contract of carriage to keep their expenses down, which was what they seemed to actually be doing: Republic is a subcontractor operating under bankruptcy protection.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      > abuse of the "deny boarding" part of the contract of carriage to keep their expenses down If they keep their expenses down is does benefit customers in paying less for tickets. > They offered $800 vouchers, which are limited flying coupons. Legally they're required to offer cash up to $1350. Legally, they can negotiate with customer. If they refused to offer cash that is illegal. But they can offer whatever they like. "As you can see, in many cases you’re entitled to a sizable cash payment, up to $1,350. However, here’s the dirty secret of the airlines. In a vast majority of cases they’ll only offer cash compensation if you specifically ask for it. Otherwise they’ll offer you the same voucher they gave anyone who was voluntarily denied boarding." http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/what-are-your-rights-if-you-get-bumped-from-a-flight/ http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/what-are-y...