As of today, the FAA has imposed a dress code on their employees,
requiring that they (*gasp!*) NOT where flip-flops and cut-offs to
work! Amazingly, believe it or not, these employees are now actually
going to be required to wear (*Oh-mi-God*) DRESS PANTS and a DRESS
SHIRT to work!

In the face of this terrible affront, the controller's union, NATCA,
has decided to do the following, quoted from AvWeb:
************************************************** ***********************************************
What's A Union To Do?
While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have
its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be
significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation
of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a
major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members
to exercise their rights to the letter. "If a supervisor tries to talk
with you regarding the way your are dressed, it constitutes a formal
meeting," the memo reads. "Stop the conversation immediately and ask
for a union representative. The same approach should be used on any
other changes in your working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
The Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says
the overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their
fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the
agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we
can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your
elected leaders will need your help now more than ever."
************************************************** ***********************************************
Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
union is going on the offensive!

Whenever we sit and wonder why the Bush Administration has been pushing
ATC privatization so hard, all we must do is read articles like this
one. Imagine -- these folks are up in arms because they have to wear a
dress shirt to work! Can you imagine what must go on in those towers
when a supervisor actually needs something of substance accomplished?

The next time the union sends me one of their whiny spam-mails, asking
for help in the fight against privatization, I'm going to send them
this post. These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
ATC privatization.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

[snip]
> These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
> us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
> about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
> ATC privatization.

Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little interaction
with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's attire
matter even a little?

Jay, you did label it correctly. It IS a ridiculous issue.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jay Honeck wrote:
> As of today, the FAA has imposed a dress code on their employees,
> requiring that they (*gasp!*) NOT where flip-flops and cut-offs to
> work! Amazingly, believe it or not, these employees are now actually
> going to be required to wear (*Oh-mi-God*) DRESS PANTS and a DRESS
> SHIRT to work!

That's a really dumb requirement on the FAA's part.

> In the face of this terrible affront, the controller's union, NATCA,
> has decided to do the following, quoted from AvWeb:
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> What's A Union To Do?
> While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have
> its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be
> significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation
> of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a
> major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members
> to exercise their rights to the letter. "If a supervisor tries to talk
> with you regarding the way your are dressed, it constitutes a formal
> meeting," the memo reads. "Stop the conversation immediately and ask
> for a union representative. The same approach should be used on any
> other changes in your working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
> The Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says
> the overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their
> fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the
> agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we
> can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your
> elected leaders will need your help now more than ever."
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
> for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
> look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
> union is going on the offensive!

Looking like bums in a professional setting is entirely appropriate
sometimes. Seriously... they're sitting far away, in a dark room,
staring at screens and talking on the radio. What do I, Mr Customer,
care about the way they're dressed? As long as I don't get vectored into
a mountain, I'm fine.

Jay, if you haven't visited a TRACON, please line up a visit, talk to
the fine folks, watch them do their job, then tell me why requiring them
to dress up is a good idea.

-jav

> Jay, if you haven't visited a TRACON, please line up a visit, talk to
> the fine folks, watch them do their job, then tell me why requiring them
> to dress up is a good idea.

The fact that tours can be arranged argues for them to not look like
bums.

But, in truth, it's not an issue of whether dressing up (or down) is a
good idea -- it's the fact that the union seems to think they have the
right to dress however they please. If an employer can't even set a
dress code without inciting a union grievance, what does that say about
the attitude of their employees?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bob Noel schrieb:

> Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
> effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little interaction
> with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's attire
> matter even a little?

And even *if* they had interaction with the public: Who cares how they
are dressed? If they wish to work in a bathsuit and their hair coloured
green and blue, so be it, as long as they are doing their job well.

The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free.

Stefan

> Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
> effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little interaction
> with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's attire
> matter even a little?

When I take a CAP squadron or Boy Scout Troop on a tower tour, I expect
the controllers to look professional -- period. What does it say when
we require the kids to be in uniform, but the controllers are wearing
flip-flops and cut-off shorts?

And, yes, looking professional translates into a professional working
atmosphere, as has been proven by many studies over the years.

But that begs the issue: Since when can't an employer set a dress
code? To coin an old phrase, sounds like we've got too many chiefs,
and not enough indians...and NATCA has just set themselves up for a
huge fall.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> But, in truth, it's not an issue of whether dressing up (or down) is a
> good idea -- it's the fact that the union seems to think they have the
> right to dress however they please.

I think that, too.

> If an employer can't even set a
> dress code without inciting a union grievance, what does that say about
> the attitude of their employees?

I wouldn't allow my empoyer to dictate how I have to dress, either.

Stefan

I am with Jay on this one, Years ago unions were a good thing to keep
miners from getting killed in the workplace. Now the unions motive is
to perpetuate their existance by working up supposable smart humans
over something that should be a No brainer. If I remember right the
adverage salary for a ATC worker this year was 72,500, with some raking
in 171,300. For that pay they shouldn't even contest not being able to
wear flip flops to work. What other profession can dress like that and
earn that kind of cash, well other then Jimmy Buffet.????
Jay Honeck wrote:
> As of today, the FAA has imposed a dress code on their employees,
> requiring that they (*gasp!*) NOT where flip-flops and cut-offs to
> work! Amazingly, believe it or not, these employees are now actually
> going to be required to wear (*Oh-mi-God*) DRESS PANTS and a DRESS
> SHIRT to work!
>
> In the face of this terrible affront, the controller's union, NATCA,
> has decided to do the following, quoted from AvWeb:
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> What's A Union To Do?
> While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have
> its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be
> significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation
> of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a
> major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members
> to exercise their rights to the letter. "If a supervisor tries to talk
> with you regarding the way your are dressed, it constitutes a formal
> meeting," the memo reads. "Stop the conversation immediately and ask
> for a union representative. The same approach should be used on any
> other changes in your working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
> The Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says
> the overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their
> fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the
> agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we
> can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your
> elected leaders will need your help now more than ever."
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
> for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
> look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
> union is going on the offensive!
>
> Whenever we sit and wonder why the Bush Administration has been pushing
> ATC privatization so hard, all we must do is read articles like this
> one. Imagine -- these folks are up in arms because they have to wear a
> dress shirt to work! Can you imagine what must go on in those towers
> when a supervisor actually needs something of substance accomplished?
>
> The next time the union sends me one of their whiny spam-mails, asking
> for help in the fight against privatization, I'm going to send them
> this post. These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
> us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
> about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
> ATC privatization.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> When I take a CAP squadron or Boy Scout Troop on a tower tour, I expect
> the controllers to look professional -- period.

You have a pretty narrow view of what a "professioal look" means.

> What does it say when we require the kids to be in uniform, but the
> controllers are wearing flip-flops and cut-off shorts?

Maybe it says that requireing kids to wear uniforms is ridiculous, too.

Stefan

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...
:> Jay, if you haven't visited a TRACON, please line up a visit, talk to
: > the fine folks, watch them do their job, then tell me why requiring them
: > to dress up is a good idea.
:
: The fact that tours can be arranged argues for them to not look like
: bums.
:

These guys are not dressed like bums. Since when is shorts and flip flops dressing like a bum? Maybe a surfer dude...

> The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
> free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here -- and I've read a
LOT of goofy stuff over the years.

An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees
-- he has a DUTY to do so.

In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
the employees from the customers. College girls wearing peasant shirts
that showed their tatooed butts, no name badge, and no "we're here to
serve you" attitude translated into a single-visit, never to return.

In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
strictly adhered to. Our employees are required to wear either our
green "Alexis Park Inn & Suites" shirts, or a (supplied) aviation
themed Hawaiian shirt with a collar. In summer, khaki shorts are
allowed, but never cut-offs or blue jeans, and no t-shirts. A name
badge must be worn at all times.

Does it matter, since much of their work is on the phone? Hell, yes.
When a guest comes onto our property, we want them to be able to tell
the guards from the inmates, and we expect our employees to act
professional at all times.

If we expect this from hotel clerks, housekeepers, and waitresses, I
don't think it's too much to ask from our "professional" air traffic
controllers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> These guys are not dressed like bums. Since when is shorts and flip flops dressing like a bum? Maybe a surfer dude...

I guess we Iowans have better-dressed bums than you do...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In a previous article, " > said:
>over something that should be a No brainer. If I remember right the
>adverage salary for a ATC worker this year was 72,500, with some raking
>in 171,300. For that pay they shouldn't even contest not being able to
>wear flip flops to work. What other profession can dress like that and
>earn that kind of cash, well other then Jimmy Buffet.????

Computer programmers. We make that sort of money, and we sure as hell
don't have a mandatory retirement at 55 or whatever it is for them.

I had a job where they required a dress code. I told them that if I'm
going to be on my knees crawling around a server rack or pulling cables
behind dusty old computers, I'm either going to dress casually or they
could pay my dry cleaning bill. They didn't relent, so I left.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer a
Rolls Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon and
explode once a year killing everybody inside. - Robert Cringley (InfoWorld)

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
> the employees from the customers.

There *are* some jobs which require some kind of uniform. E.g. it's a
good thing if you recognize a policeman and it's probably a good thing
when you can tell a waiter from a guest, too. But besides such jobs, who
cares what people wear. I do care how they're doing their job, and
everything else is not my business.

Stefan

It is the land of the FREE,

If they don't like the work rules in their place of employment they are
FREE to find a job elsewhere...............


Stefan wrote:
> Bob Noel schrieb:
>
> > Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
> > effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little interaction
> > with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's attire
> > matter even a little?
>
> And even *if* they had interaction with the public: Who cares how they
> are dressed? If they wish to work in a bathsuit and their hair coloured
> green and blue, so be it, as long as they are doing their job well.
>
> The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
> free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free.
>
> Stefan

"Paul Tomblin" wrote:

> I had a job where they required a dress code. I told them that if I'm
> going to be on my knees crawling around a server rack or pulling cables
> behind dusty old computers, I'm either going to dress casually or they
> could pay my dry cleaning bill. They didn't relent, so I left.

It should be the right of an employer to enforce a dress code for employees;
it is the responsibility of an employer not to be stupid or oppressive about
it.

This action of the FAA smacks of a power demonstration rather than a routine
work rule change. Hard to see how it can help the already toxic
labor-managemrnt atmosphere in ATC.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> When I take a CAP squadron or Boy Scout Troop on a tower tour, I expect
> the controllers to look professional -- period.

Who defines what looks professional?

A company that shall remain nameless spent mucho dollars buying new modular
furniture (and tossing perfectly functional desks, tables, chairs, bookcases) in
order to create a "professional" work environment. I suppose some foo-foo
designer might think that the new stuff looks good - but employees now
have less deskspace, file storage, and shelves for books and other reference
material. So much for the value of "professional" appearance.

How about caring about the state of the equipment in the tower cab?
The old tower at KBED had some real old dusty crap in it. And you
should have seen the tangle of old old OLD wiring at KBOS tower.

>What does it say when
> we require the kids to be in uniform, but the controllers are wearing
> flip-flops and cut-off shorts?

That we care more about performance than appearance?

>
> And, yes, looking professional translates into a professional working
> atmosphere, as has been proven by many studies over the years.

I'd love to see any of those studies. I suspect that someone fell
into the trap of confusing casual relationship (no pun) with cause
and effect.



>
> But that begs the issue: Since when can't an employer set a dress
> code?

I never said an employer can't. What I want is for the leadership
to concentrate on things that matter. Period.

What does it say about our society when we care more for appearance
than performance?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
>> us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
>> about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
>> ATC privatization.
>
> Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
> effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little
> interaction
> with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's
> attire
> matter even a little?
>
> Jay, you did label it correctly. It IS a ridiculous issue.

Not only ridiculous, it could actually be a dangerous issue. ANY issue like
this that is designed by its creators to deliberately cause tension between
controllers and supervisors while on duty is a potential danger to flights
in progress.

Slightly off topic but with a real stretch slight relevant here is what
follows;

The very idea of a government union is bad on its premise. On one hand you
have government employees screaming for money. On the other hand you have
politicians wanting the union's vote to stay in office. In the middle you
have the taxpayer who has to pay the bill when these two completely
unethical factors finish putting on their show for the public and do what
they were always going to do anyway; screw the taxpayer.
We are well advised to remember the Boston Tea Party, where everybody was
screaming,
"No taxation without representation". Well we wanted it. We got it. Now we
have taxation WITH representation :-)

Dudley Henriques

On 4 Sep 2006 05:04:28 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>Unbelievable! They're [NATCA union members] actually going to fight
>against their employer for dictating what they must wear to work...

Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
membership's voice to management. That's what unions do. What would
you have the union do to earn its member's dues? If the union is seen
as capitulating at every one of management's demands, they won't be
perceived as a useful entity worthy of attracting members.

>Apparently their [the union members] right to look like bums in a
>professional setting has been violated, and the union is going on
>the offensive!

I will say, that I was a little surprised at the casual attire with
which SoCal TRACON personnel were clad during an Operation Raincheck
visit, but given that it was a darkened room, and not generally open
to the public, it didn't seem entirely inappropriate. And you have to
realize, that ATC personnel work at odd hours 24 hours a day.

Given the drastic recent evolution in corporate dress codes (just
recall how Wilbur and Oval were attired in that photograph of their
first powered flight), probably fostered by the laissez-faire dot-com
era of the '90s, and the fact that ATC employees apparently had a
history of absence of dress code, I don't see the employees' stand as
unreasonable.

However, it would seem more appropriate for highly skilled
professionals charged with the safety of thousands of airline
passengers' to have a personal desire to elevate their status in the
eyes of the public by dressing in a style of formality commensurate
with magnitude of their responsibility.

On 4 Sep 2006 06:20:32 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>If an employer can't even set a
>dress code without inciting a union grievance, what does that say about
>the attitude of their employees?

I failed to find any mention of a grievance in what you posted.

On 4 Sep 2006 06:25:12 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>But that begs the issue: Since when can't an employer set a dress
>code?

It would seem, from what you posted in your initial article in this
message thread, that the FAA has in fact set a dress code. Or did you
miss that fact?

On 4 Sep 2006 06:35:19 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
>strictly adhered to.

Was acceptance of your dress code a condition of employment at the
time your employees were hired?

Jay Honeck wrote:
If an employer can't even set a
> dress code without inciting a union grievance, what does that say about
> the attitude of their employees?

It doesn't say anything. Union membership is plummeting. We have only
3 out of 18 here. Mostly because of issues like this. We might have 1
left that belongs to the union next March, the only month you can quit
the union, by the way.

On 4 Sep 2006 06:49:48 -0700, " >
wrote in om>:

>It is the land of the FREE,
>
>If they don't like the work rules in their place of employment they are
>FREE to find a job elsewhere...............

And if the terms of their employment are changed _after_ they are
hired, they are free to resist a new policy imposed upon them without
their prior agreement.

What would be your feeling if the bank decided to double your fixed
mortgage interest rate despite your not having had an opportunity to
agree to their change?

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 10:09:44 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>What does it say about our society when we care more for appearance
>than performance?

Does it say, that those in charge must posture before the public for a
successful re-election bid, and that attitude then permeates the
leadership?

Larry Dighera wrote:

> What would be your feeling if the bank decided to double your fixed
> mortgage interest rate despite your not having had an opportunity to
> agree to their change?

If I have a contract with the bank for a fixed rate for a number of
years, I expect them to keep the interest rate the same through the
period, since that's what the contract states, no?

In the matter of what to wear to work, I think it's silly for the FAA to
require the controllers to adhere to a certain dress code. I wonder if
the real reason for the dress code change is to torque someone.

In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and
resources to make a point, I think that it is likely to contribute
sourness to an already stressed relationship.

So both sides may be playing by the rules, but I'm not sure either is
contributing to improving the current status quo.

-jav

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:17:57 -0400, Javier >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> What would be your feeling if the bank decided to double your fixed
>> mortgage interest rate despite your not having had an opportunity to
>> agree to their change?
>
>If I have a contract with the bank for a fixed rate for a number of
>years, I expect them to keep the interest rate the same through the
>period, since that's what the contract states, no?

Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties
constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract
Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement
or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the
parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with
the other party's performance.

[...]

>In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and
>resources to make a point, I think that it is likely to contribute
>sourness to an already stressed relationship.

I wasn't aware the union was doing that. Can you please quote a
source that supports that allegation?

This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
collard shirts). I did not read suits.

Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.

Ron Lee

In a previous article, none said:
>This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
>collard shirts). I did not read suits.

It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
terms of employment without consulting the employees.

>Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.

It sounds like this country needs to remember that employees aren't
slaves.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Considering the number of wheels Microsoft has found reason to invent,
one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even
vaguely resembles a circle. -- [unknown]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties
> constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it?

The first thing to determine is whether or not unrestricted freedom of dress
is a matter of contract under the present agreement.


>>In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and
>>resources to make a point,
>
> I wasn't aware the union was doing that.

Demending the presence of a union rep at any conversation between employee
and supervisor is clearly a waste of time and obstruction of the orderly
flow of the work process. Anyone can see that.

Unions, and particularly, it seems, ATC unions, have a history of accepting
very bad advice at the worst possible time. Hence their "strong and
growing" position in the American economy.

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:31:05 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in >:

>This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
>collard shirts).

I didn't read in the initial article posted to this message thread,
that the union was opposed to casual attire. Where did you get that
idea. The way I read it, NATICA is opposed to FAA management's
arbitrary change in job requirements sans employee agreement. It
would seem, that the union is opposed to FAA management changing the
job requirements after the fact.

A good union would file suit to prevent FAA management from breach of
contract.

Now, if this is a prelude to ATC privatization requirements, that
would be another matter. I can see where the entity paying for a
service has a right to dictate the terms of the service they are
funding _before_ the agreement is signed.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message

> behind dusty old computers, I'm either going to dress casually or they
> could pay my dry cleaning bill. They didn't relent, so I left.

Which is, ultimately, the way it ought to be. You vote with your feet.

> Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
> for dictating what they must wear to work...

Why do you care what they look like? Aren't there more important issues
with the FAA?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> If an employer can't even set a
> dress code without inciting a union grievance, what does that say about
> the attitude of their employees?

If the employer is setting and enforcing a dress code for people who
work in the back room, what does that say about the employer? I frankly
don't care if they work naked.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In a previous article, "John Gaquin" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>> behind dusty old computers, I'm either going to dress casually or they
>> could pay my dry cleaning bill. They didn't relent, so I left.
>
>Which is, ultimately, the way it ought to be. You vote with your feet.

Not if you've got a union to fight for you. That's what they're there
for.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I'm just waiting for the day that someone decides that "ignorant moron" is
an ethnic group, and thus cannot be discriminated against.
-- Christian Wagner

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
> membership's voice to management. That's what unions do.

What you say is accurate as far as it goes, which is not far enough. The
union's full responsibility is to represent the members' best interests in
the labor-management relationship. There are millions of union employees
who are well paid, well trained, well treated, and secure in their positions
because they do their jobs well and their companies make money. But how
often do you hear of union leaders telling their rank and file, "you know,
guys, we've got a good deal here, and you're well treated. I don't think we
ought to disrupt anything right now." Any union man or woman who said such
a thing would be instantly branded as a management stooge and run out of the
local.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>>
>>Which is, ultimately, the way it ought to be. You vote with your feet.
>
> Not if you've got a union to fight for you. That's what they're there
> for.

Only if you're being treated illegally. Otherwise, it's the union
escalating things for their own ends.

In a previous article, "John Gaquin" > said:
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
>> membership's voice to management. That's what unions do.
>the labor-management relationship. There are millions of union employees
>who are well paid, well trained, well treated, and secure in their positions
>because they do their jobs well and their companies make money. But how
>often do you hear of union leaders telling their rank and file, "you know,
>guys, we've got a good deal here, and you're well treated. I don't think we
>ought to disrupt anything right now." Any union man or woman who said such

Have you ever considered that you don't hear about it because a union not
making noise doesn't make the newspapers?

The one and only time I belonged to a union, I had no idea what they did
except deduct dues from my paycheck. And that's mostly because we had a
pretty good deal and we were well treated, so the union never made noise.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Like most computer techie people, I'll happily spend 6 hours trying
to figure out how to do a 3 hour job in 10 minutes.
--Rev. James Cort, ASR

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:46:05 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>> Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties
>> constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it?
>
>The first thing to determine is whether or not unrestricted freedom of dress
>is a matter of contract under the present agreement.

Agreed. It would be helpful to know the dress code to which ATC
employees at the time of their employment.

However, if casual attire has been accepted or tolerated for a given
period of time, it becomes the de facto standard, in my opinion. What
that time period is, is open to debate.

But just as a land owner who fails to post no trespassing signs on his
land, is bound by law to grant an access easement to those who have
been using it for a number of years, the same rationale would seem to
apply in this case regardless of what was agreed to at the time of
employment.

>>>In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and
>>>resources to make a point,
>>
>> I wasn't aware the union was doing that.
>
>Demending the presence of a union rep at any conversation between employee
>and supervisor is clearly a waste of time and obstruction of the orderly
>flow of the work process. Anyone can see that.

Fortunately, that is not what was stated. Here's what was said:

"If a supervisor tries to talk with you regarding the way your are
dressed, it constitutes a formal meeting," the memo reads. "Stop
the conversation immediately and ask for a union representative.
The same approach should be used on any other changes in your
working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.

Clearly the union is informing their members of their right to have a
union representative present whenever a supervisor wants to CHANGE
THEIR WORKING CONDITINS currently in effect. You are mistaken to see
the union's admonition as applying to _all_ cases of
supervisor/employee conversations.

>Unions, and particularly, it seems, ATC unions, have a history of accepting
>very bad advice at the worst possible time.

The ATC union made some very poor decisions when their employees
walked off the job. Be assured, I do not condone what they did then.

>Hence their "strong and growing" position in the American economy.

Labor unions' loss of power stems more from changes in labor law
instituted during the Reagan era, then it does for union abuses of
power.

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 16:04:31 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>I frankly don't care if they work naked.

EDS and Ross Perot* would have a problem with you. :-)

Of course, Mr. Honeck might not have a problem with the practices at
EDS.

* http://www.realchange.org/perot.htm

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that
> > people are not free to dress as they wish. So much for
> > the land of the free.
>
> That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here --
> and I've read a LOT of goofy stuff over the years.
>
> An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code
> on employees -- he has a DUTY to do so.
>

Grow up. Your immature rants are getting tiresome.

Jay:

Last time I saw you, you were wearing shorts only- no shoes or even a shirt.
(Of course, it was in a pool) In fact, I'm glad you kept your shorts on.

Does this mean we should expect formal wear the next time we stay at your
place? Or, should everyone be naked?

Just a thought.

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:06:53 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
>> membership's voice to management. That's what unions do.
>
>What you say is accurate as far as it goes, which is not far enough. The
>union's full responsibility is to represent the members' best interests in
>the labor-management relationship.

That is reasonable. I don't see where that is not occurring in this
instance.

Management wants to change the rules of the workplace after the fact,
and the union is advising their members to alert union officials when
such employee abuse occurs.

>There are millions of union employees who are well paid, well trained, well
>treated, and secure in their positions because they do their jobs well and
>their companies make money.

And employee interests are voiced collectively when they are
threatened by management. That, in addition to good job performance,
is what assures their positions.

>But how often do you hear of union leaders telling their rank and file, "you know,
>guys, we've got a good deal here, and you're well treated. I don't think we ought
>to disrupt anything right now."

I have heard similar sentiment voiced by union leaders when it is
appropriate.

>Any union man or woman who said such a thing would be instantly branded as a
>management stooge and run out of the local.

That has not been my experience. When did you see that occur?

"Viperdoc" > wrote:

>Jay:
>
>Last time I saw you, you were wearing shorts only- no shoes or even a shirt.
>(Of course, it was in a pool) In fact, I'm glad you kept your shorts on.
>
>Does this mean we should expect formal wear the next time we stay at your
>place? Or, should everyone be naked?
>
>Just a thought.

Hardly an relavent comparison.

Ron Lee

>
> It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
> terms of employment without consulting the employees.
>

Absurd! You should work for an auto company. Over the past 20 or so
years white colar workers have lost COLA, vacation time, etc.
Management never asked permission. We do live in the land of the free
- one is free to work for an employer or not.

On 4 Sep 2006 10:24:51 -0700, wrote in
om>:

>>
>> It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
>> terms of employment without consulting the employees.
>>
>
>Absurd! You should work for an auto company. Over the past 20 or so
>years white colar workers have lost COLA, vacation time, etc.

Personally, I believe auto workers were paid far in excess of the
skill they possessed. (How long did an auto worker have to attend
training before being considered skilled enough to demand top pay?)

Automobile companies had seen to it that they had the market to
themselves without significant competition until the Japanese, with
their low wages and copy-cat mentality entered the scene.

While founders of the virtual monopoly sat back on their fat sacks of
cash, it was easy for them to acquiesce to unreasonable union demands
while remaining profitable, but foreign car manufacturers produced a
less expensive product, and eventually dominated the automobile
marketplace. It is only now that Flint Michigan is a ghost town, that
the US auto makers are finally realizing that they have been priced
out of the market by foreign competition.

If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and
those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason
UAW employees agreed to the loss of COLAs, vacation time, etc. is
because it is preferable to losing their jobs entirely as a result of
bankruptcy.

>Management never asked permission.

They didn't have to ask permission; management just included it in
their contract proposals, and the UAW recommended ratification.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:17:57 -0400, Javier >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> What would be your feeling if the bank decided to double your fixed
>>> mortgage interest rate despite your not having had an opportunity to
>>> agree to their change?
>> If I have a contract with the bank for a fixed rate for a number of
>> years, I expect them to keep the interest rate the same through the
>> period, since that's what the contract states, no?
>
> Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties
> constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract
> Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement
> or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the
> parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with
> the other party's performance.
>
> [...]
>
>> In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and
>> resources to make a point, I think that it is likely to contribute
>> sourness to an already stressed relationship.
>
> I wasn't aware the union was doing that. Can you please quote a
> source that supports that allegation?
This is copied from the Avweb story:

While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have
its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be
significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation
of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a
major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members to
exercise their rights to the letter. "If a supervisor tries to talk with
you regarding the way your are dressed, it constitutes a formal
meeting," the memo reads. "Stop the conversation immediately and ask for
a union representative. The same approach should be used on any other
changes in your working conditions, ask for a rep immediately. The
Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says the
overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their
fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the
agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we
can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your
elected leaders will need your help now more than ever."

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, none said:
>
>>This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
>>collard shirts). I did not read suits.
>
>
> It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
> terms of employment without consulting the employees.

Perfectly legal in this case. The previous contract expired quite a
while ago. Negotiations broke down. The way federal law is written FAA
may impose their contract subject to approval by Congress. Congress
approved by not taking up the issue.

John Gaquin wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
>>Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties
>>constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it?
>
>
> The first thing to determine is whether or not unrestricted freedom of dress
> is a matter of contract under the present agreement.

It was under the old agreement, which expired. We were not under any
contract after that.

>
> Unions, and particularly, it seems, ATC unions, have a history of accepting
> very bad advice at the worst possible time. Hence their "strong and
> growing" position in the American economy.

Todays ATC employees only give NATCA so much latitude. After that we'll
ignore them.

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and
>those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason

They've also got to stop designing crap cars. My Toyota Corolla was built
in Cambridge Ontario by Canadian Auto Worker union members, and it's so
well built that they export them back to Japan. Meanwhile your average
Ford, GM or Chrysler is a gas guzzling maintenance nightmare because Ford,
GM, and Chrysler care more about keeping shareholders happy than investing
money in research and design.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
....I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply
suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an
interpreter. -- Nick Petreley

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> However, if casual attire has been accepted or tolerated for a given
> period of time, it becomes the de facto standard, in my opinion. What
> that time period is, is open to debate.
>
> But just as a land owner who fails to post no trespassing signs on his
> land, is bound by law to grant an access easement to those who have
> been using it for a number of years, the same rationale would seem to
> apply in this case regardless of what was agreed to at the time of
> employment.

Possibly but not necessarily. Both the doctrine of historic and customary
use, and the interpretation and enforcement of labor contract conditions,
have for years been supported or struck down by an established string of
legal interpretations and decisions. The introduction of a new or different
rationale into either would be inconsistent.


>>Demending the presence of a union rep at any conversation between
>> >>employee and supervisor is clearly a waste of time and obstruction of
>>the orderly >>flow of the work process. Anyone can see that.
>
> Fortunately, that is not what was stated. Here's what was said:
>
> "If a supervisor tries to talk with you regarding the way your are
> dressed, it constitutes a formal meeting," the memo reads. "Stop
> the conversation immediately and ask for a union representative.
> The same approach should be used on any other changes in your
> working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
>
> Clearly the union is informing their members of their right to have a
> union representative present whenever a supervisor wants to CHANGE
> THEIR WORKING CONDITINS currently in effect.

I'm quite sure the members are well aware of that right. It seems to me
what the union is doing is to try to establish employer stipulated dress
requirements as a "working condition" covered by the existing contract. As
previously commented upon, we don't know if that is the case, but they are
using excessive and unwarranted slowdown processes as extortion to force the
employer to agree.

>
>
> Labor unions' loss of power stems more from changes in labor law
> instituted during the Reagan era, then it does for union abuses of
> power.

Well, I'm not sure if Reagan and union abuses are the only two options here
leading to decline. In certain cases and industries, union irrelevance,
ineffectualness, and plain dumb mistakes were contributors.

There are lots of data at unionstats.com, some of which support your
contention (assuming "union power" to be somewhat analogous to membership
numbers). But figures are figures, and the why is always more elusive.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> That has not been my experience. When did you see that occur?

Thrice in my experience.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Management wants to change the rules of the workplace after the fact,
> and the union is advising their members to alert union officials when
> such employee abuse occurs.

Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

Ron Lee wrote:
> This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
> collard shirts). I did not read suits.
>
> Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
As a woman, I think the collared shirt thing is ridiculous. So many
people feel to comprehend that women can be business casual without a
collar.

But I agree that the union needs to find something else to oppose. A
huge reason why I'm so glad we don't have unions here.

"Newps" > wrote in message
>>
>> The first thing to determine is whether or not unrestricted freedom of
>> dress is a matter of contract under the present agreement.
>
> It was under the old agreement, which expired. We were not under any
> contract after that.
>

You clarify that position further later in this thread, in that after a
breakdown of negotiations, management may impose their offered contract
subject to approval of Congress, which approval was granted de facto by
inaction. So the question becomes whether or not unrestricted freedom of
dress is a matter of contract under the *present* agreement.

Emily > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>> This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
>> collard shirts). I did not read suits.
>>
>> Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>>
>As a woman, I think the collared shirt thing is ridiculous. So many
>people feel to comprehend that women can be business casual without a
>collar.
>
>But I agree that the union needs to find something else to oppose. A
>huge reason why I'm so glad we don't have unions here.

Ok, shoot me. I was a sexist pig thinking only in terms of males. Use
any female equivalent you wish. The INTENT should have been clear to
any instrument rated pilot who avoids uncontrolled fields.

Ron Lee

PS, The COMAIR pilots screwed up. Case closed. Quit trying to blame
ATC or taxiways.

Ron Lee wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>> This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
>>> collard shirts). I did not read suits.
>>>
>>> Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.
>>>
>>> Ron Lee
>>>
>>>
>> As a woman, I think the collared shirt thing is ridiculous. So many
>> people feel to comprehend that women can be business casual without a
>> collar.
>>
>> But I agree that the union needs to find something else to oppose. A
>> huge reason why I'm so glad we don't have unions here.
>
> Ok, shoot me. I was a sexist pig thinking only in terms of males. Use
> any female equivalent you wish. The INTENT should have been clear to
> any instrument rated pilot who avoids uncontrolled fields.
>
> Ron Lee
>
> PS, The COMAIR pilots screwed up. Case closed. Quit trying to blame
> ATC or taxiways.
>
>
I don't know why you took my post personally.

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>
>> In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
>> the employees from the customers.
>
> There *are* some jobs which require some kind of uniform. E.g. it's a good
> thing if you recognize a policeman and it's probably a good thing when you
> can tell a waiter from a guest, too. But besides such jobs, who cares what
> people wear. I do care how they're doing their job, and everything else is
> not my business.
>
> Stefan

Well, I don't recall having a job in the last 37 years or so where I could
show up in cutoffs or flip flops. A good number of those years, I even had
to wear a tie (except for when I was acutally under the hood of a car).
Nowadays it's a "buisness casual" dress code which excludes sneakers, much
less flip flops...

And, yes, a few of those years were in a union shop - thanks, but no thanks.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:59:25 GMT, John Theune >
wrote in <1QZKg.1665$m36.629@trnddc02>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:17:57 -0400, Javier >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>> What would be your feeling if the bank decided to double your fixed
>>>> mortgage interest rate despite your not having had an opportunity to
>>>> agree to their change?
>>> If I have a contract with the bank for a fixed rate for a number of
>>> years, I expect them to keep the interest rate the same through the
>>> period, since that's what the contract states, no?
>>
>> Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties
>> constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract
>> Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement
>> or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the
>> parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with
>> the other party's performance.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and
>>> resources to make a point, I think that it is likely to contribute
>>> sourness to an already stressed relationship.
>>
>> I wasn't aware the union was doing that. Can you please quote a
>> source that supports that allegation?

>This is copied from the Avweb story:
>
>While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have
>its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be
>significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation
>of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a
>major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members to
>exercise their rights to the letter. "If a supervisor tries to talk with
>you regarding the way your are dressed, it constitutes a formal
>meeting," the memo reads. "Stop the conversation immediately and ask for
>a union representative. The same approach should be used on any other
>changes in your working conditions, ask for a rep immediately. The
>Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says the
>overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their
>fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the
>agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we
>can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your
>elected leaders will need your help now more than ever."

Can you please point out the part that indicates the union is "pushing
their members to waste time and resources"?

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:04:08 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>John Gaquin wrote:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>>>Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties
>>>constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it?
>>
>>
>> The first thing to determine is whether or not unrestricted freedom of dress
>> is a matter of contract under the present agreement.
>
>It was under the old agreement, which expired. We were not under any
>contract after that.

Why not? Surely NATCA members are working under an agreement between
the union and the FAA.

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:33:54 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>[...]
>>>Demending the presence of a union rep at any conversation between
>>> >>employee and supervisor is clearly a waste of time and obstruction of
>>>the orderly >>flow of the work process. Anyone can see that.
>>
>> Fortunately, that is not what was stated. Here's what was said:
>>
>> "If a supervisor tries to talk with you regarding the way your are
>> dressed, it constitutes a formal meeting," the memo reads. "Stop
>> the conversation immediately and ask for a union representative.
>> The same approach should be used on any other changes in your
>> working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
>>
>> Clearly the union is informing their members of their right to have a
>> union representative present whenever a supervisor wants to CHANGE
>> THEIR WORKING CONDITINS currently in effect.
>
>I'm quite sure the members are well aware of that right. It seems to me
>what the union is doing is to try to establish employer stipulated dress
>requirements as a "working condition" covered by the existing contract.

Like you stated, we haven't seen the agreement, but I am unable to
believe that employee compliance with employer demanded dress-code
could be anything else but a condition of continued employment.


>As previously commented upon, we don't know if that is the case, but they are
>using excessive and unwarranted slowdown processes as extortion to force the
>employer to agree.

I haven't seen any information that supports your allegation, that
they (neither the union nor the employees) are using excessive and
unwarranted slowdown processes. Where did you see that?

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:05:59 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> Management wants to change the rules of the workplace after the fact,
>> and the union is advising their members to alert union officials when
>> such employee abuse occurs.
>
>Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?

If it is a change in the working agreement, that hasn't been agreed to
by both parties, I would see it as inequitable and unjust. If changes
are desired, they should be openly negotiated by all concerned.

Don't get me wrong. Both management and labor are completely capable
of tyranny. The open negotiation of contract terms is an attempt to
mitigate that tendency.

> >What does it say about our society when we care more for appearance
> >than performance?
>
> Does it say, that those in charge must posture before the public for a
> successful re-election bid, and that attitude then permeates the
> leadership?

Who said *anyone* cares more about appearance than anything else, let
alone performance? For the purposes of this thread, top performance
is presumed.

We're talking about a dress code here, nothing more.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Last time I saw you, you were wearing shorts only- no shoes or even a shirt.
> (Of course, it was in a pool) In fact, I'm glad you kept your shorts on.
>
> Does this mean we should expect formal wear the next time we stay at your
> place? Or, should everyone be naked?
>
> Just a thought.

Hee hee! We've discussed clothing-optional dress codes, here at the
inn, but we ultimately decided that (sadly) most of our guests look
better with clothes on.

Some more than others...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Of course, Mr. Honeck might not have a problem with the practices at
> EDS.

Okay, I give. What the heck is "EDS"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> We're talking about a dress code here, nothing more.

If it's that unimportant, then it shouldn't matter to you that it gets
scrapped.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> As of today, the FAA has imposed a dress code on their employees,
> requiring that they (*gasp!*) NOT where flip-flops and cut-offs to
> work! Amazingly, believe it or not, these employees are now actually
> going to be required to wear (*Oh-mi-God*) DRESS PANTS and a DRESS
> SHIRT to work!
>

That's not true! The dress code was imposed yesterday. Pilots all across
the US must be releived to know the FAA has finally done something to
improve ATC services. No more shorts of ank kind, (not just cut-offs, which
I don't believe I ever saw any controller wear), no shirts without collars.
There's a small list of forbidden clothing, fortunately knickers and kilts
are not among them.

Mine should arrive this week.


>
> In the face of this terrible affront, the controller's union, NATCA,
> has decided to do the following, quoted from AvWeb:
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> What's A Union To Do?
> While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have
> its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be
> significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation
> of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a
> major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members
> to exercise their rights to the letter. "If a supervisor tries to talk
> with you regarding the way your are dressed, it constitutes a formal
> meeting," the memo reads. "Stop the conversation immediately and ask
> for a union representative. The same approach should be used on any
> other changes in your working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
> The Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says
> the overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their
> fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the
> agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we
> can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your
> elected leaders will need your help now more than ever."
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
> for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
> look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
> union is going on the offensive!
>

Wearing shorts makes a person look like a bum?


>
> Whenever we sit and wonder why the Bush Administration has been pushing
> ATC privatization so hard, all we must do is read articles like this
> one. Imagine -- these folks are up in arms because they have to wear a
> dress shirt to work! Can you imagine what must go on in those towers
> when a supervisor actually needs something of substance accomplished?
>
> The next time the union sends me one of their whiny spam-mails, asking
> for help in the fight against privatization, I'm going to send them
> this post. These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
> us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
> about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
> ATC privatization.
>

NATCA suffers from poor leadership, and the FAA suffers from poor
management, but I fail to see any positives in the dress code.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Of course, Mr. Honeck might not have a problem with the practices at
>> EDS.
>
> Okay, I give. What the heck is "EDS"?

Ross Perot's (former?) company.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
> effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little
> interaction
> with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's
> attire
> matter even a little?
>

Sometimes I work naked.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
>> effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little
>> interaction
>> with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's
>> attire
>> matter even a little?
>>
>
> Sometimes I work naked.
>
>
Hey, as long as we don't graduate to communicating with you with
telescreens...

> fortunately knickers and kilts
> are not among them.
>
> Mine should arrive this week.

If you're going to wear a kilt, be sure to wear it correctly. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees
> -- he has a DUTY to do so.
>

Why?


>
> In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
> the employees from the customers. College girls wearing peasant shirts
> that showed their tatooed butts, no name badge, and no "we're here to
> serve you" attitude translated into a single-visit, never to return.
>
> In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
> strictly adhered to. Our employees are required to wear either our
> green "Alexis Park Inn & Suites" shirts, or a (supplied) aviation
> themed Hawaiian shirt with a collar. In summer, khaki shorts are
> allowed, but never cut-offs or blue jeans, and no t-shirts. A name
> badge must be worn at all times.
>

The FAA banned khaki shorts. Why do you allow them?


>
> Does it matter, since much of their work is on the phone? Hell, yes.
> When a guest comes onto our property, we want them to be able to tell
> the guards from the inmates, and we expect our employees to act
> professional at all times.
>
> If we expect this from hotel clerks, housekeepers, and waitresses, I
> don't think it's too much to ask from our "professional" air traffic
> controllers.
>

Would it matter what your employees wore if your guests never saw them?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Sometimes I work naked.

I was writing some code a mn ago, in my underwear, but I've
got a really cool boss (me) :-)

--Sylvain

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> I haven't seen any information that supports your allegation, that
> they (neither the union nor the employees) are using excessive and
> unwarranted slowdown processes. Where did you see that?

"If a supervisor tries to talk with you regarding the way your are
> dressed, it constitutes a formal meeting," the memo reads. "Stop
> the conversation immediately and ask for a union representative.
> The same approach should be used on any other changes in your
> working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.

I suspect they don't keep surplus union reps hanging around just in case
someone needs one. If the number of "formal meetings" drastically
increases, then the reps and the members both probably have to come off the
scopes, requiring overtime to cover the absences. This is not a new tactic
in any union environment.

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>
> PS, The COMAIR pilots screwed up. Case closed. Quit trying to blame
> ATC or taxiways.

Oh! Has the final report been published? I must have missed that!

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> It is the land of the FREE,
>
> If they don't like the work rules in their place of employment they are
> FREE to find a job elsewhere...............
>

Some will leave. One of the effects of messing with people that are
eligible to retire is a jump in retirements.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why not? Surely NATCA members are working under an agreement between
> the union and the FAA.
>

There is no agreement.

If you are going to get paid for being a professional, you should dress like
a professional.

When I worked ATC, it was not the white shirt and narrow tie, but dress
slacks "Dockers" and sport shirts or collared golf shirts with pocket were
expected with decent shoes.

You never knew when there would be a tour coming through, Boy Scouts, Rotary
Club, Local Pilots on a "Raincheck" program, or maybe even the US Senator or
House Rep.

Perception is the whole thing, look like a bum and people will think you
work like a bum.

BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As of today, the FAA has imposed a dress code on their employees,
> requiring that they (*gasp!*) NOT where flip-flops and cut-offs to
> work! Amazingly, believe it or not, these employees are now actually
> going to be required to wear (*Oh-mi-God*) DRESS PANTS and a DRESS
> SHIRT to work!
>
> In the face of this terrible affront, the controller's union, NATCA,
> has decided to do the following, quoted from AvWeb:
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> What's A Union To Do?
> While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have
> its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be
> significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation
> of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a
> major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members
> to exercise their rights to the letter. "If a supervisor tries to talk
> with you regarding the way your are dressed, it constitutes a formal
> meeting," the memo reads. "Stop the conversation immediately and ask
> for a union representative. The same approach should be used on any
> other changes in your working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
> The Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says
> the overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their
> fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the
> agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we
> can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your
> elected leaders will need your help now more than ever."
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
> for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
> look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
> union is going on the offensive!
>
> Whenever we sit and wonder why the Bush Administration has been pushing
> ATC privatization so hard, all we must do is read articles like this
> one. Imagine -- these folks are up in arms because they have to wear a
> dress shirt to work! Can you imagine what must go on in those towers
> when a supervisor actually needs something of substance accomplished?
>
> The next time the union sends me one of their whiny spam-mails, asking
> for help in the fight against privatization, I'm going to send them
> this post. These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
> us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
> about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
> ATC privatization.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> When I take a CAP squadron or Boy Scout Troop on a tower tour, I expect
> the controllers to look professional -- period. What does it say when
> we require the kids to be in uniform, but the controllers are wearing
> flip-flops and cut-off shorts?
>

In what tower did you see controllers wearing flip-flops and cut-off shorts?

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Sometimes I work naked.
>
> Hey, as long as we don't graduate to communicating with you with
> telescreens...
>

The human body is a beautiful thing.

> Some will leave. One of the effects of messing with people that are
> eligible to retire is a jump in retirements.

I suspect also that the ones who leave (other than for retirement) would
be the ones who can easily find work elsewhere. ATC would be left with...

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> When I take a CAP squadron or Boy Scout Troop on a tower tour, I expect
>> the controllers to look professional -- period. What does it say when
>> we require the kids to be in uniform, but the controllers are wearing
>> flip-flops and cut-off shorts?
>>
>
> In what tower did you see controllers wearing flip-flops and cut-off shorts?
>
>
I saw it at BMI about four years ago.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The fact that tours can be arranged argues for them to not look like
> bums.
>

I sometimes get deliveries from UPS, the drivers wear shorts in the summer.
They don't look like bums to me. Why do you think they do? Have you ever
seen actual bums wearing shorts?

I'm betting that dress codes are in the employee handbook.
Now the management have decided to enforce it.
High Lights the trouble makers.
And gives the union something to complain about.
Makes it seem to the membership that their Union Reps are working for their
best interest.

It seems that NATCA did not have the guts to talk with their feet on their
new contract that was forced down their throat. IIRC Prez Billy called their
bluff back in the early 90s contract negotiation also.

BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As of today, the FAA has imposed a dress code on their employees,
> requiring that they (*gasp!*) NOT where flip-flops and cut-offs to
> work! Amazingly, believe it or not, these employees are now actually
> going to be required to wear (*Oh-mi-God*) DRESS PANTS and a DRESS
> SHIRT to work!
>
> In the face of this terrible affront, the controller's union, NATCA,
> has decided to do the following, quoted from AvWeb:
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> What's A Union To Do?
> While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have
> its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be
> significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation
> of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a
> major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members
> to exercise their rights to the letter. "If a supervisor tries to talk
> with you regarding the way your are dressed, it constitutes a formal
> meeting," the memo reads. "Stop the conversation immediately and ask
> for a union representative. The same approach should be used on any
> other changes in your working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
> The Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says
> the overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their
> fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the
> agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we
> can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your
> elected leaders will need your help now more than ever."
> ************************************************** ***********************************************
> Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
> for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
> look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
> union is going on the offensive!
>
> Whenever we sit and wonder why the Bush Administration has been pushing
> ATC privatization so hard, all we must do is read articles like this
> one. Imagine -- these folks are up in arms because they have to wear a
> dress shirt to work! Can you imagine what must go on in those towers
> when a supervisor actually needs something of substance accomplished?
>
> The next time the union sends me one of their whiny spam-mails, asking
> for help in the fight against privatization, I'm going to send them
> this post. These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
> us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
> about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
> ATC privatization.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I guess we Iowans have better-dressed bums than you do...
>
> :-)
>

Why do you allow your employees to dress like bums?

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Jay:
>
> Last time I saw you, you were wearing shorts only- no shoes or even a
> shirt. (Of course, it was in a pool) In fact, I'm glad you kept your
> shorts on.
>
> Does this mean we should expect formal wear the next time we stay at your
> place? Or, should everyone be naked?
>
> Just a thought.

He was dressed like a bum! What a hypocrite!

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Sometimes I work naked.
>> Hey, as long as we don't graduate to communicating with you with
>> telescreens...
>>
>
> The human body is a beautiful thing.
>
>
Not all of them.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I am with Jay on this one, Years ago unions were a good thing to keep
> miners from getting killed in the workplace. Now the unions motive is
> to perpetuate their existance by working up supposable smart humans
> over something that should be a No brainer. If I remember right the
> adverage salary for a ATC worker this year was 72,500, with some raking
> in 171,300. For that pay they shouldn't even contest not being able to
> wear flip flops to work. What other profession can dress like that and
> earn that kind of cash, well other then Jimmy Buffet.????
>

Have you ever seen a controller dressed like that?

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Computer programmers. We make that sort of money, and we sure as hell
> don't have a mandatory retirement at 55 or whatever it is for them.
>

56

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> If you're going to wear a kilt, be sure to wear it correctly. :)
>

My Scots-Irish heritage would allow nothing else.

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:Ht2Lg.2558$8J2.2200@fed1read11...
>
> If you are going to get paid for being a professional, you should dress
> like a professional.
>
> When I worked ATC, it was not the white shirt and narrow tie, but dress
> slacks "Dockers" and sport shirts or collared golf shirts with pocket were
> expected with decent shoes.
>
> You never knew when there would be a tour coming through, Boy Scouts,
> Rotary Club, Local Pilots on a "Raincheck" program, or maybe even the US
> Senator or House Rep.
>
> Perception is the whole thing, look like a bum and people will think you
> work like a bum.
>

UPS delivery drivers wear shorts. They look professional.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
<snip>
>>
>
> UPS delivery drivers wear shorts. They look professional.
>
>
You think? I don't.

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I saw it at BMI about four years ago.
>

I've never seen it. I don't think it was a problem. But if it had been,
the FAA could simply have banned cut-offs and flip-flops.

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I suspect also that the ones who leave (other than for retirement) would
> be the ones who can easily find work elsewhere. ATC would be left with...
>

Absolutely. It's also worth noting that those that are eligible to retire
today are the most experienced controllers. They are those that became
controllers before standards were lowered.

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:_x2Lg.2559$8J2.647@fed1read11...
>
> I'm betting that dress codes are in the employee handbook.
> Now the management have decided to enforce it.
>

How much are you willing to wager?

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You think? I don't.
>

I wouldn't have written it if I didn't.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Sep 2006 10:24:51 -0700, wrote in
> om>:
>
>>>
>>> It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
>>> terms of employment without consulting the employees.
>>>
>>
>>Absurd! You should work for an auto company. Over the past 20 or so
>>years white colar workers have lost COLA, vacation time, etc.
>
> Personally, I believe auto workers were paid far in excess of the
> skill they possessed. (How long did an auto worker have to attend
> training before being considered skilled enough to demand top pay?)
>

<Snip>

Larry,

FWIW, my late father was a 32-year veteran of GMs white collar world...

What you say is true so far as the blue collar rank and file UAW memebers
were/are concerned.

But, while the US automakers were busy bending over backwards to make the
people on the assembly lines happy, they were balancing the equation by
making the lower and middle management white collar positions take it in the
shorts.

Jay B

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>
>> But, in truth, it's not an issue of whether dressing up (or down) is a
>> good idea -- it's the fact that the union seems to think they have the
>> right to dress however they please.
>
> I think that, too.
>
>> If an employer can't even set a
>> dress code without inciting a union grievance, what does that say about
>> the attitude of their employees?
>
> I wouldn't allow my empoyer to dictate how I have to dress, either.
>
> Stefan

Your employer would have every right to teminate your employment if a dress
was established and you did not comply.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> The fact that tours can be arranged argues for them to not look like
>> bums.
>>
>
> I sometimes get deliveries from UPS, the drivers wear shorts in the
> summer. They don't look like bums to me. Why do you think they do? Have
> you ever seen actual bums wearing shorts?


UPS has an extremely strict dress code. Wanna guess what happens to drivers
that don't comply?

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> UPS has an extremely strict dress code. Wanna guess what happens to
> drivers that don't comply?

I'd expect they'd be fired.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Sep 2006 06:35:19 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in om>:
>
>>In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
>>strictly adhered to.
>
> Was acceptance of your dress code a condition of employment at the
> time your employees were hired?

Doesn't matter, job requirements can change, within the limits of the law,
at any time.

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel schrieb:
>
>> Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
>> effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little
>> interaction
>> with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's
>> attire
>> matter even a little?
>
> And even *if* they had interaction with the public: Who cares how they are
> dressed? If they wish to work in a bathsuit and their hair coloured green
> and blue, so be it, as long as they are doing their job well.
>
> The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
> free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free.

It is the land of the free. If you don't like the rules you are free to
seek employment elsewhere and might even be offered the opportunity to do so
full time.

>
> Stefan

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Sep 2006 06:49:48 -0700, " >
> wrote in om>:
>
>>It is the land of the FREE,
>>
>>If they don't like the work rules in their place of employment they are
>>FREE to find a job elsewhere...............
>
> And if the terms of their employment are changed _after_ they are
> hired, they are free to resist a new policy imposed upon them without
> their prior agreement.

Nonsense. Employers can change job requirements at any time.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> I am with Jay on this one, Years ago unions were a good thing to keep
>> miners from getting killed in the workplace. Now the unions motive is
>> to perpetuate their existance by working up supposable smart humans
>> over something that should be a No brainer. If I remember right the
>> adverage salary for a ATC worker this year was 72,500, with some raking
>> in 171,300. For that pay they shouldn't even contest not being able to
>> wear flip flops to work. What other profession can dress like that and
>> earn that kind of cash, well other then Jimmy Buffet.????
>>
>
> Have you ever seen a controller dressed like that?


I have and it was at a safety meeting. People left the meeting laughing at
him and his unprofessional demeanor. He earned and received no credability.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, none said:
>>This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
>>collard shirts). I did not read suits.
>
> It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
> terms of employment without consulting the employees.

FLASH, FLASH, FLASH....employers have that right. The work place is not a
democracy.

>>Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.
>
> It sounds like this country needs to remember that employees aren't
> slaves.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Considering the number of wheels Microsoft has found reason to invent,
> one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even
> vaguely resembles a circle. -- [unknown]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>> When I take a CAP squadron or Boy Scout Troop on a tower tour, I expect
>> the controllers to look professional -- period. What does it say when
>> we require the kids to be in uniform, but the controllers are wearing
>> flip-flops and cut-off shorts?
>>
>
> In what tower did you see controllers wearing flip-flops and cut-off
> shorts?

I've been in three towers, two TRACONs and a Center, and I've never seen
controllers wearing flip-flops or cut-off shorts. Jeans and T-shirts, yes.

The FAA is out to make a point with this about who's got the power, IMO.
It's got nothing to do with encouraging professionalism among controllers.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have and it was at a safety meeting. People left the meeting laughing
> at him and his unprofessional demeanor. He earned and received no
> credability.

Nor should he. But controllers dressed like that were clearly the exception
and the problem could have been remedied simply by banning cut-offs and
flip-flops. What the impose instead can only have a negative effect.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've been in three towers, two TRACONs and a Center, and I've never seen
> controllers wearing flip-flops or cut-off shorts. Jeans and T-shirts,
> yes.
>

I've been an FPL controller in an ARTCC and a tower/TRACON and have visited
probably a dozen other ATC facilities and never seen a controller dressed
like that.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have and it was at a safety meeting. People left the meeting laughing
>> at him and his unprofessional demeanor. He earned and received no
>> credability.
>
> Nor should he. But controllers dressed like that were clearly the exception
> and the problem could have been remedied simply by banning cut-offs and
> flip-flops. What the impose instead can only have a negative effect.
>
>
But why is the union making such a big deal about it? To tell employees
that a supervisor making a comment about dress constitutes a "meeting",
well...that's why I'm glad we don't have unions at my particular part of
the company.

Emily.. he must be gay

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> You think? I don't.
>>
>
> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't.
>

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've been in three towers, two TRACONs and a Center, and I've never seen
>> controllers wearing flip-flops or cut-off shorts. Jeans and T-shirts,
>> yes.
>>
>
> I've been an FPL controller in an ARTCC and a tower/TRACON and have visited
> probably a dozen other ATC facilities and never seen a controller dressed
> like that.
>
>
That doesn't change the fact that others have, right?

It is also a "Uniform".. so lets require all ATC employees, NATCA or not, to
wear uniforms.. oh.. and they have to pay for them.. with no pay increase or
allowances to cover it.

And they better be starched with crisp creases.

BT

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:Ht2Lg.2558$8J2.2200@fed1read11...
>>
>> If you are going to get paid for being a professional, you should dress
>> like a professional.
>>
>> When I worked ATC, it was not the white shirt and narrow tie, but dress
>> slacks "Dockers" and sport shirts or collared golf shirts with pocket
>> were expected with decent shoes.
>>
>> You never knew when there would be a tour coming through, Boy Scouts,
>> Rotary Club, Local Pilots on a "Raincheck" program, or maybe even the US
>> Senator or House Rep.
>>
>> Perception is the whole thing, look like a bum and people will think you
>> work like a bum.
>>
>
> UPS delivery drivers wear shorts. They look professional.
>

"Dan Luke" > wrote
>
> The FAA is out to make a point with this about who's got the power, IMO.
> It's got nothing to do with encouraging professionalism among controllers.

B I N G O !!!
--
Jim in NC

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> But why is the union making such a big deal about it? To tell employees
> that a supervisor making a comment about dress constitutes a "meeting",
> well...that's why I'm glad we don't have unions at my particular part of
> the company.
>

I don't think they're making a bid deal about the dress code, they,re making
a big deal about the imposed "contract". The dress code is just one part of
it.

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>
> That doesn't change the fact that others have, right?
>

No, it means it was uncommon.

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:cM3Lg.2564$8J2.673@fed1read11...
>
> It is also a "Uniform".. so lets require all ATC employees, NATCA or not,
> to wear uniforms.. oh.. and they have to pay for them.. with no pay
> increase or allowances to cover it.
>
> And they better be starched with crisp creases.
>

Why? What positive effect can there be in that?

> The FAA is out to make a point with this about who's got the power, IMO.
> It's got nothing to do with encouraging professionalism among controllers.

bingo.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> But why is the union making such a big deal about it? To tell employees that a supervisor making a comment about dress constitutes a "meeting", well...that's why I'm glad we don't have unions at my particular part of the company.

To make it difficult for the management, in the hopes that they will
rethink their position (or at least be punished for holding it).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> But why is the union making such a big deal about it? To tell employees
>> that a supervisor making a comment about dress constitutes a "meeting",
>> well...that's why I'm glad we don't have unions at my particular part of
>> the company.
>>
>
> I don't think they're making a bid deal about the dress code, they,re making
> a big deal about the imposed "contract". The dress code is just one part of
> it.
>
>
I guess I've never figured out why, if an employee doesn't like the
rules he is subjected to, he just doesn't find something else to do. A
union certainly isn't the solution.

>>And they better be starched with crisp creases.
> Why? What positive effect can there be in that?

Air safety of course. Would you trust a vector given to you by somebody
who doesn't even starch their pants? <g>

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> But why is the union making such a big deal about it? To tell
>> employees that a supervisor making a comment about dress constitutes a
>> "meeting", well...that's why I'm glad we don't have unions at my
>> particular part of the company.
>
> To make it difficult for the management, in the hopes that they will
> rethink their position (or at least be punished for holding it).

Again, what's the point? Management isn't the enemy...or is that a
naive position?

Jose wrote:
>>> And they better be starched with crisp creases.
>> Why? What positive effect can there be in that?
>
> Air safety of course. Would you trust a vector given to you by somebody
> who doesn't even starch their pants? <g>

I'm glad you can't see how some of my coworkers dress. You'd never get
on half the commercial aircraft out there ever again.

>> To make it difficult for the management, in the hopes that they will rethink their position (or at least be punished for holding it).
> Again, what's the point? Management isn't the enemy...or is that a naive position?

Thems that came up with the dress code is the enemy. (my presumption -
I am not a controller and have no dog in the fight). Sometimes it's
unavoidable if there is collateral damage in these fights, but the buck
has to stop somewhere. The idea is to make implementation of their plan
difficult.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Emily wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>> But why is the union making such a big deal about it? To tell
>>> employees that a supervisor making a comment about dress constitutes
>>> a "meeting", well...that's why I'm glad we don't have unions at my
>>> particular part of the company.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think they're making a bid deal about the dress code, they,re
>> making a big deal about the imposed "contract". The dress code is
>> just one part of it.
>>
> I guess I've never figured out why, if an employee doesn't like the
> rules he is subjected to, he just doesn't find something else to do. A
> union certainly isn't the solution.

A union is like welfare from the government. It saves people having to
think for, and take care of, themselves.

Matt

> A union is like welfare from the government. It saves people having to think for, and take care of, themselves.

Unions have nothing to do with government. A union levels the playing
field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer. Some unions tip
the playing field too far the other way.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>When I take a CAP squadron or Boy Scout Troop on a tower tour, I expect
>the controllers to look professional -- period. What does it say when
>we require the kids to be in uniform, but the controllers are wearing
>flip-flops and cut-off shorts?

It says that dressing like a drone is so 1950s?
--
Steve Rubin / AE6CH / http://www.altdb.net/
Email: / N6441C / http://www.tch.org/~ser/
"Why don't you mind your own business?" -- John Navas 01/04/05
"If you don't like it, keep it to yourself" -- John Navas 01/04/05

Jose wrote:
>> A union is like welfare from the government. It saves people having
>> to think for, and take care of, themselves.
>
> Unions have nothing to do with government. A union levels the playing
> field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer.

But what's wrong with that? Granted, I have a great employer, but
employers aren't evil.

Jose wrote:

>> A union is like welfare from the government. It saves people having
>> to think for, and take care of, themselves.
>
>
> Unions have nothing to do with government. A union levels the playing
> field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer. Some unions tip
> the playing field too far the other way.

I disagree. It distorts the free market of labor causing inefficiency.

Matt

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:45:05 -0500, Emily >
wrote:

>Jose wrote:
>>> A union is like welfare from the government. It saves people having
>>> to think for, and take care of, themselves.
>>
>> Unions have nothing to do with government. A union levels the playing
>> field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer.
>
>But what's wrong with that? Granted, I have a great employer, but
>employers aren't evil.

Simply amoral. My objective is to maximize the return on my
investment in time in working for the company. To the extent that the
company considers my time a fungable quantity, I will use whatever
tools are available to discourage that view. Collective bargaining
one such lever. I'd be a fool not to use it.

Don

Don Tuite wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:45:05 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>
>> Jose wrote:
>>>> A union is like welfare from the government. It saves people having
>>>> to think for, and take care of, themselves.
>>> Unions have nothing to do with government. A union levels the playing
>>> field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer.
>> But what's wrong with that? Granted, I have a great employer, but
>> employers aren't evil.
>
> Simply amoral. My objective is to maximize the return on my
> investment in time in working for the company. To the extent that the
> company considers my time a fungable quantity
But isn't it?

>I will use whatever
> tools are available to discourage that view.
I guess I just don't see anything wrong with that view...

On 4 Sep 2006 15:17:06 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>> Of course, Mr. Honeck might not have a problem with the practices at
>> EDS.
>
>Okay, I give. What the heck is "EDS"?

EDS is Electronic Data Systems, Inc., the folks that do IT for GM.
They have a reputation in the industry for draconian labor practices
(as did Henry Ford):

http://www.realchange.org/perot.htm
Abusing His Employees
Perot is by all accounts a great motivator, a man who demands
great loyalty and extreme hard work from employees, but also can
repay it with striking acts of generosity (though rarely much in
the way of wages.) He has done things like fly a new employee's
wife to Johns Hopkins Hospital in his Lear Jet, after she injured
her eye.

At the same time, the relationship he creates is one where Perot
is all-powerful, and bestows his generosities from on high. He
works people extremely hard for little money, and subjects them to
intrusive scrutiny, including private investigators, wiretaps,
drug tests and lie detector tests.

In this regard, he bears a striking resemblance to Ralph Nader, of
all people, who also inspires great loyalty, pushes himself at
least as hard as he pushes his employees, burns people out for
little money, and seems to feel he has a right to monitor and
control their lives.

For example, discussing salaries has been an immediate firing
offense from the first days at EDS, Perot's company. The company
dress code, up into the 1970s, required white shirts only for men
(he considered blue shirts effeminate), no pants or flats for
women, and no "mod looks," as the contract put it. But the
intrusion went much further.

EDS tapped phones and used detectives to investigate its own
employees, according to Posner. He traced license plate numbers in
the parking lot to see who came late or left early, just as Nader
telephones employees at home on sunny weekends to test how long
they work. And in "particularly heated" fights for contracts,
employees on the bid team would be physically searched to ensure
they did not remove any paperwork that could assist the
opposition. (Posner, p94-5)


http://www.vault.com/survey/employee/EDS-EMPLOYEER-3100.html

> > An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees
> > -- he has a DUTY to do so.
>
> Why?

To prevent embarrassment, if nothing else. Some employees need more
guidance than others. In my years in the corporate world, on more
than one occasion "human resources" (or me) had to counsel employees
who were showing up for work inappropriately dressed. A codified
dress code removes the guess work, and most employees appreciate
knowing where they stand.

> The FAA banned khaki shorts. Why do you allow them?

Because I can. We're a relatively casual, getaway-weekend type hotel,
and it's hot when we're working on the grounds, or checking the pool.

> Would it matter what your employees wore if your guests never saw them?

I feel like I'm talking to my 16 year old son, but yes. If you've ever
heard "clothing makes the man", you'll understand what I mean. Looking
professional is the first step toward acting professional.

In the end, the point isn't what I like, or what you like -- it's what
the employer likes. If the FAA decides that it wants you to wear polka
dot clown suits every day, so be it. If you don't like it, you're
welcome to go work somewhere else.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> > We're talking about a dress code here, nothing more.
>
> If it's that unimportant, then it shouldn't matter to you that it gets
> scrapped.

Don't misread me -- confrontation over a dress code is *critically*
important, because it speaks to a hobbled employee-employer
relationship.

If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized. What a shame it's
come to this.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:01:51 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>> I haven't seen any information that supports your allegation, that
>> they (neither the union nor the employees) are using excessive and
>> unwarranted slowdown processes. Where did you see that?
>
> "If a supervisor tries to talk with you regarding the way your are
>> dressed, it constitutes a formal meeting," the memo reads. "Stop
>> the conversation immediately and ask for a union representative.
>> The same approach should be used on any other changes in your
>> working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.
>
>I suspect they don't keep surplus union reps hanging around just in case
>someone needs one. If the number of "formal meetings" drastically
>increases, then the reps and the members both probably have to come off the
>scopes, requiring overtime to cover the absences. This is not a new tactic
>in any union environment.
>

It's new to me. I would suppose each ATC facility had a designated
NATICA Shop Steward.

> > That doesn't change the fact that others have, right?
>
> No, it means it was uncommon.

Good. Than it should be no big deal for controllers to accept a dress
code that they are apparently largely following.

Yet, that's not what is happening. Why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Emily > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>> Emily > wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>>> This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
>>>> collard shirts). I did not read suits.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Lee
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As a woman, I think the collared shirt thing is ridiculous. So many
>>> people feel to comprehend that women can be business casual without a
>>> collar.
>>>
>>> But I agree that the union needs to find something else to oppose. A
>>> huge reason why I'm so glad we don't have unions here.
>>
>> Ok, shoot me. I was a sexist pig thinking only in terms of males. Use
>> any female equivalent you wish. The INTENT should have been clear to
>> any instrument rated pilot who avoids uncontrolled fields.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>> PS, The COMAIR pilots screwed up. Case closed. Quit trying to blame
>> ATC or taxiways.
>>
>>
>I don't know why you took my post personally.

Emily > wrote:
>
>>
>I don't know why you took my post personally.

Male PMS or too much sugar. Either way I was wrong and I apologize.
Oops, can't blame anything other than me.

Ron Lee

> He was dressed like a bum! What a hypocrite!

AND I was drinking alcohol!

Dang, I should fire myself, and claim unemployment...

But then I'd have to *deny* myself unemployment, on the grounds that it
is all a scam...

But then I'd have to *sue* myself for falsely denying my claim, to the
tune of tens of millions of dollars. Punitive damages could be
astronomical...

Ah, what a lovely retirement plan...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:11:16 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Newps" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> The first thing to determine is whether or not unrestricted freedom of
>>> dress is a matter of contract under the present agreement.
>>
>> It was under the old agreement, which expired. We were not under any
>> contract after that.
>>
>
>You clarify that position further later in this thread, in that after a
>breakdown of negotiations, management may impose their offered contract
>subject to approval of Congress, which approval was granted de facto by
>inaction. So the question becomes whether or not unrestricted freedom of
>dress is a matter of contract under the *present* agreement.
>

So management's power trumps collective bargaining for government
employees. Terrific. :-(

I suppose, that if you agree to accept that sort of heavy handedness
as a condition of employment, there's little use for a union; it just
functions as window dressing for the government without true power.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
> without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
> is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized.

So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
ATC that you advocate?

> If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace

If employees can't even wear flip flops in the workplace...

You say it's a small matter. It matters enough to the FAA to push for
it. It matters enough to the employees to push against it.

If it's so unimportant, the FAA should back down. They have important
safety issues to address. If it's important, then the employess should
fight it - it's the nose in the camel's tent.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> But what's wrong with [unions leveling the playing field]?

Nothing. But there is always the danger that the beast gets too big,
and becomes another bureaucracy.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Sometimes I work naked.

I will never interact with ATC again without seeing the controller
naked, in my mind's eye...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> A union levels the playing field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer. Some unions tip the playing field too far the other way.
> I disagree. It distorts the free market of labor causing inefficiency.

The free market works when employers and employees have equal clout. If
one side gets too much clout, the "freedom to walk" becomes meaningless,
thus distorting the free market of labor. This was why unions were
formed in the first place.

Since then, they have gotten very powerful. Arguably too powerful.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:15:09 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On 4 Sep 2006 06:35:19 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> in om>:
>>
>>>In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
>>>strictly adhered to.
>>
>> Was acceptance of your dress code a condition of employment at the
>> time your employees were hired?
>
>Doesn't matter, job requirements can change, within the limits of the law,
>at any time.
>

When a job condition changes it opens the door to negotiation. If the
new condition were for example double production, how would you feel?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> In the end, the point isn't what I like, or what you like -- it's what
> the employer likes. If the FAA decides that it wants you to wear polka
> dot clown suits every day, so be it.

I will wear whatever my employer wishes, provided they also provide it.

Happy landings.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:05:45 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>>> A union levels the playing field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer. Some unions tip the playing field too far the other way.
>> I disagree. It distorts the free market of labor causing inefficiency.
>
>The free market works when employers and employees have equal clout. If
>one side gets too much clout, the "freedom to walk" becomes meaningless,
>thus distorting the free market of labor. This was why unions were
>formed in the first place.
>
>Since then, they have gotten very powerful. Arguably too powerful.
>
Still?

Don

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:01:45 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
>
>If employees can't even wear flip flops in the workplace...
>
>You say it's a small matter. It matters enough to the FAA to push for
>it. It matters enough to the employees to push against it.
>
>If it's so unimportant, the FAA should back down. They have important
>safety issues to address. If it's important, then the employess should
>fight it - it's the nose in the camel's tent.
>
Something's goofy with this whole thread. Flip-flops are a personnel
safety issue; they can make you fall down and hurt yourself. Shirts
with collars are a power issue.

Don

> So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
> ATC that you advocate?

Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
>> ATC that you advocate?
>
> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.

How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
>> Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?
>
> If it is a change in the working agreement, that hasn't been agreed to
> by both parties, I would see it as inequitable and unjust. If changes
> are desired, they should be openly negotiated by all concerned.

You didn't answer my question. :)

"Inequitable" and "unjust" don't equate to "abuse" in any thesaurus I know,
so I'm still wondering how requiring professional attire equates to
"employee abuse".

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

> Flip-flops are a personnel
> safety issue; they can make you fall down and hurt yourself.

.... and ties are a safety issue, they can get caught in machinery. Yet
employers mandate them.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>>Since then, [unions] have gotten very powerful. Arguably too powerful.
> Still?

I don't know. I am not taking a stand on whether the unions (or any
particular union) is or are too powerful. What I am taking a stand on
is the idea that "it's a small issue so you should just comply".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> Flip-flops are a personnel
>> safety issue; they can make you fall down and hurt yourself.
>
> ... and ties are a safety issue, they can get caught in machinery. Yet
> employers mandate them.
>
> Jose
Name one company that makes machine workers wear ties.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:15:09 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 4 Sep 2006 06:35:19 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>> in om>:
>>>
>>>>In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
>>>>strictly adhered to.
>>>
>>> Was acceptance of your dress code a condition of employment at the
>>> time your employees were hired?
>>
>>Doesn't matter, job requirements can change, within the limits of the law,
>>at any time.
>>
>
> When a job condition changes it opens the door to negotiation. If the
> new condition were for example double production, how would you feel?

The options are to meet the new requirements, leave or be terminated.

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>>> A union levels the playing field, which otherwise is skewed towards the
>>> employer. Some unions tip the playing field too far the other way.
>> I disagree. It distorts the free market of labor causing inefficiency.
>
> The free market works when employers and employees have equal clout. If
> one side gets too much clout, the "freedom to walk" becomes meaningless,
> thus distorting the free market of labor. This was why unions were formed
> in the first place.
>
> Since then, they have gotten very powerful. Arguably too powerful.

Unions are dying at a rapid rate. Membership is a shadow of what it once
was.

> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Private" > wrote in message
news:n76Lg.516413$IK3.107547@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> In the end, the point isn't what I like, or what you like -- it's what
>> the employer likes. If the FAA decides that it wants you to wear polka
>> dot clown suits every day, so be it.
>
> I will wear whatever my employer wishes, provided they also provide it.

In that case you quite likely would find yourself pursuing other
opportunities.

> Happy landings.
>

> Name one company that makes machine workers wear ties.

Why machine workers? You think there's a special safety issue at ATC
with flip flops?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> Name one company that makes machine workers wear ties.
>
> Why machine workers? You think there's a special safety issue at ATC
> with flip flops?
>
> Jose
You said "... and ties are a safety issue, they can get caught in
machinery. Yet employers mandate them."

And I said, "name on company who makes machinery workers wear ties"

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> EDS is Electronic Data Systems, Inc., the folks that do IT for GM.
> They have a reputation in the industry for draconian labor practices
> (as did Henry Ford):
>

Ross Perot is also the man who moved heaven and hell to get his people out
of Iran when the Shah was ousted...

As for Henry Ford, he may not have been as draconian as a lot of people
think. My maternal grandfather went to work for ol' Henry after graduating
from Ford's first industrial education program. I've been told by family
that any time Henry came down to the production floor, he would seek out my
grandfather, greeted him by name and would always inquire about his health
and happiness. It has also been said that Mr. Ford (in the early days)
maintained a fairly "open door policy" for his empoyees.

Perhaps once Ford Motor Company began it's exponential growth this practice
simply became untenable.

Jay B

Jay Honeck has started one of the most interesting threads in a long
time. 0-160 comments in less then a day,, WOW. Reading all sides of the
issues is pretty damn entertaining and ya got to admit, We do live in a
great country and that first amendment thing is a wonderful thing too..
<G>

One can clearly see who is a union member, and who is not, thats for
sure..

Ok Jay, for your next assignment if you wish to accept is to start a
thread on politics or religion. This suggestion will self destruct in
20 seconds......

Ben.



Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > EDS is Electronic Data Systems, Inc., the folks that do IT for GM.
> > They have a reputation in the industry for draconian labor practices
> > (as did Henry Ford):
> >
>
> Ross Perot is also the man who moved heaven and hell to get his people out
> of Iran when the Shah was ousted...
>
> As for Henry Ford, he may not have been as draconian as a lot of people
> think. My maternal grandfather went to work for ol' Henry after graduating
> from Ford's first industrial education program. I've been told by family
> that any time Henry came down to the production floor, he would seek out my
> grandfather, greeted him by name and would always inquire about his health
> and happiness. It has also been said that Mr. Ford (in the early days)
> maintained a fairly "open door policy" for his empoyees.
>
> Perhaps once Ford Motor Company began it's exponential growth this practice
> simply became untenable.
>
> Jay B

> wrote

> Jay Honeck has started one of the most interesting threads in a long
> time. 0-160 comments in less then a day,,

Interesting? Not to me.

Remember, also, that quantify is not equal to quality.
--
Jim in NC

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I guess I've never figured out why, if an employee doesn't like the rules
> he is subjected to, he just doesn't find something else to do. A union
> certainly isn't the solution.
>

Some will do that. It will be the best and most experienced. Those that
remain will all be wearing pants. Do you think that is a net positive?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> To prevent embarrassment, if nothing else. Some employees need more
> guidance than others. In my years in the corporate world, on more
> than one occasion "human resources" (or me) had to counsel employees
> who were showing up for work inappropriately dressed. A codified
> dress code removes the guess work, and most employees appreciate
> knowing where they stand.
>

But the dress code affected all employees, not just those that need more
guidance.


>
> Because I can. We're a relatively casual, getaway-weekend type hotel,
> and it's hot when we're working on the grounds, or checking the pool.
>

So can the FAA. Why is it okay for your employees to look like bums but not
FAA employees?


>
> I feel like I'm talking to my 16 year old son, but yes. If you've ever
> heard "clothing makes the man", you'll understand what I mean. Looking
> professional is the first step toward acting professional.
>

Why don't you require your employees to look professional?

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> One can clearly see who is a union member, and who is not, thats for
> sure..

really?

Am I union or not?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Good. Than it should be no big deal for controllers to accept a dress
> code that they are apparently largely following.
>
> Yet, that's not what is happening. Why?
>

Gee, you're right, why would anyone object to being forced to purchase
and wear uncomfortable clothing?

It appears your position is simply an extension of your bias against
government employees.

wrote:
>
>Jay Honeck has started one of the most interesting threads in a long
> time. 0-160 comments in less then a day,, WOW. Reading all sides of the
> issues is pretty damn entertaining and ya got to admit, We do live in a
> great country and that first amendment thing is a wonderful thing too..
> <G>
>
> One can clearly see who is a union member, and who is not, thats for
> sure..
>

Ya think? Am I a union member or not?

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> Sometimes I work naked.
>
> I will never interact with ATC again without seeing the controller
> naked, in my mind's eye...

In the case of the lady controllers I met at Atlanta Center, this is a good
thing.

In the case of the guys I know at BFM tower, it is a very bad thing, indeed.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

> Gee, you're right, why would anyone object to being forced to purchase
> and wear uncomfortable clothing?
>
> It appears your position is simply an extension of your bias against
> government employees.

No, my position is an extension of my disgust with arrogant employees
who, while being paid handsomely, can't seem to keep their mouths shut
and their minds on the job.

You guys are driving yourselves off a cliff, and you don't even see it
coming. What makes it so sad is that it's precisely the same cliff
that unions have driven off for the last 80 years.

Trouble is, with the seemingly inexorable drive toward privatizing ATC,
your untimely insubordination means that this time you're going to take
us all with you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Interesting? Not to me.

Really? I find it fascinating.

Unfortunately, it's the same fascination that won't let you avert your
eyes when you're witnessing a train wreck. Controllers, by their
actions, have harmed GA's chances of avoiding privatization in ways
that no other single action could have accoplished. And we're all
going to pay for it.

All because they don't want to be "forced" to wear dockers and a nice
shirt to work.

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Some will do that. It will be the best and most experienced. Those that
> remain will all be wearing pants. Do you think that is a net positive?

This is the same argument that we all tried to use against privatizing
Flight Service.

Surprise! After the dust settled, it turned out that the "most
experienced" briefers -- the ones who retired -- were actually the
deadwood in the organization, and (in the short term, until they start
charging per-call) we're better off with Lockheed-Martins' version of
FSS. Call performance is better, briefers are better trained, with
better equipment, and getting a weather briefing is a more positive
experience for pilots.

There are almost 300 million people in this country. No one is
irreplaceable. No one.

I sure wish you guys would learn that lesson, and keep quiet about this
silly dress code issue. Privatization is NOT going to be good for GA.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I guess I've never figured out why, if an employee doesn't like the rules
>> he is subjected to, he just doesn't find something else to do. A union
>> certainly isn't the solution.
>>
>
> Some will do that. It will be the best and most experienced. Those that
> remain will all be wearing pants. Do you think that is a net positive?
>
>
I'd rather see the union go away.

Emily wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
>>> ATC that you advocate?
>>
>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>
> How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?

Same way I flew VFR 100% of the time before earning my instrument rating.

In fact, I believe Jay doesn't have an instrument rating, so all of the
stories he has posted about his flying adventures are 100% about VFR flying.

-jav

Emily wrote:
>
> I'd rather see the union go away.
>

So would I.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>

Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
airspace?

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> No, my position is an extension of my disgust with arrogant employees
> who, while being paid handsomely, can't seem to keep their mouths shut
> and their minds on the job.
>
> You guys are driving yourselves off a cliff, and you don't even see it
> coming. What makes it so sad is that it's precisely the same cliff
> that unions have driven off for the last 80 years.
>
> Trouble is, with the seemingly inexorable drive toward privatizing ATC,
> your untimely insubordination means that this time you're going to take
> us all with you.
>

That's not the impression your messages give.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>>
>
> Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
> airspace?


No problem.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Really? I find it fascinating.
>
> Unfortunately, it's the same fascination that won't let you avert your
> eyes when you're witnessing a train wreck. Controllers, by their
> actions, have harmed GA's chances of avoiding privatization in ways
> that no other single action could have accoplished. And we're all
> going to pay for it.
>
> All because they don't want to be "forced" to wear dockers and a nice
> shirt to work.
>

Why should government employees that aren't even seen by the customer
be forced to wear dockers and a nice shirt to work while private sector
employees that must interact with customers, like those at the Alexis
Park Inn, can dress like bums?

Your position appears to be solely based on your noted dislike of
government employees.

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>
> >> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
> >>
> >
> > Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
> > airspace?
> >
>
> No problem.
>

It wouldn't be a problem for some pilots, but it might be a problem for
Jay. It would mean he can no longer fly in to AirVenture.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:35:16 -0400, Javier >
wrote in >:

>Emily wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
>>>> ATC that you advocate?
>>>
>>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>>
>> How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?
>
>Same way I flew VFR 100% of the time before earning my instrument rating.
>
>In fact, I believe Jay doesn't have an instrument rating, so all of the
>stories he has posted about his flying adventures are 100% about VFR flying.


Of course, that doesn't mean he hasn't used ATC services during those
VFR flights (hopefully).

On 5 Sep 2006 05:56:50 -0700, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. com>:

>
>It wouldn't be a problem for some pilots, but it might be a problem for
>Jay. It would mean he can no longer fly in to AirVenture.

If he's based at a towered field, it would also mean he wouldn't be
able to get a taxi clearance to takeoff effectively grounding him.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>>
>
> Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
> airspace?
>

Or get weather briefings...

-jav

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:


>If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
>without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
>is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized. What a shame it's
>come to this.

Or the union has outlived its usefullness.

Ron Lee

Emily > wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
>>> ATC that you advocate?
>>
>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>
>How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?

Easy. It is all I do. 300 hours last year so it must be doable

Ron Lee

("Tom Conner" wrote)
> Grow up. Your immature rants are getting tiresome.


Explain, please.

Curious about the 'immature' and 'Grow up' aspect. Thanks.


Montblack

> You said "... and ties are a safety issue, they can get caught in machinery. Yet employers mandate them."
>
> And I said, "name on company who makes machinery workers wear ties"

Yes, I know what we said. My statement was in response to (and a
parallel to) a prior poster who said that flip flops were a safety issue
[and therefore were banned]. And machine workers are not the only ones
who work near machinery. A tie can get caught in a copy machine too.

The safety issue of flip flops is chimeral. People who can't walk in
flip flops don't choose to wear them. We don't need workplace rules to
tell us how to dress.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Have you ever seen a controller dressed like that?
>
>
> I have and it was at a safety meeting. People left the meeting laughing
> at him and his unprofessional demeanor. He earned and received no
> credability.
I remember the media pictures of the controllers on strike in 1981, dressed
like crap, while picketing. It sure didn't lend them any credibility.

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> Sometimes I work naked.


http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d174/skapee/fatcruze.jpg
"Cleared for takeoff ...I love saying that."


Montblack

> No, my position is an extension of my disgust with arrogant employees
> who, while being paid handsomely, can't seem to keep their mouths shut
> and their minds on the job.

They had their mouths shut and their minds on the job until their
employer told them what to wear.

> ...your untimely insubordination means...

So now it's "insubordination" to complain about a draconian dress code?
(see, I can use inflamatory words too)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>Why should government employees that aren't even seen by the customer
>be forced to wear dockers and a nice shirt to work while private sector
>employees that must interact with customers, like those at the Alexis
>Park Inn, can dress like bums?
>
>Your position appears to be solely based on your noted dislike of
>government employees.

Steven, I am not sure that his position is based upon dislike. But if
it is, maybe it is just unionized "babies."

Ron Lee
>

> Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
> airspace?

He's in Iowa. They don't have alphabet airspace there. <g>

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> I remember the media pictures of the controllers on strike in 1981, dressed
> like crap, while picketing. It sure didn't lend them any credibility.

There's a picket line dress code? <G>

In a past life, I spent some time picketing, and I thought you were
supposed to look poor.

A nice suit and a Beemer don't usually do much for public support during
a work stoppage.

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> Hee hee! We've discussed clothing-optional dress codes, here at the inn,
> but we ultimately decided that (sadly) most of our guests look better with
> clothes on.
>
> Some more than others...


HEY!!!


Montblack
Heading to IOW (in a few hours) to drop off OSH gear.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Private" > wrote in message
> news:n76Lg.516413$IK3.107547@pd7tw1no...
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> In the end, the point isn't what I like, or what you like -- it's what
>>> the employer likes. If the FAA decides that it wants you to wear polka
>>> dot clown suits every day, so be it.
>>
>> I will wear whatever my employer wishes, provided they also provide it.
>
> In that case you quite likely would find yourself pursuing other
> opportunities.
>
I require my project managers to wear slacks and at least a "golf" type
shirt when meeting clients/contractors in their offices. When entertaining
them in a restaurant, for example, a suit/sport coat and tie are mandatory.

I haven't had to buy anyone a suit yet, and I doubt I ever will.

Larry Dighera wrote:

>>
>>It was under the old agreement, which expired. We were not under any
>>contract after that.
>
>
> Why not? Surely NATCA members are working under an agreement between
> the union and the FAA.

No. It expired.

wrote)
> One can clearly see who is a union member, and who is not, thats for
> sure..


http://www.yale.edu/terc/democracy/may1text/images/Strike.jpg
My older sister painted this red fist image (no words) on her window shade
one summer - probably 1969. I was nine.

It was the 'age of' ...poster paint. :-)


Montblack
Dad got promoted to a management possition with the railroad, before I was
born, but still maintained his Union membership with monthly dues - until
the day he retired.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> I remember the media pictures of the controllers on strike in 1981,
>> dressed like crap, while picketing. It sure didn't lend them any
>> credibility.
>
> There's a picket line dress code? <G>
>
> In a past life, I spent some time picketing, and I thought you were
> supposed to look poor.

For those outside aviation, do you think these guys looking like outright
bums instilled confidence that these bozos are the ones keeping the skies
safe?

> A nice suit and a Beemer don't usually do much for public support during a
> work stoppage.

They were light years removed from "nice suits". And their demeanor sure
didn't do them any favors either.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message >>
>
> So management's power trumps collective bargaining for government
> employees. Terrific. :-(

Not only for government employees, but for all employees -- but only under
certain specified conditions. I was quoting from Newps, who, iirc, is in
ATC and presumably ought to know these things regarding the issue in
question:

>Perfectly legal in this case. The previous contract expired quite a
>while ago. Negotiations broke down. The way federal law is written FAA
>may impose their contract subject to approval by Congress. Congress
>approved by not taking up the issue.

Procedures re labor law and negotiation are clearly specified. I got the
impression you're a union guy, too, Larry. Why aren't you up on these
details? I've been involved in unions and union elections several times
through my life. The rules are all there. You may not like them, and they
may sometimes seem slanted, convoluted, or bizarre, but they are there. All
you have to do is look it up.

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>>If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
>>without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
>>is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized. What a shame it's
>>come to this.
>
> Or the union has outlived its usefullness.
>
Assuming, of course, it was useful to begin with.

Don't think so.

("Emily" wrote)
>> Unions have nothing to do with government. A union levels the playing
>> field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer.

> But what's wrong with that? Granted, I have a great employer, but
> employers aren't evil.


What's wrong with a boss grabbing some young thing's ta-ta's, in his office,
in exchange for not firing her?

Start with the Homestead Strike and work your way up to... 'your boss is not
allowed to grab your ta-ta's, in exchange for not firing you.'

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande04.html>


Montblack

> Assuming, of course, it was useful to begin with.
> Don't think so.

I suspect the sweat shop employees in the early part of the 1900s would
disagree. But it doesn't matter, we have what we have now.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> If he's based at a towered field, it would also mean he wouldn't be
> able to get a taxi clearance to takeoff effectively grounding him.
>

He bases at an uncontrolled field.

Ron Lee wrote:
>
> Or the union has outlived its usefullness.
>

I never found it to be useful. More of a detriment, actually.

Javier wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
> >>
> >
> > Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
> > airspace?
> >
>
> Or get weather briefings...
>

Ehh??

Jose wrote:
>
> I suspect the sweat shop employees in the early part of the 1900s would
> disagree. But it doesn't matter, we have what we have now.
>

I assumed "it" referred to NATCA.

> I assumed "it" referred to NATCA.

I assumed "it" referred to unions in general.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ron Lee wrote:
>
> Steven, I am not sure that his position is based upon dislike. But if
> it is, maybe it is just unionized "babies."
>

The newly imposed "contract" applies to all controllers, not just those
that joined NATCA.

Ron Lee wrote:
>
> Steven, I am not sure that his position is based upon dislike. But if
> it is, maybe it is just unionized "babies."
>

The newly imposed "contract" applies to all controllers, not just those
that joined NATCA.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Sep 2006 15:17:06 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in . com>:
>
>>> Of course, Mr. Honeck might not have a problem with the practices at
>>> EDS.
>>
>>Okay, I give. What the heck is "EDS"?
>
> EDS is Electronic Data Systems, Inc., the folks that do IT for GM.
> They have a reputation in the industry for draconian labor practices
> (as did Henry Ford):
>
> http://www.realchange.org/perot.htm
> Abusing His Employees
> Perot is by all accounts a great motivator, a man who demands
> great loyalty and extreme hard work from employees, but also can
> repay it with striking acts of generosity (though rarely much in
> the way of wages.) He has done things like fly a new employee's
> wife to Johns Hopkins Hospital in his Lear Jet, after she injured
> her eye.
>
> At the same time, the relationship he creates is one where Perot
> is all-powerful, and bestows his generosities from on high. He
> works people extremely hard for little money, and subjects them to
> intrusive scrutiny, including private investigators, wiretaps,
> drug tests and lie detector tests.
>
> In this regard, he bears a striking resemblance to Ralph Nader, of
> all people, who also inspires great loyalty, pushes himself at
> least as hard as he pushes his employees, burns people out for
> little money, and seems to feel he has a right to monitor and
> control their lives.
>
> For example, discussing salaries has been an immediate firing
> offense from the first days at EDS, Perot's company. The company
> dress code, up into the 1970s, required white shirts only for men
> (he considered blue shirts effeminate), no pants or flats for
> women, and no "mod looks," as the contract put it. But the
> intrusion went much further.
>
> EDS tapped phones and used detectives to investigate its own
> employees, according to Posner. He traced license plate numbers in
> the parking lot to see who came late or left early, just as Nader
> telephones employees at home on sunny weekends to test how long
> they work. And in "particularly heated" fights for contracts,
> employees on the bid team would be physically searched to ensure
> they did not remove any paperwork that could assist the
> opposition. (Posner, p94-5)
>
>
> http://www.vault.com/survey/employee/EDS-EMPLOYEER-3100.html

Also, in the company cafeteria, unmarried men and women were not allowed to
sit together.

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>>>
>> Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
>> airspace?
>
>
> No problem.
>
>
How is that no problem? That's a HUGE problem.

Ron Lee wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
>>>> ATC that you advocate?
>>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>> How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?
>
> Easy. It is all I do. 300 hours last year so it must be doable
>
> Ron Lee
Where do you live?

B A R R Y wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> I remember the media pictures of the controllers on strike in 1981,
>> dressed like crap, while picketing. It sure didn't lend them any
>> credibility.
>
> There's a picket line dress code? <G>
>
> In a past life, I spent some time picketing, and I thought you were
> supposed to look poor.
>
> A nice suit and a Beemer don't usually do much for public support during
> a work stoppage.

I wasn't aware that a work stoppage in general raised public support.

Montblack wrote:
> ("Emily" wrote)
>>> Unions have nothing to do with government. A union levels the playing
>>> field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer.
>
>> But what's wrong with that? Granted, I have a great employer, but
>> employers aren't evil.
>
>
> What's wrong with a boss grabbing some young thing's ta-ta's, in his
> office,
> in exchange for not firing her?

That's the action of one person, not a corporation.

Emily wrote:
>
> I wasn't aware that a work stoppage in general raised public support.

Some union leaders believe it does.

I'm not sure I agree either.

Emily > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>> Emily > wrote:
>>
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
>>>>> ATC that you advocate?
>>>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>>> How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?
>>
>> Easy. It is all I do. 300 hours last year so it must be doable
>>
>> Ron Lee
>Where do you live?

Colorado Springs CO. Actually fly out of 00V.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>> Emily > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>>> So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
>>>>>> ATC that you advocate?
>>>>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>>>> How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?
>>> Easy. It is all I do. 300 hours last year so it must be doable
>>>
>>> Ron Lee
>> Where do you live?
>
> Colorado Springs CO. Actually fly out of 00V.
>
> Ron Lee
>
Two things...first, I'm guessing that the airspace around Colorado
Springs is controlled, yes? So even if you go VFR, you still have to
talk to someone.

Second, how the hell can you find 300 hours a year of VMC in Colorado?
We get that where I live now, but I wouldn't have been able to do that
in Indiana. Unless I was into scud running, which I'm not.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Don't misread me -- confrontation over a dress code is *critically*
> important, because it speaks to a hobbled employee-employer
> relationship.
>
> If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
> without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
> is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized. What a shame it's
> come to this.
>

What's your source for that? Who told you there was a union uproar and open
insubordination over a ban on flip-flops?

I just got off the phone with a VFR only pilot that will probably flew over
1000 hours this SUMMER and never enters B, C, or D. It's not impossible...
hell it isn't even hard. Just ask the ag pilots.
Jim

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
> >>>
> >> Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
> >> airspace?
> >
> >
> > No problem.
> >
> >
> How is that no problem? That's a HUGE problem.

Jim Burns wrote:
> I just got off the phone with a VFR only pilot that will probably flew over
> 1000 hours this SUMMER and never enters B, C, or D. It's not impossible...
> hell it isn't even hard. Just ask the ag pilots.
> Jim

I'm still trying to figure out how that's not hard. At least where I
fly, it's very difficult to not enter controlled airspace.

And where I used to fly? Very difficult to log 1000 hours VFR at any
time of year.

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:46:03 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

> I was writing some code a mn ago, in my underwear, but I've got a really
> cool boss (me) :-)

Alas, I've a hot laptop.

- Andrew

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 04:42:35 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> No, my position is an extension of my disgust with arrogant employees who,
> while being paid handsomely, can't seem to keep their mouths shut and
> their minds on the job.

No doubt their minds are less on their jobs with more "noise" coming from
the FAA. This is just a silly distraction.

I've been to several towers, CDW's most often. Would you like to know
what the controllers were wearing when I visited? I couldn't tell you.
Clothing makes that much of an impression.

[Though I expect I'd recall were they operating sans-clothing <grin>.]

On the other hand, the antiquated state of some gear at CDW was burned
into my brain.

- Andrew

Cigar, anyone?

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Emily" wrote)
>>> Unions have nothing to do with government. A union levels the playing
>>> field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer.
>
>> But what's wrong with that? Granted, I have a great employer, but
>> employers aren't evil.
>
>
> What's wrong with a boss grabbing some young thing's ta-ta's, in his
> office,
> in exchange for not firing her?
>
> Start with the Homestead Strike and work your way up to... 'your boss is
> not allowed to grab your ta-ta's, in exchange for not firing you.'
>
> <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande04.html>
>
>
> Montblack

Emily > wrote:

>>>>> How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?
>>>> Easy. It is all I do. 300 hours last year so it must be doable
>>>>
>>>> Ron Lee
>>> Where do you live?
>>
>> Colorado Springs CO. Actually fly out of 00V.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>Two things...first, I'm guessing that the airspace around Colorado
>Springs is controlled, yes? So even if you go VFR, you still have to
>talk to someone.

Nope. Don't have to talk to anyone unless I go into Class B, C, D
(control towered airports). I can fly OVER Denver Class B and not
talk to anyone. I do use traffic advisory services when over/near my
airport since commercial aircraft flying into COS are often LOWER than
my puttering around altitude.

>Second, how the hell can you find 300 hours a year of VMC in Colorado?
>We get that where I live now, but I wouldn't have been able to do that
>in Indiana. Unless I was into scud running, which I'm not.

Visibility here would amaze you. 100 miles is not unusual. Here are
a few pics to give you an idea of the visibility:

http://tinyurl.com/kwbm6

The snow capped mountains in the distance at the right middle is
perhaps 50 sm away.

http://tinyurl.com/hnax9

Ron Lee

Yes, but it's a self-limiting problem. Here's the union mentality, and I
know for a fact it it true. Bad employee was constantly missing time. He
was told that he had to bring in a note from his doctor in order to get his
sick pay. He brought in a note that said "I have not treated Joe H... or
seen him professionally in the last six months." He said that satisfied the
requirement, since the company only told him to bring in a note from his
doctor. He ultimately was fired (for other similar reasons), years later,
and arbitrated his termination. The company bought him off. It cost a lot
of money, since it was virtually impossible to fire an employee and make it
stick through the grievance and arbitration process.

In another aviation-related event, an employee missed lots of time,
allegedly because of a chronic illness. Turned out he was not only a pilot,
but a CFI. He presented a diagnosis letter from a doctor which purported to
authorize the lost time. Termination was grieved, and appealed to
arbitration. We issued a subpoena for the logs of the employee/CFI. Turns
out the doctor (who was not licensed to practice in this state) was a
student pilot. We issued a subpoena for his logbook too. We also issued a
subpoena for the employee/CFI's medical application to see if he
"remembered" to list all the "treatment" from his "doctor". Funny how the
guy was sick only on VFR days. This guy was nailed good, and he just
disappeared. He didn't count on the fact the I would know what records he
and his students would have to keep, and what representations he would have
to make to the FAA. He also didn't count on the fact that I would know what
tyrants the FAA are, and that fooling around with the company could possibly
end his flying career. (The basis for the only subpoena I know of relating
to the 9/11 hijackers was for making a false statement on a medical
application by concealing a prior knee surgery. It wasn't much, but it got
the government through the front door.)

So, all of this is terribly labor-intensive (pun intended), and wasteful of
the company's resources. They closed the plant down last January, and
opened a non-union facility in the Midwest. The entire plant is out of
work, and on workers' compensation because they just happened to injure
themselves before the doors shut. They used to make $50-110k per year for
semi-skilled work not requiring a high school degree. They refuse to go
back to work because the only thing they can find pays $11- 12 per hour, so
they stay on comp and vocationaly rehabilitation for ever. But that pays
only a fraction of what they were making.

The union was constantly belligerent and obstructionist. When they got
there nose out of joint, we'd have dozens of grievances and OSHA complaints.
It was non-stop for years. Tell me how the union's conduct benefitted its
members.


"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>>Since then, [unions] have gotten very powerful. Arguably too powerful.
>> Still?
>
> I don't know. I am not taking a stand on whether the unions (or any
> particular union) is or are too powerful. What I am taking a stand on is
> the idea that "it's a small issue so you should just comply".
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
>>>>
>>> Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
>>> airspace?
>>
>>
>> No problem.
> How is that no problem? That's a HUGE problem.

No it isn't. You can get killed in those goofey places. Avoid 'em like the
plague.

> [tale of corruption snipped]
> Tell me how the union's conduct benefitted its
> members.

Why? This has nothing to do with the idea that the idea that "it's a
small issue so you should just comply", which is what I am reacting to.
If it's such a small issue, then they should retract.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Avoid class A, B, C, D, & E.... 1 mile clear of clouds
Jim

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jim Burns wrote:
>> I just got off the phone with a VFR only pilot that will probably flew
>> over
>> 1000 hours this SUMMER and never enters B, C, or D. It's not
>> impossible...
>> hell it isn't even hard. Just ask the ag pilots.
>> Jim
>
> I'm still trying to figure out how that's not hard. At least where I fly,
> it's very difficult to not enter controlled airspace.
>
> And where I used to fly? Very difficult to log 1000 hours VFR at any time
> of year.

One sees a truly bizarre world where trade unionism intersects government.
We had a case where a nurse at a city-run hospital insisted on working in
the nude. She was in quality assurance, or something like that, so she had
an office. She taped paper over the window on the door, which had a lock.
She kept a robe on the hook on the door, and whenever she needed to open the
door, put on the robe. The city wanted to fire her, but never got around to
it. As far as I know, she's still there, in the buff. working away. When
you come down to it, why do controllers need to wear clothes at all?

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>>Why should government employees that aren't even seen by the customer
>>be forced to wear dockers and a nice shirt to work while private sector
>>employees that must interact with customers, like those at the Alexis
>>Park Inn, can dress like bums?
>>
>>Your position appears to be solely based on your noted dislike of
>>government employees.
>
> Steven, I am not sure that his position is based upon dislike. But if
> it is, maybe it is just unionized "babies."
>
> Ron Lee
>>
>

When I was 16, I mowed an enormous hammer and sickle in the grass in the
back yard. It was some of my finest work. My father saw it and mowed the
entire back yard at 6:30 the next morning, before he went to work.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> wrote)
>> One can clearly see who is a union member, and who is not, thats for
>> sure..
>
>
> http://www.yale.edu/terc/democracy/may1text/images/Strike.jpg
> My older sister painted this red fist image (no words) on her window shade
> one summer - probably 1969. I was nine.
>
> It was the 'age of' ...poster paint. :-)
>
>
> Montblack
> Dad got promoted to a management possition with the railroad, before I was
> born, but still maintained his Union membership with monthly dues - until
> the day he retired.

If unions go on strike, you may not see them members. The picketers are
often temps hired to picket. When I walk downtown and see a labor
demonstration, I make it a point to ask them if they are affiliated with the
union. They rarely are. At one poignant moment, I approached a group
carrying placards about increased contribution to health care demanded by
the employer. I found out the picketers were temps hired by the union, and
they had no benefits at all.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> I remember the media pictures of the controllers on strike in 1981,
>> dressed like crap, while picketing. It sure didn't lend them any
>> credibility.
>
> There's a picket line dress code? <G>
>
> In a past life, I spent some time picketing, and I thought you were
> supposed to look poor.
>
> A nice suit and a Beemer don't usually do much for public support during a
> work stoppage.

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I'm still trying to figure out how that's not hard. At least where I fly,
> it's very difficult to not enter controlled airspace.
>

You can enter controlled airspace VFR without using ATC.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d174/skapee/fatcruze.jpg
> "Cleared for takeoff ...I love saying that."
>

You're a very bad man.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> Really? I find it fascinating.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's the same fascination that won't let you avert your
>> eyes when you're witnessing a train wreck. Controllers, by their
>> actions, have harmed GA's chances of avoiding privatization in ways
>> that no other single action could have accoplished. And we're all
>> going to pay for it.
>>
>> All because they don't want to be "forced" to wear dockers and a nice
>> shirt to work.
>>
>
> Why should government employees that aren't even seen by the customer
> be forced to wear dockers and a nice shirt to work while private sector
> employees that must interact with customers, like those at the Alexis
> Park Inn, can dress like bums?

Simply because Alexis Park Inn is a private enterprise which is subject to
its customers' preferences for its survival. If the customers dislike the
dress code at the Inn enough, they will take their business elsewhere.

> Your position appears to be solely based on your noted dislike of
> government employees.

Government employees are not subject to market forces the way private
sector employees are. Customer dissatisfaction with their product does not
cause them lose jobs or pay. Therefore, they do not necessarily feel the
same pressure to produce goods and services that satisfy their customers.

An external device, such as a reasonable dress code, might go a long way
towards instituting some of that discipline.

The only reason controllers can feel like they can oppose management on
every issue is because they think the government monopoly that has
provided them with their jobs and pay is forever going to be there.

They are wrong.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur >
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

Jim Burns wrote:
> Avoid class A, B, C, D, & E.... 1 mile clear of clouds
> Jim

I'm well aware of when radio contact with ATC and an IFR flight plan is
is necessary, thank you. I simply fail to see how all of the above is
not difficult.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I'm still trying to figure out how that's not hard. At least where I fly,
>> it's very difficult to not enter controlled airspace.
>>
>
> You can enter controlled airspace VFR without using ATC.
>
>
Only class E.

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Only class E.
>

Correct.

"A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
...
>
> Government employees are not subject to market forces the way private
> sector employees are. Customer dissatisfaction with their product does not
> cause them lose jobs or pay. Therefore, they do not necessarily feel the
> same pressure to produce goods and services that satisfy their customers.
>
> An external device, such as a reasonable dress code, might go a long way
> towards instituting some of that discipline.
>

How?


>
> The only reason controllers can feel like they can oppose management on
> every issue is because they think the government monopoly that has
> provided them with their jobs and pay is forever going to be there.
>
> They are wrong.
>

But ATC will always be a monopoly.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Only class E.
>>
>
> Correct.
>
>
So how is it now difficult to never require contact with ATC?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Government employees are not subject to market forces the way private
>> sector employees are. Customer dissatisfaction with their product
>> does not cause them lose jobs or pay. Therefore, they do not
>> necessarily feel the same pressure to produce goods and services that
>> satisfy their customers.
>>
>> An external device, such as a reasonable dress code, might go a long
>> way towards instituting some of that discipline.
>>
>
> How?

Unit cohesion. Helps people get used to following directives.

>> The only reason controllers can feel like they can oppose management
>> on every issue is because they think the government monopoly that has
>> provided them with their jobs and pay is forever going to be there.
>>
>> They are wrong.
>>
>
> But ATC will always be a monopoly.

Just like telecoms, electricity etc, right?

How about, renewable franchise licences with 5 year contracts, open
bidding competition for the franchise to operate an ATC for said period.
Infrastructure and services provided by possibly different firms.

Naaah, can't happen.

Sinan

PS: I take it now you understand why the Alexis Park Inn employees are
different than gov't employees?

--
A. Sinan Unur >
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

"A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just like telecoms, electricity etc, right?
>
> How about, renewable franchise licences with 5 year contracts, open
> bidding competition for the franchise to operate an ATC for said period.
> Infrastructure and services provided by possibly different firms.
>
> Naaah, can't happen.
>

There's no competition there.


>
> PS: I take it now you understand why the Alexis Park Inn employees are
> different than gov't employees?
>

The difference is Jay doesn't like government employees.

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>
> So how is it now difficult to never require contact with ATC?
>

Because contact with ATC is not required to enter Class E airspace VFR.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So how is it now difficult to never require contact with ATC?
>>
>
> Because contact with ATC is not required to enter Class E airspace VFR.
>
>
Well, since I live miles from any airport that's NOT B or D, that would
be a little difficult, now wouldn't it? I know you understand the
concept of controlled airspace to the surface.

Emily wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> So how is it now difficult to never require contact with ATC?
>>>
>>
>> Because contact with ATC is not required to enter Class E airspace VFR.
>>
> Well, since I live miles from any airport that's NOT B or D, that would
> be a little difficult, now wouldn't it? I know you understand the
> concept of controlled airspace to the surface.

Make that, I know you understand the concept of B or D airspace to the
surface.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Just like telecoms, electricity etc, right?
>>
>> How about, renewable franchise licences with 5 year contracts, open
>> bidding competition for the franchise to operate an ATC for said
>> period. Infrastructure and services provided by possibly different
>> firms.
>>
>> Naaah, can't happen.
>>
>
> There's no competition there.

The competition is in the bidding stage.

Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur >
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Well, since I live miles from any airport that's NOT B or D, that would be
> a little difficult, now wouldn't it?

Not at all. Move.


>
> I know you understand the concept of controlled airspace to the surface.
>

I do. Would you like me to explain it to you?

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Make that, I know you understand the concept of B or D airspace to the
> surface.
>

Same response.

"A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
...
>
> The competition is in the bidding stage.
>

That's not good enough. The user doesn't get to bid.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Well, since I live miles from any airport that's NOT B or D, that would be
>> a little difficult, now wouldn't it?
>
> Not at all. Move.

Why would I want to do that. I don't have a problem with talking to
ATC. I'm simply pointing out, not to you, that avoiding controlled
airspace and ATC is not as easy as some people are making it seem.

>
>
>> I know you understand the concept of controlled airspace to the surface.
>>
>
> I do. Would you like me to explain it to you?

Don't be an ass.

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Why would I want to do that. I don't have a problem with talking to ATC.
> I'm simply pointing out, not to you, that avoiding controlled airspace and
> ATC is not as easy as some people are making it seem.
>

It can be very easy. You asked how it's not hard to fly 1000 hours in a
summer without entering Class B, C, or D airspace. One must assume you
asked because you did not know.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Why would I want to do that. I don't have a problem with talking to ATC.
>> I'm simply pointing out, not to you, that avoiding controlled airspace and
>> ATC is not as easy as some people are making it seem.
>>
>
> It can be very easy. You asked how it's not hard to fly 1000 hours in a
> summer without entering Class B, C, or D airspace. One must assume you
> asked because you did not know.
>
>
But you didn't answer my question.

How would *I* do it when I'm not remotely located near uncontrolled
airspace?