Dress Code

[Newps]

http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html

[Emily[_1_]]

Newps wrote:
> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html
>
Geez, even we require that men's dress shirts that are able to be tucked
in, be tucked in....

[John Gaquin]

"Newps" > wrote in message
> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html


So.... what do these folks plan to do after high school graduation?

[cjcampbell]

Newps wrote:
> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html

You know, a lot of countries still require pilots to wear uniforms.
Even private pilots.

[Mxsmanic]

cjcampbell writes:

> You know, a lot of countries still require pilots to wear uniforms.
> Even private pilots.

Which countries?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

This is kind of frightening...

mike

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html

[Jay Honeck]

> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html

My God. I had no idea the FAA was so controlled by their union that
they feel they must put up with this sort of thing. Imagine -- they've
got a current employee, on staff, who runs a website solely for the
purposes of impugning his employer!

And what a fool. He has neatly and succinctly documented his own
insubordination. Snidely referring to the company CEO as "Maid
Marion?" Documenting the insubordination of his fellow employees in a
photographic record, and publishing it worldwide?

In the real world (meaning anything outside of our totally screwed up
government) his career would be measured in nanoseconds.

My respect for controllers could not have been more diminished. Quite
frankly, after many years of holding the FAA in the highest regard, I
now must admit that I've never seen an organization with a more
self-destructive workforce in my life -- and I've worked for some very
large, very dumb corporations. If any further evidence of the need to
privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.

What a shame.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> My respect for controllers could not have been more diminished. Quite
> frankly, after many years of holding the FAA in the highest regard, I
> now must admit that I've never seen an organization with a more
> self-destructive workforce in my life -- and I've worked for some very
> large, very dumb corporations. If any further evidence of the need to
> privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.
>

Who do you think you're kidding?

[Thomas Borchert]

Cjcampbell,

> You know, a lot of countries still require pilots to wear uniforms.
> Even private pilots.
>

Name one, please.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> > My respect for controllers could not have been more diminished. Quite
> > frankly, after many years of holding the FAA in the highest regard, I
> > now must admit that I've never seen an organization with a more
> > self-destructive workforce in my life -- and I've worked for some very
> > large, very dumb corporations. If any further evidence of the need to
> > privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.
>
> Who do you think you're kidding?

If you mean about my respect for the FAA, I'm not kidding. I always
thought the FAA was a bit uptight and anal about certain regulatory
things (okay, a LOT uptight), but I never had any reason to disrespect
the individuals who made up the FAA. To a man, they've always been
smart, kind, and professional.

That has changed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html
>
> My God. I had no idea the FAA was so controlled by their union that
> they feel they must put up with this sort of thing. Imagine -- they've
> got a current employee, on staff, who runs a website solely for the
> purposes of impugning his employer!

Yes, what an indignity: a government agency forced to respect employees'
right to criticize the government. That certainly shows how evil unions are.

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html

Which one is you?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:40:01 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html


More photographs here: http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/

Is this Mr. McNicoll?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1867/2066/1600/workclothes19.0.jpg

:-)

[Newps]

Uh, no. You get shot here in Montana for wearing anything like that,
for any reason.




Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html
>
>
> Which one is you?
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, what an indignity: a government agency forced to respect employees'
> right to criticize the government. That certainly shows how evil unions are.

They're not criticizing the "government" -- that is every Amercan's
right. They *are* openly slandering their *employer* -- and in the
real world that should be a one-way trip to the unemployment line.

Of course, since the FAA is only playing with "pretend" money -- our
taxes -- it is apparently just fine that the inmates are running the
asylum. Unbelievable.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 20 Sep 2006 14:12:22 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>They *are* openly slandering their *employer*

Are you able to provide some examples of the "slander" you mention?

[Jay Honeck]

> >They *are* openly slandering their *employer*
>
> Are you able to provide some examples of the "slander" you mention?

Well, let's start by assigning cutesy, disrespectiful names to the
company CEO on a blog site.

Is that slander? No, I suppose legally it is not. It IS
insubordination, however, and in any other business or company in the
world, would result in immediate termination.

And it should.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Yes, what an indignity: a government agency forced to respect employees'
>> right to criticize the government. That certainly shows how evil unions
>> are.
>
> They're not criticizing the "government" -- that is every Amercan's
> right. They *are* openly slandering their *employer*

Their employer *is* the government. (And there's nothing resembling slander
here.)

--Gary

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> Yes, what an indignity: a government agency forced to respect employees'
>>> right to criticize the government. That certainly shows how evil unions
>>> are.
>>
>> They're not criticizing the "government" -- that is every Amercan's
>> right. They *are* openly slandering their *employer*
>
> Their employer *is* the government. (And there's nothing resembling
> slander here.)
>
> --Gary
>
>

I think slander is the wrong word. But how about insubordination?

[Jose[_1_]]

One of the things that makes this country a Great Country (I guess I am sort of patriotic) is the freedoms that we have. I am greatly disturbed when they are taken from us, and even more disturbed when we willingly give them up. There are many freedoms here, and most people don't use most of them. That's ok. There are many freedoms I don't use, and the freedom to say "yes" is meaningless without the freedom to say "no". But even if I say "no", I value the freedom to say "yes".

That is fundamental.

> Imagine -- they've got a current employee,
> on staff, who runs a website solely for the
> purposes of impugning his employer!

Imagine that.

I have no quarrel with my employer (after all, I'm self employed), so if the freedom to impunge my employer were taken away from me, it wouldn't affect my daily life. But I think it's an important freedom, and part of what makes this country great.

> And what a fool. He has neatly and succinctly documented his own
> insubordination.

Imagine that. In this country, we are free to be stupid, in the eyes of others.

> and publishing it worldwide?

I was taught in grade school history that the Constitution of the United States says we can do exactly that. Thousands of people died in order to preserve this freedom, and it is irrespective of whether or not you agree with what is being published. Imagine that. We can actually =publish= stupid things! And get away with it!

> My respect for controllers could not have been more diminished.

Your respect for controllers must have been very thin indeed.

> I've never seen an organization with a more
> self-destructive workforce in my life

If the FAA operates with a staff as small as that documented on the website, maybe I should be worried. OTOH, if those individuals are the entirety of our national airspace control system, and they can actually make it work all by themselves.... gee, I'd double their pay and let them work naked with a chicken if they wanted to.

I have a suspicion however that what you are seeing is the personal opinion of a handful of people. Hardly something that I'd get my knickers in a twit about.

> If any further evidence of the need to
> privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.

I really don't see the connection at all. A privatized FAA will in short order mean user fees for all small aircraft. In exchange, we might be granted the privilage of being worked by controllers who wear a suit and tie. Frankly, when I'm in an airplane, I don't see any reason to care what the controllers are wearing. I =do= see a reason to care whether or not they are happy working there. If they are not happy working there, I expect I will hear more of "Four two Victor, break off your practice approach at one thousand five hundred"... which of course makes the approach useless for currency or competence.

> I never had any reason to disrespect
> the individuals who made up the FAA. To
> a man, they've always been
> smart, kind, and professional.

They are the same people you've always been dealing with. You can either change your opinion of the people, or change your opinion of what constitutes "smart, kind, and professional". I'd actually reccomend you consider the latter.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[LWG]

Don't have personal knowledge about private pilots, but I remember being
astonished to see the ski lift attendants wearing impeccable uniforms in
Austria a number of years ago. I think some sort of convention of dress adds
to respect (and yes, I have been following the thread and understand the
point that we rarely see controllers.)

>> You know, a lot of countries still require pilots to wear uniforms.
>> Even private pilots.
>>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> If you mean about my respect for the FAA, I'm not kidding. I always
> thought the FAA was a bit uptight and anal about certain regulatory
> things (okay, a LOT uptight), but I never had any reason to disrespect
> the individuals who made up the FAA. To a man, they've always been
> smart, kind, and professional.
>
> That has changed.
>

The individuals who make up the FAA are government employees. You have
clearly stated your disdain for government employees more than once in these
forums.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is this Mr. McNicoll?
> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1867/2066/1600/workclothes19.0.jpg
>
> :-)
>

No, the MacNicol tartan is far more colorful:

http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tartan_info.cfm?tartan_id=567



I also like to wear the Irish National tartan to a local sports venue:

http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tartan_info.cfm?tartan_id=7941

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> One of the things that makes this country a Great Country (I guess I am
> sort of patriotic) is the freedoms that we have. I am greatly disturbed
> when they are taken from us, and even more disturbed when we willingly
> give them up. There are many freedoms here, and most people don't use
> most of them. That's ok. There are many freedoms I don't use, and the
> freedom to say "yes" is meaningless without the freedom to say "no". But
> even if I say "no", I value the freedom to say "yes".
>
> That is fundamental.
>
>> Imagine -- they've got a current employee,
>> on staff, who runs a website solely for the
>> purposes of impugning his employer!
>
> Imagine that.
>
> I have no quarrel with my employer (after all, I'm self employed), so if
> the freedom to impunge my employer were taken away from me, it wouldn't
> affect my daily life. But I think it's an important freedom, and part of
> what makes this country great.

In most corporations bad mouthing the corporation is grounds for immediate
termination as is insubordination. There is no such freedom as you have
described it.

[mike regish]

Man, I'm glad I don't work for you. You should be too. I'm in a union and I
work my ass off, but I don't tolerate disrespect from anybody-including my
employer. Without my union, I wouldn't have been there 1 year, let alone the
22 I have been, no matter how hard I worked because I don't show the proper
fear. Of course, you're an employer. And I guess it's not enough for you-or
any employer-to make a profit on the backs of your employees. You expect
them to cower in fear of you and be grateful that you've allowed them to
work for you.

What a pile of crap. Of course, in your narrow mind, no employer would ever
think of abusing an employee-at least not without good reason, right? All
employers are benevelont, warm hearted , caring souls who value their
employees above everything. We employees are just a bunch of blood sucking,
lazy, ungrateful maggots.

The FAA always does the right thing, like adequately staff towers. They
would never think of saving a few bucks by understaffing because, hey, these
guys just sit around most of the time anyway, right? The FAA would never
risk lives by adding people that weren't needed just because the union said
they were. Oh. Wait. Didn't 50 or so people just die because of an
understaffed tower? Oh. That's right. It was all the pilot's fault.

mike

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> >They *are* openly slandering their *employer*
>>
>> Are you able to provide some examples of the "slander" you mention?
>
> Well, let's start by assigning cutesy, disrespectiful names to the
> company CEO on a blog site.
>
> Is that slander? No, I suppose legally it is not. It IS
> insubordination, however, and in any other business or company in the
> world, would result in immediate termination.
>
> And it should.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[mike regish]

That is exactly why we need unions. Any boss gets his panties in a bunch, he
rides the employee until the employee tells him just what an ass he really
is, so the employee, who is only human, loses his job because of some
egomaniacal twit with a tie.

Employers that make being a yes man a requirement for employment need to be
terminated.

mike

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> In most corporations bad mouthing the corporation is grounds for immediate
> termination as is insubordination. There is no such freedom as you have
> described it.
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
>
> The FAA always does the right thing, like adequately staff towers. They
> would never think of saving a few bucks by understaffing because, hey,
> these guys just sit around most of the time anyway, right? The FAA would
> never risk lives by adding people that weren't needed just because the
> union said they were. Oh. Wait. Didn't 50 or so people just die because of
> an understaffed tower?
>

No. 50 or so people did not just die because of an understaffed tower.


>
> Oh. That's right. It was all the pilot's fault.
>

Yes.

[mike regish]

So in your twisted, tiny mind, another controller (as per the FAA's own
regulations) could not have possibly influenced that outcome.

Don't bother answering. I'll do it for you.

Steven P. McNicoll will write:

Right.



Twit.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The FAA always does the right thing, like adequately staff towers. They
>> would never think of saving a few bucks by understaffing because, hey,
>> these guys just sit around most of the time anyway, right? The FAA would
>> never risk lives by adding people that weren't needed just because the
>> union said they were. Oh. Wait. Didn't 50 or so people just die because
>> of an understaffed tower?
>>
>
> No. 50 or so people did not just die because of an understaffed tower.
>
>
>>
>> Oh. That's right. It was all the pilot's fault.
>>
>
> Yes.
>

[cjcampbell]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> cjcampbell writes:
>
> > You know, a lot of countries still require pilots to wear uniforms.
> > Even private pilots.
>
> Which countries?
>

I remember reading in one of the aviation magazines, can't remember
which, that pilots in several African and Middle Eastern countries were
still required to wear uniforms.

> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> So in your twisted, tiny mind, another controller (as per the FAA's own
> regulations) could not have possibly influenced that outcome.
>
> Don't bother answering. I'll do it for you.
>
> Steven P. McNicoll will write:
>
> Right.
>

That is the correct answer. My twisted, tiny mind, understands that another
controller positioned in the windowless TRACON several levels beneath the
tower cab could not have possibly influenced that outcome. Why doesn't your
presumably untwisted, larger mind, understand that?


>
> Twit.
>

Ah, name-calling in lieu of a cogent argument. Classic.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"mike regish" > wrote:

> Didn't 50 or so people just die because of an
> understaffed tower?

How about let's wait for all the facts to come out and
not have those deaths be part of some anti-union/pro-union
fight.

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

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> They *are* openly slandering their *employer*
>> Are you able to provide some examples of the "slander" you mention?
>
> Well, let's start by assigning cutesy, disrespectiful names to the
> company CEO on a blog site.
>
> Is that slander? No, I suppose legally it is not. It IS
> insubordination,

Insubordination is refusing to obey orders. No one ever said you can't
make fun of your CEO. Ours has really bad hair, and we all know it and
have made comments. It doesn't mean we deserve to be fired.

[Emily[_1_]]

mike regish wrote:
>Without my union, I wouldn't have been there 1 year

You know, that's my problem with unions. They keep people employed who
shouldn't be employed. Now, I don't know you, don't know how you work,
but there's something wrong with that mentality. If it takes someone
else to keep you employed, you need to think long and hard about your
work ethic.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "mike regish" > wrote:
>
>> Didn't 50 or so people just die because of an
>> understaffed tower?
>
> How about let's wait for all the facts to come out and
> not have those deaths be part of some anti-union/pro-union
> fight.

That's not the union way. No wonder they are drying up.


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

[Dave Stadt]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> That is exactly why we need unions. Any boss gets his panties in a bunch,
> he rides the employee until the employee tells him just what an ass he
> really is, so the employee, who is only human, loses his job because of
> some egomaniacal twit with a tie.

And what forces the employee to stay? You need only to look in a mirror to
see the twit.

> Employers that make being a yes man a requirement for employment need to
> be terminated.

Nobody said anything about a yes man. You present the typical twisted union
attitude.

> mike
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> In most corporations bad mouthing the corporation is grounds for
>> immediate termination as is insubordination. There is no such freedom as
>> you have described it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> They *are* openly slandering their *employer*
>>> Are you able to provide some examples of the "slander" you mention?
>>
>> Well, let's start by assigning cutesy, disrespectiful names to the
>> company CEO on a blog site.
>>
>> Is that slander? No, I suppose legally it is not. It IS
>> insubordination,
>
> Insubordination is refusing to obey orders. No one ever said you can't
> make fun of your CEO. Ours has really bad hair, and we all know it and
> have made comments. It doesn't mean we deserve to be fired.

If there is a corporate policy against such comments you could be
terminated. It also falls under harassment which is certainly a hot button
of recent years.

[Jay Honeck]

> That is exactly why we need unions. Any boss gets his panties in a bunch, he
> rides the employee until the employee tells him just what an ass he really
> is, so the employee, who is only human, loses his job because of some
> egomaniacal twit with a tie.

Mike, instead of cowering behind your union, you need to get out in
front of the curve, and really hang it out as the boss of your own
business. Maybe come up with a new way to make a better widget, and
set the world on fire. Really be a man, take some real risks, and face
the realities of the modern business world unprotected by union rules
that allow you to remain employed despite hating everything and
everyone around you.

Maybe it's time for you to see what it's like to trust your future and
your family's good fortune to employees that might care as little about
your company as you obviously do. It'll be an enlightening experience,
I assure you.

I think you've got the makings of a good entrepreneur. You've
certainly got the attitude.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I also like to wear the Irish National tartan to a local sports venue:

I'd pay good, solid, American money to see you wearing that.

In fact, you've got a free night at the hotel if you show up in our
lobby in full regalia...

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

[Mxsmanic]

cjcampbell writes:

> I remember reading in one of the aviation magazines, can't remember
> which, that pilots in several African and Middle Eastern countries were
> still required to wear uniforms.

Probably because both of their pilots are in the military.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

LWG writes:

> Don't have personal knowledge about private pilots, but I remember being
> astonished to see the ski lift attendants wearing impeccable uniforms in
> Austria a number of years ago. I think some sort of convention of dress adds
> to respect (and yes, I have been following the thread and understand the
> point that we rarely see controllers.)

Dress is often used to hide incompetence.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> The individuals who make up the FAA are government employees. You have
> clearly stated your disdain for government employees more than once in these
> forums.

My belief that most federal employees are underworked and overpaid is
not "disdain". It is something, however, that could be easily and
swiftly addressed, under any new administration.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

I bust my ass. Well, my back anyway. Literally. I've had many jobs and lost
many jobs. Not due to my "work ethic" but to my insistence that I, and
coworkers, be treated with dignity and respect. I am not in the military any
more and I don't expect to be treated like a recruit because some lazy
asswipe is on a power trip. If you think that's unreasonable, then maybe you
need to think long and hard about your work ethic.

All of the things I complained about with my other employers that got me
fired or made me quit, and would have gotten me fired or made me quit this
job were it not for the union, are finally being recognized as legitimate
beefs-not just the whinings of a lazy, worthless, ungrateful leech of an
employee. It has taken 20 years for our union to get through to our
employer, but they can't deny the problems any longer and are finally doing
something, reluctantly, about them.

Think I'm getting any recognition for my efforts? I'm not. Think I care? Not
really-as long as conditions improve.

mike

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> mike regish wrote:
>>Without my union, I wouldn't have been there 1 year
>
> You know, that's my problem with unions. They keep people employed who
> shouldn't be employed. Now, I don't know you, don't know how you work,
> but there's something wrong with that mentality. If it takes someone else
> to keep you employed, you need to think long and hard about your work
> ethic.

[mike regish]

This is one of those things I hate about being a pilot. I'm a poor man in a
rich man's hobby. Some people live in order to work. Some people work in
order to live. I'm in the latter category. I'm a type "A" personality, but
not when it comes to money. I prefer the simplicity of punching in, doing my
job, and punching out. That's when my life begins, adn I enjoy it immensely.
I'm in good health and condition for my age (other than a back problem
that's work related, but manageable, so far). I prefer jumping off a
mountain with a hang glider strapped to my back over taking my life savings
and investing it in some marketing scheme that could go TU on me at any
time. People like you will never understand people like me, and you will
always look down on us, but you couldn't survive, let alone get rich without
us.

Now I remember the other reason I stopped communicating here. To many
assholes.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

Have fun. Fly safe. Go **** yourself.

mike


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> The individuals who make up the FAA are government employees. You have
>> clearly stated your disdain for government employees more than once in
>> these
>> forums.
>
> My belief that most federal employees are underworked and overpaid is
> not "disdain". It is something, however, that could be easily and
> swiftly addressed, under any new administration.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-20, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> large, very dumb corporations. If any further evidence of the need to
> privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.

I fail to see how privatization will fix the problem.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Dress is often used to hide incompetence.
>

Is that why France considers itself the fashion hub of the world?

[Emily[_1_]]

mike regish wrote:
> I bust my ass. Well, my back anyway. Literally. I've had many jobs and lost
> many jobs. Not due to my "work ethic" but to my insistence that I, and
> coworkers, be treated with dignity and respect.

I don't know where you're working, but I've never been treated with
anything but. Instead of complaining about your boss, justs find a new
job. Do it yourself, instead of letting the union take care of you.
See what I'm saying?

[Matt Barrow]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
>I bust my ass. Well, my back anyway. Literally. I've had many jobs and lost
>many jobs. Not due to my "work ethic" but to my insistence that I, and
>coworkers, be treated with dignity and respect.

Thanks...I needed a good laugh this morning.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Insubordination is refusing to obey orders. No one ever said you can't
>> make fun of your CEO. Ours has really bad hair, and we all know it and
>> have made comments. It doesn't mean we deserve to be fired.
>
> If there is a corporate policy against such comments you could be
> terminated. It also falls under harassment which is certainly a hot
> button of recent years.

Harassment may be against company policy (at least for the lower echelons)
but it certainly isn't illegal/a-legal-issue (which is the topic...isn't
it?)

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
>> I have no quarrel with my employer (after all, I'm self employed), so if
>> the freedom to impunge my employer were taken away from me, it wouldn't
>> affect my daily life. But I think it's an important freedom, and part of
>> what makes this country great.
>
> In most corporations bad mouthing the corporation is grounds for immediate
> termination as is insubordination. There is no such freedom as you have
> described it.

Particularly in a private setting.

[[email protected]]

Very well said..........................................



Emily wrote:
> mike regish wrote:
> >Without my union, I wouldn't have been there 1 year
>
> You know, that's my problem with unions. They keep people employed who
> shouldn't be employed. Now, I don't know you, don't know how you work,
> but there's something wrong with that mentality. If it takes someone
> else to keep you employed, you need to think long and hard about your
> work ethic.

[[email protected]]

With an attitude like that you REALLY need to be a union member, You
are your worst enemy....
mike regish wrote:
> This is one of those things I hate about being a pilot. I'm a poor man in a
> rich man's hobby. Some people live in order to work. Some people work in
> order to live. I'm in the latter category. I'm a type "A" personality, but
> not when it comes to money. I prefer the simplicity of punching in, doing my
> job, and punching out. That's when my life begins, adn I enjoy it immensely.
> I'm in good health and condition for my age (other than a back problem
> that's work related, but manageable, so far). I prefer jumping off a
> mountain with a hang glider strapped to my back over taking my life savings
> and investing it in some marketing scheme that could go TU on me at any
> time. People like you will never understand people like me, and you will
> always look down on us, but you couldn't survive, let alone get rich without
> us.
>
> Now I remember the other reason I stopped communicating here. To many
> assholes.
>
> Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
>
> Have fun. Fly safe. Go **** yourself.
>
> mike
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >> The individuals who make up the FAA are government employees. You have
> >> clearly stated your disdain for government employees more than once in
> >> these
> >> forums.
> >
> > My belief that most federal employees are underworked and overpaid is
> > not "disdain". It is something, however, that could be easily and
> > swiftly addressed, under any new administration.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >

[Maule Driver]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>> Dress is often used to hide incompetence.
>>
>
> Is that why France considers itself the fashion hub of the world?

Or the sexiest?

[Jay Honeck]

> People like you will never understand people like me, and you will
> always look down on us, but you couldn't survive, let alone get rich without
> us.

If you think I'm getting rich running a small hotel, you clearly don't
understand the industry. We have no gardener, no plumber, no
decorator, no groundskeeper. No one writes our webpage, no one runs
the wireless network. Mary and I are IT, every day, and if the snow
needs shoveling, or a guest can't get his wireless working, guess what?


The only difference between us, Mike, is that I don't hate what I'm
doing. I probably make less money than you do annually, thanks to
choosing the road I'm on, but I don't have to wait until "after work"
to start living each day. I love every minute of my life. (Well,
okay, when I'm working on stopped up plumbing, or shoveling snow, that
pretty much sucks... ;-)

I've worked too many awful-but-high-paying jobs in my life, and it's
just not worth it. I'd rather enjoy what I'm doing, and make peanuts,
thanks.

> Now I remember the other reason I stopped communicating here. To many
> assholes.
> Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
> Have fun. Fly safe. Go **** yourself.

Wow. Dude, you've got...issues. You need to go fly, or start a small
business. SOMETHING to vent all this anger.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > large, very dumb corporations. If any further evidence of the need to
> > privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.
>
> I fail to see how privatization will fix the problem.

Because in a private company, without all the ridiculous "work rules"
that Federal employees can currently hide behind, insubordinate
employees can be effectively weeded out.

As it stands now, FAA management is obviously nothing but a paper
tiger. As an American taxpayer, I feel that this needs to change --
and I don't see any way for that to happen inside the Federal
government.

I wish it were otherwise, because I truly do believe that ATC should be
a governmental responsibility.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Maule Driver]

I so know where you are coming from but it's so narrow minded. Why not
accept graciously that some people are bosses, some are workers, some
are artists, and some are priests. If everyone measured their self
worth on the same scale, this would be a pretty sad and boring life.

It takes a village. I enjoy living in it.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>That is exactly why we need unions. Any boss gets his panties in a bunch, he
>>rides the employee until the employee tells him just what an ass he really
>>is, so the employee, who is only human, loses his job because of some
>>egomaniacal twit with a tie.
>
>
> Mike, instead of cowering behind your union, you need to get out in
> front of the curve, and really hang it out as the boss of your own
> business. Maybe come up with a new way to make a better widget, and
> set the world on fire. Really be a man, take some real risks, and face
> the realities of the modern business world unprotected by union rules
> that allow you to remain employed despite hating everything and
> everyone around you.
>
> Maybe it's time for you to see what it's like to trust your future and
> your family's good fortune to employees that might care as little about
> your company as you obviously do. It'll be an enlightening experience,
> I assure you.
>
> I think you've got the makings of a good entrepreneur. You've
> certainly got the attitude.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Thomas Borchert]

B,

> >
> > Dress is often used to hide incompetence.
> >
>
> Is that why France considers itself the fashion hub of the world?
>

I don't know, but all those fat Americans in trunk-sized shorts and
t-shirts look plenty incompetent to me.

<Yep, I can spread stupid slander about other people just as well as
you can>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
...
>B A R R Y wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dress is often used to hide incompetence.
>>>
>>
>> Is that why France considers itself the fashion hub of the world?
>
> Or the sexiest?

Hairy armpits are sexy?

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Uh, no. You get shot here in Montana for wearing anything like that, for
> any reason.
>

And in most parts of Colorado outside Denver/Boulder or Vail/Aspen.

>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html
>>
>>
>> Which one is you?
>>

[John Gaquin]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> This is one of those things I hate .....


Well, if anyone here had any doubts, those doubts have been resolved: you
are without doubt a union "man", and you're right where you belong.

[John Gaquin]

"mike regish" > wrote in message

>....... but to my insistence that I, and coworkers, be treated with dignity
>and respect.

Y'know, I've read a number of your posts in which you reiterate this theme.
Apparently, by your lights, such dignity and respect are deserved and due,
and do not necessarily have to be earned. Thus I would expect a real man to
offer this same dignity and respect, unbidden, to others - and I'm thinking
now particularly of employers. Yet not once have I seen any indication
that you do so. In fact, I can't recall any instance wherein you have
referred to your own or any other employer in anything but undignified and
insulting terms. What that tells me is that you have indeed chosen to read
the union book, and spout on demand the union line, but you have given very
little thought as to the nature of your core beliefs.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> <Yep, I can spread stupid slander about other people just as well as
> you can>


I was kidding.

Sorry, I forgot the <G>.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> I don't know, but all those fat Americans in trunk-sized shorts and
> t-shirts look plenty incompetent to me.
>
> <Yep, I can spread stupid slander about other people just as well as
> you can>
>

Besides, isn't NYC the real fashion capital? <G>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:23:23 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:

> Besides, isn't NYC the real fashion capital? <G>

Only if you're into black.

Personally, when I make the trek over (or under) the river into NYC I wear
clothes that really stand out in NYC, just to make a statement.

I wear gray.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:40:01 -0600, Newps wrote:

> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html

I don't get it. While some of them are amusing, many seem quite normal.
What's wrong with that tux, for example? A little flashy for me, but...

And, okay, so I don't wear white shoes. Other people do.

- Andrew

[Thomas Borchert]

B,

> I was kidding.
>

These jokes from a country where "French Fries" were actually renamed
"Freedom Fries" in government establishments just because France
opposed a war that has turned out to be wrong and a desaster for
exactly the reasons France and other countries cited at its start,
well, these jokes are not really funny, to me. But I'm just one of
those oversensitive Old Europeans <g>.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Is that why France considers itself the fashion hub of the world?

No, it considers itself that because it's true, at least in many
domains. Whether or not fashion is used to hide something is
independent of fashion itself.

The French do tend to put a great deal of faith in appearances, and
very little in substance, however. Maybe the two things are
correlated.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> My belief that most federal employees are underworked and overpaid is
> not "disdain".

Does that apply to air traffic control?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Because in a private company, without all the ridiculous "work rules"
> that Federal employees can currently hide behind, insubordinate
> employees can be effectively weeded out.

In a private company with a monopoly, prices can be raised and quality
can be lowered with impunity. Never privatize a monopoly.

> I wish it were otherwise, because I truly do believe that ATC should be
> a governmental responsibility.

I agree. Privatization would be a disaster. At least the government
has public interest in mind, instead of profit.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Insubordination is refusing to obey orders. No one ever said you can't
>>> make fun of your CEO. Ours has really bad hair, and we all know it and
>>> have made comments. It doesn't mean we deserve to be fired.
>>
>> If there is a corporate policy against such comments you could be
>> terminated. It also falls under harassment which is certainly a hot
>> button of recent years.
>
> Harassment may be against company policy (at least for the lower echelons)
> but it certainly isn't illegal/a-legal-issue (which is the topic...isn't
> it?)

It certainly is illegal. There have been a number of landmark cases with
significant judgements.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> These jokes from a country where "French Fries" were actually renamed
> "Freedom Fries" in government establishments just because France
> opposed a war that has turned out to be wrong and a desaster for
> exactly the reasons France and other countries cited at its start,

were that those reasons were the only ones...

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

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>>B A R R Y wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dress is often used to hide incompetence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that why France considers itself the fashion hub of the world?
>>
>> Or the sexiest?
>
> Hairy armpits are sexy?


Don't forget the once a week shower and wearing the same clothes all week.
Fridays got rather disgusting and these were professional people.

[Bob Noel]

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

> Because in a private company, without all the ridiculous "work rules"
> that Federal employees can currently hide behind, insubordinate
> employees can be effectively weeded out.

Bear in mind that firing someone can be very difficult even in
private companies without any unions to deal with.

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

[Capt.Doug]

>"Dave Stadt" wrote in message > That's not the union way. No wonder they
are drying up.

Actually, ALPA will be party to the investigation of the Comair crash.

D.

[mike regish]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> Really be a man, take some real risks, and face
> the realities of the modern business world unprotected by union rules
> that allow you to remain employed despite hating everything and
> everyone around you.

----- Original Message -----
From: "mike regish" >
To: "Jay Honeck" >
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Dress Code


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jay Honeck" >
> > Really be a man, take some real risks, and face
>> the realities of the modern business world unprotected by union rules
>> that allow you to remain employed despite hating everything and
>> everyone around you.
>
I wasn't going to even respond to any of these posts, but this one says it
all and needs a response. Then I'll go bye-bye again and let all you happy
assholes (apologies to those of you who aren't, and you know who you are)
live on in your merry little dream worlds.

"Really be a man..."

What a telling comment. That's what it takes to be a man. So I guess to you
I am, along with all the other stiffs who punch a clock and make this
country run, a lesser human being-not worthy of your respect.

>>"Take some real risks..."

So those of us who don't crave financial risk are lesser beings than you
and
obviously not worthy of yours, or any other...what? business
owners?-respect. I
always show respect until I've been shown that it is not deserved. I don't
care who you are, who you think you are, or what your station is. That goes
across the board. Guess where you sit, not that you care since I'm just a
lowly worker.

Tell ya what Jay. You jump off a 6,000 foot mountain in a hang glider in 25
mph winds and I'll start a business. When you do, I want to be there to see
your knees knocking and the **** stain growing in your pants. Or better
yet,
forget the hang glider.

>> unprotected by union rules
>> that allow you to remain employed

Or maybe that protect me from abuse by the likes of you and your other
vastly superior risk taking, business owning buddies here. But, that's just
silly, isn't it Jay? You and
all those manly business owners would never abuse a lowly creature like me
now, would you? Poor pathetic things that we are. Must be nice to feel
superior because you can take a REAL risk like running a business.

>> despite hating everything and
>> everyone around you.

I have found, after holding many jobs, that the job itself has little to
nothing to do with liking what you do. It is the people you work with that
make a job enjoyable. And I just happen to work with some of the best
people, by far, that I have ever known. What makes this largely possible
is
the fact that, through the union, we are all brothers. We may bicker among
ourselves at times, but when attacked, just like sibling brothers, we stand
together. Because there is a union, we have none of the backstabbing
amongst
ourselves to get ourselves ahead at the expense of a coworker. When the
"manly" boss (I don't know, Jay. Are bosses "men" or just business owners?)
Unfortunately, I also work FOR some of the worst I've ever known, with a
few
exceptions. That's is changing, and before I'm through, it will change
more.
I can see by some of these responses that I still have a lot of work to do.

You don't know jack **** about me Jay, but I know a whole lot about you
now.
You don't know a whole lot about about a lot of things and, sadly, you
never will. It's not me who needs to look in a mirror.

Have a nice life Jay. Hope your gimmick lasts.

[Newps]

That's pretty standard. NTSB brings together FAA, ALPA, NATCA and the
planes manufacturer. Other manufacturers of other components of the
plane as neceesary are also brought in.



Capt.Doug wrote:
>>"Dave Stadt" wrote in message > That's not the union way. No wonder they
>
> are drying up.
>
> Actually, ALPA will be party to the investigation of the Comair crash.
>
> D.
>
>

[cjcampbell]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:23:23 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:
>
> > Besides, isn't NYC the real fashion capital? <G>
>
> Only if you're into black.
>

Could be worse. In Seattle the standard dress code is rain parka,
cut-off jeans and hiking boots.

> Personally, when I make the trek over (or under) the river into NYC I wear
> clothes that really stand out in NYC, just to make a statement.
>
> I wear gray.
>
> - Andrew

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1158852986.770803.114910
@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

>> > large, very dumb corporations. If any further evidence of the need to
>> > privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.
>>
>> I fail to see how privatization will fix the problem.
>
> Because in a private company, without all the ridiculous "work rules"
> that Federal employees can currently hide behind, insubordinate
> employees can be effectively weeded out.
>
> As it stands now, FAA management is obviously nothing but a paper
> tiger. As an American taxpayer, I feel that this needs to change --
> and I don't see any way for that to happen inside the Federal
> government.
>
> I wish it were otherwise, because I truly do believe that ATC should be
> a governmental responsibility.

Big corporations are often just as political as the government.

Privatization isn't the answer.

Leadership is.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of big problems that our current leadership
has sunk this country into, and so the REAL problems of the FAA won't take
priority for a LONG time.

[Jay Honeck]

> I agree. Privatization would be a disaster. At least the government
> has public interest in mind, instead of profit.

!!!!!!????

I'd like to know what planet you're living on, because the one I
inhabit has NO government employees who aren't interested in profit.
At least I haven't met one, yet.

Thankfully, here in America the tradition of direct bribery and/or
extortion by government officials has never taken root -- but in some
cases I would actually prefer such a sharply defined method of doing
business. At least you'd know where you stood with people like that.

And I've met darned few government employees who have the "public
interest" in mind, now that I think about it. All they're interested
in is "procedure", "protocol", and their "pension" -- not necessarily
in that order -- and common sense and practicality be damned.

I could give you dozens of examples of what I'm talking about, but this
gets repetitive.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> !!!!!!????
>
> I'd like to know what planet you're living on, because the one I
> inhabit has NO government employees who aren't interested in profit.
> At least I haven't met one, yet.


I hope you weren't an English major. This isn't what you meant to say.
You got confused with all your negatives.



> And I've met darned few government employees who have the "public
> interest" in mind, now that I think about it.



That's just dumb. My job is 100% public interest. I have no product to
sell, I simply provide a service on a first come, first served basis.

[Jay Honeck]

> I hope you weren't an English major. This isn't what you meant to say.
> You got confused with all your negatives.

I ain't not no more, dang it.

I was sputtering in writing, I was so taken aback by the question!

;-)

> > And I've met darned few government employees who have the "public
> > interest" in mind, now that I think about it.
>
> That's just dumb. My job is 100% public interest. I have no product to
> sell, I simply provide a service on a first come, first served basis.

I'm talking personal profit, as in pay, pension, and job security. In
my experience, government entities (and their employees) are primarily
concerned with self-replication, not "public interest".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Bear in mind that firing someone can be very difficult even in
> private companies without any unions to deal with.

I know. I've worked inside some big 'uns, and I've had to fire people
that were clearly incompetent (and in one case, downright dangerous) --
and it took more paperwork than an ADIZ violation.

But at least you can do it. Most of our friends are government
employees, and we hear stories all the time about employees who sleep
at their desks, or don't come in at all, and are never disciplined in
any way. One of their favorite jokes to tell is that they could kill
someone, and -- as long as it occurred on the job -- they would only
receive "anger counseling"...

The bureaucracy -- the part of our government that is REALLY in charge,
and survives untouched from election to election -- is a real mess, and
each of us pays for it every day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> I'm talking personal profit, as in pay, pension, and job security. In
> my experience, government entities (and their employees) are primarily
> concerned with self-replication, not "public interest".

You think your employees are different? They are doing it for the paycheck. Don't believe me? Ask them if they would work for you for nothing, just for the public service of helping to keep the rooms clean.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:42:33 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> I'm talking personal profit, as in pay, pension, and job security. In
>> my experience, government entities (and their employees) are primarily
>> concerned with self-replication, not "public interest".
>
>You think your employees are different? They are doing it for the paycheck. Don't believe me? Ask them if they would work for you for nothing, just for the public service of helping to keep the rooms clean.
>
>Jose

Jose, for the last week or so, using Agent as my newsreader. your
posts fail to wordwrap. Is that something I can fix on my end?

Don

[John Gaquin]

"mike regish" > wrote in message .

> I wasn't going to even respond to any of these posts,....

Wow, Jay, I guess he really told you! :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:17:36 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote in
>:

>using Agent as my newsreader. your
>posts fail to wordwrap. Is that something I can fix on my end?

Select Word Wrap on the View pull-down menu.

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> These jokes from a country where "French Fries" were actually renamed
>> "Freedom Fries" in government establishments just because France
>> opposed a war that has turned out to be wrong and a desaster for
>> exactly the reasons France and other countries cited at its start,
>
> were that those reasons were the only ones...
>
Were it that those reasons were even correct. Were it that the reasons were
ACTUALLY that France had so many sweetheart deals with Saddam?

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:40:01 -0600, Newps wrote:
>
>> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html
>
> I don't get it. While some of them are amusing, many seem quite normal.
> What's wrong with that tux, for example? A little flashy for me, but...
>
> And, okay, so I don't wear white shoes. Other people do.
>
Nike's!

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Insubordination is refusing to obey orders. No one ever said you can't
>>>> make fun of your CEO. Ours has really bad hair, and we all know it and
>>>> have made comments. It doesn't mean we deserve to be fired.
>>>
>>> If there is a corporate policy against such comments you could be
>>> terminated. It also falls under harassment which is certainly a hot
>>> button of recent years.
>>
>> Harassment may be against company policy (at least for the lower
>> echelons) but it certainly isn't illegal/a-legal-issue (which is the
>> topic...isn't it?)
>
> It certainly is illegal. There have been a number of landmark cases with
> significant judgements.

Yes, for sexual (until MonicaGate) or racial/ethnic, etc., but not just
general harassment.

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Because in a private company, without all the ridiculous "work rules"
>> that Federal employees can currently hide behind, insubordinate
>> employees can be effectively weeded out.
>
> Bear in mind that firing someone can be very difficult even in
> private companies without any unions to deal with.

If the person is in a protected class (handicapped, minority), yes.
>

Keep in mind, too, that just 42 Federal employees (outside the military)
were fired in 2002 (last year I saw stats) and of those, quite a few were
for issues outside of work (i.e., being in jail for other offenses and
unable to come to work for a few months/years).

In 2004, the state of Colorado fired ONE person, though this year at least
they fired Ward Churchill.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Bear in mind that firing someone can be very difficult even in
>> private companies without any unions to deal with.
>
> I know. I've worked inside some big 'uns, and I've had to fire people
> that were clearly incompetent (and in one case, downright dangerous) --
> and it took more paperwork than an ADIZ violation.
>
> But at least you can do it. Most of our friends are government
> employees, and we hear stories all the time about employees who sleep
> at their desks, or don't come in at all, and are never disciplined in
> any way. One of their favorite jokes to tell is that they could kill
> someone, and -- as long as it occurred on the job -- they would only
> receive "anger counseling"...
>
> The bureaucracy -- the part of our government that is REALLY in charge,
> and survives untouched from election to election -- is a real mess, and
> each of us pays for it every day.

Makes on long for the old Spoils System (no, seriously). At least we didn't
have career bureaucrats perpetuating their positions.
http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Jose[_1_]]

> Jose, for the last week or so, using Agent as my newsreader. your
> posts fail to wordwrap. Is that something I can fix on my end?

I had reset my format to not wrap. Hard returns can be a pain, and I
didn't think there were many people with readers that don't autowrap.
I'm not familiar with Agent, so can't help you on that end, but I've
reset it again to wrap at 72.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Moore]

Jose wrote

>> Jose, for the last week or so, using Agent as my newsreader. your
>> posts fail to wordwrap. Is that something I can fix on my end?
>
> I had reset my format to not wrap. Hard returns can be a pain, and I
> didn't think there were many people with readers that don't autowrap.
> I'm not familiar with Agent, so can't help you on that end, but I've
> reset it again to wrap at 72.

Your posts did the same for me using Xnews.

Bob Moore

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-21, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> > large, very dumb corporations. If any further evidence of the need to
>> > privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.
>>
>> I fail to see how privatization will fix the problem.
>
> Because in a private company, without all the ridiculous "work rules"
> that Federal employees can currently hide behind, insubordinate
> employees can be effectively weeded out.

The Union will still be there, and the union can cause the same troubles
for a private company as it can for the Federal government, including
illegal walk-outs. That's the knub of the matter - privatizing the FAA
won't make the unions suddenly vanish or change attitude. If anything,
it'll cause attitudes to harden.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jay Honeck]

> > I'm talking personal profit, as in pay, pension, and job security. In
> > my experience, government entities (and their employees) are primarily
> > concerned with self-replication, not "public interest".
>
> You think your employees are different? They are doing it for the paycheck. Don't believe me? Ask them if they would work for you for nothing, just for the public service of helping to keep the rooms clean.

Of course they aren't different, in that regard. But, unlike the
Gummint, we don't go around pretending to be doing stuff for the
"public good" when, in fact, it's being done to line their pockets and
to perpetuate their own existence.

You, as a citizen, also have a CHOICE as to whether you pay for my
employees salaries (by choosing to stay here), unlike the coercion
perpetuated by a government that makes us pay for their employees (I'm
referring to all gummint employees -- not just ATC) whether we use them
or not.

Really, when you get right down to it, comparing employees from the
private sector with the public sector is ridiculous. One group is
highly efficient merit-based employment, while the other is
cradle-to-grave employment. There is simply no comparison between the
two.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I'd like to know what planet you're living on, because the one I
> inhabit has NO government employees who aren't interested in profit.
> At least I haven't met one, yet.

Most government employees care nothing about profit, at least in the
developed world.

> Thankfully, here in America the tradition of direct bribery and/or
> extortion by government officials has never taken root -- but in some
> cases I would actually prefer such a sharply defined method of doing
> business. At least you'd know where you stood with people like that.

Corrupt countries are universally poor.

> And I've met darned few government employees who have the "public
> interest" in mind, now that I think about it. All they're interested
> in is "procedure", "protocol", and their "pension" -- not necessarily
> in that order -- and common sense and practicality be damned.

But I said government, not government employees.

I know it's fashionable to knock public servants, but some of them
really do believe in the work they are doing, and public service is
important to them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> But, unlike the
> Gummint, we don't go around pretending to be doing stuff for the
> "public good" when, in fact, it's being done to line their pockets and
> to perpetuate their own existence.

Air traffic controllers are directing traffic to perpetuate their own
existence in a way that's different from hotel maids? You're not
runninig a hotel to line your own pocket? (not that you don't enjoy
your work, but would you do it if you weren't going to own a prospering
hotel at the end of it?) And don't tell me that your tax deductable
trips in Atlas, for "business purposes", aren't lining your own pocket
at our (taxpayer) expense. Were I to take those same trips, I'd be
paying double or triple, because I couldn't deduct ownership or
operating costs. You do get a sweet deal there.

I'm not saying that's a primary motivation - I know better. But to deny
that it's there, while accusing government employees of "lining their
own pockets" is more than a bit disingenuous.

> You, as a citizen, also have a CHOICE as to whether you pay for my
> employees salaries (by choosing to stay here), unlike the coercion
> perpetuated by a government that makes us pay for their employees (I'm
> referring to all gummint employees -- not just ATC) whether we use them
> or not.

This is true. And I also don't have a choice as to whether or not I'm
protected by the Armed Forces of the United States of America, which is
out there right now defending our freedoms. I'm coerced into that too,
along with paying for roads I don't drive on, pollution cleanup I didn't
make, libraries I don't visit, schools I don't attend, trips to the moon
I'm not on, and subsidized junk mail I don't want.

> Really, when you get right down to it, comparing employees from the
> private sector with the public sector is ridiculous. One group is
> highly efficient merit-based employment, while the other is
> cradle-to-grave employment. There is simply no comparison between the
> two.

Uhhh... "highly efficient merit-based employement"??? Private sector
companies don't make mistakes and go bankrupt? There's no corruption in
the private sector?

Yanno, I can see you don't like the impediments the government puts in
front of you as a business trying to do your thing. It can lead to alot
of resentment, because you don't get to do what you want, and what you
"know is right". But I suspect that the rest of the citizens really
appreciate the restraints you are under, because left to their own
devices, businesses do not care a whit about their surroundings, except
inasmuch as it affects their bottom line.

It is =private=business= that is lining their pockets and perpetuating
their own existence.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:06:25 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:17:36 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote in
>:
>
>>using Agent as my newsreader. your
>>posts fail to wordwrap. Is that something I can fix on my end?
>
>Select Word Wrap on the View pull-down menu.

Thanks. It's actually in the "Message" PD Window, and it doesn't
affect Jose's posts.

Don

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> That's just dumb. My job is 100% public interest. I have no product to
> sell, I simply provide a service on a first come, first served basis.
>
And your motive is?

[Matt Barrow]

> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:42:33 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>>> I'm talking personal profit, as in pay, pension, and job security. In
>>> my experience, government entities (and their employees) are primarily
>>> concerned with self-replication, not "public interest".
>>
>>You think your employees are different? They are doing it for the
>>paycheck.
>> Don't believe me? Ask them if they would work for you for nothing, just
>> for
>> the public service of helping to keep the rooms clean.

You've inverted his response, Jose. Your response would be to explain how
government employees WOULD clean restrooms for free since their service is
NOT profit oriented.

Once people learn that human nature is self-serving, all this BS about
"public interest" would be seen for the fraud that it is.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Is that why France considers itself the fashion hub of the world?
>>>
>>> Or the sexiest?
>>
>> Hairy armpits are sexy?
>
>
> Don't forget the once a week shower and wearing the same clothes all week.
> Fridays got rather disgusting and these were professional people.

Ah, yes...the world's ultimate elite.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:10:37 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote in
>:

>On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:06:25 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:17:36 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote in
>:
>>
>>>using Agent as my newsreader. your
>>>posts fail to wordwrap. Is that something I can fix on my end?
>>
>>Select Word Wrap on the View pull-down menu.
>
>Thanks. It's actually in the "Message" PD Window,

That's probably because you are running a newer version than me.

> and it doesn't affect Jose's posts.

It should wrap the text to the right boundary of the message pane,
instead of forcing you to use the horizontal scroll bar at the bottom
of the pane to view the end of his lines.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> But, unlike the
>> Gummint, we don't go around pretending to be doing stuff for the
>> "public good" when, in fact, it's being done to line their pockets and
>> to perpetuate their own existence.
>
>
> Air traffic controllers are directing traffic to perpetuate their own
> existence in a way that's different from hotel maids?


Uh Oh, you've figured it out. We could be more efficient if you'd just
pay us more. Jay's argument is ridiculous but is clouded by living in
liberal hell.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> Tell ya what Jay. You jump off a 6,000 foot mountain in a hang glider in
25
> mph winds and I'll start a business. When you do, I want to be there to
see
> your knees knocking and the **** stain growing in your pants. Or better
> yet, forget the hang glider.

Big ****in' deal... It's not like you have to worry about losing an
engine...

> What makes this largely possible is the fact that, through the
> union, we are all brothers.

Sounds pretty ****in' socialistic...

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
<snip>
>
>> What makes this largely possible is the fact that, through the
>> union, we are all brothers.
>
> Sounds pretty ****in' socialistic...

Unfortunately, most people don't see anything wrong with that....

[Margy Natalie]

Emily wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>> http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html
>>
>
> Geez, even we require that men's dress shirts that are able to be tucked
> in, be tucked in....
These guys have to watch out, now the "black, fag, whatever" poster has
EVIDENCE :-). Personally I think the skirt with cowboy boots makes the
point quite well. I was appalled to find out a few years ago that some
school districts still require female teachers to wear skirts at all times.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html
>
>
> My God. I had no idea the FAA was so controlled by their union that
> they feel they must put up with this sort of thing. Imagine -- they've
> got a current employee, on staff, who runs a website solely for the
> purposes of impugning his employer!

Jay, I really like you, but, get your head out of your ..., well, you
know what I mean.

We happen to live in a FREE country where one has the right to speak
ones mind against the government even if the government is your employer.
>
> And what a fool. He has neatly and succinctly documented his own
> insubordination. Snidely referring to the company CEO as "Maid
> Marion?" Documenting the insubordination of his fellow employees in a
> photographic record, and publishing it worldwide?

Insobordination is not calling someone a name. I can call my boss
whatever I want as long as when he says jump, I jump. I can protest my
having to jump, but I jump.
>
> In the real world (meaning anything outside of our totally screwed up
> government) his career would be measured in nanoseconds.
>
Not really. My ex-husband once worked for a major pharmacutical company
and they were doing an efficiency study. The team came upon a
researcher sleeping in his office. When they reported this to upper
management they responded with "YOU DIDN'T WAKE HIM UP DID YOU????".
Apparently this researcher came to work everyday and slept all day.
Once every few years he'd wake up, write down a formula and make many
millions for the company.

You live in a service industry mindset.
> My respect for controllers could not have been more diminished. Quite
> frankly, after many years of holding the FAA in the highest regard, I
> now must admit that I've never seen an organization with a more
> self-destructive workforce in my life -- and I've worked for some very
> large, very dumb corporations. If any further evidence of the need to
> privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.
>

If you think wearing business attire while working in a tower is
important I suggest you look at your priorities. I want my controllers
to be as comfortable as possible. I think we should require the
government to issue comfy sweats and slippers to all.

Margy
> What a shame.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/air-traffic-controller-fashion-hall-of.html
>
>
> My God. I had no idea the FAA was so controlled by their union that
> they feel they must put up with this sort of thing. Imagine -- they've
> got a current employee, on staff, who runs a website solely for the
> purposes of impugning his employer!
>
> And what a fool. He has neatly and succinctly documented his own
> insubordination. Snidely referring to the company CEO as "Maid
> Marion?" Documenting the insubordination of his fellow employees in a
> photographic record, and publishing it worldwide?
>
> In the real world (meaning anything outside of our totally screwed up
> government) his career would be measured in nanoseconds.
>
> My respect for controllers could not have been more diminished. Quite
> frankly, after many years of holding the FAA in the highest regard, I
> now must admit that I've never seen an organization with a more
> self-destructive workforce in my life -- and I've worked for some very
> large, very dumb corporations. If any further evidence of the need to
> privatize the FAA is necessary, I will be very surprised.

I'm sure when they are privatized the dress code will go away. Then we
can pay user fees and the controllers will wear what they want. They
sit in little dark rooms or up in tall towers. Who cares what they wear?

Margy
>
> What a shame.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Margy Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Is this Mr. McNicoll?
>>http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1867/2066/1600/workclothes19.0.jpg
>>
>>:-)
>>
>
>
> No, the MacNicol tartan is far more colorful:
>
> http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tartan_info.cfm?tartan_id=567
>
>
>
> I also like to wear the Irish National tartan to a local sports venue:
>
> http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tartan_info.cfm?tartan_id=7941
>
>
So where are the pictures, I love to see a man in a kilt provided his
legs are worthy. :-)

Margy

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:19:38 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote in >:

>> I also like to wear the Irish National tartan to a local sports venue:
>>
>> http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tartan_info.cfm?tartan_id=7941
>>
>>
>So where are the pictures, I love to see a man in a kilt provided his
>legs are worthy. :-)


I've not seen Steve mention his legs. He said in Message-ID:
>:

I know I can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger, stronger,
and cheaper, but I cannot be replaced by anyone smarter.

I presume that last fact is a result of his IQ score falling at the
top of the range in his job description.

Perhaps he can dance a cleaver Highland jig as compensation for any
criticism of his legs you may find. :-)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've not seen Steve mention his legs. He said in Message-ID:
> >:
>
> I know I can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger, stronger,
> and cheaper, but I cannot be replaced by anyone smarter.
>
> I presume that last fact is a result of his IQ score falling at the
> top of the range in his job description.
>
> Perhaps he can dance a cleaver Highland jig as compensation for any
> criticism of his legs you may find. :-)
>

I've the legs of a champion caber tosser.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 01:14:45 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I've not seen Steve mention his legs. He said in Message-ID:
>> >:
>>
>> I know I can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger, stronger,
>> and cheaper, but I cannot be replaced by anyone smarter.
>>
>> I presume that last fact is a result of his IQ score falling at the
>> top of the range in his job description.
>>
>> Perhaps he can dance a cleaver Highland jig as compensation for any
>> criticism of his legs you may find. :-)
>>
>
>I've the legs of a champion caber tosser.
>

Oh. So I guess we'll never now how they look.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Caber_2.jpg

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Insubordination is refusing to obey orders. No one ever said you
>>>>> can't make fun of your CEO. Ours has really bad hair, and we all know
>>>>> it and have made comments. It doesn't mean we deserve to be fired.
>>>>
>>>> If there is a corporate policy against such comments you could be
>>>> terminated. It also falls under harassment which is certainly a hot
>>>> button of recent years.
>>>
>>> Harassment may be against company policy (at least for the lower
>>> echelons) but it certainly isn't illegal/a-legal-issue (which is the
>>> topic...isn't it?)
>>
>> It certainly is illegal. There have been a number of landmark cases with
>> significant judgements.
>
> Yes, for sexual (until MonicaGate) or racial/ethnic, etc., but not just
> general harassment.


Well, no. You need to brush up on current regulations.

[Jay Honeck]

> Insobordination is not calling someone a name. I can call my boss
> whatever I want as long as when he says jump, I jump. I can protest my
> having to jump, but I jump.

So, let's you and me put together a web page devoted to insulting and
inviting ridicule upon your current supervisor, all in the interest of
"free speech". Then let's publicize it to your co-workers. Let's see
how long you are employed.

If it's longer than 72 hours, you clearly work for the government.

> Not really. My ex-husband once worked for a major pharmacutical company
> and they were doing an efficiency study. The team came upon a
> researcher sleeping in his office. When they reported this to upper
> management they responded with "YOU DIDN'T WAKE HIM UP DID YOU????".
> Apparently this researcher came to work everyday and slept all day.
> Once every few years he'd wake up, write down a formula and make many
> millions for the company.

That's funny. But the company should've sent him home, and paid him as
a contractor, rather than leave him in place as a horrible example for
all to see. That's the kind of performance example that can seriously
harm employee morale, output and work ethic.

> You live in a service industry mindset.

America would be a much better place if our government would remember
that they *are* a service industry.

> If you think wearing business attire while working in a tower is
> important I suggest you look at your priorities. I want my controllers
> to be as comfortable as possible. I think we should require the
> government to issue comfy sweats and slippers to all.

I guess I don't really care what controllers wear. What I *do* care
about is that they think their supervisors shouldn't be allowed to set
dress code guidelines. That is indicative of a serious management
deficit inside the FAA.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination".

[Jay Honeck]

> Yanno, I can see you don't like the impediments the government puts in
> front of you as a business trying to do your thing. It can lead to alot
> of resentment, because you don't get to do what you want, and what you
> "know is right".

Darned right it does. I am daily faced with having to make bad choices
because of the bald-faced lies that are sold to us under the guise of
"government services", and then am forced to pay exorbitant taxes to
that same government so that they may perpetuate these lies upon their
ignorant citizenry.

Think about this: I am forced to pay my government more than Mary, me,
and all of our other employees COMBINED make each year. That's right,
the highest paid entitity in our little business isn't the employees,
it isn't the mean old power company, it isn't the rich-jerk-off bank --
it's our GOVERNMENT.

That is sick, and wrong, and needs to change.

And those taxes have gone up 10% each year since we opened four years
ago. That's not a typo. TEN PERCENT ANNUALLY.

If you'd like to be further sickened, here is a list of the taxes we
pay every day:

- Sales: 5%
- Hotel/Motel: 7%
- Property tax $6000 per MONTH
- Federal income tax withholding from our employees
- Federal payroll tax
- Social Security income tax withholding from our employees
- Social Security payroll tax.
- Medicare withholding from our employees
- Medicare payroll tax
- Federal Unemployment Tax
- Iowa Workforce Development tax (unemployment in disguise)
- 5% sales tax on anything and everything else we buy
- Motor vehicle tax on all fuel

> But I suspect that the rest of the citizens really
> appreciate the restraints you are under, because left to their own
> devices, businesses do not care a whit about their surroundings, except
> inasmuch as it affects their bottom line.

Yes, I'm sure they appreciate the fact that all of this money is being
extorted from them in ways that are diabolically invisible to them.
Our government has become experts at running the biggest scam in
history -- taxation without any evidence that it's occurring. But it
IS occurring, and it's causing great harm to all of us.

If you ever REALLY want to know why our economy is stuck in the
doldrums, or why all the good jobs have gone overseas, go back and
re-read that list of taxes, above.

> It is =private=business= that is lining their pockets and perpetuating
> their own existence.

That is such crap, I can't even begin to address it. Your concept of
what private businesses can and cannot do is so warped, I couldn't
possibly know where to start in an argument about it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> I guess I don't really care what controllers wear.

Ok, we agree there.

> What I *do* care
> about is that they think their supervisors shouldn't be allowed to set
> dress code guidelines.

Well, I certainly think they shouldn't set dress code guidelines. While
that's not the same as "shouldn't be allowed to...", it's part of the
picture. Having management waste time, energy, and political capital on
trivia is indicative of management that doesn't care how good the
"product" is (see the first response, above), but rather, cares more
that they are perceived as "the top dog - the big banana - el mucho
macho...". This is a management that sees its first job as bossing
people around, rather than being a leader.

=This= is the management deficit inside the FAA - management that cares
about trivia and is on a power trip.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I am daily faced with having to make bad choices
> because of the bald-faced lies that are sold to
> us under the guise of "government services"...

I resent bald faced lies told to me by my government with my tax dollars
too. But the ones I resent are the ones that lead to the deaths of
thousands of American soldiers. It's my tax money too. But that will
get us off the track, won't it. :)

As for the "bad choices", name three "bad choices" you had to make
because of these lies.

> I am forced to pay my government more than Mary, me,
> and all of our other employees COMBINED make each year.

Maybe you should pay your employees more.

Seriously. Do Mary and your employees keep your hotel safe from warring
infidels? From maurauding looters? Do they supply you with clean water
and weather data for you to give out free to your clients? Did they
build you a runway and an air traffic control system so that people
could fly into your hotel? Did they do any scientific research? Did
they build the internet? Did they ensure that the future voters get an
education, and actually deliver it? If they did, then maybe they
=would= deserve more money than the governmnet. Yanno, you jump up and
down about being patriotic, but you don't appreciate at all what this
country has done for you, first and foremost, to give you the chance to
build your business in the first place.

> If you'd like to be further sickened...

That doesn't make me sick. It is the price of being a citizen of this
Great Country. It doesn't come free. It is not an entitlement. What
makes me sick is people who whine that they shouldn't have to pay for
these things.

> If you ever REALLY want to know why our economy is stuck in the
> doldrums, or why all the good jobs have gone overseas, go back and
> re-read that list of taxes, above.

Don't be silly. All I have to do is look at the salaries of American
workers, and the salaries of Chinese workers doing the same thing.

> ...taxation without any evidence that it's occurring.

Inflation is the biggest scam here. Think about what it means to buy
something, have its value go up exactly in line with inflation, and then
sell it. You make a huge profit, but are in the same position as
before. And you pay tax on this paper profit with real money. Yes,
there are scams in government. Private enterprise is not free of scams,
and neither are private individuals.

> That is such crap, I can't even begin to address it. Your concept of
> what private businesses can and cannot do is so warped, I couldn't
> possibly know where to start in an argument about it.

It is not at all crap, which is why you can't address it. Do you
=really= disagree with the statement: "Left to their own devices,
businesses do not care a whit about their surroundings, except inasmuch
as it affects their bottom line."?

Business exists for one purpose only: To make money.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> Harassment may be against company policy (at least for the lower
>>>> echelons) but it certainly isn't illegal/a-legal-issue (which is the
>>>> topic...isn't it?)
>>>
>>> It certainly is illegal. There have been a number of landmark cases
>>> with significant judgements.
>>
>> Yes, for sexual (until MonicaGate) or racial/ethnic, etc., but not just
>> general harassment.
>
>
> Well, no. You need to brush up on current regulations.

I hope you're right, because it might get me out from a contract with a full
blown p&*$&#@ck that I'd rather not do business with (his people are so
uptight they're making dumb mistakes).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

"Useful Idiot" wrote:

> Yanno, I can see you don't like the impediments the government puts in
> front of you as a business trying to do your thing. It can lead to alot
> of resentment, because you don't get to do what you want, and what you
> "know is right".

Statist dupe.

[Mike Isaksen]

Some good points, some lame, not much about aviation, but the following is
priceless:

> wrote in message ...
> ...I'm in good health and condition for my age (other than a back problem
> that's work related, but manageable, so far). I prefer jumping off a
> mountain with a hang glider strapped to my back over taking my life
> savings and ...

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jose" wrote)
> I had reset my format to not wrap. Hard returns can be a pain, and I
> didn't think there were many people with readers that don't autowrap. I'm
> not familiar with Agent, so can't help you on that end, but I've reset it
> again to wrap at 72.


Jose, your post haven't made much sense to me these past few weeks, either.

Wordwrap issues?
No, that part's fine. :-)


Montblack

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> If you'd like to be further sickened, here is a list of the taxes we
> pay every day:
>
> - Sales: 5%
> - Hotel/Motel: 7%
> - Property tax $6000 per MONTH
> - Federal income tax withholding from our employees
> - Federal payroll tax
> - Social Security income tax withholding from our employees
> - Social Security payroll tax.
> - Medicare withholding from our employees
> - Medicare payroll tax
> - Federal Unemployment Tax
> - Iowa Workforce Development tax (unemployment in disguise)
> - 5% sales tax on anything and everything else we buy
> - Motor vehicle tax on all fuel


Taxes are hidden in your heat and electric bills, sanitation, water and
sewer bills, and your phone bills.


Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

> Taxes are hidden in your heat and electric bills, sanitation, water and
> sewer bills, and your phone bills.

What, are you trying to cheer me up?

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> Were it that those reasons were even correct.
>

They weren't? Name one that wasn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> The French do tend to put a great deal of faith in appearances, and
> very little in substance, however.
>

As opposed to Americans??? Good one!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> At least the government
> has public interest in mind, instead of profit.
>

Name one government that works that way. Would be news to me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>The individuals who make up the FAA are government employees. You have
>>clearly stated your disdain for government employees more than once in these
>>forums.
>
>
> My belief that most federal employees are underworked and overpaid is
> not "disdain". It is something, however, that could be easily and
> swiftly addressed, under any new administration.

How many federal employees do you know?

Margy (a fed as of Monday, and yes, I only worked 45+ hours last week
and only half a day today, but I'll work a full 5 later this week).
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[John T[_2_]]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message

>
>> I have no quarrel with my employer (after all, I'm self employed),
>> so if the freedom to impunge my employer were taken away from me, it
>> wouldn't affect my daily life. But I think it's an important
>> freedom, and part of what makes this country great.
>
> In most corporations bad mouthing the corporation is grounds for
> immediate termination as is insubordination. There is no such
> freedom as you have described it.

Sure there is. Every US citizen has the right to express their displeasure
with or ridicule their employer. Nobody is taking that freedom away from
them.

On the other hand, there is nothing forcing the employer to employ an
individaul who obviously doens't want the job being offered.

"Freedom" cuts both ways in this case.

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

[Margy Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I've not seen Steve mention his legs. He said in Message-ID:
>:
>>
>> I know I can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger, stronger,
>> and cheaper, but I cannot be replaced by anyone smarter.
>>
>>I presume that last fact is a result of his IQ score falling at the
>>top of the range in his job description.
>>
>>Perhaps he can dance a cleaver Highland jig as compensation for any
>>criticism of his legs you may find. :-)
>>
>
>
> I've the legs of a champion caber tosser.
>
>
again, no pictures to back it up. I say send the pictures!

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> again, no pictures to back it up. I say send the pictures!
>

Full regalia, properly fitted and worn, does not reveal a lot of skin.

Unless there's a good breeze.

[Margy Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>again, no pictures to back it up. I say send the pictures!
>>
>
>
> Full regalia, properly fitted and worn, does not reveal a lot of skin.
>
> Unless there's a good breeze.
>
>
There's a bit of good knee, usually. The run to toss the caber
increases the chance of a good show. The marathon runner who ran the
full marathon in a kilt, but decided to cart-wheel to the finish
provided a complete show. Yes, he was wearing traditional dress, but
this was in France.

Margy

[gatt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> My respect for controllers could not have been more diminished.

I kind of like it. I'm not sure it was appropriate for the controller to be
so insulting, but the dress code rebellion itself is kind of amusing. (It's
not going to last long, it makes a point, nobody gets hurt, people get a
laugh out of it, etc.)

Never in my life as a pilot or passenger have I ever spent a second thinking
about what the ATC was dressed like. The degree of their professionalism
and competence will be measurable by the safety record at the airport and
any comments, complaints or observations that pilots or staff might report.

Were I the decisionmaker here, it would be: Rebel however you want but have
suitable professional attire ready on very sort notice, because if the
President or the Boy Scouts show up for a tour we better not find you in an
"I'm with Stoopit" T-shirt.

-c
PP-ASEL-IA