In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

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

Who defines what looks professional?

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

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

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

That we care more about performance than appearance?


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

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




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

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

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

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