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


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

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

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

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

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

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

In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and
resources to make a point,

I wasn't aware the union was doing that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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