"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

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

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

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


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

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

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

Clearly the union is informing their members of their right to have a
union representative present whenever a supervisor wants to CHANGE
THEIR WORKING CONDITINS currently in effect.

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



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

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

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