NATCA Going Down in Flames

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

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

Simply amoral. My objective is to maximize the return on my
investment in time in working for the company. To the extent that the
company considers my time a fungable quantity
But isn't it?

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

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

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

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


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

That doesn't change the fact that others have, right?

No, it means it was uncommon.

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

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

Emily wrote:

Ron Lee wrote:
Emily wrote:

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

Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.

Ron Lee


As a woman, I think the collared shirt thing is ridiculous. So many
people feel to comprehend that women can be business casual without a
collar.

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

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

Ron Lee

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


I don't know why you took my post personally.

Emily wrote:


I don't know why you took my post personally.

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

Ron Lee

He was dressed like a bum! What a hypocrite!

AND I was drinking alcohol!

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

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

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

Ah, what a lovely retirement plan...

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

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


"Newps" wrote in message

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

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


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


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

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

Jay Honeck wrote:


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

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