NATCA Going Down in Flames

The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here -- and I've read a
LOT of goofy stuff over the years.

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

In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
the employees from the customers. College girls wearing peasant shirts
that showed their tatooed butts, no name badge, and no "we're here to
serve you" attitude translated into a single-visit, never to return.

In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
strictly adhered to. Our employees are required to wear either our
green "Alexis Park Inn & Suites" shirts, or a (supplied) aviation
themed Hawaiian shirt with a collar. In summer, khaki shorts are
allowed, but never cut-offs or blue jeans, and no t-shirts. A name
badge must be worn at all times.

Does it matter, since much of their work is on the phone? Hell, yes.
When a guest comes onto our property, we want them to be able to tell
the guards from the inmates, and we expect our employees to act
professional at all times.

If we expect this from hotel clerks, housekeepers, and waitresses, I
don't think it's too much to ask from our "professional" air traffic
controllers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

These guys are not dressed like bums. Since when is shorts and flip flops dressing like a bum? Maybe a surfer dude...

I guess we Iowans have better-dressed bums than you do...

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

In a previous article, " said:
over something that should be a No brainer. If I remember right the
adverage salary for a ATC worker this year was 72,500, with some raking
in 171,300. For that pay they shouldn't even contest not being able to
wear flip flops to work. What other profession can dress like that and
earn that kind of cash, well other then Jimmy Buffet.????

Computer programmers. We make that sort of money, and we sure as hell
don't have a mandatory retirement at 55 or whatever it is for them.

I had a job where they required a dress code. I told them that if I'm
going to be on my knees crawling around a server rack or pulling cables
behind dusty old computers, I'm either going to dress casually or they
could pay my dry cleaning bill. They didn't relent, so I left.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer a
Rolls Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon and
explode once a year killing everybody inside. - Robert Cringley (InfoWorld)

Jay Honeck schrieb:

In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
the employees from the customers.

There *are* some jobs which require some kind of uniform. E.g. it's a
good thing if you recognize a policeman and it's probably a good thing
when you can tell a waiter from a guest, too. But besides such jobs, who
cares what people wear. I do care how they're doing their job, and
everything else is not my business.

Stefan

It is the land of the FREE,

If they don't like the work rules in their place of employment they are
FREE to find a job elsewhere...............


Stefan wrote:
Bob Noel schrieb:

Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little interaction
with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's attire
matter even a little?

And even *if* they had interaction with the public: Who cares how they
are dressed? If they wish to work in a bathsuit and their hair coloured
green and blue, so be it, as long as they are doing their job well.

The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free.

Stefan

"Paul Tomblin" wrote:

I had a job where they required a dress code. I told them that if I'm
going to be on my knees crawling around a server rack or pulling cables
behind dusty old computers, I'm either going to dress casually or they
could pay my dry cleaning bill. They didn't relent, so I left.

It should be the right of an employer to enforce a dress code for employees;
it is the responsibility of an employer not to be stupid or oppressive about
it.

This action of the FAA smacks of a power demonstration rather than a routine
work rule change. Hard to see how it can help the already toxic
labor-managemrnt atmosphere in ATC.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

[snip]
These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
ATC privatization.

Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little
interaction
with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's
attire
matter even a little?

Jay, you did label it correctly. It IS a ridiculous issue.

Not only ridiculous, it could actually be a dangerous issue. ANY issue like
this that is designed by its creators to deliberately cause tension between
controllers and supervisors while on duty is a potential danger to flights
in progress.

Slightly off topic but with a real stretch slight relevant here is what
follows;

The very idea of a government union is bad on its premise. On one hand you
have government employees screaming for money. On the other hand you have
politicians wanting the union's vote to stay in office. In the middle you
have the taxpayer who has to pay the bill when these two completely
unethical factors finish putting on their show for the public and do what
they were always going to do anyway; screw the taxpayer.
We are well advised to remember the Boston Tea Party, where everybody was
screaming,
"No taxation without representation". Well we wanted it. We got it. Now we
have taxation WITH representation :-)

Dudley Henriques

On 4 Sep 2006 05:04:28 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

Unbelievable! They're [NATCA union members] actually going to fight
against their employer for dictating what they must wear to work...

Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
membership's voice to management. That's what unions do. What would
you have the union do to earn its member's dues? If the union is seen
as capitulating at every one of management's demands, they won't be
perceived as a useful entity worthy of attracting members.

Apparently their [the union members] right to look like bums in a
professional setting has been violated, and the union is going on
the offensive!

I will say, that I was a little surprised at the casual attire with
which SoCal TRACON personnel were clad during an Operation Raincheck
visit, but given that it was a darkened room, and not generally open
to the public, it didn't seem entirely inappropriate. And you have to
realize, that ATC personnel work at odd hours 24 hours a day.

Given the drastic recent evolution in corporate dress codes (just
recall how Wilbur and Oval were attired in that photograph of their
first powered flight), probably fostered by the laissez-faire dot-com
era of the '90s, and the fact that ATC employees apparently had a
history of absence of dress code, I don't see the employees' stand as
unreasonable.

However, it would seem more appropriate for highly skilled
professionals charged with the safety of thousands of airline
passengers' to have a personal desire to elevate their status in the
eyes of the public by dressing in a style of formality commensurate
with magnitude of their responsibility.

On 4 Sep 2006 06:20:32 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

If an employer can't even set a
dress code without inciting a union grievance, what does that say about
the attitude of their employees?

I failed to find any mention of a grievance in what you posted.