NATCA Going Down in Flames

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:52:23 -0400, "John T" wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?
If it is a change in the working agreement, that hasn't been agreed to
by both parties, I would see it as inequitable and unjust. If changes
are desired, they should be openly negotiated by all concerned.
You didn't answer my question.

"Inequitable" and "unjust" don't equate to "abuse" in any thesaurus I know,
so I'm still wondering how requiring professional attire equates to
"employee abuse".


Don't you agree, that denying an employee his right to bargain may
constitute abuse?
No.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

Oh, it's very easy to fly VFR (cloud? what's a cloud?). It's NOT easy to
not talk to ATC.


Yes it is.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Oh, it's very easy to fly VFR (cloud? what's a cloud?). It's NOT easy to
not talk to ATC.


Yes it is.


Are you illiterate?

Or do I need to rephrase?

It's NOT easy to not talk to ATC where I live.

Emily wrote:

It's NOT easy to not talk to ATC where I live.


My co-owner absolutely loves DFW ATC. He's been impressed every time he
goes there. They zip him right in to his destination on a simple VFR
flight following, from his typical overnight stop in Memphis.

We're used to NYC & BOS, who are also easy to deal with, as long as
you're brief, clear, and professional.

"Emily" wrote in message
...

Are you illiterate?


No.



Or do I need to rephrase?


No.



It's NOT easy to not talk to ATC where I live.


I'm sure you find it hard, it would be easy for me.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:21:17 -0500, Emily wrote:

And driving two hours to an airport outside of town doesn't count - that
makes it difficult.

Two hours to an uncontrolled field? That's sad. I thought that it was
bad around here, with the KEWR class B. But even someone in the center of
EWR/JFK/LGA is - at most - an hour from some uncontrolled fields (ie. N07
on the NJ side).

Then there's KLDJ, which is an uncontrolled field five miles south of
KEWR. What makes this little uncontrolled field even more interesting is
that the GPS-A approach can be followed (in VMC, of course) w/o talking to
approach; one never bumps the class B.

I guess the grass is definitely greener over here. Thanks.

- Andrew

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:52:56 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"A. Sinan Unur" wrote in message
...

The competition is in the bidding stage.


That's not good enough. The user doesn't get to bid.

It's problematic for [at least] a second reason: the current holder of the
contract will always be at advantage (as there are no [further] start-up
costs).

- Andrew

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

"Private" wrote in message
news:n76Lg.516413$IK3.107547@pd7tw1no...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

I will wear whatever my employer wishes, provided they also provide it.

In that case you quite likely would find yourself pursuing other
opportunities.

I require my project managers to wear slacks and at least a "golf" type
shirt when meeting clients/contractors in their offices. When entertaining
them in a restaurant, for example, a suit/sport coat and tie are
mandatory.

I haven't had to buy anyone a suit yet, and I doubt I ever will.


There are laws that determine minimum acceptable dress in public places.
For many and varied purposes many employers choose to exceed these minimum
requirements. Military, police and other organizations have many obvious
needs for identification and public image. Many other workplaces have
demands for specialized dress due to health and safety reasons. The costs
for this special dress are properly those of the enterprise that requires
them and because of this IMHE most employers are required to provide safety
equipment like high vis coveralls and hard hats and gloves. Because these
expenses are deductible they represent a LOWER cost to the employer than
requiring the employee to provide these items and pay for them in after tax
dollars. The employer usually sees this an opportunity to improve their
public image by putting their company name and image on these safety items.
Many employers provide allowances to cover the cost of personal safety
footwear that is not returned to the employer at the end of a job. Many
employers discover that their net costs go down due to lowered injury rates
and costs and the increased quality of their image is easy to justify as
perhaps the cheapest advertising they will ever buy.

The case can and is usually made that flip flops are a safety issue.
Similarly, cut offs or clothing that has wear holes or tears is also either
a health or safety issue due to flammability or sun exposure or that it may
cause damage to the employers equipment. What you wear under the company
coveralls is seldom a concern of the employer. Similarly rings and jewelry
can usually be considered safety issues.

The bottom line is that this is a matter that can normally be resolved by
reference to legislation or cooperation in good faith between employer and
employee. Most employees recognize that what is good for the employer is
usually also in their own best interest.

The real problem arises when the clothing has religious significance and
this is a real minefield where the employee may have RIGHTS.that make the
employers wishes unlawful or discriminatory. We have not even mentioned the
possibility of free speech issues created by t shirts with inappropriate
messages. Most employers are REQUIRED to provide and require the use of
needed safety and health items. An employer has great latitude and can
probably justify and require the use of supplied uniforms and safety
equipment on safety or health grounds and they usually find that the cost of
company coveralls or a company golf shirt to be a much smaller cost than
trying to demand employees purchase approved clothing.

IMHO disputes that arise from appearance issues are more likely due to a
breakdown in relations in some other area and that the inappropriate
clothing is more of a symptom than a problem issue to be treated in
isolation. The smart employer avoids a HR ****ing contest as they are
seldom productive or helpful in the long term.

Just my .02

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:46:27 -0400, "John T" wrote in
:


Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
to bargain (if any such "right" exists).

Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
seems like abuse to me.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

No. I realize that I've had stalkers on Usenet before, and it's no one's
business where I live. I live in the surface area of a Class B airport.
Check out a chart and you'll see how far it is from any Class B airport in
this area to airports and airspace where I don't have to talk to ATC.


Looks like Grand Prairie is about four miles from where you live, Arlington
is about six miles, Hicks is about twelve, Lakeview is about six, Mesquite
is about eleven, Lancaster is about eight, etc., etc., etc.