NATCA Going Down in Flames

Jose wrote:
But why is the union making such a big deal about it? To tell
employees that a supervisor making a comment about dress constitutes a
"meeting", well...that's why I'm glad we don't have unions at my
particular part of the company.

To make it difficult for the management, in the hopes that they will
rethink their position (or at least be punished for holding it).

Again, what's the point? Management isn't the enemy...or is that a
naive position?

Jose wrote:
And they better be starched with crisp creases.
Why? What positive effect can there be in that?

Air safety of course. Would you trust a vector given to you by somebody
who doesn't even starch their pants? g

I'm glad you can't see how some of my coworkers dress. You'd never get
on half the commercial aircraft out there ever again.

To make it difficult for the management, in the hopes that they will rethink their position (or at least be punished for holding it).
Again, what's the point? Management isn't the enemy...or is that a naive position?

Thems that came up with the dress code is the enemy. (my presumption -
I am not a controller and have no dog in the fight). Sometimes it's
unavoidable if there is collateral damage in these fights, but the buck
has to stop somewhere. The idea is to make implementation of their plan
difficult.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Emily wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

But why is the union making such a big deal about it? To tell
employees that a supervisor making a comment about dress constitutes
a "meeting", well...that's why I'm glad we don't have unions at my
particular part of the company.


I don't think they're making a bid deal about the dress code, they,re
making a big deal about the imposed "contract". The dress code is
just one part of it.

I guess I've never figured out why, if an employee doesn't like the
rules he is subjected to, he just doesn't find something else to do. A
union certainly isn't the solution.

A union is like welfare from the government. It saves people having to
think for, and take care of, themselves.

Matt

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. Some unions tip
the playing field too far the other way.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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. What does it say when
we require the kids to be in uniform, but the controllers are wearing
flip-flops and cut-off shorts?

It says that dressing like a drone is so 1950s?
--
Steve Rubin / AE6CH / http://www.altdb.net/
Email: / N6441C / http://www.tch.org/~ser/
"Why don't you mind your own business?" -- John Navas 01/04/05
"If you don't like it, keep it to yourself" -- John Navas 01/04/05

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.

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. Some unions tip
the playing field too far the other way.

I disagree. It distorts the free market of labor causing inefficiency.

Matt

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, I will use whatever
tools are available to discourage that view. Collective bargaining
one such lever. I'd be a fool not to use it.

Don

On 4 Sep 2006 15:17:06 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

Of course, Mr. Honeck might not have a problem with the practices at
EDS.

Okay, I give. What the heck is "EDS"?

EDS is Electronic Data Systems, Inc., the folks that do IT for GM.
They have a reputation in the industry for draconian labor practices
(as did Henry Ford):

http://www.realchange.org/perot.htm
Abusing His Employees
Perot is by all accounts a great motivator, a man who demands
great loyalty and extreme hard work from employees, but also can
repay it with striking acts of generosity (though rarely much in
the way of wages.) He has done things like fly a new employee's
wife to Johns Hopkins Hospital in his Lear Jet, after she injured
her eye.

At the same time, the relationship he creates is one where Perot
is all-powerful, and bestows his generosities from on high. He
works people extremely hard for little money, and subjects them to
intrusive scrutiny, including private investigators, wiretaps,
drug tests and lie detector tests.

In this regard, he bears a striking resemblance to Ralph Nader, of
all people, who also inspires great loyalty, pushes himself at
least as hard as he pushes his employees, burns people out for
little money, and seems to feel he has a right to monitor and
control their lives.

For example, discussing salaries has been an immediate firing
offense from the first days at EDS, Perot's company. The company
dress code, up into the 1970s, required white shirts only for men
(he considered blue shirts effeminate), no pants or flats for
women, and no "mod looks," as the contract put it. But the
intrusion went much further.

EDS tapped phones and used detectives to investigate its own
employees, according to Posner. He traced license plate numbers in
the parking lot to see who came late or left early, just as Nader
telephones employees at home on sunny weekends to test how long
they work. And in "particularly heated" fights for contracts,
employees on the bid team would be physically searched to ensure
they did not remove any paperwork that could assist the
opposition. (Posner, p94-5)


http://www.vault.com/survey/employee...YEER-3100.html