If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message That has not been my experience. When did you see that occur? Thrice in my experience. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
Management wants to change the rules of the workplace after the fact, and the union is advising their members to alert union officials when such employee abuse occurs. Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"? -- John T http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com ____________________ |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Stefan" wrote in message
... 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 Well, I don't recall having a job in the last 37 years or so where I could show up in cutoffs or flip flops. A good number of those years, I even had to wear a tie (except for when I was acutally under the hood of a car). Nowadays it's a "buisness casual" dress code which excludes sneakers, much less flip flops... And, yes, a few of those years were in a union shop - thanks, but no thanks. -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:59:25 GMT, John Theune
wrote in 1QZKg.1665$m36.629@trnddc02: Larry Dighera wrote: On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:17:57 -0400, Javier wrote in : Larry Dighera wrote: What would be your feeling if the bank decided to double your fixed mortgage interest rate despite your not having had an opportunity to agree to their change? If I have a contract with the bank for a fixed rate for a number of years, I expect them to keep the interest rate the same through the period, since that's what the contract states, no? Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. [...] In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and resources to make a point, I think that it is likely to contribute sourness to an already stressed relationship. I wasn't aware the union was doing that. Can you please quote a source that supports that allegation? This is copied from the Avweb story: While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members to exercise their rights to the letter. "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. The Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says the overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your elected leaders will need your help now more than ever." Can you please point out the part that indicates the union is "pushing their members to waste time and resources"? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:04:08 -0600, Newps wrote
in : John Gaquin wrote: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it? 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. Why not? Surely NATCA members are working under an agreement between the union and the FAA. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An ACE goes down in flames. | PoBoy | Naval Aviation | 25 | December 9th 05 01:30 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Piloting | 133 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |