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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message ups.com... 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. Grow up. Your immature rants are getting tiresome. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
Jay:
Last time I saw you, you were wearing shorts only- no shoes or even a shirt. (Of course, it was in a pool) In fact, I'm glad you kept your shorts on. Does this mean we should expect formal wear the next time we stay at your place? Or, should everyone be naked? Just a thought. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:06:53 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote in : "Larry Dighera" wrote in message Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their membership's voice to management. That's what unions do. What you say is accurate as far as it goes, which is not far enough. The union's full responsibility is to represent the members' best interests in the labor-management relationship. That is reasonable. I don't see where that is not occurring in this instance. 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. There are millions of union employees who are well paid, well trained, well treated, and secure in their positions because they do their jobs well and their companies make money. And employee interests are voiced collectively when they are threatened by management. That, in addition to good job performance, is what assures their positions. But how often do you hear of union leaders telling their rank and file, "you know, guys, we've got a good deal here, and you're well treated. I don't think we ought to disrupt anything right now." I have heard similar sentiment voiced by union leaders when it is appropriate. Any union man or woman who said such a thing would be instantly branded as a management stooge and run out of the local. That has not been my experience. When did you see that occur? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Viperdoc" wrote:
Jay: Last time I saw you, you were wearing shorts only- no shoes or even a shirt. (Of course, it was in a pool) In fact, I'm glad you kept your shorts on. Does this mean we should expect formal wear the next time we stay at your place? Or, should everyone be naked? Just a thought. Hardly an relavent comparison. Ron Lee |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the terms of employment without consulting the employees. Absurd! You should work for an auto company. Over the past 20 or so years white colar workers have lost COLA, vacation time, etc. Management never asked permission. We do live in the land of the free - one is free to work for an employer or not. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
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." |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
Paul Tomblin wrote: In a previous article, none said: This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack & collard shirts). I did not read suits. It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the terms of employment without consulting the employees. Perfectly legal in this case. The previous contract expired quite a while ago. Negotiations broke down. The way federal law is written FAA may impose their contract subject to approval by Congress. Congress approved by not taking up the issue. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
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. Unions, and particularly, it seems, ATC unions, have a history of accepting very bad advice at the worst possible time. Hence their "strong and growing" position in the American economy. Todays ATC employees only give NATCA so much latitude. After that we'll ignore them. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason They've also got to stop designing crap cars. My Toyota Corolla was built in Cambridge Ontario by Canadian Auto Worker union members, and it's so well built that they export them back to Japan. Meanwhile your average Ford, GM or Chrysler is a gas guzzling maintenance nightmare because Ford, GM, and Chrysler care more about keeping shareholders happy than investing money in research and design. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ ....I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an interpreter. -- Nick Petreley |
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 |