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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message 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. Which is, ultimately, the way it ought to be. You vote with your feet. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
for dictating what they must wear to work... Why do you care what they look like? Aren't there more important issues with the FAA? Jose -- The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
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? If the employer is setting and enforcing a dress code for people who work in the back room, what does that say about the employer? I frankly don't care if they work naked. Jose -- The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
In a previous article, "John Gaquin" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message 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. Which is, ultimately, the way it ought to be. You vote with your feet. Not if you've got a union to fight for you. That's what they're there for. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ I'm just waiting for the day that someone decides that "ignorant moron" is an ethnic group, and thus cannot be discriminated against. -- Christian Wagner |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"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. 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. 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." Any union man or woman who said such a thing would be instantly branded as a management stooge and run out of the local. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message Which is, ultimately, the way it ought to be. You vote with your feet. Not if you've got a union to fight for you. That's what they're there for. Only if you're being treated illegally. Otherwise, it's the union escalating things for their own ends. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
In a previous article, "John Gaquin" said:
"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. the labor-management relationship. 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. 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." Any union man or woman who said such Have you ever considered that you don't hear about it because a union not making noise doesn't make the newspapers? The one and only time I belonged to a union, I had no idea what they did except deduct dues from my paycheck. And that's mostly because we had a pretty good deal and we were well treated, so the union never made noise. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ Like most computer techie people, I'll happily spend 6 hours trying to figure out how to do a 3 hour job in 10 minutes. --Rev. James Cort, ASR |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:46:05 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote in : "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. Agreed. It would be helpful to know the dress code to which ATC employees at the time of their employment. 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. In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and resources to make a point, I wasn't aware the union was doing that. 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. You are mistaken to see the union's admonition as applying to _all_ cases of supervisor/employee conversations. Unions, and particularly, it seems, ATC unions, have a history of accepting very bad advice at the worst possible time. The ATC union made some very poor decisions when their employees walked off the job. Be assured, I do not condone what they did then. Hence their "strong and growing" position in the American economy. 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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 16:04:31 GMT, Jose
wrote in : I frankly don't care if they work naked. EDS and Ross Perot* would have a problem with you. :-) Of course, Mr. Honeck might not have a problem with the practices at EDS. * http://www.realchange.org/perot.htm |
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 |