NATCA Going Down in Flames

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:31:05 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in :

This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
collard shirts).

I didn't read in the initial article posted to this message thread,
that the union was opposed to casual attire. Where did you get that
idea. The way I read it, NATICA is opposed to FAA management's
arbitrary change in job requirements sans employee agreement. It
would seem, that the union is opposed to FAA management changing the
job requirements after the fact.

A good union would file suit to prevent FAA management from breach of
contract.

Now, if this is a prelude to ATC privatization requirements, that
would be another matter. I can see where the entity paying for a
service has a right to dictate the terms of the service they are
funding _before_ the agreement is signed.

"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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

"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.

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

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.

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