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.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

That has not been my experience. When did you see that occur?

Thrice in my experience.

"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
____________________

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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"?

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.