NATCA Going Down in Flames

"bdl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Yes, you do, since you said that incapacitation do to drowsiness was
not an acceptable excuse for sick leave.


I didn't say that. I said the policy does not permit use of sick leave for
drowsiness.



They provided it. They felt that controllers could be groggy coming
out of their nap onto their shift.


They did? Cite please.



It doesn't matter what their reason is though.


Shouldn't any change in policy be justified?



They set the rules.
Why are you so anti-authority?


I'm not. Why are you so imperceptive?

Hmm. Might it have increased taxe revenue too? Thereby allowing more
bridge maintenance?

Maybe. However I suspect not by much.

How about those bridge maintenance crews didn't
have to spend as much time working around graffitti? Perhaps they took
more pride in their work? Gave that extra 10%?

I doubt it actually.

Made them feel [... t]hat their work wasn't just trashed to no avail by the
next street gang?

Maintanance isn't just paint that gets trashed by a street gang.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"bdl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Controllers in radar facilities (those dark windowless rooms) should be
able to wear shorts as well?


Sure. Why not?



Do you wear jeans in the winter?


I did.



Or is the dress code requirement of
dress pants ok then?


I don't like it for winter either.



Is this a temperature issue, or an authority issue for you?


It appears to be an authority issue for FAA management.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

It appears to be an authority issue for FAA management.

FAA management is the authority.

"bdl" wrote in message
ups.com...

FAA management is the authority.


Of course. The question is why are they making an issue of it?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I didn't say that. I said the policy does not permit use of sick leave for
drowsiness.

Even drowsiness to the extent of incapacitation? If they are so drowsy
they are not at 100% for work they shouldnt' be there.

They provided it. They felt that controllers could be groggy coming
out of their nap onto their shift.


They did? Cite please.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive.../717-full.html

quote
Among the FAA's new work rules imposed on air traffic controllers last
week was a ban on napping during breaks and, predictably perhaps, the
agency and the controllers union differ on the impact of such a rule.
"Even though they're on break, they can be called back to work at any
time," FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown told The Associated Press. "If they
had to be called back to work traffic and they had been sleeping, they
would be groggy."
/qoute


Shouldn't any change in policy be justified?

It was justified.

"bdl" wrote in message
ps.com...
Sounds like we need to fix the A/C.

That's what I suggested previously... If you want to make them quit wearing
shorts, just turn up the A/C...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
It's not broken, it's just not up to the task. Should we spend your tax
dollars to upgrade it so that controllers can be comfortable and efficient
while wearing pants or should we just allow them to dress comfortably
under
the present conditions?

The former because not everyone likes to wear shorts...

"bdl" wrote in message
ups.com...
I want them alert BEFORE they return to work a position. I want them
at a minimum to be AWAKE when they are at the facility. On duty or on
break. If they've got nothing to do they can read the controller's
manual again. Or maybe the AIM.

I thought you wanted them *awake*... Reading the AIM is *not* conducive for
that...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"bdl" wrote in message
ups.com...

I want them alert BEFORE they return to work a position.


Then you want them permitted to nap while on break.

How long is the break period?

Allen