NATCA Going Down in Flames

If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace

If employees can't even wear flip flops in the workplace...

You say it's a small matter. It matters enough to the FAA to push for
it. It matters enough to the employees to push against it.

If it's so unimportant, the FAA should back down. They have important
safety issues to address. If it's important, then the employess should
fight it - it's the nose in the camel's tent.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

But what's wrong with [unions leveling the playing field]?

Nothing. But there is always the danger that the beast gets too big,
and becomes another bureaucracy.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Sometimes I work naked.

I will never interact with ATC again without seeing the controller
naked, in my mind's eye...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

A union levels the playing field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer. Some unions tip the playing field too far the other way.
I disagree. It distorts the free market of labor causing inefficiency.

The free market works when employers and employees have equal clout. If
one side gets too much clout, the "freedom to walk" becomes meaningless,
thus distorting the free market of labor. This was why unions were
formed in the first place.

Since then, they have gotten very powerful. Arguably too powerful.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:15:09 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On 4 Sep 2006 06:35:19 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com:

In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
strictly adhered to.

Was acceptance of your dress code a condition of employment at the
time your employees were hired?

Doesn't matter, job requirements can change, within the limits of the law,
at any time.


When a job condition changes it opens the door to negotiation. If the
new condition were for example double production, how would you feel?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

In the end, the point isn't what I like, or what you like -- it's what
the employer likes. If the FAA decides that it wants you to wear polka
dot clown suits every day, so be it.

I will wear whatever my employer wishes, provided they also provide it.

Happy landings.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:05:45 GMT, Jose
wrote:

A union levels the playing field, which otherwise is skewed towards the employer. Some unions tip the playing field too far the other way.
I disagree. It distorts the free market of labor causing inefficiency.

The free market works when employers and employees have equal clout. If
one side gets too much clout, the "freedom to walk" becomes meaningless,
thus distorting the free market of labor. This was why unions were
formed in the first place.

Since then, they have gotten very powerful. Arguably too powerful.

Still?

Don

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:01:45 GMT, Jose
wrote:

If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace

If employees can't even wear flip flops in the workplace...

You say it's a small matter. It matters enough to the FAA to push for
it. It matters enough to the employees to push against it.

If it's so unimportant, the FAA should back down. They have important
safety issues to address. If it's important, then the employess should
fight it - it's the nose in the camel's tent.

Something's goofy with this whole thread. Flip-flops are a personnel
safety issue; they can make you fall down and hurt yourself. Shirts
with collars are a power issue.

Don

So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
ATC that you advocate?

Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
ATC that you advocate?

Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.

How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?