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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |