NATCA Going Down in Flames

As of today, the FAA has imposed a dress code on their employees,
requiring that they (*gasp!*) NOT where flip-flops and cut-offs to
work! Amazingly, believe it or not, these employees are now actually
going to be required to wear (*Oh-mi-God*) DRESS PANTS and a DRESS
SHIRT to work!

In the face of this terrible affront, the controller's union, NATCA,
has decided to do the following, quoted from AvWeb:
************************************************** ***********************************************
What's A Union To Do?
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."
************************************************** ***********************************************
Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
union is going on the offensive!

Whenever we sit and wonder why the Bush Administration has been pushing
ATC privatization so hard, all we must do is read articles like this
one. Imagine -- these folks are up in arms because they have to wear a
dress shirt to work! Can you imagine what must go on in those towers
when a supervisor actually needs something of substance accomplished?

The next time the union sends me one of their whiny spam-mails, asking
for help in the fight against privatization, I'm going to send them
this post. These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
ATC privatization.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

[snip]
These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and
us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight
about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see
ATC privatization.

Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little interaction
with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's attire
matter even a little?

Jay, you did label it correctly. It IS a ridiculous issue.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel schrieb:

Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend
effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little interaction
with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's attire
matter even a little?

And even *if* they had interaction with the public: Who cares how they
are dressed? If they wish to work in a bathsuit and their hair coloured
green and blue, so be it, as long as they are doing their job well.

The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free.

Stefan

The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here -- and I've read a
LOT of goofy stuff over the years.

An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees
-- he has a DUTY to do so.

In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell
the employees from the customers. College girls wearing peasant shirts
that showed their tatooed butts, no name badge, and no "we're here to
serve you" attitude translated into a single-visit, never to return.

In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's
strictly adhered to. Our employees are required to wear either our
green "Alexis Park Inn & Suites" shirts, or a (supplied) aviation
themed Hawaiian shirt with a collar. In summer, khaki shorts are
allowed, but never cut-offs or blue jeans, and no t-shirts. A name
badge must be worn at all times.

Does it matter, since much of their work is on the phone? Hell, yes.
When a guest comes onto our property, we want them to be able to tell
the guards from the inmates, and we expect our employees to act
professional at all times.

If we expect this from hotel clerks, housekeepers, and waitresses, I
don't think it's too much to ask from our "professional" air traffic
controllers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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

"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 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?

"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.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that
people are not free to dress as they wish. So much for
the land of the free.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here --
and I've read a LOT of goofy stuff over the years.

An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code
on employees -- he has a DUTY to do so.


Grow up. Your immature rants are getting tiresome.

("Tom Conner" wrote)
Grow up. Your immature rants are getting tiresome.


Explain, please.

Curious about the 'immature' and 'Grow up' aspect. Thanks.


Montblack