View Single Post
  #3  
Old September 6th 06, 07:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Private
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default NATCA Going Down in Flames


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

"Private" wrote in message
news:n76Lg.516413$IK3.107547@pd7tw1no...

"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.


In that case you quite likely would find yourself pursuing other
opportunities.

I require my project managers to wear slacks and at least a "golf" type
shirt when meeting clients/contractors in their offices. When entertaining
them in a restaurant, for example, a suit/sport coat and tie are
mandatory.

I haven't had to buy anyone a suit yet, and I doubt I ever will.


There are laws that determine minimum acceptable dress in public places.
For many and varied purposes many employers choose to exceed these minimum
requirements. Military, police and other organizations have many obvious
needs for identification and public image. Many other workplaces have
demands for specialized dress due to health and safety reasons. The costs
for this special dress are properly those of the enterprise that requires
them and because of this IMHE most employers are required to provide safety
equipment like high vis coveralls and hard hats and gloves. Because these
expenses are deductible they represent a LOWER cost to the employer than
requiring the employee to provide these items and pay for them in after tax
dollars. The employer usually sees this an opportunity to improve their
public image by putting their company name and image on these safety items.
Many employers provide allowances to cover the cost of personal safety
footwear that is not returned to the employer at the end of a job. Many
employers discover that their net costs go down due to lowered injury rates
and costs and the increased quality of their image is easy to justify as
perhaps the cheapest advertising they will ever buy.

The case can and is usually made that flip flops are a safety issue.
Similarly, cut offs or clothing that has wear holes or tears is also either
a health or safety issue due to flammability or sun exposure or that it may
cause damage to the employers equipment. What you wear under the company
coveralls is seldom a concern of the employer. Similarly rings and jewelry
can usually be considered safety issues.

The bottom line is that this is a matter that can normally be resolved by
reference to legislation or cooperation in good faith between employer and
employee. Most employees recognize that what is good for the employer is
usually also in their own best interest.

The real problem arises when the clothing has religious significance and
this is a real minefield where the employee may have RIGHTS.that make the
employers wishes unlawful or discriminatory. We have not even mentioned the
possibility of free speech issues created by t shirts with inappropriate
messages. Most employers are REQUIRED to provide and require the use of
needed safety and health items. An employer has great latitude and can
probably justify and require the use of supplied uniforms and safety
equipment on safety or health grounds and they usually find that the cost of
company coveralls or a company golf shirt to be a much smaller cost than
trying to demand employees purchase approved clothing.

IMHO disputes that arise from appearance issues are more likely due to a
breakdown in relations in some other area and that the inappropriate
clothing is more of a symptom than a problem issue to be treated in
isolation. The smart employer avoids a HR ****ing contest as they are
seldom productive or helpful in the long term.

Just my .02