NATCA Going Down in Flames

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:33:54 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
[...]
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.

Like you stated, we haven't seen the agreement, but I am unable to
believe that employee compliance with employer demanded dress-code
could be anything else but a condition of continued employment.


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.

I haven't seen any information that supports your allegation, that
they (neither the union nor the employees) are using excessive and
unwarranted slowdown processes. Where did you see that?