NATCA Going Down in Flames

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:11:16 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote in
:


"Newps" wrote in message

The first thing to determine is whether or not unrestricted freedom of
dress is a matter of contract under the present agreement.

It was under the old agreement, which expired. We were not under any
contract after that.


You clarify that position further later in this thread, in that after a
breakdown of negotiations, management may impose their offered contract
subject to approval of Congress, which approval was granted de facto by
inaction. So the question becomes whether or not unrestricted freedom of
dress is a matter of contract under the *present* agreement.


So management's power trumps collective bargaining for government
employees. Terrific. :-(

I suppose, that if you agree to accept that sort of heavy handedness
as a condition of employment, there's little use for a union; it just
functions as window dressing for the government without true power.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

So management's power trumps collective bargaining for government
employees. Terrific. :-(

Not only for government employees, but for all employees -- but only under
certain specified conditions. I was quoting from Newps, who, iirc, is in
ATC and presumably ought to know these things regarding the issue in
question:

Perfectly legal in this case. The previous contract expired quite a
while ago. Negotiations broke down. The way federal law is written FAA
may impose their contract subject to approval by Congress. Congress
approved by not taking up the issue.

Procedures re labor law and negotiation are clearly specified. I got the
impression you're a union guy, too, Larry. Why aren't you up on these
details? I've been involved in unions and union elections several times
through my life. The rules are all there. You may not like them, and they
may sometimes seem slanted, convoluted, or bizarre, but they are there. All
you have to do is look it up.