NATCA Going Down in Flames

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?

If it is a change in the working agreement, that hasn't been agreed to
by both parties, I would see it as inequitable and unjust. If changes
are desired, they should be openly negotiated by all concerned.

You didn't answer my question.

"Inequitable" and "unjust" don't equate to "abuse" in any thesaurus I know,
so I'm still wondering how requiring professional attire equates to
"employee abuse".

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:52:23 -0400, "John T" wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?

If it is a change in the working agreement, that hasn't been agreed to
by both parties, I would see it as inequitable and unjust. If changes
are desired, they should be openly negotiated by all concerned.

You didn't answer my question.

"Inequitable" and "unjust" don't equate to "abuse" in any thesaurus I know,
so I'm still wondering how requiring professional attire equates to
"employee abuse".


Don't you agree, that denying an employee his right to bargain may
constitute abuse?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


"Inequitable" and "unjust" don't equate to "abuse" in any thesaurus
I know, so I'm still wondering how requiring professional attire
equates to "employee abuse".

Don't you agree, that denying an employee his right to bargain may
constitute abuse?

Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
to bargain (if any such "right" exists).

The employer wants to implement a "professional attire" policy. How does
that equate to "employee abuse"?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:46:27 -0400, "John T" wrote in
:


Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
to bargain (if any such "right" exists).

Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
seems like abuse to me.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:46:27 -0400, "John T" wrote in
:


Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
to bargain (if any such "right" exists).

Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
seems like abuse to me.

Sems to me you know little to nothing about employment laws.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:57:46 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:46:27 -0400, "John T" wrote in
:


Nothing in the original post suggests to me anybody has denied any "right"
to bargain (if any such "right" exists).

Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
seems like abuse to me.

Sems to me you know little to nothing about employment laws.


Does that mean you want to cite one?

Larry Dighera wrote:

Normally (not federal employees apparently), if an employer changes
job requirements, it opens the contract for renegotiation. To demand
the employee meet the new requirements without voicing acceptance
seems like abuse to me.

We're going to have to part company here, then. I can understand resistance
to formal or even professional attire, but that in no way negates an
employer's privilege of setting the dress code - even after the fact, as it
were. It also does not infringe on the employee's ability to simply change
employers if they do not like the new rules. I've certainly done it.

Personally, I'm more concerned with a controller's diction than his physical
appearance, but I also don't see the big deal about Dockers and golf shirts.
I think there are far bigger fish for the union to fry - like a shortage of
controllers.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
m...

We're going to have to part company here, then. I can understand
resistance to formal or even professional attire, but that in no way
negates an employer's privilege of setting the dress code - even after the
fact, as it were. It also does not infringe on the employee's ability to
simply change employers if they do not like the new rules. I've certainly
done it.

Personally, I'm more concerned with a controller's diction than his
physical appearance, but I also don't see the big deal about Dockers and
golf shirts. I think there are far bigger fish for the union to fry - like
a shortage of controllers.


The FAA has addressed the projected controller shortage with a reduced pay
scale for new hires.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
The FAA has addressed the projected controller shortage with a reduced pay
scale for new hires.

Thus they can afford to hire more of them... Uhhh... Wait a minute...
Something doesn't quite sound right about that... grin

"John T" wrote in message
m...
Personally, I'm more concerned with a controller's diction than his
physical
appearance, but I also don't see the big deal about Dockers and golf
shirts.

Luckily, they haven't decided to outsource ATC to India or some other such
place that *technically* speaks English... The worst that happens at present
is that if you're in the NY area, you have to be able to understand NYers...
But then again, that's just one of the expected evils that one must endure
if one travels up there...

Jeans, t-shirts, and sneakers seem acceptable to me... If the room in which
they are working is too warm, either fix the air-conditioning or don't
complain when they wear shorts...

One might argue that it is possible to still look professional in shorts in
that even the Navy has a tropical white uniform that is authorized for
certain commands that consists of short pants... Of course, they required
socks that nearly go up to the knee, so one could definitely argue whether
those were any more comfortable than normal pants with lower socks...