NATCA Going Down in Flames

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?

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:16:56 -0700, "BTIZ"
wrote in Ht2Lg.2558$8J2.2200@fed1read11:

If you are going to get paid for being a professional, you should dress like
a professional.

One might expect to see some esprit de corps among controllers, and a
desire to elevate their stature by establishing their own dress code
independent of management. Of course, that would take proactive
leadership ...

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Mary and I have flown coast to coast, for 12 years and 1500+ hours, all
VFR. It's easy, it's fun, and it's never a problem, as long as you're
flexible.

Now, of course, would I *prefer* to use ATC? Sure! We use VFR flight
following on virtually every flight, and we enjoy visiting big-city
airports. But if the FAA imposes user fees based on ATC use, it would
be child's play to stop talking to them -- especially now that we have
XM weather on-board.

I also fly VFR only but it is easy where I live (Colorado). I also
use ATC for flight following, going into towered airports, get
clearance into Denver Class B, etc. But impose fees (I already pay
via fuel taxes) then expect all these non-essential ATC contacts to go
away.

Go to Pueblo for breakfast? Not with a fee.

Go to COS to refuel? Not with a fee.

Talk to Denver to help with their traffic flow? Sorry.

Talk to COS to minimize impacts to commercial aircraft that fly over
my airport? I would like to BUT.

Flight following? I will take the chance and use my 406 beacon if
needed.

Pre flight briefing? Internet

In some cases that may have negative safety implications.

Ron Lee

Matt Barrow wrote:

What if he's got a Dilbert tie?


That means "cleared for takeoff"! G

The employer merely has a duty to insist that
employees don't dress in a way offensive to other employees.

.... or that other employees don't get offended at how employees dress.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I believe it's been established that ATC faciliities are subject to
visits by tours, VIPs, Senators, etc., without notice.

So? If some senators have heart attacks because they see flip flops or
shorts, that can only be a plus for the country.

g Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

I believe it's been established that ATC faciliities are subject to
visits by tours, VIPs, Senators, etc., without notice.


I believe your inn is also subject to visits by like people without notice,
yet you allow your employees to dress like bums. Why is that?

"Ron Lee" wrote in message

Talk to Denver to help with their traffic flow? Sorry.


This is my biggest worry about the "post user fee response issue" by pvt
aircraft. Here in the greater NYC area ATC welcomes flight following
requests. It allows them to verify target aircraft alt and intensions, and
improves the mixed traffic flow along the various inbound and outbound
corridors. I can envision many VFR targets remaining silent under any user
fee system, resulting in many "traffic unverified" callouts. I've also
noticed a few aircraft outside the mode C vale not showing up on TIS, and I
can only assume they are running xpdr off. This will get worse under user
fees. The resulting FAA backlash will be onerous, no doubt.

"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
____________________

Jay Honeck wrote:
And no, the airports on the outskirts don't count, as they are at least
a two hour drive from work/home.

So, it's difficult do fly VFR where you live. It's not where *I* live.

Oh, it's very easy to fly VFR (cloud? what's a cloud?). It's NOT easy
to not talk to ATC.