NATCA Going Down in Flames

Your employees know, when hired, what the dress code is. How do you
think they would feel if today you went to work and informed them that
from now on they would wear black-tie to work everyday. I bet you would
have a few very unhappy folks.

Sure. So what?

As owner, I have a duty to run our business in the way I see best. If
it looks to me like our current dress code isn't working, and the new
government-built Marriott down the road is kicking our butt by dressing
their desk staff in bib overalls, well, I'll probably institute a
mandatory bib-overalls-dress code.

And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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

And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.


And who can argue with the FAA's historically impeccable judgment?

And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.

There is a difference between your hotel (a privately run enterprise for
which there is lots of competition) and the FAA, a government lawmaking
entity, for which there is no alternative but sneakers. If =you= decide
that your operation works better with a dress code, you find out whether
this is true or not in your monthly profit reports. You then have a
motivation to change things if you are wrong. This ultimately leads to
better service to your clients, which is why you are in business.

However, if the =FAA= decides that their operation works better with a
dress code, then they won't find out from any kind of "profit" report,
because their customers can't go anywhere else but away, and there is
nothing useful to compare it with. If the FAA's customers go "away",
and the FAA's "profit" decreases, I doubt the FAA would be motivated to
change.

Assuming that the purpose of the FAA is safety, then to the extent that
the dress code =actually= improves safety, it will be apparant in the
NASA reports. But since there is no equivalent to the profit motive,
this is unlikely to be a useful feedback loop.

That's the difference.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.

There is a difference between your hotel (a privately run enterprise for
which there is lots of competition) and the FAA, a government lawmaking
entity, for which there is no alternative but sneakers. If =you= decide
that your operation works better with a dress code, you find out whether
this is true or not in your monthly profit reports. You then have a
motivation to change things if you are wrong. This ultimately leads to
better service to your clients, which is why you are in business.

However, if the =FAA= decides that their operation works better with a
dress code, then they won't find out from any kind of "profit" report,
because their customers can't go anywhere else but away, and there is
nothing useful to compare it with. If the FAA's customers go "away", and
the FAA's "profit" decreases, I doubt the FAA would be motivated to
change.

Assuming that the purpose of the FAA is safety, then to the extent that
the dress code =actually= improves safety, it will be apparant in the NASA
reports. But since there is no equivalent to the profit motive, this is
unlikely to be a useful feedback loop.

That's the difference.

That's not the difference. Management determines the rules within the
limits of the law and employees either follow, leave or face possible
termination. Management does not have a requirement to provide reasons.

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

That's not the difference. Management determines the rules within the
limits of the law and employees either follow, leave or face possible
termination. Management does not have a requirement to provide reasons.

I didn't mention any need for management to "give reasons". My point is
that in one case, the reasons form a feedback loop that tends to make
the business healthy. In the other case, the reasons do not form such a
feedback loop. In no case does this depend on reasons being =provided=
to anybody.

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

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:48:17 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

My point is
that in one case, the reasons form a feedback loop that tends to make
the business healthy. In the other case, the reasons do not form such a
feedback loop.

Monopolies don't require a feedback loop for profitability.

Monopolies don't require a feedback loop for profitability.

Well, uh... yes. That was half the point. The other half was that the
FAA isn't even out for profitability.

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

Monopolies don't require a feedback loop for profitability.

Well, uh... yes. That was half the point. The other half was that the
FAA isn't even out for profitability.

Apparently you don't understand the employer-employee relationship.
What you fail to understand is that profitability is irrelevant. If
management *believes* that a dress code is best for the overall health
of the organization, then requiring workers to dress professionally is
well within their prerogitive.

Could I *measure* any direct improvement in our profits when I decided
to provide aviation-themed Hawaiian shirts (quite expensive ones, by
the way) to our desk staff employees, and required that they wear them?
Nope. But *I* thought they looked cool -- and that's all that
matters.

The FAA can require its employees to wear bullet-proof vests and Reebok
tennis shoes every day, if that's what they think is in their best
interest. You can continue to deny that this is part of the
employer-employee relationship -- but your denial won't change
anything.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"