Dress Code

On 20 Sep 2006 14:12:22 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

They *are* openly slandering their *employer*

Are you able to provide some examples of the "slander" you mention?

They *are* openly slandering their *employer*

Are you able to provide some examples of the "slander" you mention?

Well, let's start by assigning cutesy, disrespectiful names to the
company CEO on a blog site.

Is that slander? No, I suppose legally it is not. It IS
insubordination, however, and in any other business or company in the
world, would result in immediate termination.

And it should.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Man, I'm glad I don't work for you. You should be too. I'm in a union and I
work my ass off, but I don't tolerate disrespect from anybody-including my
employer. Without my union, I wouldn't have been there 1 year, let alone the
22 I have been, no matter how hard I worked because I don't show the proper
fear. Of course, you're an employer. And I guess it's not enough for you-or
any employer-to make a profit on the backs of your employees. You expect
them to cower in fear of you and be grateful that you've allowed them to
work for you.

What a pile of crap. Of course, in your narrow mind, no employer would ever
think of abusing an employee-at least not without good reason, right? All
employers are benevelont, warm hearted , caring souls who value their
employees above everything. We employees are just a bunch of blood sucking,
lazy, ungrateful maggots.

The FAA always does the right thing, like adequately staff towers. They
would never think of saving a few bucks by understaffing because, hey, these
guys just sit around most of the time anyway, right? The FAA would never
risk lives by adding people that weren't needed just because the union said
they were. Oh. Wait. Didn't 50 or so people just die because of an
understaffed tower? Oh. That's right. It was all the pilot's fault.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
They *are* openly slandering their *employer*

Are you able to provide some examples of the "slander" you mention?

Well, let's start by assigning cutesy, disrespectiful names to the
company CEO on a blog site.

Is that slander? No, I suppose legally it is not. It IS
insubordination, however, and in any other business or company in the
world, would result in immediate termination.

And it should.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"mike regish" wrote in message
news

The FAA always does the right thing, like adequately staff towers. They
would never think of saving a few bucks by understaffing because, hey,
these guys just sit around most of the time anyway, right? The FAA would
never risk lives by adding people that weren't needed just because the
union said they were. Oh. Wait. Didn't 50 or so people just die because of
an understaffed tower?


No. 50 or so people did not just die because of an understaffed tower.



Oh. That's right. It was all the pilot's fault.


Yes.

So in your twisted, tiny mind, another controller (as per the FAA's own
regulations) could not have possibly influenced that outcome.

Don't bother answering. I'll do it for you.

Steven P. McNicoll will write:

Right.



Twit.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news

The FAA always does the right thing, like adequately staff towers. They
would never think of saving a few bucks by understaffing because, hey,
these guys just sit around most of the time anyway, right? The FAA would
never risk lives by adding people that weren't needed just because the
union said they were. Oh. Wait. Didn't 50 or so people just die because
of an understaffed tower?


No. 50 or so people did not just die because of an understaffed tower.



Oh. That's right. It was all the pilot's fault.


Yes.

"mike regish" wrote in message
news

So in your twisted, tiny mind, another controller (as per the FAA's own
regulations) could not have possibly influenced that outcome.

Don't bother answering. I'll do it for you.

Steven P. McNicoll will write:

Right.


That is the correct answer. My twisted, tiny mind, understands that another
controller positioned in the windowless TRACON several levels beneath the
tower cab could not have possibly influenced that outcome. Why doesn't your
presumably untwisted, larger mind, understand that?



Twit.


Ah, name-calling in lieu of a cogent argument. Classic.

In article ,
"mike regish" wrote:

Didn't 50 or so people just die because of an
understaffed tower?

How about let's wait for all the facts to come out and
not have those deaths be part of some anti-union/pro-union
fight.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"mike regish" wrote:

Didn't 50 or so people just die because of an
understaffed tower?

How about let's wait for all the facts to come out and
not have those deaths be part of some anti-union/pro-union
fight.

That's not the union way. No wonder they are drying up.


--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message That's not the union way. No wonder they
are drying up.

Actually, ALPA will be party to the investigation of the Comair crash.

D.

That's pretty standard. NTSB brings together FAA, ALPA, NATCA and the
planes manufacturer. Other manufacturers of other components of the
plane as neceesary are also brought in.



Capt.Doug wrote:
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message That's not the union way. No wonder they

are drying up.

Actually, ALPA will be party to the investigation of the Comair crash.

D.