NATCA Going Down in Flames

On 4 Sep 2006 15:17:06 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

Of course, Mr. Honeck might not have a problem with the practices at
EDS.

Okay, I give. What the heck is "EDS"?

EDS is Electronic Data Systems, Inc., the folks that do IT for GM.
They have a reputation in the industry for draconian labor practices
(as did Henry Ford):

http://www.realchange.org/perot.htm
Abusing His Employees
Perot is by all accounts a great motivator, a man who demands
great loyalty and extreme hard work from employees, but also can
repay it with striking acts of generosity (though rarely much in
the way of wages.) He has done things like fly a new employee's
wife to Johns Hopkins Hospital in his Lear Jet, after she injured
her eye.

At the same time, the relationship he creates is one where Perot
is all-powerful, and bestows his generosities from on high. He
works people extremely hard for little money, and subjects them to
intrusive scrutiny, including private investigators, wiretaps,
drug tests and lie detector tests.

In this regard, he bears a striking resemblance to Ralph Nader, of
all people, who also inspires great loyalty, pushes himself at
least as hard as he pushes his employees, burns people out for
little money, and seems to feel he has a right to monitor and
control their lives.

For example, discussing salaries has been an immediate firing
offense from the first days at EDS, Perot's company. The company
dress code, up into the 1970s, required white shirts only for men
(he considered blue shirts effeminate), no pants or flats for
women, and no "mod looks," as the contract put it. But the
intrusion went much further.

EDS tapped phones and used detectives to investigate its own
employees, according to Posner. He traced license plate numbers in
the parking lot to see who came late or left early, just as Nader
telephones employees at home on sunny weekends to test how long
they work. And in "particularly heated" fights for contracts,
employees on the bid team would be physically searched to ensure
they did not remove any paperwork that could assist the
opposition. (Posner, p94-5)


http://www.vault.com/survey/employee...YEER-3100.html

An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees
-- he has a DUTY to do so.

Why?

To prevent embarrassment, if nothing else. Some employees need more
guidance than others. In my years in the corporate world, on more
than one occasion "human resources" (or me) had to counsel employees
who were showing up for work inappropriately dressed. A codified
dress code removes the guess work, and most employees appreciate
knowing where they stand.

The FAA banned khaki shorts. Why do you allow them?

Because I can. We're a relatively casual, getaway-weekend type hotel,
and it's hot when we're working on the grounds, or checking the pool.

Would it matter what your employees wore if your guests never saw them?

I feel like I'm talking to my 16 year old son, but yes. If you've ever
heard "clothing makes the man", you'll understand what I mean. Looking
professional is the first step toward acting professional.

In the end, the point isn't what I like, or what you like -- it's what
the employer likes. If the FAA decides that it wants you to wear polka
dot clown suits every day, so be it. If you don't like it, you're
welcome to go work somewhere else.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

We're talking about a dress code here, nothing more.

If it's that unimportant, then it shouldn't matter to you that it gets
scrapped.

Don't misread me -- confrontation over a dress code is *critically*
important, because it speaks to a hobbled employee-employer
relationship.

If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized. What a shame it's
come to this.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:01:51 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

I haven't seen any information that supports your allegation, that
they (neither the union nor the employees) are using excessive and
unwarranted slowdown processes. Where did you see that?

"If a supervisor tries to talk with you regarding the way your are
dressed, it constitutes a formal meeting," the memo reads. "Stop
the conversation immediately and ask for a union representative.
The same approach should be used on any other changes in your
working conditions, ask for a rep immediately.

I suspect they don't keep surplus union reps hanging around just in case
someone needs one. If the number of "formal meetings" drastically
increases, then the reps and the members both probably have to come off the
scopes, requiring overtime to cover the absences. This is not a new tactic
in any union environment.


It's new to me. I would suppose each ATC facility had a designated
NATICA Shop Steward.

That doesn't change the fact that others have, right?

No, it means it was uncommon.

Good. Than it should be no big deal for controllers to accept a dress
code that they are apparently largely following.

Yet, that's not what is happening. Why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Emily wrote:

Ron Lee wrote:
Emily wrote:

Ron Lee wrote:
This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
collard shirts). I did not read suits.

Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.

Ron Lee


As a woman, I think the collared shirt thing is ridiculous. So many
people feel to comprehend that women can be business casual without a
collar.

But I agree that the union needs to find something else to oppose. A
huge reason why I'm so glad we don't have unions here.

Ok, shoot me. I was a sexist pig thinking only in terms of males. Use
any female equivalent you wish. The INTENT should have been clear to
any instrument rated pilot who avoids uncontrolled fields.

Ron Lee

PS, The COMAIR pilots screwed up. Case closed. Quit trying to blame
ATC or taxiways.


I don't know why you took my post personally.

Emily wrote:


I don't know why you took my post personally.

Male PMS or too much sugar. Either way I was wrong and I apologize.
Oops, can't blame anything other than me.

Ron Lee

He was dressed like a bum! What a hypocrite!

AND I was drinking alcohol!

Dang, I should fire myself, and claim unemployment...

But then I'd have to *deny* myself unemployment, on the grounds that it
is all a scam...

But then I'd have to *sue* myself for falsely denying my claim, to the
tune of tens of millions of dollars. Punitive damages could be
astronomical...

Ah, what a lovely retirement plan...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

Jay Honeck wrote:


If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized.

So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
ATC that you advocate?