If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
As of today, the FAA has imposed a dress code on their employees,
requiring that they (*gasp!*) NOT where flip-flops and cut-offs to work! Amazingly, believe it or not, these employees are now actually going to be required to wear (*Oh-mi-God*) DRESS PANTS and a DRESS SHIRT to work! In the face of this terrible affront, the controller's union, NATCA, has decided to do the following, quoted from AvWeb: ************************************************** *********************************************** What's A Union To Do? While the battle inside the towers and centers may (to outsiders) have its whimsical side, the practical impact of the new regime could be significant. NATCA appears determined to fight each and every violation of the new rules cited by management. In a memo to controllers at a major center (we do know which one), union leaders are urging members to exercise their rights to the letter. "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. The Agency has a legal obligation to comply." But the memo also says the overall battle won't be won by individual members discussing their fashion challenges. "One person alone can not change the course the agency has decided to take," the memo says. "However, collectively we can unpave their course and start a new road. I and the rest of your elected leaders will need your help now more than ever." ************************************************** *********************************************** Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the union is going on the offensive! Whenever we sit and wonder why the Bush Administration has been pushing ATC privatization so hard, all we must do is read articles like this one. Imagine -- these folks are up in arms because they have to wear a dress shirt to work! Can you imagine what must go on in those towers when a supervisor actually needs something of substance accomplished? The next time the union sends me one of their whiny spam-mails, asking for help in the fight against privatization, I'm going to send them this post. These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see ATC privatization. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote: [snip] These so-called "civil servants" have done themselves (and us) a terrible disservice by choosing this ridiculous issue to fight about, and they have only increased the probability that we will see ATC privatization. Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little interaction with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's attire matter even a little? Jay, you did label it correctly. It IS a ridiculous issue. -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
Bob Noel schrieb:
Who cares what they wear? How about expecting the FAA "leaders" spend effort and time on things that matter? Controllers have very little interaction with "customers" expect via land-line or radio. Does the controller's attire matter even a little? And even *if* they had interaction with the public: Who cares how they are dressed? If they wish to work in a bathsuit and their hair coloured green and blue, so be it, as long as they are doing their job well. The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free. Stefan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not
free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here -- and I've read a LOT of goofy stuff over the years. An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees -- he has a DUTY to do so. In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell the employees from the customers. College girls wearing peasant shirts that showed their tatooed butts, no name badge, and no "we're here to serve you" attitude translated into a single-visit, never to return. In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's strictly adhered to. Our employees are required to wear either our green "Alexis Park Inn & Suites" shirts, or a (supplied) aviation themed Hawaiian shirt with a collar. In summer, khaki shorts are allowed, but never cut-offs or blue jeans, and no t-shirts. A name badge must be worn at all times. Does it matter, since much of their work is on the phone? Hell, yes. When a guest comes onto our property, we want them to be able to tell the guards from the inmates, and we expect our employees to act professional at all times. If we expect this from hotel clerks, housekeepers, and waitresses, I don't think it's too much to ask from our "professional" air traffic controllers. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
Jay Honeck schrieb:
In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell the employees from the customers. There *are* some jobs which require some kind of uniform. E.g. it's a good thing if you recognize a policeman and it's probably a good thing when you can tell a waiter from a guest, too. But besides such jobs, who cares what people wear. I do care how they're doing their job, and everything else is not my business. Stefan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Stefan" wrote in message
... Jay Honeck schrieb: In our college town, we've visited restaurants where you couldn't tell the employees from the customers. There *are* some jobs which require some kind of uniform. E.g. it's a good thing if you recognize a policeman and it's probably a good thing when you can tell a waiter from a guest, too. But besides such jobs, who cares what people wear. I do care how they're doing their job, and everything else is not my business. Stefan Well, I don't recall having a job in the last 37 years or so where I could show up in cutoffs or flip flops. A good number of those years, I even had to wear a tie (except for when I was acutally under the hood of a car). Nowadays it's a "buisness casual" dress code which excludes sneakers, much less flip flops... And, yes, a few of those years were in a union shop - thanks, but no thanks. -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
On 4 Sep 2006 06:35:19 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com: In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's strictly adhered to. Was acceptance of your dress code a condition of employment at the time your employees were hired? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On 4 Sep 2006 06:35:19 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote in . com: In our hotel, our employee dress code is relatively liberal -- but it's strictly adhered to. Was acceptance of your dress code a condition of employment at the time your employees were hired? Doesn't matter, job requirements can change, within the limits of the law, at any time. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message ups.com... The only thing that is ridiculous in that story is that people are not free to dress as they wish. So much for the land of the free. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here -- and I've read a LOT of goofy stuff over the years. An employer not only has the right to impose a dress code on employees -- he has a DUTY to do so. Grow up. Your immature rants are getting tiresome. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NATCA Going Down in Flames
("Tom Conner" wrote)
Grow up. Your immature rants are getting tiresome. Explain, please. Curious about the 'immature' and 'Grow up' aspect. Thanks. Montblack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An ACE goes down in flames. | PoBoy | Naval Aviation | 25 | December 9th 05 01:30 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Piloting | 133 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |