NATCA Going Down in Flames

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:33:54 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
[...]
Demending the presence of a union rep at any conversation between
employee and supervisor is clearly a waste of time and obstruction of
the orderly flow of the work process. Anyone can see that.

Fortunately, that is not what was stated. Here's what was said:

"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.

Clearly the union is informing their members of their right to have a
union representative present whenever a supervisor wants to CHANGE
THEIR WORKING CONDITINS currently in effect.

I'm quite sure the members are well aware of that right. It seems to me
what the union is doing is to try to establish employer stipulated dress
requirements as a "working condition" covered by the existing contract.

Like you stated, we haven't seen the agreement, but I am unable to
believe that employee compliance with employer demanded dress-code
could be anything else but a condition of continued employment.


As previously commented upon, we don't know if that is the case, but they are
using excessive and unwarranted slowdown processes as extortion to force the
employer to agree.

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?

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:05:59 -0400, "John T" wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Management wants to change the rules of the workplace after the fact,
and the union is advising their members to alert union officials when
such employee abuse occurs.

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.

Don't get me wrong. Both management and labor are completely capable
of tyranny. The open negotiation of contract terms is an attempt to
mitigate that tendency.

What does it say about our society when we care more for appearance
than performance?

Does it say, that those in charge must posture before the public for a
successful re-election bid, and that attitude then permeates the
leadership?

Who said *anyone* cares more about appearance than anything else, let
alone performance? For the purposes of this thread, top performance
is presumed.

We're talking about a dress code here, nothing more.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Last time I saw you, you were wearing shorts only- no shoes or even a shirt.
(Of course, it was in a pool) In fact, I'm glad you kept your shorts on.

Does this mean we should expect formal wear the next time we stay at your
place? Or, should everyone be naked?

Just a thought.

Hee hee! We've discussed clothing-optional dress codes, here at the
inn, but we ultimately decided that (sadly) most of our guests look
better with clothes on.

Some more than others...

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

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

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

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

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!


That's not true! The dress code was imposed yesterday. Pilots all across
the US must be releived to know the FAA has finally done something to
improve ATC services. No more shorts of ank kind, (not just cut-offs, which
I don't believe I ever saw any controller wear), no shirts without collars.
There's a small list of forbidden clothing, fortunately knickers and kilts
are not among them.

Mine should arrive this week.



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!


Wearing shorts makes a person look like a bum?



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.


NATCA suffers from poor leadership, and the FAA suffers from poor
management, but I fail to see any positives in the dress code.

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

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

Ross Perot's (former?) company.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

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?


Sometimes I work naked.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
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?


Sometimes I work naked.


Hey, as long as we don't graduate to communicating with you with
telescreens...