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.

Jay:

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.

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:06:53 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
membership's voice to management. That's what unions do.

What you say is accurate as far as it goes, which is not far enough. The
union's full responsibility is to represent the members' best interests in
the labor-management relationship.

That is reasonable. I don't see where that is not occurring in this
instance.

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.

There are millions of union employees who are well paid, well trained, well
treated, and secure in their positions because they do their jobs well and
their companies make money.

And employee interests are voiced collectively when they are
threatened by management. That, in addition to good job performance,
is what assures their positions.

But how often do you hear of union leaders telling their rank and file, "you know,
guys, we've got a good deal here, and you're well treated. I don't think we ought
to disrupt anything right now."

I have heard similar sentiment voiced by union leaders when it is
appropriate.

Any union man or woman who said such a thing would be instantly branded as a
management stooge and run out of the local.

That has not been my experience. When did you see that occur?

"Viperdoc" wrote:

Jay:

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.

Hardly an relavent comparison.

Ron Lee

It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
terms of employment without consulting the employees.


Absurd! You should work for an auto company. Over the past 20 or so
years white colar workers have lost COLA, vacation time, etc.
Management never asked permission. We do live in the land of the free
- one is free to work for an employer or not.

On 4 Sep 2006 10:24:51 -0700, wrote in
. com:


It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
terms of employment without consulting the employees.


Absurd! You should work for an auto company. Over the past 20 or so
years white colar workers have lost COLA, vacation time, etc.

Personally, I believe auto workers were paid far in excess of the
skill they possessed. (How long did an auto worker have to attend
training before being considered skilled enough to demand top pay?)

Automobile companies had seen to it that they had the market to
themselves without significant competition until the Japanese, with
their low wages and copy-cat mentality entered the scene.

While founders of the virtual monopoly sat back on their fat sacks of
cash, it was easy for them to acquiesce to unreasonable union demands
while remaining profitable, but foreign car manufacturers produced a
less expensive product, and eventually dominated the automobile
marketplace. It is only now that Flint Michigan is a ghost town, that
the US auto makers are finally realizing that they have been priced
out of the market by foreign competition.

If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and
those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason
UAW employees agreed to the loss of COLAs, vacation time, etc. is
because it is preferable to losing their jobs entirely as a result of
bankruptcy.

Management never asked permission.

They didn't have to ask permission; management just included it in
their contract proposals, and the UAW recommended ratification.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:17:57 -0400, Javier
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

What would be your feeling if the bank decided to double your fixed
mortgage interest rate despite your not having had an opportunity to
agree to their change?
If I have a contract with the bank for a fixed rate for a number of
years, I expect them to keep the interest rate the same through the
period, since that's what the contract states, no?

Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties
constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract
Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement
or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the
parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with
the other party's performance.

[...]

In the matter of the union pushing their members to waste time and
resources to make a point, I think that it is likely to contribute
sourness to an already stressed relationship.

I wasn't aware the union was doing that. Can you please quote a
source that supports that allegation?
This is copied from the Avweb story:

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."

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, none said:

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


It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
terms of employment without consulting the employees.

Perfectly legal in this case. The previous contract expired quite a
while ago. Negotiations broke down. The way federal law is written FAA
may impose their contract subject to approval by Congress. Congress
approved by not taking up the issue.

John Gaquin wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

Changing the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties
constitutes a breach of contract, doesn't it?


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.


Unions, and particularly, it seems, ATC unions, have a history of accepting
very bad advice at the worst possible time. Hence their "strong and
growing" position in the American economy.

Todays ATC employees only give NATCA so much latitude. After that we'll
ignore them.

In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and
those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason

They've also got to stop designing crap cars. My Toyota Corolla was built
in Cambridge Ontario by Canadian Auto Worker union members, and it's so
well built that they export them back to Japan. Meanwhile your average
Ford, GM or Chrysler is a gas guzzling maintenance nightmare because Ford,
GM, and Chrysler care more about keeping shareholders happy than investing
money in research and design.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
....I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply
suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an
interpreter. -- Nick Petreley