Re: the response some people had to the United Airlines "leggings" issue:

[Ken Burch]

Even on this site, a fair amount of people took an absolute "rules are rules" position on that incident.

This particular event wasn't, in itself, that big of a deal to me, but what I can't understand is how anybody who claims to be any stripe of "progressive" would defend the right of a massive corporation to impose such nitpicking rules on its employees-or in this case, the kids of its employees, which begs the question of why such rules should be imposed at all-for what looks like no other reason than the belief that corporations should be able to impose rules like that.

What does it say about us as a country that so many of us, even so many on what is supposedly the left side of the spectrum, will defend the assertion of corporate power into intrusive and, in this case pointless realms? That a lot of us are fine with the idea that the management of large corporations have a natural right to be petty tyrants to both their employees and their employees' children?

Why would we be so accepting of the notion that this country has to be divided into the dominant and the subservient?

[TransitJohn]

1. It's not that people on this site are subservient

It's that this is a well defined prerogative of companies....they can require employees to dress professionally when they are representing the company, which the young ladies in question were, flying on a free pass for employees and buddies. Also, anything that classes up flying a bit I am for.

[Ken Burch]

3. I wasn't saying people here were personally subservient:

But why accept ideas along the lines of companies having "well-defined prerogatives"?

It's one thing to say they should be able to expect people to show up on time, be clean and appropriately-dressed, get along with their co-workers, and do their work to the best of their abilities.

But beyond that, how much should they have the right to ask?

[TransitJohn]

5. "how much should they have the right to ask?"

A very different questions than, "do they have the right to ask?" They do have the well defined legal right to ask. Have fun playing what if.

[malaise]

38. I have never seen airlines stop regular passengers for leggings

You want to travel free, read the rules.
I like clean and appropriately dressed but decades ago when I worked with an airline I understood that it was their rules.

[kcr]

138. Thus proving the OP's point

Rules are rules! As if you automatically get handed a manual every time a family or friend gives you a perk. And then if the rule ban hammer comes down on you, your fault! You knew the rules! Because that's exactly how it works.

[Orrex]

145. The corresponding question is: why shouldn't these companies get to set their rules?

Assuming that those rules aren't discriminatory, exploitative, abusive or in any way illegal, why shouldn't they be allowed to set their rules?

[kcr]

149. Is anyone actually making a claim that companies shouldn't get to set rules?

I don't actually think that's the case. I realize that some people don't do nuance very well, but I think if you actually look around you'll realize no one is saying that. In fact, not being completely by the book is sometimes the better choice. Because no rules allowed would be a rule in itself.

In short, the people who insist on always following the rules no matter what sometimes find themselves in trouble.

[Orrex]

152. Yeah, you kind of are.

Although I appreciate your bullshit condescension, you're essentially saying "they can make the rules, but here's what their rules should actually be." By suggesting that they shouldn't be "completely by the book," you're saying that they should be completely by the book as you declare the book to be.

Before you excitedly accuse me of using a strawman, I invite you to explain how urging a company to follow the rules in a way that you suggest is substantively different from telling them that they can't set their own rules.

No one is explicitly saying "companies shouldn't get to set their own rules." No shit. I had assumed that your vaunted grasp of nuance would have enabled you to parse a generalization, but perhaps I was in error.

[kcr]

155. Actually, I'm kind of not.

I'm quite aware of the point I'm trying to make. I'm not telling them what rules they should make. I'm not against rules. Rules actually serve a purpose. I'm against pointless rules that only exist to enforce rules. I'm all for pointing those out and the reasons they're pointless. A rule should have a reason for its existence, shouldn't it? If you support rules for rules sake, then you aren't a progressive. You are an authoritarian. Embrace it, or do some self reflecting.

[Orrex]

158. And you're doing it again.

I'm not telling them what rules they should make. I'm not against rules. Rules actually serve a purpose. I'm against pointless rules that only exist to enforce rules.

So rules are ok unless you decide that they're not?

I urge you never to sign on with a company that requires you to accept its policies, or at the very least you should tell them outright that you object to rules that you think are pointless.

A rule should have a reason for its existence, shouldn't it?

You mean like the rule requiring the employees' guests to adhere to policy? Sure, I can agree with that.

If you support rules for rules sake, then you aren't a progressive. You are an authoritarian. Embrace it, or do some self reflecting.

Fortunately this doesn't apply to me, otherwise I'd have to take your half-assed political diagnosis-by-fiat to heart.

[kcr]

165. And again. I'm not.

You are the one who is choosing to interpret it that way. I've never once stated that disagreeing with a rule means breaking it. But that's a common thing for authoritarians to do, so I'm not surprised you'd read me that way. Don't question. Just follow!

Words have meaning. People will call themselves things like progressive, or feminist or whathave you, because they sound nice. But then cling to ideals that are anything but. These words aren't just the names for clubs or brands. There are actual ideals that go along with them. It really is ok to actually think about rules and laws and whether or not the reasons behind them are ok. It doesn't make you a criminal or an outlaw. I promise.

[Orrex]

168. Oh, words have meaning. Thanks--who knew?

You are the one who is choosing to interpret it that way. I've never once stated that disagreeing with a rule means breaking it.

Similarly, supporting a rule doesn't mean that I agree with it. Since I haven't signed onto the airline's policy, I'm under no obligation to adhere to that policy personally. However, since I understand nuance, I can accept that my agreement or disagreement with the policy is irrelevant to whether or not it should apply to the employee who agreed to it. And, by agreeing to it, the employee accepts that the policy may apply also to the employee's guests.

But that's a common thing for authoritarians to do, so I'm not surprised you'd read me that way. Don't question. Just follow!

You probably figured that you were clever when you wrote that, and to that end I wish you the best of luck.

However, I am not an authoritarian, and I don't advocate for authoritarianism. Further, you have no particular prerogative to declare who is and who is not an authoritarian, there's no reason for me to reflect upon yet another of your steaming heaps of passive-aggressive condescension.

[kcr]

169. If you advocate for rules for rules sake, you are indeed an authoritarian.

I hate to break it to you. And your responses to those who disagree with the airline aren't doing you any favors.

[Orrex]

183. Since you're incorrect, you're not breaking anything to me.

You keep pretending that I "advocate for rules for rules sake," seemingly because it pleases you to falsely label me an authoritarian, when I clearly and certainly am not. Not sure why you cling to that fantasy, but you seem heavily invested in it.

What I have stated from the beginning is that, by agreeing to the rules, the employee can't thereafter simply reject those rules with no expectation of consequence.

Your ruminations about authoritarianism are irrelevant here and have been irrelevant all along, because the employee and the employer have entered into a contract. The employer's choice not to allow at-will disregard of that contract thereafter is not authoritarianism.

If you enter into contract with a handyman to replace your roof and he pockets your $5000 down payment, are you ok with him subsequently deciding not to do the work because your rules are too authoritarian?

Hey, while we're at it, you probably didn't sign a contract when you entered the department store, so why not help yourself to some merchandise on your way out? When they stop you, you can lecture them for their embrace of authoritarianism. I'm sure that they'll see that their anti-theft policy is wrong and should be abandoned.

And before you object that these examples are different because they aren't "rules for their own sake," I remind you that the airline's policy isn't "rules for their own sake" either. They are rules that the company determined are beneficial to its business model, and (by signing onto it) the employee agreed.

[JCanete]

186. It could matter if the rules are arbitrary and applied in a sexist manner. Consumers might and

should care.

[Orrex]

191. Well, that's why I offered a stipulation:

Assuming that those rules aren't discriminatory, exploitative, abusive or in any way illegal, why shouldn't they be allowed to set their rules?

That would cover the "sexist manner" possibility that you suggested.

As for the rules being "arbitrary," well what does that mean, exactly?

Beyond which, if an employee agrees to the rules, then it doesn't matter if they're arbitrary or not.

[JCanete]

192. It would still matter what customers deem are or are not sexist rules that employees must sign onto

for these benefits.

Arbitrary, means that as far as I remember it, and I just looked it up(hopefully the source was good), the attire decision is largely up to the person at the gate to determine. That would be arbitrary...in the eye of the beholder in the beholding moment.

And culture does get to push companies regarding what is reasonable. Even if something is legal and, by that standard a company's right, does not mean that it can practice that right without the impact of negative public opinion. Note, it wasn't the employees who made a stink.

But also, this kind of reasoning could be dangerous in almost all other walks of life. It is the kind of thing that Republicans say to justify right-to-work laws, because after all, you don't have to take that job with its shitty benefits and protections...you just probably don't have any really good alternatives. I know this industry is somewhat different than others, and that the airline benefit is a pretty sweet deal, I'm just wary of that argument.

[Orrex]

193. You're not wrong, but that's a different issue

If both the employee and the employer have agreed to the terms, then public opinion doesn't enter into it except to the extent that the employer allows it to. This can be good or bad for the employer, but the decision is up to them (barring some kind of pre-agreed contingency requiring the change).

As far as other walks of life, if you don't sign onto the agreement (or engage in the social contract, as in the ordering of food at a restaurant requiring subsequent payment), then you don't have a lot of say in changing the agreement, except through the uncertain mechanisms of public opinion.


Naturally, we aren't in an environment in which everyone has the full range of choices that they'd like, but such an environment hasn't existed anywhere on Earth at least during my 4+ decades.

[unblock]

8. I find it hard to see the kids as "representing the company"

It's questionable enough if an employee out of uniform and off-duty is representing the company just because they're using an employee perk, but it's very hard for me to see the kids as representing the company. Guests of the company, perhaps, but not representatives of it.

It's not completely out of line for a company to hold its guests to a dress code; it's just that it has to be done carefully, as there are a number of pitfalls, and in this case they blew it.

[TransitJohn]

10. They were flying on an employee benefit

ergo, they were representing the company. Want to wear leggings or not be subject to a dress code? Buy a fare. Pretty simple.

[unblock]

11. If I use a coupon for a free Pepsi, I'm not suddenly a PepsiCo representative.

I'm not disputing their right to put certain restrictions on the use of such a coupon, but the word "representing" really doesn't apply to this situation.

[JI7]

25. they were not using a coupon available to all. they were using what is only available to employees

[unblock]

33. understood but the act of using an employee perk doesn't mean you're representing the company.

and that really doesn't extend to your kids.

[Lonusca]

79. Yes, it does.

And it really does extend to your kids, too.

[unblock]

84. well that's a convincing argument

so if an 8-year old kid traveling on a free pass punches me, can i expect to win if i sue the company?
if an 8-year old kid traveling on a free pass signs away the plane to me for a dollar, can i expect to win if i sue the company for refusing to honor our contract?
if a 1-year old baby traveling on a free pass screams and cries the entire flight, can i expect to win if i sue the company for the horrible treatment i received from their "representative"?

in no meaningful way am i "representing" a company just because i'm traveling on an employee perk, especially if it's not my employee perk (if i'm merely that employee's guest).

you could say i'm a "guest" of the airline.
you could say that i'm expected to adhere to certain restrictions that don't apply to full fare travelers.
but the word "representing" is just plain the wrong word.

[Lonusca]

137. If you are using an "employee only" benefit

you are representing the company. And because you have accepted the offer of free travel you should try to abide by the rules.

But call it whatever makes you happy. Guest. Or Someone who has rules that don't apply to full fair travellers.

Go ahead - rage against the machine. As with most here - I don't care what she was wearing.

It's the "me and only me" attitude. You are there as a guest (in your words) and there are rules to being a guest. You can get tossed out of places if you are a guest.

What's probably going to happen is United is going to greatly restrict the use of free tickets to the detriment of their (mostly I believe) union employees.

[unblock]

143. my guess is, most likely, they won't change their policy at all.

they may continue a p.r. effort, e.g., an ad making it clear that leggings are welcome (like their competitors are running).
and perhaps improved training, possibly including encouraging gate attendants to be more discreet when enforcing such rules.

if they change their policy at all (which i think it unlikely), i think it would be to simply remove the ban on leggings for free passes. seems to me the upside of continuing to enforce that rule is overwhelmed by the downside of the risk of having a second viral incident.

taking free passes away from all employees when competitors still have it would likely make a what's really a fairly minor p.r. flap into a potentially major employee problem.

[Orrex]

147. I work at a company with a dress code and an expectation of professional conduct

If I bring a guest into the building, that guest is expected to adhere to those same standards. If they do not, then I am held accountable.

This is part of the agreement inherent in my employment here, to which I explicitly agreed when I signed on. It's not my guest's responsibility to know the policy; it's my responsibility make sure that my guest follows the policy.

I suspect that a the airline employees signed a similarly explicit agreement. So what's the problem?

[unblock]

151. in this sub-thread my only point is that your guest is not "representing" the company.

more generally, i have said a number of times that there's no problem with the idea of rules and restrictions on guests.

on the other hand, that doesn't mean that *any* rule the company can think of is a good idea. it matters what the rule is.

[Orrex]

154. I have to admit that I haven't read the fine print of the particular policy

To that end, you may be correct; the policy may not explicitly state that the employees' guests are considered to be representing the company.

Have you read the policy? What does it state in this regard?

on the other hand, that doesn't mean that *any* rule the company can think of is a good idea. it matters what the rule is.

Has someone suggested "that *any* rule the company can think of is a good idea?"

[kcr]

139. They hold up a sign saying "I'm an employee's kid!"? Somehow I manage to miss those. n/t

[Orrex]

148. Why should that matter in the slightest?

[kcr]

150. That would be my point.

It doesn't matter. There is absolutely no reason to enforce a rule like this. It's just a rule for rule's sake.

[Orrex]

153. Of course that's absolutely incorrect

If an employee is wearing plain clothes, that employee suddenly doesn't get to flout the rules to which they agreed simply because an onlooker can't easily identify them as an employee.

Short of telling us again that companies should follow the rules in the manner that you set forth for them, why shouldn't the company hold its employees to the agreed-to policies?

[kcr]

156. Oh, so the children were employees? I'm incorrect about that?

Please proceed in backing that up. I'll wait.

[Orrex]

159. Why to you expect me to back up your strawman for you?

I haven't asserted that the children where employees.

[kcr]

167. Your reply to me was about the children not being employees.

And you told me I was incorrect. Did you mean I was incorrect about them not being employees, or not being children?

[Orrex]

170. I haven't asserted that the children where employees.

I have cited an example of employees being required to adhere to policy even while out of uniform. Did you perhaps fail to comprehend that nuanced distinction?

Please point me to my post declaring that the children are employees or that you were wrong to assert that they are not.

Here's another bit of nuance that may be escaping you: if the children are guests of the employee, then their adherence to or violation of policy is the employee's responsibility. That doesn't mean that the children are employees or that they're adults, though. Does that help you to understand?

[Ken Burch]

18. But they were kids, not employees.

Why would anyone, anywhere CARE how the children of a corporation's employees dress? Also, how would any of the other passengers even know who was flying on pass?

[synergie]

30. They were kids using an employee only benefit.

Since the rules apply to the employee and are clearly stated as a requirement to use that benefit, it behooves them to go along with the conditions of using it.

Why would it matter what random people knew? Did the people who were using this employee only benefit know? Did the person that was required to enforce it know?

Seems like a lot of people do care, since this thread and your replies are so numerous, you seem to care about it too.

There are dress codes in many places, I'm not sure why you think that's somehow surprising or what the actual objection is here since its the very existence of the concept of a dress code you seem to find objectionable?

You grant that it's fine for them to say "appropriate attire", that a subjective term, they specified what is considered appropriate and what is not, to remove any confusion. I don't understand the basis for you objections here. I'm surprised that people's reasonable reactions are so unfathomable here.

[unblock]

42. people object when institutions exert power over other people for no good reason.

and that's what seems to be going on here.

saying you can't fly for free while wearing a t-shirt or cap advertising a competitor is reasonable and understandable and no one would object to that.

saying you can't fly for free unless you sing karaoke in front of all the other passengers would be (for some) humiliating and completely inappropriate and unacceptable.

so it matters what the restrictions are.

to many, saying the kids of out-of-uniform travelers can't wear leggings just seems silly and pointlessly controlling other people's lives for no good reason.

[synergie]

49. This was not an example of institutions exerting power over "other" people.

This was an institution enforcing clearly explained rules for ITS EMPLOYEES using a generous BENEFIT.

No one was objecting to this either.

This wasn't about controlling anyone's lives, it's a clearly stated policy that ANYONE who is using a generous benefit extended by the company to any person using its EMPLOYEE benefit, is a reasonable thing. It's silly and pointless that so much outrage is being expended on something that's not happening, unless one feels that complying with a simple dress code is somehow controlling their lives, that person should perhaps seek out employment for a place that has no such dress code, then they might exert their own power and preference in whatever manner they deem acceptable.

These restrictions are not unreasonable, they're not onerous and they're not hidden, to many, including those chiming in here with their personal experiences, this position and this so called outrage is silly and pointless and isn't based on much reason.

Don't want to be "controlled by an institution"? Don't seek out benefits from that institution. The family in question didn't share this objection.

[unblock]

50. you act as if an employer telling an employee's kids what to wear isn't controlling others.

that's exactly what it is.

now, some degree of controlling employee behavior is understood and accepted and reasonable.
but again, it depends on the specifics or the requirement.

saying if you want to use this "free" perk, your kids can't wear leggings strikes many as going a tad too far.

really, what's the purpose of saying employee's kids using free passes can't wear leggings while paying passengers (possibly including enployees and/or their kids) can?

people are who are siding with the company are focusing way too much on the company's right to have a dress code. i don't dispute that they have a right to a dress code. but there needs to be a good *reason* for such restrictions, and sorry but i fail to see a good reason for banning leggings for kids. so it strikes me as having a restriction just for the sake of having a restriction, i.e., controlling others.

[synergie]

57. You act as if that's what's happening here, it's not.

Nope. This wasn't even controlling employee behavior. It's setting conditions and requirements for using a perk. Not telling anyone what to do, not the employees or their kids, or their neighbors or anyone else.

This is accepted and reasonable.

These were two teens, who didn't have an issue with changing their clothes. So, it seems that no one actually thought this was going too far, except for a woman who was looking on and didn't have any clue what was happening or why.

Really, what's the purpose of carrying this on when you have the facts wrong and have no actual argument, since this isn't even remotely what actually happened here?

People are siding with the company cause they were not being unreasonable here, and the two teens in questions didn't have an issue, nor did their parents.

There are good *reasons* and many have explained what those are, so regardless of your failure to see things that are there and your instance that things happened that didn't actually occur you are incorrect.

No controlling of others, no poor abused children, no employees being violated, quite literally nothing you're going on about.

A whole lot of drama and outrage over literally nothing. Meanwhile, airlines are actually running around kicking people off planes for speaking their own language, wearing hijab, looking brown, taking their passports etc. etc.

How about raging against the ACTUAL CONTROLLING of others and not create situations where that's not happening? There weren't even any "sides" here, just a woman who overreacted out of ignorance, and her side was wrong. I guess this is what happens when it's drummed in that all companies are the epitome of all evil and everything they do is "controlling", since bystanders who don't know much decide that they are the experts about what is "reasonable" and required.

Tempest in an imaginary thimble.

[Ken Burch]

59. For the record, I'm not outraged or bringing "drama".

I'm just calmly asking questions that, for whatever reason, make some people uncomfortable.

[synergie]

66. For the record, the OP reads otherwise.

There is no calm the manner in which the questions are being asked. The OP rather uncalmly, unquietly insults people, and the numerous posts are dramatic, unreasonable, based on an ignorance of what actually happened here.

That's not discomfort you're seeing, it's annoyance at the nonsensical drama and the failure to apprehend facts, even when so many have calmly and reasonably explained why the premise here is incorrect and the rude remarks made were way out of line.

The OP has words that have meanings, that do not back up your claims. Calm down a bit and wonder if those meanings are warranted. Denying obvious outrage and claiming a calm and quiet that is not in evidence does not excuse deliberately offensive remarks directed a group.

[unblock]

82. Lol! Talk about a tempest and outrage!

i've said many times now that they have a right to have conditions on the free/reduced passes.

All I've said was that there are pitfalls in determining the right restrictions and in this case they goofed and gave themselves a p.r. problem and likely lost some business to competitors who are taking advantage.

It's a poor business decision because the upside to the restriction doesn't add nearly as much shareholder value (if any) as they just lost due to this whole story finding its way into the media.


Oh and, which facts do I have wrong?

[synergie]

85. Indeed, that seems to be a favorite topic of people who seem to enjoy tempests.

I'll post this link here, so that you can see that the issue here was the knee jerk reactions of OUTRAGE obsessed folks who reacted first and researched never.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/how-two-teens-in-leggings-became-a-pr-mess-for-united-airlines.html

It's not a poor business decision to allow employees to fly standby, nor do they have any control over ignorant folks who tweet out their knee jerk reactions causing others to jump on the outrage bandwagon.

Yes, all this talk by folks who didn't bother to find out what happened here, and who created some sort of overblown nonsense about how those evil capitalists were exercising their power and control by forcing children, whose ages were asserted as 10 (funny age for 2 teens) to change their clothes, is indeed very silly. A fake tempest to foster faux-outrage, over nothing.

There was nothing here to get worked up about, but why let what actually happened get in the way of some good outrage, especially when it was a viral post from a woman who admitted she was mistaken and had no idea what she was seeing.

Never let facts get in the way of the OUTRAGE right?

[unblock]

86. i see your point, that it was others' outrage that created the media story in the first place.

though i disagree that the company couldn't see something like this coming eventually as a risk.

i maintain that it was always a poor business decision and the best approach, imho, is to treat non-paying passengers the same as paying passengers so they blend in, incognito as another poster said, other than the stand-by rule, e.g. maybe require they keep mum about the fact that their ticket was free, though i'm not sure even that's necessary as people expect employees to get discounts or free benefits.

any further restrictions are *always* going to be have a downside risk, at least in terms of expense in training and enforcing and updating the rules and possibly delays or creating a scene, or in this case, some p.r. problem.

i maintain the upside of the restrictions adds minimal shareholder value, certainly not enough to justify the downside risk.

so it was always a poor business decision, imho.


perhaps even better would be to require employees to pay just like everyone else and only later reimburse them. that way they can honestly say they're paying customers during the flight, and not even a first class paying customer would bat an eye at an employee getting an expense check as part of an employee benefit. after all, the first class paying customer is probably getting reimbursed by someone as well....

[synergie]

90. The media story came about becuase a woman had a knee jerk reaction and tweeted before

she thought, and many others followed suit, thinking this was another one of those ACTUAL incidents when airlines were way out of line. Do you imagine the company has a crystal ball that lets them see how millions of people they deal with on a daily basis might choose to be mistaken about something and then run with it? That's rather silly.

It wasn't a poor business decision at all. They're not treating people any differently, and your argument taken to its logical conclusion would literally be that requiring the children of employees to "remain mum" would be the company exercising their institutional power to control the actions of others, by violating their 1st amendment rights to free speech. This is stance in general is a ludicrous one.

As so many people have stated these are not anything that is out of line, they have a long history of a simple dress code, no such consequences were experienced. There was no scene here, just the pr problem created by a woman overreacting and millions ALSO jumping on board without pausing to find out what happened.

The shareholder stuff is really just silly, given how long these programs have been going on and how little the risk actually is here. There was no poor business decision here, there was a poor decision on the part of the woman who freaked out for no reason. That's not the fault of the company, that was HER issue.

I'm sorry, but your idea seems to be all about creating yet more obstacles and frankly, too much fuss, based on a lot of assumptions to correct what is not a problem, hasn't been a problem and wouldn't have been one now, had a woman not had a knee jerk reaction about something she got badly wrong.

So why punish the company and the employees for one woman's dumb mistake based on literal ignorance and all the people who jumped on the bandwagon.

A whole lot of silliness all around. The company an the employees and even the teens did nothing wrong here. Those busy engaging in senseless outrage did. Enough already.

There's stuff going on that requires the outrage though, might I suggest you look into what Oklahoma has been up to. It's actually worth any and all outrage you care to bring, and it's all about people controlling others and basically being total jackasses about it. Let me know if you need the link, but you'll find it in the general discussion board.

We have real issues to address, enough already with attacking a nice little perk that United is doing for its people.

[unblock]

102. Shareholders really don't like their ceo to saying we couldn't do anything about it.

I suspect this is a combination of internet frenzy and a bit of a failure to keep the dress code quite as updated as it should be.

Pre-internet, only a few people would ever know. No paper would pick up the story. That may have lulled them into a slow cadence of review for the dress code.

Managing p.r. these days is certainly more complicated and risky thanks to the internet, but companies can and are doing things to be more in top of things. That includes trying to avoid things that could get misinterpreted. There are no guarantees but it is indeed possible to anticipate problems and take actions to reduce risk.

I think the idea of a separate dress code may be one if those things that might have been. No problem in the past, hell, maybe even a net gain; but nowadays too risky.

[synergie]

113. Shareholders don't really expect their CEO's to be responsible for random folks

who take things out of context and then create PR drama based on assumptions made in ignorance. Shareholders are not that stupid.

Seems like that dress code was updated, and it's not their error here. It was Ms. Watts who saw girls being asked to change their clothes and decided it was due to their gender. She knew nothing about the situation or the rules that go with the passes those teens had.

And post internet, a whole lot of people still didn't know, but that didn't stop them from the mob mentality or the hysteria that followed, did it? I think this should be swift kick in the rear to those that simply retweet or react without thinking.

The problem here is that they didn't really do anything wrong, but the PR professional jumped to conclusions, and did actually make the mistake. I mean, how can you choose to avoid someone misinterpreting things, and then digging in even when she's corrected, after creating a viral fuss?

There is nothing really objectionable in their dress code, they simply ask that people who take advantage of this perk meet some basic stuff, and they don't specify gender. This wasn't a mistake on the airline's part, this is more of an issue with the tendency to get outraged really fast, without finding out what's going on.

It requires that people stop and think for a moment first, and the consequences when they don't. It's like all that BS about that Pizza parlor, how could anyone forsee something like that, and once it's been unleashed how to deal with the consequences of the mob that won't accept facts? It's a legitimate question and one that we avoid by demanding the absurd from CEOs.

United should have gotten on top of the story more quickly, and found out what was going on, the people running their twitter gave standard answers, which seem to have infuriated people already whipped up by the the story that Watts told.

[pnwmom]

87. Someone told me that the rule was "business casual." What does that mean for a 10 year old?

The whole thing was ridiculous.

[synergie]

91. They weren't 10 year olds, they were teens.

The 10 year old was the kid of the woman who freaked out because she thought she saw something and overreacted.

Someone posted the actual rules somewhere on one of these many threads.

For United, they specifically said no spandex, lycra, form fitting tops, pants or dresses and numerous other specific things. If I was going to be held to a dress code, I'd much rather they state what's not allowed, rather than make murky statements.

I'll see if I can dig it up, if you'd like, but I'd rather not wade through this silliness some more.

[pnwmom]

97. What is business casual for young teens? United's first reaction was so STUPID

and they can't excuse it with this pass idea.

Because they FIRST put out multiple tweets justifying clothes restrictions on ORDINARY passengers ,before they finally realized that the teens were using a pass. Then they quickly pulled out that excuse. Too late -- they'd already shown, with multiple tweets, their attitude toward female customers.

[synergie]

99. Agreed.

They should have figured out what was going on first.

It's the knee jerk reactions all around here.

Business casual for young teens is the same as it is for older teens and adults. Some sort of pants, or shorts, skirts or dresses of an appropriate length. Non revealing tops, shoes, no rude messages on anything. My high school had a dress code that was professional, that was written by the students (of the decade prior), they were ridiculous rules, and they were specific, and while we still laugh about how silly they were, we still knew what was expected. The dean who had to enforce them also thought they were ridiculous. That was the price the students who made that list were willing to pay, so that they didn't have to wear a uniform everyday. We still had to one day a week, but it was worth the trade off (sometimes).

That wasn't really an excuse, though and can you link their tweets, I didn't see what they sent out, I'd like to read what they actually wrote before I opine on their attitudes towards women.

[pnwmom]

100. I was watching this in real time and they tweeted out many tweets justifying

their restrictions on ordinary passengers before they finally switched to the pass excuse.

It was pathetic. And you can believe what you want but I doubt they would have tried this argument if it were boys wearing these clothes.

You can find some of the MANY United Airlines tweets here, that all attempted to justify the gate agent's action WITHOUT specifying that the travelers were using a pass. That excuse came later, after the Twitterverse blew up.

https://www.recode.net/2017/3/26/15065644/a-meta-story-about-twitter-is-not-a-good-url

[synergie]

106. As I said, I think it was all the knee jerk reactions in real time.

I was just sifting through their tweets, seems to be run by several different folks and who were giving the standard canned answer.

People overreacted and I don't see anything in what they said that was misogynistic, and why would Watts need to be soothed? She made a mistake, tweeted her outrage, based on assumptions she made, and then they addressed the specific case by stating their policy.

I'm not sure what any of this says about United's attitudes towards women. If they were boys wearing spandex, that was a violation of their stated rules, I see nothing to indicate they would also have been asked to change.

That 10 year old thing is one of those things that was not true and went viral. They were two teens, who were told they needed to change and they didn't have a problem with it.

Watts was watching this and seems to have made a whole lot of assumptions, she was wrong, and she was upset, but her upset was the result of the assumptions she made. Perhaps if the two teens had been boys, she might not have been so upset when she overheard this? That too is a valid thing to question.

I understand why she she was upset, and the fact that it all went viral is not really the fault of the airline or it's twitter people, who were giving out standard answers.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a9197487/shannon-watts-united-airlines-leggings-op-ed/?src=socialflowTW

Gendered dress codes are something that definitely need to be called out, but that's not what was going on here. She was mistaken, but she's a PR professional and an activist and now she's got a platform for a bit. I wish she's acknowledge her mistake here and then pivot to what she thought was going on and then attack that. I agree with her points about the gendered nature of these things in general, but United's policy wasn't specific to gender, and she was wrong in her initial reaction and assumptions.

[pnwmom]

107. A man wearing shorts several inches above his knees was allowed to board

and the girls were not.

And instead of doing a decent job of PR, United Airlines tweeted out again and again and again that under the Rules of Carriage they had the right to restrict their passengers' clothing.

Ms. Watts wasn't the only one who was mistaken. And she was only mistaken because UA's initial response was to defend the gate agents action by referring to Terms of Service -- without saying anything about passes.. UA was mistaken in their initial response to her -- and their repeated tweets just made their situation worse.They didn't come up with the Pass excuse till they had already offended thousands of customers.

Did you see the link from Recode? I'll add it here.


https://www.recode.net/2017/3/26/15065644/a-meta-story-about-twitter-is-not-a-good-url

Sometimes, this is the part of the story where a Bigco’s social media team leaps into action to defuse the situation. Something along the lines of “Thanks for your note, we’ll look into it.”

But this is a different version. United’s Twitter doubled down, telling Watts the company had the right to enforce a dress code:

SNIP

Here are some screenshots in case United ever rethinks this approach:

[synergie]

123. There is supposedly some leeway on short length, with a few inches being allowed.

The girls issue was another rule, the list was posted somewhere. If that guy had been wearing bike shorts and was allowed on, or something comparable, sure there's a reason for asserting double standards and calling this out.

Their twitter account seems to be a handful of people dealing with individual customer service, they were asked to comment and gave their standard answer. I'm not seeing why that's something surprising or evil.

She was mistaken because she live tweeted something and made a whole lot of assumptions, had no idea what rules were being applied or why. United's reply had no bearing on her mistake, that happened at the outset. Quite frankly, I understand what got her back up on this, I sympathize, but the speed at which this spread and the failure of anyone to find out what was going on first, including HER's, she was there and could have asked, or if she was so concerned asked the girls themselves. But she didn't.

They were not mistaken in their response to her, that's their corporate policy, it was however dumb in hindsight. They should have said they'd look into the matter and then done so. Stupid on United's part, but their response to her wasn't deserving of all this drama.

I agree they did handle it badly, but that become apparent in hindsight. Just looking at all the tweets that group was handling, they're not PR, it seems to be more customer service. They need better training. That can actually be applied to us all, including Ms. Watts herself, and everyone who leaped to conclusions.

I know why people are so quick here, it's not like incidents like this were not actually happening, but in this case, in hindsight, we can see mistakes were made, by pretty much everyone.

Her first 4 tweets, all assumptions. She sees someone else make the same mistake she did and put a dress onto her 10 year old. Several different people replied to her, the initials at the end of the messages show that.

They weren't "policing" women's clothes, they were enforcing rules for the passes, that they're required to do. And when questioned people at the other end of a twitter account, responded with the legalese, in hindsight, not so great, but really wrong, though?

Thanks for the link, they added a few updates after talking to more people, not sure if you saw them. They address the point about the shorts, from an employee.

What a lot of fuss here over nothing. I hope Ms. Watts takes her Time opinion piece to take some responsibility here for her error, and then uses her platform to address the issues she's brought up, which are valid and important and need to be discussed. I think she diminishes her credibility a little bit if she chooses not to, and I would not like her to do that, given how important both the gender issues and the gun issue is.

[pnwmom]

132. Of course UA's response had "bearing" on her mistake.They could have cleared up her misunderstanding

IMMEDIATELY. And instead they doubled down,citing their general rights to restrict clothing choices of ALL of their customers, which only supported her initial misunderstanding.

Why are you blaming Ms. Watts for believing UA's responses to her? They said nothing about Pass customers till this blew up on Twitter.

First the person at the gate told her she was only following the rules, without explaining that those rules didn't apply to ordinary passengers.

And THEN United Airlines answered her tweet -- and the tweets of other passengers -- by, again, simply referring to the rules that apply to ALL passengers. That was THEIR MISTAKE because those rules do not ban leggings. Only the rules for Pass users apparently ban leggings.

And the UA rep kept repeating the "legalese" on Twitter where thousands of people were watching.

So I don't know why you are focusing on HER mistake. UA could have nipped this in the bud, but failed to. The use of the "Standard Answer" means that whoever sent it thought it was okay for UA to ban leggings on all people on its flights, not just those on passes.

[SoCalNative]

157. Because he PAID for his ticket

the gitls did not.

[pnwmom]

161. But over and over and over again, UA insisted on their right to deny passage to any passenger

who didn't meet their clothing standards, WITHOUT explaining that these particular passengers were using passes.

They knew the name of the woman originally tweeting. They knew which plane she and the others were boarding. They could have easily determined why the gate agent denied boarding to the three girls.

But they didn't. Instead they kept tweeting out, over and over and over, the message that they could deny boarding to any passenger they wished.

And why should they be controlling the clothing of those who are "representing the airline" anyway? No one knows who these people are! If you don't know who they are, they clearly aren't representing anyone.

[SoCalNative]

163. And they have that right.

They also have the right to have you removed from the plane if you cause any problems.

And again, as far as I'm concerned, they should be controlling the clothing of all who fly on their planes. I'm so tired of seeing a plane full of slobs.

[pnwmom]

175. You are so tired of "seeing a plane full of slobs." Poor you.

I'm tired of living in a world where well-dressed, well-fed, neat and tidy people want to take the food out of children's mouths and deny health care to pregnant women.

I don't care what people look like or how nice their clothes are. I care how they treat each other. That's it.

[DrDan]

23. with you 100% - they were flying on a free ticket yet whine about the conditions

If they don't like them, purchase a ticket

[synergie]

31. Were they even the ones doing the whining?

[TransitJohn]

45. No, all of the whining I've seen has been on the DU

[synergie]

48. Right?

I can see how the woman who overheard the initial thing might have been sensitized, given that there are actual airlines doing this to paying customers, but this whining about the fact that rules exists and that people dare to state that on a Democratic forum is just ... odd.

[LanternWaste]

146. We often see only that which validates our biases.

We often see only that which validates our biases.

[DrDan]

64. no they weren't - it was a bystander - I stand corrected

they were apparently ok with the policy

as am I - free ticket? - follow the guidelines

[pnwmom]

105. They weren't whining. Onlookers complained about what was going on and no one explained to them

that the reason for the restriction was because of the pass. INSTEAD, United tweeted over and over and over (literally) that they had the right to restrict the clothing of all passengers.

https://www.recode.net/2017/3/26/15065644/a-meta-story-about-twitter-is-not-a-good-url

Sometimes, this is the part of the story where a Bigco’s social media team leaps into action to defuse the situation. Something along the lines of “Thanks for your note, we’ll look into it.”

But this is a different version. United’s Twitter doubled down, telling Watts the company had the right to enforce a dress code:

SNIP

[Siwsan]

2. The dress code seem pretty archaic, to me. Are 'skinny jeans' also disallowed, or just spandex

And since other passengers would have no way of knowing who is flying on a 'buddy' pass, anyway, who cares what they wear?

I've seem some pretty outrageous outfits, while traveling by air, and they in no way, shape or form affected the progress of the flight.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

89. Maybe no spandex if you're fat?

Fact is, some women wear spandex and look absolutely gross wearing it. I can understand the rule. I am 50 pounds overweight, and wouldn't be caught dead in leggings unless I'm wearing a long tunic top.

Since some women don't seem to care how awful they look in spandex, apparently all females are disallowed from wearing it when using free passes.

Might not be fair, but I can just imagine the lawsuit when a size 22 woman shows up in tight leggings and a short top that doesn't cover her butt who is told that she can't board, while her size 4 buddy breezes by wearing spandex, as well.

[Siwsan]

98. I have seen some pretty interesting fashion choices, while people watching between flights

My bigger concern is about the person sitting next to me being overly 'fragrant', whether it be from perfume, after shave or just plain bad body odor. I had someone sit next to me, one time, and when she kicked off her shoes, I almost passed out.

I can remember when I would get 'dressed up' for flights. Of course, that was back when I was treated like a valued passenger instead of a piece of cargo.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

101. Ugh.

"I had someone sit next to me, one time, and when she kicked off her shoes, I almost passed out. "

Oh, how horrible. Bad odors actually make me gag. I don't know how you did it.

Once, I had such a god-awful experience on one hot puddle jumper flight, sweating buckshot while sitting next to a huge man who reeked of smoke and body odor....Well, let's just say that I was carefully escorted off the plane on this tiny wheelchair only to see a stretcher waiting for me. The airline had called ahead for an ambulance because I looked so ill. I very briefly passed out, apparently.

It was all incredibly embarrassing. (And, no, I declined the ambulance ride. I simply couldn't take the heat due to a medication I take, and my seat partner's odor simply made things beyond bearable for me.)

Much to my dismay, I had to fly on that same carrier/route a couple of years later, and froze my ass off that time, but I sure wasn't complaining!

[Siwsan]

103. My worst experience was on a cross country Amtrak journey

I couldn't get a berth for the first night, so I had to spend the night in "coach". Some poor military guy's wife had walked out on him, just after giving birth to their child. Yea, she walked out on the baby, too. So he was taking the train to his family and didn't have a CLUE how to take care of his child. The poor baby fussed all night, despite a whole lot of women trying to help. Actually, that probably made it worse. I didn't get a wink of sleep.

I was SOOO happy to get to Albuquerque, and move into the peace and quiet of my little closet sized berth!

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

109. Oh, my!

That poor man and baby. What a horrible night for all of you!

[SoCalNative]

160. I for one wish that ALL airlines

would enact proper dress code policies for ALL passengers. But even more so, I wish people these days still had a proper sense of how to dress in public and for certain occasions.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. I worked for an airline. The dress code for employees was no big deal.

You didn't have to dress up; you just had to not look like a slob - no jeans, t-shirts, beach wear, etc. Since our mode of dress in my employee group was business casual on normal work days, dressing for a trip was basically just dressing for another day at work. I wouldn't have been allowed to wear torn jeans and a Grateful Dead t-shirt to work on a regular work day, so I never felt aggrieved that I couldn't dress like that when flying. I don't think it's oppressive for an employer to have a reasonable dress code. If they'd insisted on white tie and tails and gowns and tiaras, or sexist rules that affect only women, obviously that would be another matter.

Update: I checked the employee web site of my former employer (I'm retired) and discovered that their employee travel dress code is now just the same as for paying passengers: You have to wear shoes and you can't show up in pajamas or a swimsuit, and your t-shirt can't have dirty words on it. So apparently they decided to stop "oppressing" their employees.

[Initech]

6. Let me ask this, and I'm prepared for the forthcoming flame war.

If a different scenario had presented itself and boys had been attempting to board the flight with free tickets wearing board shorts and a tank top, and they were turned away and told to put pants and a collared shirt on, would it be as big of a deal?

And I've got my flame retardant jumpsuit on.

[OregonBlue]

7. Without seeing the leggings in question and how appropriate or inappropriate they

were, I don't see how anyone could have an opinion on this. Generally I'd be on the side of the girls but I have absolutely no idea if they were see through, too small, sagging off their butts, etc. Since the family was flying on family pass, you'd think the mom would have just told them to get something on over the leggings and let's go. Have we all gone insane?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. It appears the family was in the process of handling it without involving Johnnie Cochran....

.....then some twitter busy body who didn't know the situation started a twitter storm.

The company fucked up by commenting they had the right to refuse service to anyone BEFORE they investigated and realized it was a non-rev passenger.

[X_Digger]

104. That twitter busy body is none other than Shannon Watts- ex monsanto PR hack..

.. and current astroturfer in chief of some bloomberg-funded anti-gun crusade.

And yes, it really is that Shannon Watts- http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a9197487/shannon-watts-united-airlines-leggings-op-ed/

[B2G]

9. No sympathy for those who fly free

Sorry, can't muster it. Put on a pair of slacks.

[Ken Burch]

13. What would anyone lose if United backed down?

And why be just as uptight with the children of airline employees as with the employees themselves?

[B2G]

15. Because it's a benefit, and a damned nice one.

Follow the rules. I don't know what's so hard about this.

[JI7]

24. companies might stop offering such benefits

So flying free would be a loss for many

[synergie]

41. Well the company would have lost it's right to enforce its basic standards for its employees.

Which even the employees themselves don't seem to have objected to. Asking people to follow the same rules that apply to everyone isn't being "uptight" and if they're flying free on tickets that are employee tickets, there really is no reason for people getting all confrontational.

Odd that the family in question wasn't in some sort of altercation with United, requiring anyone to "back down". Seems a bit odd to create a scenario that didn't exist to express baseless outrage.

[Ken Burch]

54. I'm not expressing outrage...just quietly asking a question

The issue isn't the right to enforce basic standards for its employees.

They have the right to do that(within reason)ON THE JOB.

This wasn't on the job.

It was while traveling.

And it wasn't enforcing the rules on employees...it was enforcing them on the children of the employees.

The U.S. military, for example, has strict grooming requirements for servicemen(although not for servicewomen, for some reason).

It doesn't require the sons of military personnel to wear uniforms and military haircuts.

[synergie]

63. Nope, just outrage and nothing quiet about it.

The issue here is that it was a basic standard for a perk for ANYONE using those Employee perks, that the two teens in question had no problem with.

They have the right to have rules for their perks. This is a perk of the job. Only reason they had access to this perk was due to the job. Which might shock you, considering it's United Airlines, is about travel.

It was about enforcing rules for the perk, which was extended to the kids using that perk and WHICH THEY HAD NO PROBLEM with.

The US military has rules for a whole bunch of things, including conduct of spouses and children when they accompany their spouse/parent on the job, or doing things with their job. And you might want to go review the grooming requirements for servicewomen since you don't seem to know that it's pretty strict for them too, more so even.

Can you point me to where United or any other airline is REQURING anything of the sons or daughters of employees in any situation? Other than using employee perks on the company's airplanes, while flying on ticket that the employee and their families are aware has a few basic rules.

Your analogy fails unless you can back it up with something, it doesn't work the way you're trying to use it.


Why deny the obvious outrage, and why have you not bothered to find out what actually happened here, even when so many people have explained, quietly and reasonably the rules here? What's behind the knee jerk reaction to attacking the company and anyone who dares to point out that the facts you're so outraged about here are not as you imagine them to be?

[Ken Burch]

67. I'm not outraged.

Why is it so important to you to see my OP as outrage?

I simply find this an interesting set of questions.

The rules about what children traveling non-pass must wear is a requirement imposed on non-employees.

It would be comparable to the military requiring(as it does NOT require)the sons of military personnel to wear uniforms.

And I'm not even attacking the company... I didn't call for United Airlines to be nationalized or anything...I'm simply questioning what it has done here.

What harm does that do?

It's hardly as if the capitalist system would collapse if United said "y'know, maybe we're making a big deal out of nothing on this". Corporations SHOULD re-examine their decisions on a continual basis, as should every other institution and each of us as individuals.

It's silly to equate a person saying that to outrage.

In fact, you sound far angrier than me right now.

[synergie]

72. But you are.

I'm not really sure why it's so important to you deny the obvious here, but it's not doing much good. You words are there, in this thread you started to express the outrage. Against United, against the folks here who didn't share your outrage. etc.

Here by the way is how the girls involved handled the situation:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/how-two-teens-in-leggings-became-a-pr-mess-for-united-airlines.html

Once again:

Rules apply to anyone who is using that employee perk, which the company rather nicely extends to their family.

It is not comparable to the military. You just keep repeating this, and failed to answer how or why this is comparable.

You actually are, and you're attacking DU members who didn't share your outrage.

As you can see from the link, there was literally nothing to question, since nothing happened to be so outraged about. That's nice that you didn't call for nationalization, but what an oddly specific thing to claim is the only way to attack the company.

What harm does it do to question things that were not exactly mysterious and to keep on doing so after numerous people have explained to you is not what you imagine? Quite literally there is nothing for anyone to examine here.

So why all the outrage, and then the repeated denials that all the posts full of outrage are somehow not outrage, why is it so important to you that you're this outraged?

In fact, I'm not angry at all, I'm amused by the constant denials and the fact that you are this outraged when literally everyone involved had no issues at all.

So much dedication to outrage over literally nothing, so much anger, so much time spent typing out the same silly comparisons that don't show much understanding of the military, or this nothingburger of two girls who simply had to standby for a different flight and change their pants.

What is it about this that has you all upset? Throwing around the insults, yelling at everyone and then projecting the anger and the disquiet? What is going on here, this much turmoil over nothing is ... odd to say the least.

Take a walk or something, calm down and relax.

[Ken Burch]

110. You have no reason to say I'm outraged.

Why is it important to you to see me that way?

If I say I'm not outraged, I'm not outraged.

I did nothing but asked quiet, but pointed questions.

It really is that simple.

And it's been a couple of hours since I even posted in this thread.

You, for whatever reason, are expressing outrage at me for mildly questioning the response of some people to

the actions of a massive corporation.

None of those questions threatens the existing order.

I'm not eve attacking anyone at DU, either...simply asking why people responded in the way that they did.

[synergie]

114. Except that literally all of your posts show that you are indeed outraged.

Why do you keep pasting the same things in replies?

Why is it so important to you to keep denying the obvious?

You asked pointless questions that were not quiet and that were inflammatory, insulting people on DU who dared to disagree with you. Why do you feel the need to deny this and mischaracterize your tone?

It really is simple fact that you are indeed outraged, and that your posts seem to be cut and pasted, or you're just repeating yourself for reasons best known to you.

You were not mildly questioning anything you were outraged and insulting people rather unmildly, the "massive corporation" didn't do anything wrong here, the most you could say was that their PR work could use a bit more fine tuning.

You seem to be thinking that this does indeed threaten the existing order, and that those of us who question the obsession are somehow corrupted for daring to point out the obvious silliness of the outrage that's been stoked here on this thread.

You might want to read your post, it was not mild, it was not calm and it was not "simply" or "mildly" anything but inflammatory.

Please spare me any more replies where you cut and paste the same things, repeating the same denials that don't hold much water when your numerous posts show that you are indeed quite outraged and seemingly riled by what you believe is going on.

Attacking corporations for being massive is a silly reason to be in such a high dudgeon. Perhaps wait til one does something that's actually worthy of censure and then be as outraged as you'd like, but this judgey silliness over something that those affected with didn't deem worthy of such a snit is ridiculous.

Not sure why it's so important to you, or why you keep denying the text and emotion of every one of your posts, but I'll leave you to ruminate on that yourself, you have a nice day. This has been rather boring, and I encourage you to spend your time avoiding doing business with any massive corporation ever, since that seems to be what offends you most here. Good luck with that.

[Ken Burch]

115. I'm not outraged and I'm not in high dudgeon.

And this discussion isn't about me.

I don't cut and paste, either. I write what I write all by myself.

Questioning corporate behavior isn't "attacking corporation".

I simply don't give them special deference.

[synergie]

116. And yet another outraged post denying outrage. The frequency of the "I" statements tell a

different story.

You keep repeating the same things, doesn't change anything.

You weren't questioning the behaviour you were pretty much saying massive corp bad cause it's a massive corp.

No one here is giving them special deference, but you seem to be giving them special outrage and special attacks. If it's wrong to defer to corporations, as you falsely accuse people of doing, the flip side of that is just as wrong, and that's what's going on here among all the denials of the obvious outrage.

We get it, you don't like corporations and anyone who doesn't join in on bashing them is somehow bad in your eyes, that's not very polite and denying that these are the sentiments and the words being used is rather pointless.

This is getting tiresome, I'll leave you alone with your outrage and your special contempt for corporations, they both seem quite important to you, but repeating the same things over and over again, is extremely boring for me.

All this dudgeon over what some woman made poor assumptions about, when there are actual things worth being outraged about. Thankfully most of the progressive left isn't mired in this nonsense, we have actual work to do, you're welcome to join us or keep waving your fist in the air massive corporations for daring to massive and corporate. Whatever floats your boat.

Goodnight, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

119. NO outrage.

Why is it so important to you to accuse me of feeling things I don't feel?

Or even to keep participating in this thread?

You seem to be taking the fairly mild comments I've made here(and the reaction of the woman who spread the original story)very, very personally.

It's not as if you own the airline.

[synergie]

124. Lots and lots of outrage, seems to be really important for you to keep denying your outrage.

Don't know why, don't really care.
But you don't get to tell me what to do, sit in judgment of anyone who dares to disagree with your crusade against the evil corporations, and pretend that there is anything mild or quiet about your comments, the tenacity with which you keep going with this is something that is deeply personal to you, I get it. Railing against corporations and anyone who dare not be pure enough to rail with you seems like a deeply held tenet.


No one put you in charge of punishing those that disagree with your outrage, kindly take off the wig, put down the gavel and have a nice night.

Any and all replies will be considered as proof that the outrage is indeed real, as I've asserted all along.

[Ken Burch]

126. You are the sweetest, most wonderful person in all the world.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

129. I proved you were silly.

No outrage.

[synergie]

131. You proved one of us was silly.

No take backs, you knew what posting yet another reply meant and you did it anyway. Silly isn't it how all that outrage affects one?

[Ken Burch]

133. Not outraged. You are obsessed with me for some reason.

I don't recall interacting with you prior to this...why are you so fixated with me?

All I am is just another poster here.

[malaise]

44. Back in the day airlines were very generous

My parents and siblings got free tickets but there was a dress code. I'm the only one who broke the rule and I did receive a letter. I had no problem with the dress code.

[Ken Burch]

56. You received a letter-you weren't told to change or else you wouldn't get on the plane.

The question remains...what difference does it make how the children of the employees are dressed when flying on pass?

[malaise]

68. No I was told that I could not wear just a blouse that matched the pants

It had to be a suit

Re the children - let me put it another way. Two years ago I was at a sports event and I won a return ticket for two to any destination on a particular airline. I never liked their baggage policies. I let the ticket expire.
Did I travel that year - of course - we paid our own fares. I let the passes expire.

When I accept 'freeness' I follow the rules.

[ret5hd]

12. As a 30+ yr major airline employee (not United), I will kinda give a long answer.

When I first started at the airline, you had to wait 6 mo before getting flight privileges. It was kinda a big deal to us "kids" (a big group of us blue collar mechanics in our mid 20's were hired about the same time). It was drilled into us at the time what the expectations were: No jeans for any class, no t-shirt for any class, suit for first class, leather shoes, no "bragging" that you were non-revving, etc etc. They had a special orientation class on all of it. You were supposed to be quiet, classy, and discreet. Generally, you would wear a suit no matter what class you were scheduled on because if there was only a seat in first class, you wanted to be able to grab it.

You were expected to "sign in" beforehand (using an antiquated computer system), report to the gate agent, present your ticket (that you ran yourself), maybe ask a question or two, and wait quietly till the gate agent called your name or gave other instructions over the PA.

In return, we got to fly just about anywhere they flew (there were "embargoes" where you couldn't fly to some destinations during a particularly busy time) for essentially free. I would go to music festivals, Las Vegas, various cities, etc, just on a whim. I might not have any money when I got there, but it was still a blast.

Just follow the rules. There were those that didn't. Maybe they would get too drunk on a flight and cause a scene. Maybe they'd get frustrated because they couldn't get on a flight and would take it out on the gate agent. At the very least you could expect a very stern dressing down from your manager when you returned to work. At worst your flight privileges would be taken away...maybe for a short time, maybe forever.

Just follow the rules.

They finally started to relax the dress code when just the way you were dressed made you stand out. They said you could wear jeans in coach, but not first. In first, you could wear business casual.

But still, just follow the rules.

So, after all that background...Do I care if someone wears leggings? Nah. Don't give a damn. But I will say that I would bet $100 the airline employee whose flight privileges were used knew the rules...and he/she should have made sure the people using the passes knew them also. They were no secret. Right or wrong or indifferent, if you want to make a flight, follow the rules.

There really wasn't an effective way to get the rules changed...we would all bitch about them. They just changed organically, always "behind the trend", but they did change.

As an aside, I still dress nicer than I am required when I fly, even though it's not as big a deal as before.

[ret5hd]

14. ALSO, I will add...

In our heavily unionized workplace (and at any other airline I know of0), the flight privileges were NOT contractual. The company always maintained they could eliminate the privileges at any time. You were certainly not required to use them, and they were not required to grant them.

I guess it's kinda like if a guy works for the electric company and the electric company said "Hey, put an electric company bumper sticker on your car and we will give you a discount on your electricity."

You aren't REQUIRED to put a bumper sticker on, but if you do you get a discount.

There were also other dress code rules that had nothing to do with flights. For example, you could not wear a uniform shirt with the company logo at a bar. That led to the ludicrous situation of going to a nearby bar after work and seeing half the "inhabitants" of the bar with patches of duct tape over the logo on their shirt. Yeah, we thought it was silly, but we pretty much followed the rule.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. I got to see lots of Grateful Dead shows thanks to American Airlines.

And yeah, I felt a little silly putting on a suit and tie to fly home after a Dead show with my "I'm not not licking toads eyes" But it was worth it.

Worst experience I had was getting stuck in Hawaii for a day and a half during the PATCO strike. AA still had flights departing but some of the others cancelled flights. So AA was packed.

My brother got out one day. The rest of us the next. Then we got booted off the flight @11pm in LAX like hobos and spent the night in LAX. Got out 1pm the next day after spending the night in the airport - didn't make sense to get a hotel as we started listing for standby for 6am flights.

My dad was pretty savvy about booking but we got caught in the switches.

I never had any real problems but one time coming home from school for Christmas. And then I just took a flight wayyyyout of my to DFW where they had a bunch of wide open flights. I figured it would be more fun on a plane than sitting in an airport.

[malaise]

46. The real fun was when we got stuck somewhere like Paris for three days because the flights were

full

[kimbutgar]

173. Ditto to your comment

My hubby works for united for 28 years these were the rules we always followed. And I had no problem. We just got back from a 10 day trip in Italy and Germany. I had to dress nicer and got first class going one way. It was worth it.

[duncang]

16. My post wasn't a rules are rules, but

One thing I noticed is most of the those are the rules comments came from people who have used non-rev tickets including myself. I am not sure how much money or family saved with my father working for a airline. But our family of 5 going on plane trips twice a year for 40 + years I am sure it was considerable. My daughter and son-in-law have traveled to Scotland at least 6 times on buddy passes. They knew and followed the dress code. Personally I don't think it is too much to ask the recipients of non-rev passes to act and dress well. From what I've seen of airline dress codes they are not totally draconian. They do have leeway.

I did say they should have known the rules. They should have been warned by the employee. And if they were but didn't heed what that person said then the fault lays with them.

I do think United should look at their policies and see if they should be updated.

Progressive doesn't mean you have to say all rules are bad.


Edit to add: One of the fondest memories from my childhood was one year my father came home and told us we were taking a trip that weekend. It was a one day trip to Maine and we had lobster at a restaurant by the coast rented a room overnite. Next day we flew back home.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. #1 we weren't rich but we vacationed like we were.

My parents loved California so we went there a couple times a year. I grew up in Disneyland.

Between the free tickets and deep discounts on hotels and rental cars, we made out pretty well.

I rode in the 747 sky lounge. Got to meet the pilots. I even got bitched out by a member of The Shah of Iran's royal family for jiggling the lavatory handle on the sky lounge toilet. I got a stern lecture and demonstration in the occupied/unoccupied sign on the door. I hope he got his nyuk nyuk.

But we were on our BEST behavior at the airport. We always wore suit and ties. Even when we had boarding passes issued, we always let other people board first.

Seriously, these people had ONE JOB

[JI7]

26. yes. i know people who are able to fly free this way

Many have low paying jobs and there is no way they could travel as much as they do without the family member that works there.

I might have issue if the dress code was very strict but is not from what i have seen.

[nini]

17. They didn't have to fly with free passes

They were aware of the expectations of the free passes when they took them.

I am on a 'friends and family' plan with Princess Cruises. To take the deep discount they want you to follow certain rules too. In exchange for the discount you forego some other things like free laundry and other things that I would have received as a frequent passenger. No one puts a gun to my head to take that discounted fair.

They CHOSE to fly using passes - it's as simple as that.

Personally I think most people look like slobs in general on planes these days but that's another issue.

[crazycatlady]

27. The passengers in question were children

I believe one of them is 10 years old.

Most kids at 10 do not choose to fly somewhere. An adult makes that decision.

[nini]

62. So the adults werent aware of the conditions of free pasees?

[crazycatlady]

71. The male adult traveling with them was wearing shorts

Not sure if shorts were a part of the dress code or not (for business casual, they often are not) and boarded the flight.

[nini]

73. according to the dress code I saw online those are allowed

Next?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

92. No, they were teens.

Another mother overheard the conversation about "no leggings," so she covered up her ten year old daughter thinking that the rule applied to her daughter, as well.

[DanTex]

19. Of course corporations (massive or not) have a right to impose a dress code.

Under what version of "progressivism" are corporations prohibited from requiring dress codes?

I think this is a pretty dumb and pointless rule, but I'm not an airline and I'm not giving away free plane tickets. The airline is giving away free flights as a perk to employees, so if they want to ask in exchange that the people flying dress a certain way, they get to do that.

[Skittles]

39. such a difficult concept for so many

[Ken Burch]

55. They have the right to impose a dress code-on their employees, in the workplace.

The children of employees are not employees at all.

So why are people here supporting the prerogative of a large corporation to impose non-workplace rules on non-employees, and apparently to do so just because they corporation is capable of doing so.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

94. Because they're accepting a free ticket!

In exchange for that free ticket, they are required to follow the dress code. It's the cost of the ticket! What's so difficult to understand about that?

If that is too high a price to pay, then they can always pay for their fare, and dress however they please.

[DanTex]

112. They also have a right to impose a dress code on people they give free tickets too.

In fact, they even have a right to impose a dress code on paying customers if they want.

Obviously, they have no right to impose a dress code or anything else on people that are not flying on their planes.

But seriously, you think there should be a law saying that if an airline gives away free tickets, they can't impose a dress code on the people they give the free tickets to? That strikes me as totally absurd.

[JI7]

22. they were free to purchase tickEts and not follow company policy

[FDRsGhost]

29. Why hasn't anyone brought up how the husband was allowed to fly in shorts?

[Ken Burch]

58. That's the first I'd heard of that.

That makes it even weirder that they focused on the kids.

Should an airline be thinking that much about the way pre-pubescent girls are dressed on their planes?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

95. They were teenagers - not pre-pubescent

A fare-paying mother and ten year old child overheard the conversation re the teen girls, and she thought the "no leggings" rule applied to her daughter.

It's all much ado about nothing.

[ProfessorGAC]

77. Because Shorts Are Allowed

There was a restriction as to how far above knee the rode while standing
I think it was 3"

[nini]

78. shorts were allowable on their list

that's why

[FDRsGhost]

83. Weird

[crazycatlady]

32. My issue is this

Judging from your username, I am guessing you're a dude.

Most dress codes are enforced more for women and girls than they are for men and boys. If you google news 'dress code violations' most of the violators are female. School dress code restrictions are telling girls not to 'tempt the boys' with their harlot dressing instead of teaching boys to control themselves. After all boys will be boys.

It also sounds like this was at the discretion of the gate agent. The gate agent could have been a busybody with a vendetta against girls and women not dressed to his liking.

As far as dress codes go. I think it should be updated, publicized, and perhaps a separate one for minors (which these passengers were).

[lunatica]

34. this is the story of what makes my engines run

I am very often surprised at how people just do whatever they're told no matter how unfair it is.

Needless to say I'm a rabble rouser at work. Too many people are too timid to stand up and even just question what they're told. Makes me crazy.

I have a reputation at work among the managers and the staff. I stand up for people. I question arbitrary rules and most of the time management actually backs down because they don't have a good answer to why they're bullying us. Of course I'm nice about it but my fellow workers have often told me they're glad I speak up.

[Yo_Mama]

35. A lot of schools have rules against leggings. For obvious reasons.

I don't see this as subservience - I see this as codifying common sense. The airline doesn't want the people flying with this benefit to look ratty, or cause a problem.

As for the rule - some leggings are really quite modest, and some are so form fitting one can see the pimples on the butt and form a basic understanding of the individual's vaginal anatomy. Rather than try to make rules about which leggings are acceptable, schools, employers and this airline had a "no-leggings" or "leggings under, but not over".

Generally rules that apply to everyone are egalitarian rather than subservient. You may choose to see this as proof of societal ills, but I think those who do not are in the territory of reason.

[NutmegYankee]

36. Authoritarianism isn't just a phenomenon of the right. It exists on the left as well.

I notice it a lot as I'm an anti-authoritarian leftist.

[Ken Burch]

60. You'd think the survival of the existing order depends on United NOT backing down on this.

As if we can only avoid chaos if corporations can impose petty rules on non-employees in non-workplace situations.

[Skittles]

37. oh please

enough already

[napi21]

40. I think what you're ignorring is that the girls were non-rev passengers (flying free).

My husband & I had flying privileges with Delta until our son got married. The way I look at it is, the airline is letting me fly free. If they have some dress code in exchange for that free flight, I'll comply. The girls were probably too young to think like that.

BTW, it's not only leggings. They Do have a dress code that ALL non-rev passengers have to comply. I've seen Captains of the Airline arguing with the gate agent about their attire, and each time I saw that, the Captain lost the argument!

[Ken Burch]

53. Why would a dress code be justifiable for people who are simply traveling on pass?

No one else on the plane knew these people were traveling on pass, and if they had, would they have cared what these people had dressed like?

I was fully aware of the circumstances, for the record.

Rules are fine if there's a practical reason for them...but why shouldn't they be questioned if they are simply imposed, as these rules seemed to be, because the airline had the power to impose them?

It goes to a larger question...should authority be left unquestioned simply because it IS authority?

[JI7]

88. other people had to pay so why would it be fair for them not to pay

[napi21]

108. Foolish as you may think it is, the Airline says "You are perceived by others as representing

the Airline." AFAIK every Airline has that same rule. I suppose rather than depend upon everyone to keep quiet about flying non-rev, they just have a dress code. Believe it or not, there really are people who would judge the airline in a poor light because THEY thought those kids were sloppy, or showing off too many curves, or way too sexy for young girls, or whatever other weird idea bubbles up in their minds. Maybe it shouldn't matter to the airlines but it does.

[kcr]

140. You were free to comply, of course. I would do the same for my spouse.

But that point isn't being ignored by some of us. The airline refusing to board those girls when they weren't employees was petty and it's a very bad look for them. The argument that they were representing the airline is ludicrous. If this had been some private event it would be one thing, but it was a standard flight open to the public, and no one would have been the wiser.

[Jonny Appleseed]

43. I think everyone should dress better on an airplane

We used to dress up to ride through the sky like a Greek god, now you can wear a bathrobe and flatulate freeing all while stuffing your face with fast food.

[alphafemale]

61. If the seats were still that wide and had that much legroom?

I doubt I would consider it even then.

And granny is going to take down the plane with those knitting needles. I swear.

[crazycatlady]

69. I wasn't alive back then

But airlines used to treat passengers with dignity.

Now flying is a royal PITA. TSA dictates my footwear when I fly (slip ons).

[cwydro]

47. Oh good lord.

[Ken Burch]

51. What's to laugh about?

It's not as though there is no reason to wonder about this.

[DrDan]

70. this is the correct response/attitude . . . thumbs up

[Warpy]

52. I can see why the airline would want employees to dress nicely

Maybe they think it would be contagious and the other passengers would try to look a little less like somebody cleaned out a pool hall and put them onto a plane. However, their code is outmoded and any dress code that says a 10 year old can't wear leggings under a short skirt is seriously in error.

Somebody at corporate needs to pull his head out and realize it's not 1957 any more.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

96. They were teens. Not ten years old.

The ten year old was a paying passenger traveling with her mother, who happened to overhear the discussion about the leggings and decided she needed to cover up her daughter.

I love the way we all argue about this without knowing the facts.

[SoCalNative]

162. I would prefer to return

to the dress codes of 1957, thank you very much.

[Warpy]

185. Then do adhere to them, yourself

The rest of us would prefer to be less constricted and more comfortable when we're packed in like sardines to maximize profit.

I remember flying in the early 50s. Yes, people dressed, but the seats were comfortably far apart, dinner was served with linen and silverware. It would have been a nice experience except for the smokers.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Short answer? Honest answer? Because demographically, DU skews old.

And, by extension, cranky.

[nini]

74. Oh please

How do you manage to hold that broad brush?

[Warren DeMontague]

75. because I've been here a long time, and as such I know the audience.

hey, I'm old, too.

Simple truth, DU skews heavily towards boomers. Which is, by internet standards, pretty old.

[nini]

76. Yah but we're not all cranky

dammit!! I'm not cranky! I'm not!

[Warren DeMontague]

81. I have a long list of things that drive me up the wall about flying, myself

but what other people wear is pretty far down my list of concerns.

I'm much more bothered by, say, the 350lb stranger snoozing on my shoulder and lovingly groping me in his undoubtedly erotic dreams all the way to Europe. That was fun.

[nini]

93. That happened to me too

The guy's 100 lb wife had no problem with him hanging on my side. Amazing he woke right up when the snack cart came down the aisle. :/

[Warren DeMontague]

125. I've said for years, please, just sedate me and stack me like a piece of cordwood in the cargo hold

really, it would be more humane.

[nini]

130. LOL

Agree completely. I'm getting to where I'd rather drive across the country!

[Ken Burch]

111. That seems to track...and I'm 56, so I'm kind of part of that demographic.

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:34 PM - Edit history (1)

It explains why there was another poster in this thread falsely accusing me of being "outraged" and of "attacking" people, when all I was actually doing was quietly asking pointed questions.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. I'm straight up older cohort Gen X, myself. By most metrics I'm well into middle age

I'm sure I like this place because it's one of the few remaining spaces where I can still be treated like an errant whippersnapper by people who go "Michael Stipe? Never heard of him!"

[kwassa]

117. Get off of my lawn.

Kids these days.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. exactly. Entitled and disrespectful-seeming teenagers, dressed inapprorpiately?

it's like thread fucking catnip!

[kwassa]

121. back when I was that age ....

I was swimming naked at Woodstock.

Kids today just don't know how to behave.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. My peers were all emulating Michael J. Fox on "Family Ties", just saying no & wearing sweater vests

actually, that's about as 180 degrees from the truth as is metaphysically possible, but it seems to be the sort of story some people tell themselves about my geh-geh-geh-generation.

Ah, if only they knew.

[Ken Burch]

127. n/t.

[kcr]

142. Truth n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

80. Seems This "Concern"...

...is likely to result in the abolition of this benefit
Then the gnashing of teeth will be about how horrible that is.
Your post is judgmental and holier than thou
Time to let it go

[herding cats]

134. Easy solution. No more free flights for crew/staff/friends/family.

Abolish the policy, and the caveats. Problem solved! Let those who benefit bemoan the loss later when we have more resources to expend on the matter. Personally, I've used the benefit once and had to conform to regulations, but flying sucks in general anymore and currently I'd rather just pay and move on.

Now back to our regularly scheduled RW takeover of our nation, please?

For the record, I'm neither a boomer nor authoritarian. I just don't give a flying fuck about this recent outrage. JIK there's someone's keeping score here.

[George II]

135. I read the news accounts of this story, and as it turns out even the woman who sent out...

...the original tweets of disgust about how these girls were treated has backtracked. She has acknowledged that she didn't realize that they were flying standby as a benefit provided to employees and families, and was wrong to be so indignant.

The bottom line is that the airline basically tells their employees, "you can fly standby for free anywhere you want as long as you dress properly and don't embarrass us". That's not onerous considering the employees are getting a benefit worth hundreds of dollars, and is essentially unlimited.

United Airlines was NOT a "petty tyrant" but expecting their employees and family who are using a free benefit to at least dress properly.

[JCanete]

187. Leggings on children versus shorts on grown men. Isn't that the story here? Why is this a dress code

violation? Yes, a company can set its policy, but is that policy a bad one, is it arbitrarily enforced with loose guidelines, and are there sexist undertones to that policy?

[George II]

188. How do you know it is arbitrarily enforced?

[JCanete]

189. If I remember correctly, it is at the discretion of the gate personnel. If that's the case, that's

arbitrary.

[snooper2]

136. Jesus V. Christ this stupid topic is still going on?

[LAS14]

141. The issue worth the bru ha ha is the authoritarian mindset.

I think the reason this won't go to bed is that people are indignant about authoritarian behavior. And yes, I am surprised that so many on DU took the trouble to defend the corporation's right to impose rules. Sure, they have a right to impose rules. But I want to live in a society where imposing stupid rules is a subject of mass ridicule.... To keep authoritarian idiots in check without resorting to legal action.

[Egnever]

144. Maybe the silliest thing I have read here in a while

The definition of a society is rules. If you have no rules there is no society.


https://www.google.com/search?q=society&oq=skciety&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l3.5326j0j4&client=ms-android-motorola&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8



the

aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"
synonyms: the community, the (general) public, the people, the population

Quite literally the definition of society...

[LAS14]

164. And your point is that there are no bad rules?

[Egnever]

171. The point is if you want a society without rules

You don't want a society. In any society there are people who don't like some rules of the society.

For instance I am forever bitter they took away diving boards from public pools. Not really a rule as much as a function of liability. However if the rules weren't there to allow people to sue when they fell off a diving board we would still have them.

I think it is a bad rule.

That said in any large society there will be a portion of it's populace that disagrees with any rule made. This person may not like the rule that requires seat belts that person might not like the rule that prohibits smoking etc etc. Does that mean they are bad rules because that person doesn't like them?

The thing about a society is the rules are agreed upon by enough people that they are not changed. If enough people disagree with them in a democratic society such as ours they will more than likely be changed and have been time and again.

You seemed to be implying with your post that anyone who voluntarily agrees to a rule is an authoritarian and that there should be no rules.

I am pointing out that the idea there will be no rules in society is ludicrous as a society by it's very being is about agreed upon rules. I am also pointing out that because you don't agree with a rule that does not make it authoritarian.

Finally when it comes to this topic I am also completely dismissing the idea that conditions applied to a free benefit is somehow oppressive or authoritarian.

[LAS14]

180. Why does "not wanting bad rules" translate to "not wanting rules?"

This is like a Kafka novel.

[Egnever]

181. You said this

I think the reason this won't go to bed is that people are indignant about authoritarian behavior.

I reject completely the idea that imposing qualifications on a free perk is authoritarian.

That is all.

[LAS14]

182. Simply "having rules" is not the same as "authoritarian behavior."

If you don't see a difference, then that's a problem. We need to resist the latter, while preserving reasonable rules needed by society.

[Orrex]

184. Exactly

That silly fantasy has been peddled throughout this thread, as if acceptance of contractually agreed-to policy is the same as loving Big Brother.

[ck4829]

178. Yep, people should complain about this

[Demonaut]

166. Ken, you're way off on this...but good luck

[kimbutgar]

172. This kind of controversy will give the airline a reason to take away employee flight benefits

As a spouse of an united employee I respect that we must follow dress code rules to get a free flights.

This is just bs to get us off focusing on the Russian takeover of our government by Cheeto and the complicit rethug party.

[ck4829]

174. What we're forgetting is that airports seem to be "authoritarianism labs"

We saw it during Bush, we're seeing it again now.

Consumers and the people as a whole need to exert power over them - It's good IMHO.

[Egnever]

176. Weeeee!

[Tien1985]

177. I don't see it that way.

I can't see any reason why the an airline should allow employees to fly for free as a matter of course. They offer a perk to employees and their families if they are willing to follow certain guidelines. If they aren't willing to follow the guidelines, the invitation is null and void.

It's sort of like saying that the airline denied them free tickets on -any- flight, just because the perk specifically says "stand-by only", but that rule is inconvenient so why should they be able to impose it?

You can make the argument, but there is nothing particularly egregious about having rules about a free benefit you are offering. It's a perk, not an entitlement.

Are you just trying to argue that the particular rule is stupid, or that all rules are stupid?

[HoneyBadger]

179. If I get Yankee tickets behind home plate from my company, as rarely occurs

I try to act like I belong there, not swim in a sea of free sushi and alcohol for 4 hours, like it was my last day on earth.

That said, I care more about behavior than dress.

[JCanete]

190. If you want to see authoritarianism in full force on these boards, check out any thread regarding

Snowden or Manning.