Step Up for Aviation Labor

[GIVDrvr]

Once again this is not about equal time. But it is about FAIR PLAY which is binding arbitration. If a 30 percent pay cut is the product at least it is decided fairly. If I could email the bankruptcy court to support any one of the legacy carriers that have been on the cutting side while management is on the cashing side i would do that to.

FWIW from what I've heard those salary figures cited include the Agency's contribution to medicare,FICA, 401ks,etc. Its not like controllers at TEB are cashing 160K paychecks. They are not.

 

[Hold West]

Someone in one of these threads asked how to save money, then, in the FAA without cutting controllers' pay?

I was thinking about that last night, and came up with something worth mentioning. I work in a medium-size facility with about 80 controllers. To "manage" that operation we have:

1 Air Traffic Manager
1 Assistant Air Traffic Manager
1 Support Manager
2 Operations Managers
8 Staff Specialists
10 Operations Supervisors
5 Traffic Management Coordinators

Yep, 28 people to oversee 80. And those are just the air traffic management types, those who were controllers and whose job requires controller experience. I am not counting our tech ops wizards (understaffed too) or our automation support folks or our office administration people.

So where do you think we should start cutting?

 

[Vector4fun]

Someone in one of these threads asked how to save money, then, in the FAA without cutting controllers' pay?

How about making the idiots in Management who squandered One and a Half Billion Dollars on the Advanced Automation System, with absolutely NOTHING to show for it, pay it all back? That's right folks, according to the GAO, the FAA spent $2.5 BILLION dollars back in the 1990s on the AAS, and only $1.1 Billion went towards projects that were NOT cancelled. $1.5 Billion went right down a rat-hole somewhere. Now the Administrator is going to impasse on a contract with her largest Union over $400-500 million spread over five years.


$1.5 Billion down a rat hole, pat the suits on the back, re-decorate their offices in Washington D.C., pass out some awards.

NATCA offers $1.4 Billion in concessions, and the Administrator turns that down and insists on $1.9 Billion; going to impasse, destroying morale, cutting controller pay, possibly causing havoc with the ATC system over $500 million spread over five years.

For all you airline pilots:

If an unfavorable contract causes 2000 controllers to elect to retire in the next two years, (almost 4000 will be eligible, I'm being conservative) and the resulting controller shortage causes just a 10% increase in delays for the Airlines, those delays will cost your airlines that half million bucks we're talking about each and every one of those five years. That's using the ATA's own figures on costs of ATC delays. The Administrator is going to the matt to save the FAA $500 million over five years, but it could very easily cost the airlines and other users more than five times that amount in extra delays.

BTW, I personally became eligible to retire last summer. (Thank God)

I was thinking about that last night, and came up with something worth mentioning. I work in a medium-size facility with about 80 controllers. To "manage" that operation we have:

1 Air Traffic Manager
1 Assistant Air Traffic Manager
1 Support Manager
2 Operations Managers
8 Staff Specialists
10 Operations Supervisors
5 Traffic Management Coordinators

Yep, 28 people to oversee 80.

That's just about the same ratio at my facility. One chief for every three indians. But that's just in the field. There's another thousand or more chiefs running around in the Regional and National Offices.

So where do you think we should start cutting?

About half the MSS grade positions, natch.

 

[PC800]

...[FONT=Verdana,Trebuchet MS,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva]the FAA has chosen to pursue a twisted interpretation of the law to unilaterally impose contract terms on its workers.[/FONT]

Um, no. While you'll seldom find me defending anything the FAA does, that's not what's happening here.

Most government employees don't have the right to negotiate for wages or benefits, and are severely limited with regard to what they can negotiate with regard to working conditions. Government employees accept these terms as a condition of employment, and in return receive adequate salaries, generous benefits, and job security that is (for the most part) unmatched in the private sector.

That was the case with air traffic controllers, too, back in the days of PATCO-- and we all know what happened when PATCO staged a strike in an attempt to force the government to negotiate items that were, by law, non- negotiable.

However, in 1996, the Clinton administration agreed to give NATCA an unprecedented amount of leeway (in comparison to other government employee unions) in negotiating wages, benefits, and working conditions-- under the condition that, in the event impasse was reached, Congress would be offered the opportunity to resolve the situation. If they failed to do so, the last, best FAA offer would be imposed.

At that time, NATCA had a choice-- they could continue to have the same rights, responsibilities and options as all other government unions, or they could accept the Clinton administration offer, including the imposition of the FAA contract offer in case of an impasse unresolved by Congress.

They CHOSE to accept the new deal-- this is no "twisted interpretation" of the law-- they knew that was the deal, and they agreed to it.

Now, understandably, they don't like it, and they're asking Congress to change the rules so they can get out of it. Maybe Congress will (and I hope they do, since a lot of my former colleagues at ORD are making such big money these days that I can't buy a meal when we get together <g>). But, to be fair, Congress would be totally within their rights to say fine, we'll let you out of the deal you made in 1996-- all you have to do is agree to work under the same rules as all the other government employees.

If that were to happen, trust me, NATCA couldn't agree to that "last, best" FAA offer fast enough!

 

[GIVDrvr]

Um, no. While you'll seldom find me defending anything the FAA does, that's not what's happening here.

Um, Yes. That is exactly what is happening here. The current contract contains an 'evergreen clause' that provides for the entire contract to continue in force until another Agreement in reached between the parties. The FAA is pursuing a policy that 224 Representatives and 37 Senators have already agreed is unfair. See HR4755 and S2201 both searchable at www.loc.gov

Most government employees don't have the right to negotiate for wages or benefits, and are severely limited with regard to what they can negotiate with regard to working conditions.

I see. I will advise AFSCME and their 1.4 million govt employee members that their negotiated rights no longer exist.

At that time, NATCA had a choice-- they could continue to have the same rights, responsibilities and options as all other government unions, or they could accept the Clinton administration offer, including the imposition of the FAA contract offer in case of an impasse unresolved by Congress.

Funny I can find nothing in the Congressional Record regarding NATCA being given any choices. Title 49 s. 40122 concerning FAA Reform is a public law passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President...levels of Govt well above even the most ambitious Union activist's reach. This legislation also containes numerous requirements for the Administrator to negotiate changes to the personnel policy...which she has conveniently overlooked.

They CHOSE to accept the new deal-- this is no "twisted interpretation" of the law-- they knew that was the deal, and they agreed to it.

Once again they 'chose' the Agreement that the Parties signed and ratified. The one the Administrator thought was good enough to ask the Union to extend for two years in 2004. The one that has the 'evergreen clause' she reaffirmed with her signature in 2004. And the one that 261 Members of Congress have stood up to defend.

But, to be fair, Congress would be totally within their rights to say fine, we'll let you out of the deal you made in 1996-- all you have to do is agree to work under the same rules as all the other government employees.

I sure the Administrator and you will have a chuckle over your 'fairness' at her weekly bridge game. Also funny that course of action you suggest has never been floated by anyone else. ATC, like law enforcement, or fire fighters is unique working environment. Each of those employee groups have negotiated their own unique set of work rules and have unique retirement plans as well
​

 

[PC800]

GIVDrvr, you're obviously unclear on a lot of the realities of working for the government, but you're welcome to keep those illusions, since they have no relevance to the point I'm making.

Those of us that were there (I was a controller at O'Hare in '96, as was John Carr) know that NATCA took a calculated gamble and made a deal with the devil, a deal from which they've profited handsomely. What the FAA is doing now is simply the devil seeking it's due. Fortunately for NATCA, the devil has a long record of stupidity and gross mismanagement (which is how NATCA was able to turn what was supposed to be a $200 million dollar contract increase into a $1 Billion+ bonanza), so it's unlikely they'll be able to collect that debt. Good for NATCA, what they've done is a terrific coup for government employee unons-- if they win this battle, which seems likely, they will have found a way to have their cake and eat it, too.

That doesn't change the fact that the characterization that NATCA and the major labor groups are putting on it-- that this is "a twisted interpretation of the law"-- is spin, not history. NATCA operates under an entirely different, and far more liberal, set of parameters than most other government employee unions. There was supposed to be a price to be paid for being granted those privileges. Consequently, nobody at NATCA is surprised that the FAA is trying to collect on that debt, and they've been planning the response you're seeing for a long time.

NATCA has a vested interest in selling the idea that they're being done wrong by the big, bad, FAA. The fact that a large portion of the public, and any number of Congresspersons, are buying it, shows what a great job they're doing. If you prefer to buy it hook, line, and sinker, fine. I just thought I'd provide a little background for those who might suspect that there's more to the story than can be ferreted out with a simple Google search.

 

[sky37d]

I got it.
I mean, in most things there is the accepted modification of the norm, or, totally outside the box thinking.
I think what is needed here is a little of both.
Let the FEDS mandate that every airplane in the USA be equiped with ADS-B, a GNS-480 or equivalent (Chelton, etc) vnav-lnav GPS box, TCAS and uplink or downlink weather(king, xm, wsi). Then in the course of their mandate, also include the mandate that it must be accomplished in the next 60 days. And, the avionics facilities can bill the US Government directly. Then close all the towers and TRACON facilities, and all the FSS stations, and while we're at it, might as well close the FAA all together. How's that for a solution. If you are not flyin VFR, you are flying IFR, but it's up to you to find the airport and land.

 

[PC800]

I received a note (not a flame, for which I thank the sender) asking me to address the specific points GIVDrvr brought up. Hopefully, this post will answer any questions. Quotes from GIVDrvr are shown in bold.

The current contract contains an 'evergreen clause' that provides for the entire contract to continue in force until another Agreement in reached between the parties.

True-- and absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since the impasse resolution mechanism is not part of the contract, but is mandated as part of the empowering legislation that makes the contract possible. I have heard no reports that either party is not honoring the present contract.

The FAA is pursuing a policy that 224 Representatives and 37 Senators have already agreed is unfair.

The FAA is pursuing a policy that the majority of members of Congress saw fit to pass into law in '96. If the present Congress thinks that should be changed, they have the right and responsibility to change it.

I will advise AFSCME and their 1.4 million govt employee members that their negotiated rights no longer exist.

AFSCME does not, to my knowledge, represent federal workers, so my comments are not relevant to their negotiation options. My point, that the power to negotiate for wages and benefits is rarely granted to federal employee unions (and then only with very stringent conditions, such as the impasse resolution mechanism under discussion), stands.

Funny I can find nothing in the Congressional Record regarding NATCA being given any choices. Title 49 s. 40122 concerning FAA Reform is a public law passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President...levels of Govt well above even the most ambitious Union activist's reach.​

Lobbying efforts which result in legislation are seldom noted in the Congressional Record. Title 49 s. 40122 was not a gift bestowed on a bunch of surprised controllers-- it was the result of an intense and successful lobbying effort. The choice NATCA made was to lobby aggressively for it's passage, despite presence of the offending impasse clause. There is little doubt that, had they not done so, there would have been no passage of Title 49 s.40122-- and NATCA would still be negotiating over superficial workplace issues (as most federal employee unions still do) instead of salaries.​

Unlike private industry, major advances by federal government employee unions must be authorized, literally, by an Act of Congress. No other federal employee union has had near the success at getting those Acts passed than NATCA. The impasse resolution mechanism was part of the deal they made to get that specific piece of legislation passed-- the PR effort we are seeing now is simply their way of trying to amend it.

Each of those employee groups have negotiated their own unique set of work rules and have unique retirement plans as well.​

Negotiated? No. They can only negotiate with their employing agencies, and their employing agencies don't have the power to grant benefits such as unique retirement plans. What they did do was lobby Congress to pass Acts which would achieve their goals, just as NATCA did. When such legislation is passed, the employee group is then bound by the restrictions found within the legislation, even when those restrictions seem inherently unfair. For instance, I had to work 25 years to qualify for controller retirement, while a colleague that came onboard five years later, but at a higher age, only had to work 20 years. The FAA has no power to change that, it's in the authorizing legislation. Likewise, in the event of an impasse, the FAA has no choice in how they will deal with the situation-- the empowering legislation requires them to submit it to Congress for action, and if none is taken, to impose their last, best, offer after 60 days. Is that a sweetheart deal for the FAA? Absolutely. But it's the price NATCA agreed to pay to get where they are today.​

What we are seeing now is, pure and simple, a lobbying effort on the part of NATCA to change present law regarding resolution of impasse to make it more amenable to labor. Nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with the FAA complying with present law unless/until the law is amended.​

 

[Hold West]

An extremely minor point, PC800, but in your original post you said "Most government employees don't have the right to negotiate for wages or benefits...", where I think you meant "Most federal government employees...". That spurred GIVDrvr's response about AFSCME.

Now on to the FAA - I think the difference between now and then is then we had a reasonable Administrator, now we have an Administrator with marching orders to break the union. Had the FAA bargained in good faith, I would not be as worried about the situation. The FAA did not bargain in good faith, their plan all along was to sit some obstructionists at the table, then declare impasse when the mood struck them, and impose a "nontract" under 49 USC 40122. This was their plan, and they've followed it to a T.

The fact remains that NATCA placed $1.4 billon dollars in concessions on the table, and the FAA's refused to accept or even to negotiate further.

All we want is fair treatment. We are not asking that the FAA be overridden by Congress, simply that the remaining issues be submitted to binding arbitration. We'll accept the result, which would undoubtedly be somewhere between the two current positions, happily.

 

[PC800]

An extremely minor point, PC800, but in your original post you said "Most government employees don't have the right to negotiate for wages or benefits...", where I think you meant "Most federal government employees...". That spurred GIVDrvr's response about AFSCME.

Okay, I thought the context of the discussion clearly indicated I was talking about federal employees, but apparently not. I'll concede that I have no clue as to what the negotiating options are for state, city, and county employees.

I think the difference between now and then is then we had a reasonable Administrator, now we have an Administrator with marching orders to break the union.

Which is what all my old compadres think, too (although some of their supervisors and management tend to disagree). OTOH, I work with a lot of FSDO folks these days-- and they think Garvey was the devil incarnate.

Had the FAA bargained in good faith, I would not be as worried about the situation. The FAA did not bargain in good faith, their plan all along was to sit some obstructionists at the table, then declare impasse when the mood struck them, and impose a "nontract" under 49 USC 40122. This was their plan, and they've followed it to a T.

No argument there. It's pretty clear that everyone on both sides knew exactly how this was going to go down long before negotiations ever started.