Step Up for Aviation Labor

[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.