Define: “Agreement” and “Contract”
Posted by Paul Cox on February 2nd, 2009
So let’s turn our attention to the FAA’s employee news web site, shall we?
Jim Gaughan, an FAA employee in Jacksonville, Florida, writes in to Focus FAA and says…
Taken Care Of
[Regarding “DOT Nominee Wants to Settle Controller Contract Dispute”]: I thought the Air Traffic contract had been taken care of a while back. This agency needs to tackle upcoming issues, rather than continually going back over past ones.
In case anyone knows Jim, point him to this blog and ask him to consider this post.
Let’s imagine a guy named… I dunno, let’s say his name is “Tim”. He lives in a city called Snacksonville, Florida, on Carolina Street.
One day, Tim comes home from work and finds a letter from the city. It seems that they have decided they need to “improve” his neighborhood, but part of this improvement is to add a traffic circle… and his place sits right in the area they’re looking at.
Tim paid $90,000 for his house about ten years ago, so he figures if they do wind up doing the traffic circle, they’ll have to pay him more than that. The letter says that a Snacksonville employee will be calling him to negotiate the sale of his house in a week.
The city employee in charge of the negotiations calls Tim up and says “Tim, we need to save money for this traffic circle project, so we can’t offer you as much as you might think you should get for your house, but we can negotiate it.”
Tim says “Well, okay… my neighbor has his house listed for sale for $145,000. I think my place is a little nicer, so I think $155,000 is a good place to start.” (Tim doesn’t really think his place is worth 155 grand; he’s just staking out a negotiating position, because that’s what you do.
The city guy says “Well, we’ll give you $45,000 for it, because that’s the value you pay property taxes on.”
Tim is shocked. 45 grand? That’s awfully low, a lot less than he figured… but he figures they’re just negotiating. Since they intend on negotiating in good faith, surely they’ll bring that up some, right?
The negotiations go back and forth. Some of the sideline details are worked out- when he’ll have to move out, some money the city will give him to move, stuff like that- but the main sticking point is the price. Tim keeps dropping his asking price but the city is adamant and never budges from their original $45,000 offer.
Finally, the city declares that negotiations are over and they are going to force the terms of their offer onto Tim. Tim protests and files a lawsuit. The city ignores his protests, sends him a check for $45,000, and declares that they have reached an agreement with Tim.
“We have a contract”, they say.
Tim protests vehemently- he didn’t sign any paperwork, he didn’t agree to anything, and he certainly didn’t agree to this, so how can it be a contract?
But the city has control of the court system, too- so they simply ignore Tim’s protests. Making matters worse, they tell everyone that Tim was asking for $250,000 for his house, and that Tim was a lazy scumbag who didn’t ever mow the lawn or do anything to actually keep the house up.
“Hey, we negotiated fairly, and we have a contract with Tim to buy his house for 45 grand”, Mayor Snakey says. “We really value Tim as a citizen of our town and the reality is that Tim and his neighbors are great people that we have treated very fairly.”
So, Jim Gaughan from Jacksonville, Florida, do you really think that Tim and the city have a “contract”?
Well, that’s how the air traffic controllers think and feel about their “contract” situation. They never agreed to anything. They never signed anything or ratified anything, but ever since the contract negotiations hit an impasse, that’s how the FAA has acted. That’s what the agency has said.
For the FAA to unilaterally declare the controllers’ work rules a “contract” is as ridiculous as a city forcing someone off their land through eminent domain and claiming that they “reached an agreement” with that person. There’s no “agreement” there at all.
Unless, of course, Mr Gaughan’s dictionary has a considerably different definition of “agreement” or “contract” than the definition the rest of us use.
That, Jim, is why this situation wasn’t “resolved” or “taken care of” years ago. And this problem from our past is holding us back from dealing with our future.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 am
i hope that Mr. Gaughan’s comment was dripping in sarcasm.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 am
Excellent metaphor!! Well done as always BEB!!
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 am
Mr. Gaughan,
I wrote a contract between you and I saying you would mow my lawn last summer and pay me $50 each time you did it. You did not hold up your end of the agreement, you will be hearing from my lawyer.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:42 am
Nice post, BEB. You should’ve also mentioned how not all home owners affected by the traffic circle had their homes devalued. If you were a part of city management your home value actually increased considerably without exception. Oh, and Mayor Snakey? She took a well paying job with the contractor who won the bid to do the work.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:45 am
And when the moving van arrived at Tim’s house to “help” and get things moving in the “right direction”…the driver didn’t even have a learner’s permit…. Tim had to teach him.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 am
jim is a tech at jaxt
i’m sure he doesn’t read your blog.
i’m also sure that most techs are glad
that “those” controllers finally got
what they deserved with their new “contract”. they did not benefit
from reclass. but, then again, neither did
the jaxt controllers.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
I wrote to Jim Tice at the FocusFAA website and offered my rebuttle to Mr. Gaughan. I was amazed to see one of our “brothers’ at techops slamming controllers. After all, techops piggybacked NATCA’s landmark reclass contract to their benefit. Now they slam us. How appropriate! They got gold and don’t want anyone else to get a fair deal. Shame shame Jim.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
I read Jim’s comment and I thought it was pretty cold and heartless. He made $89,5443 salary for the year ending 2007, over $15K more than any of the newest CPCs we had that year in ZAB. I am quite sure he thinks the controllers got a fair shake in Sept. ’06.
While I do agree the agency needs to tackle new issues it needs to solve the ones it created first.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
Don’t slam all techs based on one comment. Many of us don’t agree with the way FAA imposed its will on NATCA and fully support your right to a fair contract that is based on good faith bargaining.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Most techs did not benefit as a result of the contract of 2000. In fact, the high end of payband “H” is now considerably BELOW the GS-12′s that they were before.
While NATCA succeeded in getting fair pay in the 1998 contract, PASS tech people only got the crumbs left over in 2000, and I can tell you that today’s new hire tech ops people get far less than the people they are placing, and never will have an opportunity to catch up to what would have been under the GS pay scales.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
I wonder if he thinks the flight service retirement issue is a done issue?
He gained a lot of money in a good contract, I lost everything I worked 20.5 years for.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
done Said:
“i’m also sure that most techs are glad that “those” controllers finally got what they deserved with their new “contract”. they did not benefit from reclass. but, then again, neither did the jaxt controllers.”
Most of the techs I know feel for the ATC’s and the poor way that the FAA has treated them. They know that they ride the shirt tails of ATC, and have and will suffer along with their ATC brothers and sisters. No they did not “benefit” from the ATC reclass (a dubious honor), but were reclassed in 2001, 5 years before it hit ATC.
ShameonyouGaughan Said:
“After all, techops piggybacked NATCA’s landmark reclass contract to their benefit. Now they slam us. How appropriate! They got gold and don’t want anyone else to get a fair deal.”
As mentioned above, techops was re-classed in 2001. Check out what a journeyman new hire in techops makes, not what a 25-30 year veteran makes. Hint: Core Comp, Technical series, H band is journeyman level.
RUS H
Minimum $48,100
Maximum $74,600
Minimum w/loc $54,767
Maximum w/loc $84,940
So where is the “gold” for techops who have been suffering for 5 years longer than ATC? Awards? Pay for Performance? Yeah, right. Techops only gets them when they are politically expedient (like when Congress is talking about reauthorization), and the sad state of employee relations in the FAA is mentioned.
In addition, the FAA contracted with PASS to provide 6,800 field techs, and have not done so for several years despite numerous labor relation wins on the subject. Instead, the FAA touts the “fix on fail” concept that was proven faulty in the Alaska trial several years ago.
The only reason that PASS has a Contract at this time is because of the PASS leadership, and their smart negotiating tactic. Now all that is tangled up in courts and labor relations red tape.
And yet we have to take all the crap that people like “done” and “ShameonyouGaughan” put out when they truly know nothing of which they are talking about.
Try doing a little research next time, okay. You’re embarrassing yourselves, and really ticking people off.
.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Thank you, Aluminum Showers.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
This attitude is a result of the faa telling employees for years that the controllers get all the money. That’s why there is none left for them. (Classic management tactics to pit workers against each other) You’ll notice nobody got raises when the controller pay was cut. Well, no one but management.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Mr. Kettring,
While I agree that people should research before commenting. Maybe maybe Mr. James J Gaughan should listen to your message and take that to heart. I am sure Mr Gaughan is capped at the top, but he is making ABOVE what your chart says at $89,543 even back in year ending 2007. It is public knowledge and I hope the link works for anyone wishing to check.
http://php.app.com/fed_employees/search.php
I did my research as far as my comment goes and I stand by the facts that Mr Gaughan makes roughly $15K more than new CPCs at ZAB. I respect (I call them miracle workers LOL) that keep the systems running. I still find it a hard sell that the people working on the equipment make more than the controllers.
For such a smug and terse comment coming from a fellow FAA employee says a lot about the lack of respect that this individual has for the Air Traffic Control profession and it hurts everyone involved.
We need to ALL work together, taking offense for what ATCers are saying out of their rears makes no sense and is part of what of what is wrong with the agency. Gaughan knows we have no contract and was being a jerk to say such a thing. ATCers are mad VERY MAD about all this.
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Who is the bonehead that left the rule in place so the city was allowed to do such a horrible thing?
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Folks… I think we’re going a little off the rails here.
The point isn’t how much money anyone makes. The point is the attempted redefinition of the very MEANING of the words “contract” or “agreement”.
It’s a bit amazing to me how Orwellian the past 8 years have been. We’ve seen the redefinition, or attempted redefinition, of words like “torture” and “warrantless search” and “contract” and “agreement”.
It used to be that everyone knew what an “agreement” was. It used to be that if you said “we have an agreement with so-and-so”, that meant that so-and-so had voluntarily AGREED with you on something!
Yet in today’s FAA, the propaganda has been ceaselessly cranked out from the HQ. I pity the poor slobs working for the Communications department, because to keep their jobs they’ve been forced to continue to use language that they KNOW is utter BS.
Of course, while I pity them, I’m also enraged by them and their willingness to go along with this crap.
The bigger point here, though, is that Jim Gaughan is wrong- the contract situation with the controller workforce is NOT settled. It’s not settled with PASS, either, or with many other bargaining units in the FAA.
This back-and-forth sniping is stupid. What’s far more important is that all the employees of the FAA get on the same page and realize that we are ALL getting screwed by our dishonest, uncaring employer.
They’re brainwashing us. That’s what his comment is evidence of. And while the election of President Obama has a lot of hope and promise of a better day, one of the biggest messages of his campaign is that WE have to do it TOGETHER.
We can’t sit around and say “when’s Obama going to fix this?” He’s one dude and frankly, he’s got other stuff on his agenda right now. That doesn’t mean he isn’t going to support us, or help us- but we HAVE to help ourselves.
Can we fix this? Can we get the FAA back to the agency that we all used to be proud to work for, that led the world in aviation, that was the very definition of a competent federal agency?
Yes we can. And we will- but we’ve got to get moving on some basics.
And one basic is that the word “contract” means “a deal that both sides have voluntarily agreed to”.
We do not have a contract. We have not had a contract. We should no longer pretend that there is a contract and we must unanimously come to the understanding that those of us who’ve been using the words “contract” or “agreement” have been lying, and then we need to move onward to repair that misunderstanding.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Wasn’t an agreement reached in 1997? You know the one that said that should the parties disagree on future contracts, and if an impasse is reached, etc., etc., that Congress will decide (by doing nothing) on the validity of the FAA’s final offer? Oh that agreement. Well, you know. NATCA didn’t figure on blah, blah. NATCA didn’t think adherance to the 1997 AGREEMENT was something that they needed to do. I mean c’mon, we’ve never done it before! It’s our God given right to weasel out of the agreement!
Yea right. WTF? C’mon, give us a break BEB. Get real son. Step out of the FAA gub’ment nanny bubble. Stand on your own two feet that Budda gave you.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Desert Monkey,
That is plain rude. I am sure your big words anonymously hides a tinny little winky complex. The fact that BEB will leave your words on his blog proves he is following his religion and not hold it against you.
Calling someone “Son” online shows how ignorant you are. It proves a point yes, not as you intended.
Give me one instance NATCA did not adhere to the 1997 agreement. You mean by not agreeing to the loophole the FAA used to force and later unilaterally impose its will? The 1997 AGREEMENT/CONTRACT also stated that the 1997 agreement would stay in full effect until another one was reached and approved by the union body. That CONTRACT and later an extension was signed by the administrator herself.
Call the white book whatever you wish it is not a contract and never will be. IT IS however the current work rules that we are running the Air traffic controller part of our agency. You will not get anybody to disagree to you on that.
If you 110% say the white book is a contract I want your home address. I will immediately draft up papers that say you will pay me 1/2 of your income for the rest of your life, expect it to arrive in 2 business days after I receive your address and it WILL HAVE CONTRACT PRINTED ON THE TOP of it and only have my signature on it to validate it.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Desert Monkey;
What position do you hold? I’m not being acrimonious, I just want to try and relate to your perspective regarding the labor dispute. Please remember that a prerequisite for “impasse” is a requirement to “bargain in good faith”. The FAA had a 100 page document on DICK Hastert’s(house speaker at the time) desk at 10AM the day after the FAA was still “negotiating in good faith”.
It’s not the LEGALITY of the FAA’s actions that have got us so pissed, it’s not the dress code, or even pay issues. And it’s not because we’re a bunch of spoiled brats with chips on our shoulders. It’s because of the POLITICS that we dissent so strongly.
The last 8 years politics have trumped legality, let’s see what happens next.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Desert Monkey:
No. The contract says that it will remain in full force and effect until a successor agreement is ratified. That, as you already know, counts for s**t.
The paragraph in FAA Reform that took us out of the normal Title 5 arbitration procedure and put us in front of Congress for any future impasses was part of Title 49. Congress passed that, and would have passed it whether we objected or gave it our complete blessing. Whether Congress then saw it as a bomb that would go off in a Republican President’s term, or something that would help them control the 1997 negotiations and no other, no one can say for sure.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Dear Desert Monkey,
This is not correct:
“Wasn’t an agreement reached in 1997? You know the one that said that should the parties disagree on future contracts, and if an impasse is reached, etc., etc., that Congress will decide”
The agreement reached in 1998 and extended in 2003 said that it would stay in effect until a new agreement was ratified by the membership. That was the last thing ever agreed to between the FAA and the controllers’ bargaining unit.
I believe you are referring to the FAA position that the 1996 reauthorization language referring to agreement on FAA reform initiatives that the FAA later reinterpreted to apply to term agreements. Subsequent to enactment of that legislation, the full provisions of Chapter 71,5 USC were adopted which include dispute resolution, but the conflicting language was not removed. As a result, the Bush Administration used to opportunity to apply the residual language to term contracts, rather than chapter 71. Since there is a conflict in the law, NATCA sought relief in the courts, who did not rule but rather remanded the issue to the FLRA which has not been fully staffed, preventing resolution of the matter.
The language you refer to is not something that NATCA agreed to.
Unfortunately, the legal battle is complex necessitating legislative clarification which has been delayed by the user fee battle in FAA reauthorization.
Sincerely,
Ruth Marlin
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Here’s a link to the law Ms. Marlin cited:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00040122—-000-.html
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“Wasn’t an agreement reached in 1997? You know the one that said that should the parties disagree on future contracts, and if an impasse is reached, etc., etc., that Congress will decide (by doing nothing) on the validity of the FAA’s final offer? Oh that agreement.”
You sir, are a discredit to monkeys everywhere.
By the way, even the IWRs (that the faa wrote in total) say they are in effect after ratification. That never happened.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Desert Monkey –
The first part of your post was at least semi-respectable, despite it’s total ignorance and condescending attitude.
What’s funny is how you tried to insult BEB and anyone else who agrees with him — and how you look like a freekin idiot now.
Good luck with your FAA management aspirations!
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 am
Desert Monkey said…
Well, a couple of things. First, Buddha didn’t “give” me feet (Buddha’s not a god or deity), and considering the not-inconsiderable amount of heat I take for writing this blog (can you guess my future career path in the FAA?) I think it’s pretty obvious I’m willing to stand up and say stuff on my own. But thanks.
Second… well, Ruth already pointed out to you the fact that the law unfortunately has apparently conflicting provisions in it. What’s more, even the part that the FAA is relying upon doesn’t seem to mean what the FAA claims it means- but thanks to Bush Administration lackeys in the FLRA (and later FLRA vacancies which has prevented that agency from doing its job completely) we haven’t been able to get a fair hearing on that matter.
(I’ll post a bit of a breakdown of that section of the law later.)
But most importantly… as pointed out, the 1998 FAA-NATCA Agreement (later extended in 2003) specifically says…
Well, hell, you know what? I’m just going to post an extension of this comment as Tuesday’s blog entry, and we can hash it out there.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:18 am
[...] realize I’m bragging, but I can’t help myself. (Forgive me!) I have to point out that I wrote the same kind of thing in the past a number of times. They made a promise, and they’ve broken [...]