Extreme slack
Posted by Paul Cox on April 24th, 2009
So I’m on vacation, and meant to knock out a few posts prior to leaving, but we had 6 extra people (including a toddler) in our 2bd condo the week before we left and I just didn’t get at it.
I just checked in, though, to load up a couple of posts for the next day or two… and found a comment that I think deserves mention:
…DON’T FORGET TO TELL NATCA’S MEMBERSHIP (NEW AND OLD) THAT THE AGENCY HAS BEEN TRYING SINCE EARLY 2007 TO RIGHT THE WRONGS OF THE CLASS “B” SCREWEES… BUT N-O; YOUR UNION WAS TOO FREAKING SELFISH FOR THE SENIOR MEMBERS TO ACCEPT WHAT UNCLE SAM WANTED TO OFFER THE NEW HIRES.
YOU “OLD” PRIMADONNAS DECIDED TO REFUSE ANY/ALL SETTLEMENTS TO HELP YOUR NEWEST MEMBERS BECAUSE THERE WASN’T ANYTHING (ENOUGH) IN IT FOR YOU FAT CATS THAT ALREADY EARN $175k TO WORK 5 HOURS A DAY IN THE COMFORT OF BOTH FEET ON THE GROUND!…
(I edited out some of it so it would make at least a little more sense.)
You know, it’s kind of funny. I’ve heard all sorts of things about supposed “deals” that NATCA has turned down, been on the verge of accepting, etc. etc. etc. for some time.
The reality of the past few years is this: NATCA probably could have cut a deal, back during the initial “negotiations”, had it really wanted to.
I use quotation marks there, though, because it wasn’t really a negotiation. The FAA went in with the mindset of “if NATCA doesn’t agree, we can simply enforce whatever we want, and then Congress can override it if they want (and we know they won’t override it).”
So that pretty much means that calling it a “negotiation” is a sick joke- and for those who would read what I’m writing and disagree, you can go look up the agency’s initial offer and the White Book that the unilaterally implemented, check the extreme lack of change between their first and last offers, and get back to me.
But had NATCA walked in and said “look, let the A-scale old guys keep their inflation increases and then you can do whatever you want to the newbies”, the FAA would have taken that deal.
NATCA didn’t do that.
Now, our commenter (who, by the way, I suspect is actually a newbie who’s pissed-rightfully-at his/her pay) claims that NATCA has spiked offers to settle since then.
But here’s the thing- the FAA’s attitude this entire time has been that there is nothing to “settle”. They say that there IS a “contract”. (They even had the nerve to print the White Book that way.)
And the biggest gun that shoots a giant, gaping hole in the comment?
If the FAA wanted to “fix” the pay scales and “right the wrongs of the Class B screwees”… they could and WOULD have simply done so. Unilaterally implemented any change. Pow, just like that.
Those first 12 or 18 months’ worth of people that went to the OKC academy and didn’t get per-diem? The FAA could fix that without NATCA. Hell, the agency DID unilaterally change that, out of the blue, and righted at least that one wrong.
But the FAA hasn’t fixed that. NATCA would agree to it, unconditionally, no problem. Why hasn’t the FAA done it? Because they don’t care.
They are NOT the good guys who are trying to strike a deal while NATCA is refusing. The vast majority of the A-scale people I know say that any return to the green book, back-pay kind of deal MUST take care of the B-scalers first and foremost. PERIOD.
Which is exactly the right sentiment.
Now, of course we would all like to truly be “made whole” and get what we deserved under the last actual “contract” between the parties. (You know, the one with the signature of the NATCA President on it, and the one signed by the FAA Administrator with the full faith and credit of the FAA and the United States Government… oops, never mind.)
But the reality is that NATCA’s not the one blocking a deal. The FAA’s attitude has consistently been that there IS nothing wrong with the White Book, that the newbies are happy and delighted to work for the FAA, that they’re lined up out the door for the job, and everything is hunky-dory.
Plainly, by the fury in our commenter’s words, all is not well with everyone in the FAA.
And that, folks, is a heaping stack of truth for you today.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:17 am
The FAA is very good at “divide and conquer”. We see it all the time in the different bargaining units (i.e. NATCA, PASS, et al), and more so pitting bargaining unit against bargaining unit.
What we need is to be a bit like minded and understand that the FAA is the common adversary.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:48 am
As a B-scaler, I agree that the common enemy is the FAA and their “my way or the highway” attitude. I totally get it. However, what is hard for some A-scale folks to understand is that some of us are barely keeping our heads above water, whilst you guys sit calmly on the deck of the ship. I support NATCA fully, but am frustrated beyond belief with the situation. I’m also getting tired of our leadership and the vague statements as far as progress goes.
So when I see a comment like that, I may not agree with it, but I sure as hell understand where it’s coming from.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:07 am
“However, what is hard for some A-scale folks to understand is that some of us are barely keeping our heads above water, whilst you guys sit calmly on the deck of the ship.”
On the contrary, the leadership of this union, in the last three plus years, under both Carr and Forrey, have turned down “offers” from the FAA that would have sold the B scale down the river on pay.
I know tha tsome of you are rooming together just to make ends meet.
Sitting calmly ? CIP was cut for a third straight year at my facility this year (well for controllers anyway) and base pay has been frozen, with the exception of locality since January of 2007 as well.
My high 3 started in March of 2007. If my base doesn’t get adjusted, I’ll lose about 150K in future pension earnings…thanks to Bush Blakey.
Sitting calmly….not even.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Class “B” controllers beware. Marlin and Carr sold out the new hires. Although they are trying to hide this “inconvenient” fact it is in Carr’s own words. Don’t believe me- believe Carr. It was on Marlin and Carr’s watch that the rules were changed regarding “new-hire” pay. If these rules weren’t changed to benefit then existing controllers the B-scale implementation wouldn’t have been possible. I ask again- why would any new hire B-scale employees support John’s second in command (Marlin) when she was part of the group that intentionally sold future controllers out?
Don’t believe me- Carr brags about “amending nine pay rules, most having to do with new hire pay setting” This was in NATCA’s :final contract offer.” In Carr’s own words:
John Carr Update December 31, 2003
The afternoon was spent on the phone with Deputy Administrator Bobby Sturgill regarding the contract extension (when I basically told them to take it or leave it,) Bob, Rita, Doug Fralick, and then later in my office with Don Ossinger. Sexy Bob Marks was also around for a meeting with Karl Grundmann and Charles Huettner regarding the next generation aviation system and their early work as a result of the Aerospace Commission’s charge. After that it was a meeting with Doug Fralick, a call in to Ray Gibbons, a discussion with Charlie Keegan and dinner with the guest RVP.
Spent Wednesday, Thursday and Friday doing email, snail mail, holiday cards, proofreading the newsletter, communicating with the agency on OSHECOMM and OSHA, reviewing the PAC pin letter, putting a call in to the agency on behalf of our controllers in Guam, meeting with Dale on some financials, discussing windows with Tim Branaman, meeting with Greg Llafet, meeting with Adell, emailing the NEB about the DOL, working with Meredith Kimball on some teambuilding exercises, meeting with Joe and Lorrie to discuss strategy for next year and a thousand other things.
On Monday the 8th I banged in sick just for the hell of it (to stay in practice for when I go back on the boards.) Tuesday was NEB telcon day, and late in the morning Bobby Sturgill called me back to inform me that they were accepting our final contract offer.
Most of you probably already know the details, but for those who don’t here’s a Readers’ Digest Condensed Version. We have extended the CBA until September, 2005. We amended nine pay rules, most having to do with new hire pay setting, reentrant pay setting, training failure pay setting or pay setting for promotions OUT of the controller bargaining unit. We amended eight national MOUs, most having to do with technology. We amended five local MOUs, each after checking with the parent facility. We signed a sidebar agreement amending pay rule 59 (Consolidations) and we signed a master agreement.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“Truth”,
No. You are completely off base. This was the green book contract extension. The final team was myself, Pat Forrey, John Tune, and Phil Barbarello. What we agreed to was NOT a b scale. Absolutely no way. The FAA had almost a dozen different entry level pay settings that confused the hell out of all of us. We reduced that to three, I think, but no one got pay cuts and we preserved the automatic increases. The most “controversial” issue was the clause that allowed someone to bid up to a higher level facility, get 50% on the go, and return to their old facility at the top of the band. We did get rid of that loophole.
If you actually read what John wrote, you would see it does not even support your position. This was agreed to in 2003 and effective until September 2, 2006.
Lastly, and since I was around at the time, we NEVER EVER EVER sold out the new hires. NEVER. We rejected FAA proposals that would have done that, and to my knowledge (I was not on the 2006 Contract Negotiating Team) we never gave the FAA proposals that even could be remotely construed as agreeing to a b scale.
Bob Marks
April 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
“On the contrary, the leadership of this union, in the last three plus years, under both Carr and Forrey, have turned down “offers” from the FAA that would have sold the B scale down the river on pay.
I know tha tsome of you are rooming together just to make ends meet.
Sitting calmly ? CIP was cut for a third straight year at my facility this year (well for controllers anyway) and base pay has been frozen, with the exception of locality since January of 2007 as well.
My high 3 started in March of 2007. If my base doesn’t get adjusted, I’ll lose about 150K in future pension earnings…thanks to Bush Blakey.
Sitting calmly….not even.”
I think you misunderstood my intention. I wasn’t implying that the current leadership was trying to hose us. Far from it, because I spoke to Pat Forrey down at OKC, and I know his heart is in the right place. The problem is that it’s frustrating with the lack of information regarding our contract situation. It just feels like I’m paying my union dues to sit in the dark and be told “just hang on for a bit longer.” And my comment about the experienced controllers sitting on the deck of the ship more refers to the fact that most certified controllers make 2 to 3 times what I do. I realize this fake-assed “contract” has hurt everybody. Just some more than others.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
The new hires are hurting way more than any of the “A” scale controllers. There is no argument that could say otherwise. Not receiving CIP pay or inflation compensation etc… is no where near what the new hires will have “lost” over any given period of time. I think it is in our best interest to keep the “A” scale issues at bay when around new hires. I have seen many controllers complaining about their pay for hours at work while they control next to a young controller that makes 3X less then them. 3X less. Enough said. Let’s not make these new hires think all the “A” scalers are a bunch of greedy old people. Our number one priority is getting the “B” scale fixed- period. Dividing a pay scale is a technique used to split the Union. Let’s not let it happen.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
And people that continue to stir the “pay issue” pot are really management types (check their URL/IP ADDRESSES)Let’s just stick together on this issue. Both A and B scale have a dog in this fight! Put both pit bulls together and their poodle doesn’t stand a chance!
WOOF!
April 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I thought Obama was going to ride into DC on his high, white horse and fix this mess? Hell, he’s nearly got a filibuster-proof majority, so what’s the holdup? Face it; hope and change is looking more and more like fear and loathing. The NEA, UAW and other “big” unions are getting their returns for supporting an Obamanation, when does NATCA get it’s payoff? Don’t hold your breath folks.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Ok folks… that’s MY quote on the front of this post and I assure you that NATCA sent the B-scalers downm the creek with out the proverbial paddle!
believe what you want, but those dues sucking SOBs want your money and have done NOTHING to get you any additional pay!
From a position of knowledge I can (and WILL) tell you that offers have been made to increase B-scale pay in addition to what is offered in the White Book/ Contract /Non-Tract/ IWR/ Whatever you elect to call it; yet its been guiding your lives for close to 3 years now.
Does the Agency need to offer anything? Hell no! They have the law (sorry gang, but that’s a fact) on their side… but in the interest of improving working relationships, the powers that be have decided that some things can be changed! (Again, they don’t HAVE TO change, but they are willing to offer a few bennies to fix morale, etc.)
You can keep waiting… keep supporting your Union and get nothing! Obama, LaHood,Babbit, etc… NOBODY (get that, N-O-B-O-D-Y!) in Congress is in support of paying any blue collar (sorry) government workers a higher salary than elected officials! It just isn’t going to happen.
Controller salaries, and the real issues have come to the fore front recently and as long as you keep your eggs in that Obama basket; all you’re going to eat is scrabled, rotten eggs!
Enjoy!
April 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
John Meboy….
You seem to think NATCA has it out for the B-scalers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, we all know the FAA made “offers” to raise the B-scale pay. But offering pennies on the dollar was not and SHOULD not have been accepted by NATCA.
Let me ask you. If I steal $100 from you, then offer to give $10 of it back, was I offering you a ‘raise’? HELL NO. You’d still be $90 in the hole. THAT was what NATCA refused from the FAA….small offers on small pay increases. But realize that if NATCA WOULD have accepted such a pittance, then the FAA would have won, and to ALL outside sources, NATCA and the FAA would have had an agreement or a contract. And NATCA would have been forced to bargain from THAT new payscale in the future.
To accept $10 instead of the $100 we all know you should have would be incredibly shortsighted. I sincerely hope you’re smarter than that.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
John MeBoy,
You ignorance is stunning.
It is painfully obvious that you haven’t watched any Congressional Committee hearings on the subject of ATC, NextGen, or Aviation at all. Because if you really were in a “position of knowledge” you wouldn’t make this statement. Chairman Costello of the Aviation Subcommitte and Chairman Obestar of the House T&I Committe are two of NATCA’s most vocal advocates, and have both said ON THE RECORD that they are in support of a fair, negotiated agreement with NATCA and the FAA. Others in Congress including Rep. Difazio have also said ON THE RECORD that controllers need to be paid appropriately. Secretary LaHood said ON THE RECORD during his confirmation hearing that controllers, “need to be happy with their work because they have a very improtant job,” and that resolving the contract dispute was his top priority.
You sir are a moron. You’re either a kool-aid drinking management suck-up wannabe. Or your a weak controller with a weak mind who believes everything the FAA PR spin-machine disseminates. Either way get your facts straight before you start running your mouth.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Mr. Marks,
I think there is a credibility issue when you are mentioned in Carr’s email. It seems both you and Carr have been trying non-stop to repair damage you, including Ruth Marlin, caused over the last years. I have done the research and know that it was the policies agreed to by Carr’s (and Marlin’s regime) that lead to the “B” scale. You changed the rules, intentionally, that prevented the FAA from doing this. You took us off of the OPM GS pay scale so current (back then) controllers got a large raise. Knowing that the people to pay would be the future controllers. All of you have been crafting excuses to cover your behavior. Some union “brother.” YOU were on the NEB when this policy was implemented- and you, Carr, and Marlin pushed it through.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
How about we “veterans” just not train you the Liberal way.
How about we train you the way we have been getting our raises towards retirement = zero!
You will learn only from us veterans and when you you appreciate us then maybe you will earn some respect, but until then remember this, YOU accepted the job on the PAY the FAA told you were going to get. No one told you to accept the job then piss and moan about it while in training post Sept ’06.
The only ones that have any right to complain are the 1,500 that were all ready in the system when the FAA moved the goal post on their pay.
So I leave you new hires this.
Go get a supervisor to train you, and leave the veterans alone to do there own “time on position”. See how much you learn then.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Bravo Sierra,
As a B-scaler, I’ve been following the politics since before I accepted the FAA’s offer to work and I will tell you right now that I joined NATCA on as soon as I could because you guys had the chance to screw me over to save your pay but didn’t.
The idiots who blame the Green Book for the White Book can sit down and shut up because they have no idea what they are talking about.
I’m not a fan of Carr or Marlin but I will not hesitate to defend their motivations or results. And I will not stand idly by while some assh@t trashes them, blaming their progress as the reason why the Anti-Union sh#theads chose to attempt to tear us asunder.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Many of us were there when the FAA was taken off the GS scale, I was on the Legislative Committee, but not yet an officer in our union. NATCA seized the opportunity to implement reclass, but the law required the FAA to implement a new pay system. NATCA specifically made the classification system a stand alone system so that it would not have to be renegotiated and would stand separate from term bargaining. The FAA insisted that it was inextricably linked and they had case law on their side. While both parties could agree to keep the system, one party cannot refuse. This is my posting on the topic, plenty of people lived through it and the congressional record is available.
Bob is exactly correct and has no credibility problem, the records are there to support him. All you have to do is compare the pay setting rules under the 1998 agreement and the ones under the 2003 agreement. The pay scales are the same under both, there is no b-scale. The FAA created and imposed the B-scale there is not a single document signed by NATCA under any administration that creates or allows a B-scale.
Ruth
History
As I have been traveling to facilities, talking to our members about the future of NATCA, I have been asked a few questions about our history. Specifically, some questions have centered on how we got to a place where the FAA could impose the work rules. Some have asked why we negotiated away Title 5 or why we wanted to get away from it. This type of question is precisely the reason I created the blog at http://www.ruthmarlin.com. Rather than just share the information with the few people around, this will allow people I may not have a chance to talk to have the opportunity to share the answer. Comments and follow up questions are also welcome.
The FAA was not able to impose the work rules because of a provision sought by NATCA. The exemption from Title 5 was a legislative process, not the result of negotiations. But the story is a colorful one. I was the chair of our legislative committee during that time, so I have the benefit of first hand knowledge of the events. Here is the story:
The early 1990′s were interesting times in air traffic control. DSR and STARS were still just briefing items (I don’t think the FAA was even at the PowerPoint presentation stage), equipment failures were common and increasing, and high profile outages were not unusual. DOT Secretary Pena was on a road tour waving a vacuum tube saying that the FAA is the world’s largest consumer of vacuum tubes. The message was so pervasive that even though we have replaced nearly everything he mentioned, we are still tagged with having an “antiquated air traffic control system”.
In 1994, the Republican Party took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. This was commonly called the “Republican Revolution” and in 1995, Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House. He was a very aggressive and charismatic figure and was ready to take on President Clinton in very public battles. NATCA’s legislative machine was still in its infancy but would grow very quickly in those years.
One of those battles was the budget showdown of 1995 (ending in January 1996). Speaker Gingrich took the gamble that the public would hold the President responsible for the failure to enact a budget. That risk did not pay off and by and large the public blamed the Republican Congress. There was nothing about us in that shutdown, but the political events mattered for us later.
While all of this was going on, there were many different proposals for FAA reform. The Administration proposed a quasi-government corporation for air traffic control and Senator McCain proposed sweeping exemptions from federal personnel and procurement regulations in addition to creating a user fee funded system.
Inside the FAA, AAS was dying a slow but expensive death and controllers were getting blamed for a “requirements creep”. For those who opposed union rights for federal employees, blaming the workforce for the FAA’s inability to modernize was a useful tool. But they did not attack our union rights outright, instead it was all packaged as “reform” – to make the FAA run more like a business.
They argued that ATC was a unique and challenging service and that the FAA needed flexibility to be more responsive and modernize faster. Into this reform they swept exemptions from all personnel regulations with 8 exceptions (retirement, sick leave, whistleblower protections, etc.). Normally, legislation of this kind would be the subject of multiple hearings before it would go to the floor, but Congress, with the help of the Secretary of Transportation had manufactured a crisis.
During the Senate floor debate, only one Senator, John Glenn of Ohio, tried to defend Title 5 protections for employees. The bulk of the debate centered on procurement reform, arguing that the FAA needed exemptions to purchase equipment faster. But the bill required much more than procurement reform, it also mandated the FAA create an entirely new personnel system, in consultation with the exclusive representatives. NATCA successfully worked to have consultation changed to negotiation and included pay protections through 1999 in the FAA reauthorization bill, but with that came the provisions to send a dispute involving FAA reform sent to Congress. However, the originally passed bill did not include provisions for bargaining rights under chapter 71 of Title 5 (from which we were exempted). It did however; include a delayed implementation date so the exemption from Title 5 did not go into effect until April 1, 1996.
The bill was passed and signed into law. The clock was ticking on our bargaining rights. The Democrats in Congress did not have the power to enact corrective legislation and the Republicans were not interested in restoring union rights that they had just successfully removed with little if any political consequences.
We had launched a huge grassroots effort to restore chapter 71, and while we could not persuade the majority party in Congress, we were able to make our issue a critical one for the AFL-CIO who assisted us in not only our congressional efforts, but helped take the issue to the President.
In the eleventh hour, just days before we were stripped of our union rights, there was another budget showdown. The Congress was about to send another continuing resolution to the President. President Clinton made it clear to Speaker Gingrich that he would refuse to sign the CR and shut down the government again unless the CR contained three things, flood relief, aid to Bosnia, and collective bargaining rights for air traffic controllers. He was successful and our rights were restored.
As a result of the manner in which we got our rights back, the formal legislative processes were not followed. Title 49 was simply amended to include chapter 71 with a single line entry in the CR. The existing law was not thoroughly examined to see if there was any conflicting language. Back then it was not a problem because everyone understood that the intent was for chapter 71 (which includes impasse procedures and dispute resolution) would apply.
While our focus was on protecting our basic workers rights and reinstating Chapter 71, the FAA reform language also created an opportunity for NATCA. Not only did the reform legislation allow for the FAA to bargain over subjects previous excluded by Title 5, it also required the FAA to create a new personnel system for which they were unprepared. NATCA, as a result of the reclass effort, had two years worth of research on personnel classification and compensation. We had been seeking waivers from OPM, but FAA reform made that unnecessary.
The statute worked fine until the Bush Administration decided to exploit the conflict in the law. I remember my first NATCA in Washington after Bush took office. There was a Department of Justice conference in the same hotel and their agenda was posted outside. I will never forget the sign and I included it in my speech that day. It said, “creative uses for existing legislation.” Five and a half years later, we were on the receiving end of the “creative use” strategy.
So in a not so brief nutshell, that is the story behind the story. The FAA tried to rewrite it in 2006 arguing that we traded pay bargaining for the impasse rules, but that is not even close to the truth. The FAA was out of the collective bargaining process and managers were chomping at the bit as the 1996 April Fool’s day approached. It wasn’t a trade; it was an all out and successful battle to get our basic rights restored. The fact that the FAA/McCain effort to strip those rights led to the expansion of the scope of bargaining was a testament to NATCA’s ability to seize the opportunity when it was presented.
It was watching the work of Barry Krasner, Joe Bellino, Mike McNally, and Randy Schwitz in those days as they took adversity and turned it into opportunity that showed me the value of preparation, hard work, and grassroots activism. I am honored to have had the opportunity to build on their work and look forward to the chance to do more.
In Solidarity,
Ruth Marlin
http://www.ruthmarlin.com
April 24th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Had we not gotten the reclass increases, the pay scale would be very close to what the ‘b’ scale is now. So how did the A scale agreement screw the b scalers? If the FAA wants to right the wrong, they are free to give the B scalers a raise when ever they want. They don’t need NATCA’s agreement. They have made that very cle
That should address “B scalers’ ludicrous post. Keep in mind that he and ‘truth” and jonmeboy are all management pukes engaging in anti union activities. That is against the law. Can you say “Inegrity.”
One can only think that “jon me boy” thinks he is posting to Carr’s blog. If he had the sense god gave a brick,he wouldn’t be a flm at a low level tower, and he would have used “Paul me boy.”
April 24th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Whatever- the bottom line is the bottom line. I see you guys that have all flamed me for posting the truth pulling down 150k whining and bitching as your fellow workers are making half that. Maybe you should have some sympathy for other people not so fortunate- in the real world- as well as those working next to you- people like ME.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:35 am
NATCA politics are ugly. You, sir or madam, are making them uglier, because this is an outright LIE.
Plain and simple.
The Carr update you quote is about the GREEN BOOK contract extension, done in 2003. There is a very simple way to find out how that affected people hired after the date of that extension up until the White Book’s implementation in 2006: Find someone hired under those rules and signed off under those rules, and ask them what they made as a new hire/trainee and what they make as a CPC.
If that extension “screwed” the noobs hired under that set of rules, why was there a mad rush to get people signed off prior to Labor Day, 2006? Simple: Because that was the GREEN BOOK rules, the A Scale.
The reality is that the B scale folks weren’t screwed by NATCA. I know it really seems like they were, but they weren’t. I know it might seem like NATCA hasn’t done anything for you, but it has.
NATCA hasn’t done enough, in my opinion, which is why I hope everyone votes against almost every member of the current NEB in the upcoming election, but the union HAS been fighting for you guys.
And it’s not fighting for some pittance, some bullshi** deal that would get you a small portion of what was TAKEN from you by the FAA; the union wants everyone, on any pay scale, to be on the SAME pay scale- the corect, the only, the A scale. PERIOD.
We were within a few votes in the House of Representatives- and WAY over a majority, too. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership intentionally fixed the rules of the game in such a way that we needed a two-thirds vote- and they delayed the vote, then extended the voting time, so they could twist arms and spike the deal.
I don’t mind if you don’t want to vote for Ruth. That’s your right as a union member (assuming you are one). But don’t you dare come in here and spread lies about her, or about any OTHER person running for office, and expect them to go unchallenged.
And let this be a warning to everyone- if I find outright lies, factual assertions that are incorrect, whatever, about ANY candidate on the Follies, I’ll try my best to correct them. I hate that kind of BS campaigning, I watched John Carr lose to that kind of campaigning (not to mention character assassination), and I don’t want to see it in THIS campaign, either.
Whether it’s aimed at Ruth, Paul, Pat, Rich, or Trish, I’ll stomp it out as best I can. I disagree with Paul and Pat, but dammit, they’re my union brothers and I think Ruth can (and should) beat them in the election on her own merits and I’ll not let people resort to slander for or against her to do so.
April 25th, 2009 at 8:58 am
….thought Obama was going to ride into DC on his high, white horse and fix this mess? Hell, he’s nearly got a filibuster-proof majority, so what’s the holdup? Face it; hope and change is looking more and more like fear and loathing. The NEA, UAW and other “big” unions are getting their returns for supporting an Obamanation, when does NATCA get it’s payoff? Don’t hold your breath folks……..
Fixing the FAA mess, a small part of fixing Bush’s overall mess, will come soon enough.
And a filibuster proof majority has nothng to do with fixing the nontract and the pay.
Fear and loathing…..on your part, of our new President.
Gonna be a long 8 years for the Obama haters.
April 25th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I’m curious when “B Scaler Sold Out” was hired. It’s a simple fact that NATCA refused to roll over and take the fist from the FAA. Following Sept 2006, the membership that was eligible to retire started showing their displeasure and started walking out the door. The problem is, newbies started walking in the door. If you walked in after Sept 2006, you enabled the FAA. YOU made it possible for the FAA to screw everyone over. If new hires stopped taking jobs AND veterans started walking out, the FAA would have been screwed. But since you guys kept taking jobs knowing full well what you were accepting regarding pay, you are in no position to trash talk NATCA for “screwing” you over. You screwed us over by making it possible for the FAA to say “people are lining up out the door….we don’t have a staffing problem…pay is not an issue for the new hires….they keep coming in….etc”.
If you were hired before Sept 2006, NATCA could have gone the easy route a long time ago and thrown you under the bus. They didn’t.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
(Editorial note: The comment here is a lie. Ruth Marlin did not “set the stage” or allow a two-tiered pay scale. When Ruth was just finishing her term in office, the FAA unilaterally implemented a two-tiered pay scale, but Ruth and NATCA never agreed to it.
I do not know why this commenter insists on continuing to spread this lie, other than the obvious political, anti-Ruth motivation.)
The bottom line is why would any new hire vote for someone (Marlin) that set the stage for the current conditions? Why would anyone vote for someone who allowed the two-tiered pay structure system to have a chance (on Marlin’s watch)?
Marlin does have a proven track record- unfortunately it is in selling new controllers, like me, down the river for an immediate benefit.
It’s the truth no matter how you try and spin it Paul (nice try BTW). I know you support her- and you are on the old scale. She seems like a nice lady, yet facts are facts. She forgot about the whole- and had no problem screwing the class “B” controllers.
Anyone but Marlin.
(Again, facts are facts- and the fact is that the Green Book’s extension did NOT set up a B-scale system. Controllers hired under the Green Book were all on the “A” pay scale, and NATCA never agreed to any lower pay scale. NATCA has not intentionally sold out anyone, under John Carr/Ruth Marlin or under Pat Forrey/Paul Rinaldi for that matter.
This commenter is a liar, plain and simple. When challenged, they have not backed up this comment with any actual facts.)
April 25th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
“B scalers sold out by Carr/Marlin Says: ”
Guess this proves he’s a manglement type of guy/girl. Paul gives a compelling and extensive response to his BS, and all he can say is “nice try, but I know the truth”. Meanwhile, he provides no examples, just “facts are facts”.
Hell, Ruth ain’t my first choice, nor is Pat, but I believe that each of them is 100% committed to fixing this problem for ALL NATCA members.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I am a new hire (apparently I am enabling the FAA to screw us), and I knew nothing about the nontract before I got hired. I had no idea that there were a scales and b scales or any of that.
Now I am curious what the rule change was that allowed the FAA to unilaterally change the working rules? I hadn’t really thought about it until now (to busy trying to not be dangerous) and haven’t done any research, but if someone wants to pass on the Cliffs Notes real quick I would appreciate it.
By the way: I haven’t decided who I’m voting for yet and am not trying to stir the pot about who did what to who. I am just curious.
April 25th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Longnecks – you got some catching up to do! Talk to your FacRep or some local natcavists, they’ll be able to steer you in the right direction. It’ll take an hour or two to fill you in.
B scalers sold out by Carr/Marlin — Why is it your posts ring so strongly of Republican Campaign Tactics (copyright, Karl Rove) ? You get in here and slam a NATCA presidential candidate with allegations that rival those of Rush Limbaugh slamming Obama…lies based on fearful emotions of B-scalers… Your assertions are patently untrue, and even those involved have come on here and refuted you with facts. I smell a swiftboating scheme…..
You hint that the B-scalers might be happy if NATCA just gave away it’s integrity and it’s right to FAIR negotiations by agreeing to a slight decrease in the FAA un-negotiated wage cuts? We KNOW the ‘B-scalers’ are hurting – but would that extra 5-10% crumb that the FAA is offering (at the cost of NATCA rolling over by accepting it) would that extra little pissance solve your earnings issues? Would it make NATCA stronger? NO – it would weaken our UNION and add a few measley bucks to your pocket, instead of the FULL WAGES YOU DESERVE and would forfeit by accepting the handout!
How much so far have you helped NATCA in your facility? Regionally? Nationally? I’d guess ZERO by your accusations. I’d also guess you’re only months away from bidding a supe’s job. Better pucker up, baby…..
April 25th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
You new hires make me LOL. YOU took the job under the new pay rules. You have gotten the Federal COLA raise for the last three years. Me? I have gotten almost NOTHING! Ooh, give me a $3000 bonus, but it does not count towards the night diff, training your stupid asses diff, OT diff, etc. Never mind that I never kissed enough ass to get more than a .06 last year, this year I am a zero. My BASE PAY has been frozen. My high three were three years ago. Check out the TSP website. They ask what your yearly increase will be. Well for me and 10,000 other ATCers, it is a big fat ZERO! The last thing I saw was a 1 or 2 percent raise over the next three years, while leaving the new hires WHERE YOU ARE! NATCA said F#$% OFF! NATCA has been in this for both the newhires and the veterans. Like Al said, get the flick. Dumbass.
your comments piss me off so much….
April 26th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Wow. With some of the poor grammar and spelling flying around here, it’s apparent there are some management infiltrators around. Some folks hate us that much that they would waste their time trying to stir the Sh!t on a controller’s blog.
Get a life.
And just for the record, I know that Ruth Marlin didn’t sell us down the river. So can the crap.
April 26th, 2009 at 6:38 am
I’ve no idea how many peeps are running to be the new Natca Pres. but voting for the current leadership to continue is downright stupid. They have screwed up at every juncture though they were given a very difficult political situation walking in the door. Vote for someone else, the current leadership has been totally ineffective in forwarding the cause of their bargaining unit, no matter which pay scale you are under.
April 27th, 2009 at 7:19 am
you guys saying the B-scalers “took the job knowing their pay”. SO DID YOU vets! When you accepted the job, the TOP salary was GS 14. Now you make well above the top a 14, so quit YOUR bitching!
The White Book took NOTHING (not a dime) from your salary… CIP maybe, but that was NEVER guaranteed; so quit your bithing!
Still crying about 6 day weeks; Don’t want to train the newbies? QUIT YOUR BITCHING!
This can go on and on and on… all you do is BITCH and MOAN and if the FAA happened to trash the IWRs and go back to the Green Book (which will NOT happen) you ^$%@#$($#*( will find other things to whine about.
And reference the comment above about all your loyal supporters… LOTS OF HOT AIR, they’ll talk and promise, but when it comes to to vote, they conveniently neglect to show up as their re-election is more important to them than their loyalty to labor. (Look at what’s happening to you GM brothers and sisters as I type; the unemployment like is waiting for your butt too)
April 27th, 2009 at 8:20 am
The only thing I can say to “John MeBoy” is this:
HahahahahahahahaHohohohohohohohoHehehehehehehehe!
//wipes tears from eyes
I’m stunned that somebody with such a poor understanding of the real world could get promoted (and yet I shouldn’t be). Be careful playing in traffic, you brain dead chimp.
April 27th, 2009 at 9:47 am
John, meboy – You’re right we could stop bitching.
But that would leave the B-scalers out in the cold. And that’s not what this union is about. It’s not what Ruth is about, either.
For your edification, the white book took a lot from us, like the right to negotiate fairly (The most important factor).
Like the A-scaler’s yearly increases (which directly affects my retirement, effectively lowering it every year).
Like the negotiated pay for doing the CIC function (which was originally put in place to help provide less need for lower and middle managers – but now they have both increased the managers AND increased their use of CICs, without compensation to controllers, reversing the cost savings to the taxpayer and increasing the controllers’ workloads).
Like creating a B-scale that further divides the workforce (like you’re doing right now) and HURTS THE NEW HIRES. It also pushes the old guys into retirement much faster than they would have otherwise due to both financials and morale/working conditions. This kind of system cannot produce the best controllers possible, and now you have an insidious safety issue.
Natca knows all this. And you want us to stop “whining” about it? You want us to just sit here, do what we’re told, and let the FAA do it’s magic?
Now I’m convinced that you’re either outside the loop (you work in an office somewhere, don’t you?) or you’re a management lackey (who BTW benefitted royally when your pay rose with the tide of any and all controller’s raises in the past, including NATCA-earned and fairly negotiated pay reclass).
And “B-scalers sold out by…..” is obviously nothing more than a politically motivated poser, evidenced by his/her mis-truths (lies, dude) and “Carr-boating” (remember swiftboating?) about Ruth, the most qualified of the candidates.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:25 am
…..you guys saying the B-scalers “took the job knowing their pay”. SO DID YOU vets! When you accepted the job, the TOP salary was GS 14. Now you make well above the top a 14, so quit YOUR bitching!
The White Book took NOTHING (not a dime) from your salary… CIP maybe, but that was NEVER guaranteed; so quit your bithing!
Still crying about 6 day weeks; Don’t want to train the newbies? QUIT YOUR BITCHING!…….
I’ll bitch when I’m wronged JmeB. Lets do some accounting, 20% cuts in CIP for controllers the last three years and only locality base pay raises (less than 1.5%) the last three years. Your hero Bush and that hatchet face you worshiped have stolen thousands out of controllers pockets the last few years and in my case, close to 150K in future pension earnings if I live 25-30 years after I retire. Quit my bitching ? Blow it out your bosco.
…This can go on and on and on… all you do is BITCH and MOAN and if the FAA happened to trash the IWRs and go back to the Green Book (which will NOT happen) you ^$%@#$($#*( will find other things to whine about……..
Wow, you can predict the future too. Impressive, young sh*t talker.
…And reference the comment above about all your loyal supporters… LOTS OF HOT AIR, they’ll talk and promise, but when it comes to to vote, they conveniently neglect to show up as their re-election is more important to them than their loyalty to labor. (Look at what’s happening to you GM brothers and sisters as I type; the unemployment like is waiting for your butt too)……
Brothers and sisters ? You’re not a union member, probably never were one and couldn’t care less about a UAW worker losing their job. Now go kiss your personally autographed picture of your union busting hero W.
April 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
not MY brothers and sisters you jack*ss! YOUR brothers and sisters! And what you should learn by this, yet you apparently don’t learn PERIOD! Is the Japs and the Koreans and the Brits and anyone else that buolds cars can do it cheaper since their labor costs are far less than UAW demands. So now their membership will dwindle as the manufacturers can’t pay them what they demand as the product can seel for what it would need to in allowing the domestic auto manufacturers to make a profit. So they go bust and the union members are out of work!
The same will happen to you as you keep to your inflated worth and believe nobody but YOU can do the job. The newbies can and will do fine as they’re better prepared for the job then you were when you were hired.
as far as the FAA taking away your right to negotiate, NATCA never negotiated anything. When Jane was Administrator there were NO negotiatons! The FAA gave and NATCA took. In 2004 negotiations didn’t reach a signed agreement as your union (NOT MY UNION, you were right about that)was unwilling to accept anything less than everything, so you got exactly what you deserved… NOTHING!
So as I said a few posts ago… go whine to your political supporters and see if you don’t wind up along side some x-GM employees in the unemployment line!
April 27th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
So JmeBoy is not only an idiot, but a racist too . . .
April 27th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
…not MY brothers and sisters you jack*ss! YOUR brothers and sisters…..
LOL, piss off you management hack.
Like most right wingers, you try and rewrite history to suit your own views.
Now go smooch your personally autographed picture of W, you racist clown.
April 27th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
OK, it’s official – not only does John meboy know nothing about our labor troubles, he’s lying or ignorant about the history of our past agreements, about the current situation, and has difficulty spelling and using halfway decent grammar.
The truth is that you’re a middle manager, probably an ATC training failure, tucked away in an office somewhere, doing very little for your pay, and is now starting to panic about losing his meaningless position, his cubicle, probably his job.
Sorry I took you so seriously when you began talking about Ruth and Natca as if you were semi-informed.
Say hi to Lavey and the rest of the employment-worried managers…..meanwhile, my dinner break is over and I have to go keep airplanes apart.
April 27th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
And he doesn’t know much about the auto industry, either.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:24 am
WE shall see who laughs last….
April 28th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
WE shall see who laughs last….
I’m laughing right now, at your silly W loving a**.
Go back to mine sweeper and answering the phone, while we controllers push the tin.
Slacker !
April 30th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Japs? What is this…WWII? JmeB is either a management tard or a 10 year old, either way he writes at about a 5th grade level. Don’t anyone get too excited about his stupid, ignorant, racist comments…he can’t help it that he is an in-bred, backwater, hick idiot. He’s probably sitting there with his white hood on looking at kiddy porn.