Contract info
Posted by Paul Cox on June 30th, 2009
I’d just as soon avoid discussion of the recently released contract info, for a variety of reasons, but it’s plainly news and therefore deserves comment here.
That said, I’ll say my bit: Whether you wanted the information or not, whether you agreed with the NATCA NEB’s policy about contract information release or not, the reality is this: Pat Forrey, in releasing this information, has effectively declared himself a dictator in our union.
He has placed himself above the policies of the union that were established by the ruling body of the union (the NEB), and whether you agree with his action or not, the reality is that he has apparently decided that the NATCA Constitution doesn’t apply to him; he can do what he sees fit, whether the NEB has set a policy regarding his plans or not.
Pat doing this on the eve of the election and the ballots going out is about as transparent as a sheet of glass, and I’ll risk making some permanent enemies by being totally blunt here: Voting for Pat Forrey is an absolutely terrible idea and encourages hubris, arrogance and disdain for the rule of law.
I urge you to vote for Ruth, but if you’re not going to do that, then vote for Paul… but under no circumstances should you vote for Pat. He has proven that he places his desire for re-election above the Constitution of our union.
It might have looked to many as though the NEB was intentionally trying to tie his hands and screw him over, and that might well be the case- but that is THEIR RIGHT. The NATCA Constitution gives the NEB the right to do that, and Pat ignored the rule of law in our union.
Enough said on that. (I entered this election season intending to keep the above kind of crap out of the blog, and it’s worse than I ever feared… my apologies to the readers.)
Now, on to the contract info that was released. (And yes, I fully appreciate the hypocrisy in talking about it- but I’m also a firm believer that you can only deal with the situation as it is now; trying to live as you wish things were is denying reality.)
It’s not bad.
Of course, the big items- 3 articles dealing with pay, one with annual leave, and one with union representation- aren’t mentioned in Pat’s update. We have no idea what the arbitrators are going to be offered by either side, or where they’ll settle things.
What’s more, there’s a host of articles that aren’t mentioned in Pat’s update. We have no way of knowing whether or not it’s because they have little or no changes, or perhaps they changed but in ways unfavorable to the union’s membership. (It’s stuff like this that is one big reason behind the NEB saying that incomplete info shouldn’t be released; we’re trying to describe an elephant by only feeling its trunk.)
But the stuff that IS released is generally good. I’ll run down some of this stuff here:
Article 7- this is good. It means the FAA has to actually negotiate with its employees at all levels. That’s good; it should lead to them actually listening to their employees (or so we’d hope).
Article 9- the FAA’s utter sham of a grievance procedure has infuriated people for the past few years. This gets it back to where it should be.
Article 13- I wrote a while back about the stupidity of the FAA trying to remove non-FAA computers from facility grounds. This restores some sanity to that episode.
Article 18- a good move for two reasons. First, if someone’s going to be responsible for an entire area or tower, they deserve to get paid more for it. (This might come as a surprise considering what a lousy job I think many managers and supervisors do, but with more responsibility should come more pay.) Second, it’s going to benefit the workforce; with any luck the FAA will follow it up by true cuts in the FLM numbers.
Article 19- Good move. It’s ridiculou for the FAA to expect its employees to risk their lives coming to work during hazardous weather. Now maybe we can get them to rehire the proby they fired who couldn’t make it in on a day the agency wound up letting people go on “snow leave”.
Article 25- another good move. They have to actually warn you before they try and stop you from using sick leave.
Article 26- good. The FAA’s policies had shifted away from being employee-friendly, and this move should help.
Article 28- this is a big deal. The FAA never really did have any numbers showing that on some holidays they could/should reduce staffing; now they have to live up to that.
Article 29- more good moves. Reasonable amounts of time for graduates of the OKC academy to move to their facilities, official time for a huge safety seminar that NATCA puts on, and so forth.
Article 32- I’m not so sure about this one. The proof will be in how the negotiations go. If the FAA’s facility managers can keep those busybody nitwits in charge of HR out of it, things will likely be good; if the HR people dick things up like they have the past few years, this could be ugly.
Article 33 is just common sense. Yes, that’s been lacking in the FAA.
Article 34 seems to be a waste; what good is the right to negotiate AWS if there’s not enough people?
Article 38 is a return to justice. If the FAA forces you to come in on your day off, they gotta give you the full 8 hours of overtime. They’re no longer allowed to trash your day off with a single hour of work. Common sense again, but still…
That’s it for now, I’m beat and need to hit the sack. More later today, maybe…
June 30th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Great, I get to be the 1st to say "Told you so…"
I never understood the angst over the NEB's 8-1 decision to ensure the info got out with a briefing guide. The accusations of Paul and his supporters playing politics. I agree with you, this shows it's pat who was/is playing politics with the contract process, and the NEB was trying to do the right thing. I haven't been a big fan of them these past 30 months, but they got this one right. Pat has disgraced the office. He's gotta go.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I'm sure that the FAA will have a job for Forrey…he'll fit right in with their style of management.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
TC, I never felt I needed the NEB or someone else to explain the contract to me. Give me the freakin info and let me decide what it means, Those that can't, can wait for the briefing guide.
The honorable thing for Pat to do would have been to release all the info, then resign in protest of the policy.
The right thing is not to decide when I get to see the info. The controllers have been waiting long enough. As far as the election, I'm guessing the the new hires will decide that based on how much cash they end up getting.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
atcer, I agree that the membership should get the info ASAP. If the NEB voted to wait 30 days until sending it out with a guide, I'd have a problem with that. My take on their vote was that it had nothing to do with timing, only a guide attached. If they delayed, shame on them. Having said that, the fact of the matter is that it was a majority vote. Right or wrong, it's a policy/decision that must be respected, and the president just took a dump on our constitution. I'm happy the info is out, too, I've been salivating for it. My problem is the way it came out. 2 different issues as i see it. And the behavior at the top stinks and hurts our union.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Article 34 will be nice to have at our level 6 tower. We actually have acceptable staffing at the moment, and a return to our AWS will be a nice benefit, which only makes sense.
I'm glad to see it included, which shows that the negotiation team didn't completely forget about the large number of BUEs who work at the smaller facilities.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:15 am
the NEB took a position that would only serve as a means to screw pat. pat did what he felt was necessary. pat ran and won on the platform that he was not john carr, and that he would do whatever it took to get a ratifiable agreement before the membership. this leaked agreement, right or wrong, is not ratifiable without abolition of the b scale. the same law that requires our impasses to go to congress guarantees our right to negotiate salary. i'll stay dress code compliant, regardless of what is rightfully or wrongfully released to the membership, until the pay is fixed.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:00 am
Man, I don't know how I feel about this.
On one hand, I've been foaming at the mouth for any and all information about the negotiations. And much like a man dying of thirst in the desert, Pat's update hit the spot.
On the other hand, part of my soul recoils at this type of political gamesmanship. I've always thought that the biggest trouble that unions have had in the past was related to the fact that those in power thought themselves untouchable. As soon as the leader begins thinking for the whole, instead of listening to the will of the whole, you are no better than some of the worst political scum in DC.
I never thought when I got a degree in Poli Sci I would end up hating politics so much.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Maybe they did take the position only to screw Pat. So what? That doesn't justify what Pat did; the reality is that the NATCA constitution gives the NEB the power to do what they did.
Pat ignoring their policy is against the bylaws and against the policy, and frankly it wouldn't surprise me that if he manages to win the election if they impeach him for it. I would. I'd say "sorry, you've done a lot of great work for the union, but you can't be violating the bylaws like that."
Pat didn't need to release the information to get a deal. It has nothing at all to do with getting a deal done; it has everything to do with his re-election campaign.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Well, one argument that's been made in favor of Pat's actions is that he WAS listening to the will of the whole; most people didn't like the NEB's resolution.
But the counter argument to that is that the NATCA constitution doesn't task the President with correcting the NEB members if they are in the wrong; the NATCA constitution gives that right to the MEMBERSHIP. If they don't like a vote that their RVP makes in an NEB meeting, they have the right and responsibility to vote that RVP out of office.
Pat placed himself above the membership, above the NEB, and above the NATCA constitution with his information release. What he should have done, if he really disagreed with the policy, was marshalled support amongst the membership and led them to demand their RVPs change the policy.
Believe me, if the NEB had heard from enough people, they would have rethunk their vote.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Agreed. That kind of behavior smacks of the Bush/Cheney White House. Just do what's best for us, and steamroll anyone who thinks differently.
On the plus side I can break out my shorts soon.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 am
This whole sordid mess, IMO, is the natural fallout of a NEB that largely distanced itself from the membership (with few exceptions). When one starts to believe that one can lead without communicating with the masses, one starts to believe one can do it without communicating with anybody at all! It's the beginning of dictatorship. No matter what the motivation behind the NEB's proposal (politics or not), it's ironic to see individuals who left the membership out of the information loop demanding info now from Pat! "Hoisted on their own petard" as the saying goes. You reap what you sow.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I had read somewhere that it may discussed to allow military ATC time to count toward 20 year ATC "good time". Can anyone tell me if this is accurate or not? I'm a former ZTL controller OWCP rehire so, as I'm no longer allowed to be in NATCA, I have no access to what is included in the contract negotiations. Thanks.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
"I'm a former ZTL controller OWCP rehire so, as I'm no longer allowed to be in NATCA"
This makes no sense to me. Are you a faa 2152 atcs?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 am
Unfortunately, no because I was terminated in 2000 for losing my medical. I was rehired in 2007 as an admin. asst. for Tech Ops and they refused to classify me as 2152. The FAA claims that because they have restored me to FERS that I am whole, however they refuse to restore my ATC retirement in spite of the following:
Title 5>Part III>Subpart G> Ch.81>SubCh.1>§ 8151 Civil Service Retention Rights:
(a) In the event the individual resumes employment with the Federal Government, the entire time during which the employee was receiving compensation under this chapter shall be credited to the employee for the purposes of within-grade step increases, retention purposes, and other rights and benefits based upon length of service.
USDOL CA -810 "Injury Compensation for Federal Employees" Handbook, Section 8-2, paragraph 3:
"Any period of time during which an employee receives compensation from OWCP is credited to the employee for the purposes if determining rights and benefits based upon length of service, including eligibility for retirement."
"The Federal Employees' Compensation Act Procedure Manual", Section 2-0814-13 "Effect of Federal Reemployment Status", paragraph © (page 456):
"Therefore, a claimant who was covered by CSRA (or other retirement system established by a law of the United States) and who is reemployed by the United States after January 1, 1984, either in the date of injury job or in an alternative job, would still be covered by that retirement system.
Ventris and Mineace insist that I still require 20 years on the boards to be eligible, which, as you can see from above, is a crock of poo. Having my military ATC time count would make this problem go away for me. If not, legal action will be inevitable as the FAA, DOTIG, DOJ, OSC, USDOL, MSPB all claim this issue in not in their jurtisdiction.
Heh. Yeah, right.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 am
"Article 29- more good moves. Reasonable amounts of time for graduates of the OKC academy to move to their facilities, official time for a huge safety seminar that NATCA puts on, and so forth."
Im not a controller. But I feel for the students. I hear them talk in the Hallways at the Academy about leaving everything they own in OKC, fly to there center and then pray they allow them to go back to gather there things. Some have to burden there family to help them just so they can get there in time. The instructor do what they can for the En-Router's once they complete their 2 weeks of URET familiarization on the last night they try and run though their problems as quick as they can so they can leave early and get the students with a little bit of a head start. Management has been cracking down though on allowing them to leave early so it all depends on if the Lead Instructor is FAA or Contractor.
Now having said that what the chances of explaining to the AT students(there are some AF students too that do this its not just all AT) that they are not in college or High School. And this training is apart of there Job? The Stafford building is becoming a shamble with Graffiti, trash, shoot they even had a food fight in the En-Route Labs a couple of times. Im all for having fun and all we all joke around and such at work. Anyways I will turn that rant off LOL
But yea Give the kids time to Move on to there Permanent Facility, I think that would take alot of stress off them as they get ready for there Evaluation.
Also, I Heard a "RUMOR" that part of this contract had a clause in it to delay the implementation of ERAM to allow for Re-Training since IOC Dates all got moved around and we are what almost 9 months behind schedule now? Im sure it was just a rumor, but if ya think about it, its not really a bad one considering the AF Tech are in a Similar shoe. Some got trained a Year ago and still haven't touched ERAM yet.
August 4th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
[...] The FAA Follies ยป Blog Archive [...]