Elections!
Posted by Paul Cox on August 25th, 2009
Hey, it’s time to vote.
Locally, here at ZSE we’re having our NATCA elections. I’m running for FacRep and would appreciate your vote. Today (Tuesday) is the last day that most people can drop it into the mail and have it get to the PO Box that Elections Poobah Tony Germann has set up for us, so get those votes in there! (Unless you’re going to vote for Troy, in which case it’s okay with me if you get lost on the way to the mailbox. Sigh… okay, you should probably vote anyway.)
Nationally, there’s a couple of runoffs. The Central Region has a runoff in their RVP race, and I’ll be honest; I don’t know enough about the guys who’re running (Andy Heifner and Kevin Peterson) and their policies to make an endorsement there. And obviously the race for President between Ruth Marlin and Paul Rinaldi is going on; I endorse Ruth wholeheartedly.
You’ll notice that each of those names above is in red; they’re linked to the various candidates’ web sites. If you haven’t voted, please do check out the sites and use them to help you come to a decision. Endorsements only count for so much; voters will make up their own minds and that’s how it should be.
The mailed-out paper ballots for this election are in yellow. Be sure to follow the directions when you go to send them in- we had several hundred people that didn’t tear off some part or another on those ballots in the first round. (Crappy ballot design, in my opinion; hopefully the National Election Committee passed some feedback to the vendor that ran the election.)
The third election has green ballots and is for the question of ratification of the proposed NATCA contract.
Now, we could go into all the details of the TAU’d (Temporarily Agreed Upon) contract, but that would take too much time. Suffice to say that compared with the various sets of rules that we’ve worked under, it’s a very solid, very good contract. Of course, getting the various FAA managers to live up to the promises made in it will be a struggle, but that’s how it always goes.
The big question is whether or not to ratify the deal.
I’ve tried asking, on the NATCA BBS, what the NEB’s plans are if it fails to ratify. The common wisdom within the union, at least among the union leaders, seems to be that it’ll pass easily. I think this attitude is mistaken and if the pro-ratification forces take this vote lightly, they’re liable to be in for a surprise.
Person after person that I talk with about it says they’re thinking about voting “no”. The main reason is their anger at the FAA for the “White Book” and the pay cuts and the general overall treatment of employees (no per diem for a large number of new hires, screwing over 1400 people out of the pay they were promised, countless canceled days off and annual leave days, etc).
These folks were hoping that the arbitration panel would give full restitution and back pay for all of this, and when it didn’t happen, they figure the only real way they have to express their discontent is to vote “no”. People feel like they haven’t had a voice; various groups of employees feel like they’ve lost “the most” (money, time, honor, etc) to the FAA’s treatment, and they want to display their disgust.
I totally understand this sentiment. I was actually leaning towards this stance myself, but with reflection I have come down firmly on the side of voting “yes” and ratifying this contract proposal.
Here’s the deal. I’m a believer that while we have to try and change things as much as possible. Our state of mind definitely influences our perception of the world. If you have to walk across a mall parking lot to get your car and you’re happy because you just got engaged, or your kid scored well on the SATs, even a rainy day won’t bother you that much; you won’t see the world as a negative place.
Likewise, that rainy day can seem miserable if your girlfriend just dumped you or your dog just died, so that walk across the parking lot seems horrible. Heck, it could even be a bright sunshiny day, but it would still seem crappy.
Thing is, it’s still the same parking lot. It’s the same world.
The point? The point is that we have to work to put aside our emotional state and try to see things as they really are- and if we do, the reality is that the actual contract articles we’re voting on are pretty dang good.
I’m pretty unhappy with the practical results of the arbitration panel, but if I put that aside then the contract looks awfully good. I’d like it protecting me as a controller.
What happens if the union does decide to vote “no”? Well, that question hasn’t really been answered very well for my taste. From reading the ground rules of the negotiation, it appears that the parties would then make their pitches to the arbitration panel, who would then come up with a final ruling (with no appeals).
From my understanding of labor law, the FAA would NOT be allowed to go into that panel and argue for less than they’d already offered in the TAU’d articles; to do so would be regressive bargaining. The union, however, COULD go in and ask for more. I could be wrong on this, but haven’t seen a true answer to it.
It would seem, then, that there’s little or no risk in voting “no”. In that case, we’d get at least what we agreed to already, and stand the possibility of gaining more.
The problem is that it would greatly harm the union in the court of public opinion. We can’t afford that right now; we’ve got to get things moving into a positive direction again. We sent our negotiation team in there and they unanimously recommend a “yes” vote; to vote “no” would also be like voting “no confidence” in them, suggesting that we think they screwed it up- and I don’t think they did. I think they worked their butts off to knock out a pretty dang good contract proposal, and they deserve our gratitude.
So. I suggest we vote “yes” and ratify the contract. Then display your disgust with the FAA by… I dunno, establishing or bumping up your PAC donations or volunteering more for union work or something like that. Take some positive action to try and ensure the outcome of the situation.
Vote for me! Vote for Ruth! Vote to ratify the contract!
There ya go… Paul’s election endorsements in short form.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
One of the risks of voting no is that we have to continue under the white book.
I agree, we need to ratify this thing because we are going to be very busy re-training the managers. Time to get those grievance machines fired up again and take back what is rightfully ours!
August 25th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
From over here in the PASS bargaining unit, I figured when you went back to the table to negotiate an agreement, that it would take you two contract cycles to get back everything you lost on Labor Day 2006. You got most of what you wanted this time and 2 1/2 years from now you will begin negotiating again. Just because they roke it off in you in one cycle doesn't mean you have to kiss and make up like nothing happened. Not rattifying it would allow management to say, "Look, we tried but they just don't want to work with us."
I say never forget, but move forward and do things to ensure that this never, ever, happens again.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I don't understand the logic of voting ratification down to punish the FAA for the past three years. I think they have received the indictment of their actions of the IWRs through the language in the preamble of the arbitrators decision. The logic of punishing them by voting down the new contract and potentially being stuck with the IWRs longer does not really make sense.
I believe, though I might be mistaken, if the contract does not ratify, it goes back to arbitration. The arbitrators will most likely enforce the TAUed articles anyway. Caveat: I do not have intimate knowledge of the process so this is really only a guess.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Good comments above. I with a heavy heart will be voting FOR the ratification of the contract. Too many were left out in the arbitration but one step at a time I guess…
August 25th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
I'm voting yes.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
For the past three years, we've been telling anyone who would listen that we wanted a return to the table and binding arbitration. Well guess what? We got it. Just because we don't like (or could be happier) with the result doesn't mean we should vote the whole thing down.
We got the process we wanted. We have to live with it. It makes us look very petty to start complaining about this contract.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:53 am
I agree, ZHU controller. We got a contract, maybe not as much to our liking as we wanted, but FAR better than we have had over the last three years (and far better than we would have continued to be stuck with). And those who were lied to about their pay over the last three years (particularly the 1440) are getting some equitable pay that they should have gotten. Does it make up for the lost pay over the last three years, no, but it goes to some length to rectify some of the issue.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:13 am
I'm not thrilled with it either, but I will vote yes. I'm still shocked that with the scathing commentary from the panel we got nothing for suffering 3 years of complete idiocy from the brain dead at FAA.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I will also be voting for ratification as the negotiated articles are, in most cases, the same or better the green book.
Vladsafety is correct; if voted down, the remaining articles go back to the arbitrators. What some people don't realize is that if the arbitrators rule on those articles, then according to the ground rules agreement, ONLY those three arbitrators can rule on interpretation of the articles. That would significantly slow down the processing of any grievances we have. If we ratify, then the arbitrators are responsible for the interpretation of the 5 articles that they have already decided.
The arbitrators are already going to be dealing with the backlog of 450,000 grievances prior to August 6, 2009. I'm not willing to add all the new ones we'll have when management violates the new, valid CBA to the arbitrators' plates, when the only purpose of sending the remaining articles to them would be as a form of protest on something decided by a process we agreed to.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I agree with what has been said so far, I too will be voting yes on the contract. I'm not thrilled with all of it and it's not going to keep me from retiring in 4 years, but it is what we asked for as far as a fair process goes, so to vote no now would seem rather childish.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I am also going to ratify, mainly for the reasons from VectorZ, Martinlady, and ATCBB. I feel not ratifying gives tacit approval to the FAA's misguided leadership policies of the last three years.
Here is the process in case we don't ratify (or agency head review isn't successful): within a period not to exceed 45 calendar days, those items will be resubmitted to the Panel, which shall, within 24 hours of receipt, schedule a second set of Additional Sessions, not to exceed 3 days, for the parties to present their final positions. The format will follow that discussed in Par. d, above. Following receipt of these closing presentations, the Panel will convene in executive session to render an expedited decision, within 30 days which; at the Panel's option, may include the award only without supporting opinion, on each of the items in dispute.
I would be willing to bet (though I'm not a betting man) that if we don't ratify, the arbitrators will most likely enforce the TAUed articles on us.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I disagree with this reading of the ground rules. I think that the arbitrators could go ahead and set up a group of other arbitrators to rule on grievances and the like.
In reality, that's more or less what they did with the document explaining their decision. Their point in saying "This Panel has the sole power to decide" doesn't preclude that panel from delegating their power to other arbitrators if the caseload gets to be too big.