Ratify
Posted by Paul Cox on September 11th, 2009
I voted this week on the contract proposal.
Like many of you, I was pretty ticked that the arbitrator’s decision didn’t provide any form of “make whole” remedy or back pay. I’m even more disgusted than many of my coworkers, because I’ve read through the panel’s written opinion; many people didn’t.
The opinion makes it very clear that the FAA’s imposed work rules are NOT a contract. If that’s the case, then the only legitimate contract is the Green Book, and we should have been getting compensated at those levels all this time. Unfortunately, political realities are such that the panel didn’t feel as though they had the authority, the courage, and/or the ability to set things completely right.
The way the FAA has treated its employees- ALL of its employees- over the past several years is disgusting. If NATCA votes to reject the contract proposal, it will send a clear message from the employees that they are not happy with their employer, with the terms that are being offered, and with how things are going now.
On top of that, I believe that if we do not ratify, we only stand to GAIN. Yes, it will mean more time working under the White Book, but in the end we’ll either get this proposal or something even better.
So given all that, why not vote “no”?
Because… what we’re actually voting on, the contract proposal itself, is a pretty good deal. It really is. It gets us back to more or less Green Book provisions on many, many items. Some of the things that the FAA really needs- not just for employees, but for the facilities and employer as well- are covered in there.
One of the biggest is the provisions of Article 7. This allows for local negotiations to handle the details of many subjects. One of the great hypocrisies of the FAA over the past several years is that while the agency was saying (via their propaganda machine) that decisions needed to be made at the lowest level possible, facility managers were not allowed to think for themselves or make decisions on their own. Everything ran through HR in the hubs or regional offices.
Well, that’s gone. Managers will see this as a loss, especially the lousy managers who don’t want to have to deal with their employees, but the reality is that good managers will thrive with this and see it as an opportunity. Now the employees can get their say in, and the local level managers can actually (gasp) run their facilities as they see fit. It’ll still be within the laws and rules that the agency sets out, but they’ll have to make up their own minds on things instead of some HR drone doing it all for them.
There’s a real grievance process as well, and it’s awfully good for the union (which usually wins about two-thirds to three-quarters of the grievances it takes to arbitration anyway).
Some of the bigger articles are good, too. The development of schedules is back towards being reasonable and helpful to the employees, instead of the FAA being allowed to just do whatever they damn well pleased (and screw employees’ personal lives). Same with overtime, the dress code, and a lot of other issues.
So when you look at just this agreement- and this agreement alone- it’s a good deal. If it were totally divorced from the pay issues, it’d pass easily.
I think that the union is taking ratification for granted, though, and that a LOT of members are going to vote “no” as a form of protest and anger over the past few years. I think there’s a lot of people who feel as though their concerns and frustrations have not been heard by management; in fact, many feel that they’ve not been given any voice at all. I think they believe this is the only way to speak out.
I say to them… I totally understand. I came very close to voting “no” myself. But in the end, I voted yes, and you all should as well.
Then we all need to find a way to let the FAA know what we really think and feel, because we SHOULD give voice to our anger and disgust with our employer.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I’ve often thought that my own Air Traffic Managers have made up their own mind on precious little. In fact, most of them could have easily been replaced, at significant cost savings, by an Admin Assistant and a security camera.
September 12th, 2009 at 7:31 am
You hit the nail right on the head, Paul. But we have found a way to let the FAA know how we really feel. Just vote no.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Paul,
“but they’ll have to make up their own minds on things instead of some HR drone doing it all for them.”
I still think the provisions of FAAO 3710.18 will be in effect for local MOUs requiring HR approval as the agency head review (as does the new contract).
September 12th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Excellent post. My own sentiments, exactly. I have really been struggling on how to vote. I finally voted ‘YES’ a couple days ago.
P.S. JTB gave you some good advice. I’m glad you’re still here!
September 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
So, as I was still wondering, after I seperated where my per diem is after I worked for 8 bucks an hour.. and went into debt….
September 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I think that regardless of what any article 7 says, we will largely end up dealing with the agency as before. Local managers will be given very little leeway for local negotiations. I was facrep under the green book and I was, in effect, dealing with regional personnel, through their mouthpiece, the local manager. For article 7 to have the changing effect you articulate here, there will have to be an internal desire on the parts of actual people to deal with the union in an honest and up-front manner, with integrity. No contract language can make them. There are too many of them willing to argue about the meanings of words like “shall” and “may” and how those meanings change depending on their take of the issue! Grievance procedure? same thing! How many did we amass under the green book? Legion are the managers whose attitude is “File a grievance, I don’t care. You’ll be doing what I want done for the 8 months ’til your grievance gets looked at regionally.”
The bottom line is that the contract is a tool in the hands of the people who use it. Their attitude toward their employees is a far more deciding factor in how things play out than the language of any contract article. As evidence, look at the inability of a simple concept like Babbit’s casual Friday to be understood by various mangers. What is determined to be in compliance with the dress code on October 3, 2009 may be VERY different than what was allowed under the same language, on October 3, 1999. And if we had the QTP mentality of 15-20 years ago, the white book could’ve been wielded in a far less harsh manner.
Integrity. It’s what matters. And until it’s more than just another typo for the agency, it won’t mean a damn thing.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Anger and disgust, regarding FAA’s COO ATO.
Hank Krakowski perjured himself in a wrongful death case, and then skated.
http://ejectsturgell.blogspot.com/2009/09/faas-hank-krakowski-lied-under-oath.html
———————–
John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Quiet Rockland