Table of Contents
Message from President Mac Top of this Page
From the Executive Director
Capitol Hill Report
Chief Negotiator's Report
In Brief..
Health and Safety Update
OMB Slashes FAA's FY '98 Budget Proposal
METAR/TAF MEETING
Collective Bargaining in the Federal Sector
McAnaw provided updated CPP letters. On Partnership, he reported about the meeting in Atlanta, noting that there were several IOU's pending from the FAA. The next National Partnership meeting will be in conjunction with CMD training of regional gatekeepers on January 27-31,1997. The DOT Partnership is not advancing, particularly with the departure of Secretary Pena.
Mac also reported that to date there has not been progress with the FAA in joining in an effort to
attain safety related status. The issue will be brought back to the attention of Ron Morgan. Mac
reported that he had a telcon with Ron Morgan on AWS, and that the FAA has concerns with
several AWS MOU's in Flight Service. Mac also asked for nominations for the position of
Treasurer.
Back to Table of Contents
Executive Director's Report
:Simms reported on the National Meeting, and on office communications, including the new web
page (www.naats.org) and the expanding use of eMail. He also stated that we have been receiving
positive feedback on NAATS NEWS, particularly on the input from the Directors and committee
chairs.
Back to Table of Contents
Director of Labor Relations Report
:Mike Doring gave his report on Labor Relations. We have withdrawn the DUATS ULP, and the M&IE ULP was dismissed (without reference to the issue of union initiated bargaining). We refiled the ULP on the failure to bargain on the CWSU test.
On arbitration, we have settled the Baker case successfully and we have also settled the Central Region CPP arbitration successfully. We have a prehearing conference shortly on the Great Lakes handicap arbitration. The forced retirement case in SW does not yet have a date assigned for arbitration. Campbell has a grievance regarding cancellation scheduled overtime, and has already scheduled the case for arbitration.
Regarding the Phoenix training in February, it will be "advanced training;" Doring will provide the
Board with outlines for basic, advanced, and midterm bargaining, together with the numbers of
people who could be accommodated at each session.
Back to Table of Contents
Chief Negotiator's Report
:Wally Pike provided an update on midterm negotiations. On the CWSU test, one of the four individuals selected declined the assignment, and management unilaterally selected an alternate; we have filed a ULP on the selection because it was made without discussion with NAATS. We are also working on the new policy on sexual harassment, to make sure that we have representation on EEO complaints. Jim Parris, our national EEO representative, will be brought in to DCA for the discussions.
On the FAM program, it is expected that the FAA General Counsel will issue an opinion on the legality of the program at some time after the first of the year. Data collected from the Directors on "overstaffed" facilities has been provided to Ron Morgan, and Wally will circulate copies of the memo to the Directors. There is still no signature on the MOU related to the FSDPS transition into AOS.
Pike reported on a meeting he had at the FAA regarding AWSMT program, and he noted that the
program will be a "tool" for use by management. He noted that the major problem with the
program remains the fact that the staffing standard is not substantive, and the assessment does not
take into account cost savings associated with 10 hour shifts. There will be another briefing on
this program before the AWS MT is put into the field. Pike also met on the AWS MOU review.
He told the FAA that unless MOU's are contrary to law or regulation, we will not renegotiate.
The FAA will consider Pike's suggestion to work the issue at the national level.
Back to Table of Contents
Workgroup Reports
:Ron Maisel stated that the scheduled meeting for Reorganization in December his been canceled. The recent ATMT appears to have resulted in a decision to end Phase III, and that Phase II will be substantially modified as well. Maisel added that January 22-23-24th will be the next PROCOM meeting.
Craig Campbell reported on the Staffing Standard Work Group, noting that data has been collected and is being collated. Mike Terry reported that the Central Region wants to negotiate a regional staffing standard; he was advised by Craig to proceed with the process and use our own basis for establishing appropriate staff levels. It was pointed out that NAATS needs to develop its own position on an appropriate staffing standard for use in negotiation and in congressional relations, since there is a need to explain to Congress why we need additional Flight Service employees, using a NAATS staffing standard. Of course, duties are an important element, and we cannot rely solely on operations per specialist. The quality of services cannot be disregarded. There was consensus to form an internal NAATS work group - and to get working quickly - on developing a staffing standard, and for Wally and Mac to press for the formation of a joint NAATS-FAA workgroup as well. McLennan, Campbell and Dawson will form the internal work group. Campbell noted that there have been no additional meetings of the CWSU work group, and it is now a matter for negotiation and ULP enforcement.
Kurt Comisky announced that December 20th is the new JRC date for OASIS. An implementation draft has been circulated, including all 61 AFSS's. At present, it appears that the consoles will be replaced, although there is a problem with the ICSS. There is a potential problem with ergonomics and human factors; Kurt and Suzanne Pellosmaa provided the applicable ANSI standards to the FAA, and have asked that it be included in the statement of work. Monitor size remains an open questions as of now, as is the degree of resolution.
The report on the Flight Service Architecture was provided by Ron Dawson. He noted that the
work group had rejected our request for delay, and is meeting now in Texas. They now appear to
be looking at questions on traffic count per specialist, and various scenarios related to the number
of required buildings based on specialists' count.
Back to Table of Contents
Legislative Liaison Report
:Irv Woods reported that NAATS PAC distributed $25,100 this year. We are starting to receive requests to help retire campaign debts. The direct mail solicitations were highly successful, and we have received thanks from the candidates we supported. Irv initiated discussion of congressional developments. The Board agreed that our legislative priorities center around a staffing pipeline, safety-related status, and OASIS. User fees, FAA reform, on budget/off budget, the ticket tax - all of these issues will be back this year. In terms of GRASSROOTS 2000, there was a consensus to make our primary focus preserving the size of the Flight Service Work Force.
Ward Simpson raised the issue of the need to publicize the cuts in 800 lines to the flying public by
running advertisements in aviation publications. The Board agreed to fund a campaign of
advertisements in various aviation media.
Back to Table of Contents
Budget Consideration
:Simms led the discussion about the budget which had been based on changes suggested by the
Board at its last meeting. The motion was adopted for 1997 after inclusion of additional funds for
public relations. A summary of the budget will appear in the next issue of NAATS NEWS.
Back to Table of Contents
Constitutional Revisions
:Bill Dolan stated that he and Ward Simpson have collected suggestions for amendments. Simpson
stated that they will continue to review the mechanics for amendment. It was acknowledged that
the constitution already contains provisions for amendments, either from (the membership or the
Board. Dolan and Simpson will report back by the next meeting.
Back to Table of Contents
New Pay
:Don McLennan provided an update on New Pay. Five months have passed since the initial charter
for the group was adopted by ATS, but there is no progress to report. He stated that the agency
is still assuming that the pay system for NAATS is to be effective 10/1/97, but virtually no one
believes that this will happen, since the pay plan work group has not yet met. The NAATS
members of the work group (McLennan, Simpson, Hart, and McGinn) will be meeting to develop
an initial set of options for consideration by the Board.
Back to Table of Contents
Special Presentation: Drug and Alcohol Testing
Maureen Coe, Acting Substance Abuse Manager, and Tuwan Harrison, Substance Abuse
Specialist and Deputy Manager offered the annual briefing to the Board on the Drug and Alcohol
Testing Program. They reported that the drug testing rate is now 25%, with less than 1%
positives. There is a continuing problem regarding the ability to collect for post accident tests on a
timely basis. Drugs may be tested for within 24 hours, alcohol within 8 hours of the accident.
Back to Table of Contents
Special Presentation on CISD
:Frank Perhalla, National EAP Program Director, Marita Johnson (his assistant), Karen Philips,
and Fred Cooley described examples of critical incidents and the methods and means of working
with the regional teams: the EAP representative, the NAATS representative, and the contractor
representative.
Back to Table of Contents
Regional Reports
:Campbell reported on the filing of a ULP against NAATS, but it does not state a claim appropriately. The Southern Region has informed him that they intend to retain all 800 lines, but it is not in writing. The lines are needed to support the region's Traffic Management Program. Simpson stated that he has a draft from his region on the 800 line cuts which states that Alaska has requested no cuts in service, and that other Regions generally are requesting more lines than are being proposed.
Terry reported that the Supervisor's advisory guide on referral was available in his region.
Dawson raised the issue of SUA and OASIS interface. There was consensus that NAATS still strongly supports the program at FTW.
Boberick distributed copies of the Alaska region ASOS MOU. He stated that Dan Hart is looking
for input on the vision project.
Back to Table of Contents
Message from President Mac
Happy New Year
Mac's 1997 New Year resolutions: (1) Flight Service work force to be included in Safety-related definition for budgetary purposes; (2) Get a pipeline of new Flight Service Controllers, now, not 1999!; (3) Get every Flight Service controller involved in their Future, the Future of Flight Service and General Aviation.
1996 had its challenges, but compared to 1997 our work is cut out for us. This year we have contract negotiations, a new Congress, a new Secretary of Transportation, and a new FAA Administrator. These factors NAATS is well equipped to deal with. The part that is going to be tough to deal with is rumors. These rumors are being started by outside forces trying to cut in on our work and they are using FAA workgroups like "Future Technologies" to get FAA contracts. You will hear a number of rumors about consolidating AFSS's, or moving all AFSS's into ARTCC's, or the latest rumor: "NATCA has made a deal with the FAA, and the FAA can't close any Level II towers until the FAA consolidates the AFSS's." Some of these rumors are ridiculous, and others are being planted by these outside forces (vendors). The FAA knows that they don't have the political horse power to close any AFSS's, but the vendors that want to contract out our jobs think they can change that. These vendors are trying to provide the same service we do for less and this is what the flying public wants.,
To be honest, the vendors are right on one point, they can provide weather data for less, not an FAA/NWS approved weather briefing but just weather data! These vendors are wrong about what the pilot wants. The pilot wants our knowledge of local weather phenomena and local area. Even the pilot who uses DUATS depends on us to complete their weather briefings, they know that there is no weather data base with the knowledge that you have for your respective briefing area. There are no vendors at this time that can program their computers to do what we do in every weather briefing. Look at your local weather service officer, their computer analyzes weather information and it spits out a couple of forecast models, but it still takes the human (forecaster) to decide which model is correct. In the future this may change, but for the time being you control your future and the future of Flight Service. If you believe that the FAA or the President of NAATS controls the destiny of Flight Service, you are wrong. You, the individual Flight Service Controller, control the future of Flight Service. In every weather briefing, inflight/EFAS radio contact, and the pilot education programs, you decide where Flight Service is going. Every time you talk to a pilot, your demeanor and conduct in that contact is the determining factor as to whether or not the pilot will use our service again. If you upset that pilot and they never call back, the future of Flight Service gets dimmer. We must be the Provider of Choice. This message is not just for NAATS members; it is also for everyone who works in a Flight Service Station.
'till next month.....
Back to Table of Contents
From the Executive Director
The CPI Change - What's It All About?
Many readers have probably started feeling concern about the debate now getting started in earnest about the way in which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is calculated, and how changes in this economic barometer might impact their salaries and retirement benefits. It's not a very easy subject to get one's arms around. The CPI is a tool created by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics and is used by the government to measure the effect of inflation on the cost of living. A wide variety of goods and services are part of the "market basket" which is used to help the economists determine how the cost of living changes for Americans as a whole. It includes a variety of consumer goods, foodstuffs, costs for rental or home ownership, and government transfers.
The CPI is then used to figure out changes in a huge variety of so-called "entitlements" within (and outside) of the federal budget: federal employee wages and retirement increases, social security and health benefit payments, and other forms of government transfers (such as agricultural subsidies). In addition, the CPI is often used in the private sector for setting interest rates and salary levels.
Recently, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that the current CPI mechanism overstates the true rate of inflation, and as a result, the annual adjustments made by the Federal Government are too high. His point of view has been supported by a recent report of a Congressional commission.
On the other side of the debate are many senior citizen groups, who argue that the CPI actually understates the impact of inflation on retirees and social security recipients, essentially because the CPI mechanism overcounts quality improvements (my television is better today than 5 years ago), because health insurance premium payment increases are largely disregarded in the CPI measurement, that population weights (based on 1980 census data) are no longer correct, and that seniors have a higher cost of living.
What does this mean to federal employees? We all know that the battle of the budget is being
fought in terms of federal employment. The bigger the deficit, the more federal employees who
will be RIF'ed, bought out, or forced to retire. If the CPI is adjusted "downward", the budget
deficit almost "magically" shrinks, and tax revenue (with indexed rates), actually increases. A
small change (such as reducing the CPI from 3.0% to 2.0%) might actually reduce the deficit by
more than $100 BILLION over the next several years. Again on the other hand, this means
smaller wage increases, and smaller pension adjustments in the future. What we may have here is
a debate between current employees and current retirees. Those with an aging work force, like
Flight Service, may be looking at this issue with mixed emotions. Wages might not go up quite as
quickly, and retirement benefits might not escalate quite as fast, but on the other hand the chances
of a RIF or forced retirement might be reduced. And since all economists have at least three
hands, on the third hand, many bargaining unit members are supporting parents who rely on social
security and Medicare; any reduction in the rate of increase of those benefits in the near future
could be hurtful to them. This is an issue which is technical and difficult; nevertheless, it is one
which requires your careful thinking. Express your opinion on the pages of NAATS NEWS!
Back to Table of Contents
Capitol Hill Report
The bulk of the Congress' last two years were driven by Speaker Gingrich's "Contract with America" related agenda, and Majority Leader Dole's presidential campaign related agenda. For eighteen months these agendas were responding to what Republicans perceived as the voters' mandate given them in the 1994 elections, but both failed at delivering what the voters wanted in 1996. Voters are fickle, and often change their minds.
Fortunately for the Republican Congress, but not Bob Dole, after Senator Dole decided to become "Citizen" Dole, the legislative strategy changed. Senator Trent Lott, of Mississippi, the new Republican Senate Majority Leader, worked with Democrats, including the White House, to get compromise and get legislation passed. The last few months of the Congress were effective at getting all thirteen appropriation bills passed, avoiding repeating the politically damaging government shut-downs which still dogged Republicans, along with passing numerous high profile pieces of legislation such as a minimum wage increase, welfare reform and medical insurance portability.
The 1996 voters told the politicians, "we want moderation, cooperation, an end to gridlock, and campaign finance reform." Some of these are easier to say than to deliver. I have worked on and around Capitol Hill more than twenty years in jobs ranging from Congressional campaigns, staff positions in the House chamber, political appointee in an administration and lobbyist/PAC director. I have seen a lot of campaign finance from numerous angles. Neither major political party, nor Ross Perot, have any moral "high ground" when it comes to campaign finance, spending or tactics. It is
a disgusting process. Money is the oil that greases the machine, and this will be the politicians' toughest challenge. Unfortunately, their individual focus will likely be to try to find the "solution" they can sell to the voters, while maintaining or creating what they think is an advantage over their opponents. If they solve this one I'll gladly apologize for my cynicism.
I am much more up-beat on the issues of moderation, end to gridlock, and cooperation The House and Senate have returned the same leadership teams, but Senator Lott appears to be the top Republican spokesman and tactician. Speaker Gingrich will remain a power, but very low-key. Majority Leader Lott is a skilled, well liked legislator, who led the Republicans efforts to get legislation passed after Senator Dole stepped down. Lott clearly got the message last summer about gridlock, shut downs and cooperation, and he helped the Republican Senate get net gain in the November elections. Early indications show he is being careful, conciliatory and often complimentary on the President Clinton's cabinet nominations. This posture will put him in good stead with the voters, giving him political capital and credibility to aggressively take on Democrats when they strongly disagree.
For President Clinton's part, he too will work for cooperation and moderation. Every President wants to be remembered for things which were accomplished.
None of this editorial gives you a clue how NAATS members will fair with the committees, aviation or personnel legislation which will be our focus for the upcoming Congress. Jeb Burnside and I will cover those issues in coming months, as things become more defined.
In closing, 1996 was an extremely busy year for NAATS, and your lobbyists. Jeb and I really
appreciate the help, understanding and support of the members and NAATS leadership during the
battles of 1996. We wish you and your loved ones a happy and safe holiday season, and a
prosperous and safe 1997.
Back to Table of Contents
Chief Negotiator's Report
In response to a suggestion, beginning next month LR Director Mike Doring and I will publish a column titled "Asked and Answered." The idea is for us to answer questions in this column that are of interest to the membership in general. Of course we'll continue to answer questions of interest to specific individuals but these may not be published.
A question raised this past month dealt with the obligation of a Facrep to renegotiate a watch
schedule Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as requested by facility management. This
particular MOU is signed and dated by both Parties but has neither an expiration date nor a
reopener clause. The MOU has been in effect nine months and the past practice at the facility has
been for the Parties to negotiate watch schedules once annually.
W (Wally) - Technically, there is no obligation on the Union's part to reopen this MOU three
months early unless there is a demonstrated compelling need on facility management's part.
M (Mike) - To avoid this in the future, date your negotiated watch schedules and have it in effect
for one year.
W - Right, this will eliminate any argument about management just not liking the schedule and
wanting to renegotiate.
M - This of course only pertains to the entire schedule. The contract allows adjustments on an
individual basis but not the full schedule itself. Reference is Article 34.
W - However, we would view numerous adjustments by management under this Section as an
attempt to circumvent the contractual language. Adjustments are supposed to be held to a
minimum.
M - Remember the intent in negotiating watch schedules is to have a big picture with just a few
minor adjustments.
W - Those adjustments are for the few circumstances that can't be foreseen during the annual
watch schedule negotiations.
Send your questions to Mike or me here at NAATS Headquarters. Please tell us if you want your
name or facility mentioned. Your comments about the usefulness of this column are also
appreciated.
Back to Table of Contents
WHEATON, MD-- The tragic runway collision in Quincy Illinois on November 19 might not have occurred if the Flight Service Station (FSS) once located at the airport had not been closed in 1989, according to the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS). NAATS Executive Director Gary D. Simms stated, "When the Quincy FSS was open, all aircraft approaching were required to contact the FSS by radio on a specified frequency (123.6 MHz) and report their position and intention." Once they called in, "incoming traffic was provided with information on all traffic reported and observed at the airport by the Flight Service Station, " he added.
The Quincy FSS, he noted, was physically located with a panoramic view of the entire airport, and could easily have observed the ground traffic in time to warn the approaching United Express flight. This "almost certainly" would have prevented the tragic consequences which ensued, according to Simms.
The FAA has been engaged in a system of consolidating more than 350 small Flight Service Stations (FSS) into a system of 61 Automated Flight Service Stations (AFSS's). Except for a handful of FSS facilities in Alaska, the consolidation is scheduled to be completed this year.
Simms stated that, "While the consolidation program has enabled Flight Service Controllers to have access to improved equipment, the process of consolidation has taken so long that the equipment is now terribly outmoded and in need of replacement." The FAA is now considering procurement of a new system, designated as "OASIS," to replace the outdated equipment used in Flight Service.
Simms added that enhanced computer capabilities "has come at a terrific cost - the loss of person-to-person contact between the Flight Service Controller and the pilot." He added that NAATS wants the FAA to consider providing traditional local services and communication capabilities at the hundreds of locations abandoned by the FAA through the consolidation process. "The new OASIS system, coupled with communication enhancements, could allow Flight Service Controllers stationed in the AFSS locations to provide the same kind of personal service to pilots using all of the fields where Flight Service Stations previously were operational," he remarked.
Simms also noted that the Flight Service work force is rapidly aging and nearing retirement, and that the FAA has no firm plans for replacing them. "Unless the FAA opens up a pipeline for new employment in Flight Service, a continuing reduction in service is inevitable," Simms stated. "And this means that safety will continue to be compromised at hundreds of locations across the country," he concluded.
NAATS is the labor union which represents more than 2,500 men and women who provide the
corps of Flight Service Controllers for the FAA.
General purpose loans are now available for a repayment period of 1-4 years. Documentation supporting the amount of the loan request is not required. Loans for the purchase of a primary residence are still available for a repayment period of 1-15 years. Documentation is still required for residential loans. Until a new application form is available, use the current Form TSP-20 to apply for any loan. Do not specify a loan type unless you are applying for a residential loan. Available: Immediately.
You will be able to withdraw funds from your TSP account for two reasons while you are still employed by the Federal Government: 1) financial hardship (documentation is required), and 2) a one-time single payment (of all or part of your account) for employees over age 59 1/2. Available: By October 1, 1997.
After separating from Federal service, you will have until April 1 of the calendar year after you turn 70 1/2 to withdraw your entire account balance or begin monthly payments. Available: Immediately, but no withdrawals will be required until early 1998.
Separated participants will be able to withdraw their account balances in more than one way (e.g., receive part in a single payment and the remainder as an annuity). Available: When the new record keeping system is implemented - about 2-3 years.
Back to Table of Contents
Health and Safety Update
Within the past few weeks, I also got to observe some testing/demonstrations being initiated at the Fort Worth AFSS reference to the OASIS installation. This scenario being conducted was to see what size monitor the specialists preferred - a 15", 17" or 20" size (and how many, one or two). The specialists were also to determine the placement of the monitors, if they wanted them side by side, or one on top of the other. Considering the testing, I was a bit disappointed that a written objective and syllabus was not provided but relayed only verbally. The specialists were asked to spend approximately 5-10 minutes in front of each set of monitors and then they were asked to fill out a questionnaire, asking them specifics. One question asked if they would prefer to utilize a mouse or roller-ball; only the mouse was provided at the time of testing. I also had a chance to voice my opinion with the FAA contractor for ergonomics and I did provide him with a copy of the American National Standards (ANSI) standards for ergonomics. I am hoping that when the FAA does make a decision to purchase new workstations that they will purchase ANSI approved equipment, that is, ergonomically correct! I am also in the process of finalizing an ergonomics package to present to the BOD, for their "go ahead", which does contain information regarding proper workstations and exercises to help reduce stress on the position. Please do believe that NAATS will be working hard to ensure ergonomically correct workstations for the future!
Otherwise, the holiday season is upon us once again, and I would like to take this opportunity to
wish everyone a very safe and merry holiday season. It's hard to think about safety during the
holiday season because people are preoccupied with many other aspects of the season and
competition from other sources is keen. However, careful planning in advance can do a lot to
eliminate hazards in and around the house. Remember to allow a little more time for those extra
jobs so that fatigue won't set you up for a tragic mishap. Also remember that drinking and driving
do not mix! A little reminder from your NAATS OSH team. Happy holidays!
Back to Table of Contents
OMB SLASHES FAA'S FY '98 BUDGET PROPOSAL, CALLS FOR CONVERSION TO FEE FOR SERVICE BY 1999
The Office of Management and Budget, the principle administrative arm for the Executive Branch, has slashed DOT's FY 1998 budget request on behalf of the FAA by 6.7%.
According to published reports, the so-called "pass back" - the return of the DOT request along with its justification - proposes an FY 1998 budget of $8.318 billion for FAA. And according to the OMB, $500 million would come from new user fees.
In addition, OMB plans to move to a full user-fee system in the following fiscal year, apparently with the blessings of the now-departed Secretary Pena. Acting Administrator Linda Daschle has informed DOT that such a move may be "premature" and "unrealistic" in the face of strong Congressional opposition to user fees.
DOT seems to be ahead of the curve on the Congressionally mandated National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which is expected to produce a recommendation for future FAA funding towards the end of this fiscal year.
For FY 1998, OMB proposes funding FAA operations at $5.293 billion, facilities and equipment at $1.825 billion, AIP at $1 billion, and R&D at $200 million. These figures were lower in each category than the DOT request on behalf of the FAA, except for R&D ($5.434 billion, $1,949 billion, $1.350 billion, and $180 million, respectively).
Pena and Daschle have both asked for a restoration of the proposed OMB cuts. She stated that
the OMB figures "would place the agency in a very precarious situation with sharp cuts and an
unpredictable financing scheme."
Back to Table of Contents
METAR/TAF MEETING
We began by asking for what seemed to be some very simple changes in the M1FC, i.e. changing the order of the METAR and eliminating a few items. I provided a sample of what a reformatted METAR would look like. It included putting the 4 letter ID first, shortening the report name i.e. ME/SP, dropping the KT and the date from the date/time group, and using a dash (-) for missing data instead of just a space. The answer we got to these requests was that each one of these requests require a software change which requires a National Change Proposal (NCP) and that it costs approx. one quarter million dollars for each NCP, with a one to two year time frame for each NCP. And FAA is not going to spend that kind of money on the M1FC at this point in the game. Apparently we aren't quite ready to implement operating under the "lines of business" just yet! Kevin did tell us that all of our suggestions will be forwarded to the OASIS workgroup for possible inclusion into the new system. Pete mentions that it may be possible with OASIS that each briefer will be able to tailor the weather products presentation to whatever format he/she desires.
Regarding dropping the word METAR or SPECI from the report altogether like the military reports, the weather service sends the reports in a collective, just like the Mexican weather, with the header at the top, and then M1FC is programmed to break these collectives down into individual reports so they can be formatted into a route briefing. Kevin stated that we the union (Wally) wanted the name of each report to remain with the report so there would be no confusion, however, when I asked Wally about this, he said no, he never made that request. For now, the reports will remain the same. We tried everything, but even though we didn't like most of the answers we got, we did get seemingly reasonable explanations for all of our turned down requests.
We had a report from RAL AFSS through ABQ FSDPS of a report exceeding the 196 character limit for storing a report in M1FC. Thus the whole report was dropped from M1FC and concern was that this could be a safety item in long winter reports with lots of remarks. However, we have been trying to get an example of such a lengthy report because Jerry said he has never seen a report that actually exceeded 196 characters, and that includes some reports he has seen from Florida with 5 cloud layers and many remarks regarding thunderstorms, etc. Terry is looking into this and will try to get the report from RAL, but as of right now, it does not seem to be much of a problem. Salisbury, MD, reported an uncoordinated change in working conditions with how non-automated stations must use different procedures to retrieved their weather reports. They now must either /RQ both the 4 and 3 letter ID to get SA/UA/NTM INFO, or /WQ either the 3 or 4 letter ID. A cirnot was put out about this change prior to the July implementation date. Concerning the TAF's, we requested the BECMG group be indented beneath the FM group to show it belongs with that FM group. Jerry said he would check on the maximum number of characters allowed on each TAF, as each space also counts as a character. He thought 1000 was the maximum, but if he can't get us the indentation, will at least try to get it a new line, like the FM group. Kevin did state that the Flight Standards division is in discussions with NWS regarding eliminating the BECMG group altogether because it is not useful from a pilot operating standpoint.
Regarding our questions on phraseology issues, unfortunately, Carol Gaunt, the specialist in charge of this, was unable to provide us with answers to our requests at this meeting. She owes us several IOU's. Questions we brought to her included: BECMG- instead of having to say "a gradual change from xx to xx", just say "becoming between xx and xx". P6SM, if the visibility is this, just eliminate having to mention the visibility as before. FEW- use the words "widely scattered", it flows better with other cloud layers; and with surface based partial obscurations, use just the higher value, i.e. SCT000 becomes obscuring four eighths of the sky instead of three to four eighths of the sky. When (if) we get more information back from Carol, either Terry or I will provide an update in the newsletter.
There is one other phraseology item that I was not aware of regarding automated observations. If a report has A02 at the back of the observation, it is not required to say "automated weather observation". ICAO standards consider any station with an observer present a manual observation, (even if the observer doesn't do anything). The only time we are required to say "automated weather observation" is when the word AUTO follows the date/time group.
We asked one question about the ten digit DTG for NOTAMs and while this meeting was not to address NOTAMs, Pete did explain that in some countries, this NOTAM format is the only way NOTAMs are kept, so indeed, there may be NOTAMs more than one year old.
Just to let you know a little background on METAR/TAF, we were one of only three countries in the world still using the SAO formats, US, Mexico and Canada. Even though the US has the vast majority of the world's airplanes, the State Department agreed for us to go along with the rest of the world. And the present format of putting the winds first is because when aviation weather was originally set up in the 1930's, the winds were the most important weather phenomenon due to the heavy use of gliders in the world community at that time. Also, FAA is trying to get rid of the FEW000, SCT000, BKN000, and OVC000, but so far the military is insisting these remain. This meeting was very interesting, albeit frustrating because it helped us to understand all the coordinating that goes on between agencies and now even countries as we become more globally involved. Any questions, contact Terry at OAK. I'll be involved in the CWSU test at Houston Center for the next 6-7 months, so it'll be easier to contact Terry.
'till next time...
Back to Table of Contents
Collective Bargaining in the Federal Sector
An Historical Perspective
Selecting a date for starting a discussion of the rights of federal employees to participate in labor organizations - and to be represented by them - is somewhat arbitrary. One could begin with the history of the Labor Movement in the 18th Century with the formation of the Philadelphia Cordwainers, generally considered the first labor organization in America. One could also discuss the various attempts to form modern labor organizations in the middle and late 19th Century, at a time when unions were considered to be illegal restraints against trade and unconstitutional infringements on the right of individuals to enter freely into contracts with their employers. We could review the stories of the Knights of Labor and Samuel Gompers.
However, to be a bit more specific with regard to federal employees, one might as well begin with the adoption of the first true Civil Service Act, also called the Pendleton Act, in 1883. Enacted as a reaction to a series of scandals involving graft and corruption, it was championed by President Chester A. Arthur and was an effort to end the practice of the "spoils system." For the first time, Congress was provided with the sole authority to set wages, hours, and conditions of employment for federal workers. The law made no mention of worker's rights, other than to be free of political reprisal provided that they were part of the new, nonpolitical Civil Service.
In 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt issued an Executive Order creating a "gag rule" limiting legislative and political activities for all federal workers. This order became the ancestor of the Hatch Act and prohibited most political activity by federal employees - and thereby prevented them from taking the collective, concerted political actions that their private sector counterparts were increasingly relying upon to secure minimum wages, wage and hour regulations, and eventually the right to join and be represented by unions. The so-called "gag order" prevented any employee from communicating with or testifying before Congress - unless the statement was first approved by the agency head.
The first labor organization made up exclusively of federal employees was most probably the National Association of Letter Carriers, organized in the late 19th century.
As early as 1904, private sector labor organizations began organizing federal workers, although obviously the ability to negotiate was restricted. In that year, the International Association of Machinists established District 44 to work exclusively within the federal government. As continued to be the case, most private sector unions which organized federal employees did so in the blue-collar sector, and largely avoided attempting to organize white collar workers in the so-called "classified" (later "competitive service") sectors.
Around this time, a variety of independent federal labor organizations were established, although at times, it was difficult to see whether they were mutual benefit associations or labor organizations. An early example of this was the National Custom Service Association, established in 1906. Initially a joint burial society, it expanded several years later to take on a political role by establishing a separate independent fund used to defray lobbying costs to protect a special overtime provision for Customs Inspectors. (Decades later, NCSA became a full-fledged union, and was subsequently merged with the National Treasury Employees Union in the mid 1970's.)
In 1912, at the height of the Progressive legislative era, Congress adopted the Lloyd-LaFollette Act. This measure was important to federal employees because, for the first time, it gave some of them the right in law to join labor unions, provided that the unions forswore the right to strike. Second, it provided some employees with the right to petition Congress for the redress of grievances, and to testify before Congress without fear of reprisal (rights which now appear in Chapter 72 of Title 5 of the United States Code). Finally, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act gave some federal employees the right to receive in writing reasons for a proposed dismissal or termination. However, all of these new rights were restricted to a special class of federal employees: those employed by the Post Office.
Of course, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act failed to incorporate most of the rights that modern day federal employees take for granted in connection with labor unions, such as the right to bargain collectively, the right to be represented by unions in grievance procedures, and the rest of rights now available under law. This was, of course, reflective of the fact that the society at that time was still highly distrustful of the Labor Movement. This was the time of radical unionism, exemplified by the International Workers of the World (the "Wobblies"), and was also a time of growing power of Socialist and Labor parties in Europe. Most Americans were highly distrustful of "radical" politics.
After World War I, and following hard on the heels of the Communist Revolution in Russia, officials within the United States government feared that the then rapidly growing Communist Party in the United States posed a threat to the stability and the "return to normalcy" that the Administration desired. Attorney General John Palmer conducted a series of highly publicized arrests - called the "Palmer Raids" - of alleged "centers of communism and syndicalism" as part of what historians call the "Red Scare." Many of the targets of the raids were labor organizations, and allegations of communist or radical influence within labor unions would be used as a basis to deny legitimate union rights to the working people of America for decades.
In 1933, the American Federation of Labor (AF of L) chartered the first union directed at white collar federal employees: the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). As the country faced the Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced a series of legislative proposals to restore the economy - and the country's balance. One significant measure was adopted in 1935: the Wagner Act.
The Wagner Act created an entire new system of labor relations in America. Employees now had the legislative right to organize into labor unions, to have fair and impartial elections, to be free from reprisal for participating in union matters, to negotiate collective bargaining agreements, and to have those agreements enforced. Overseeing this new system of mutual rights and obligations was the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This hallmark of progressive legislation, however, failed to include federal employees within its scope. All of the rights now available to the private sector remained unavailable to federal employees.
In 1947, following World War II and following a return to a more conservative brand of government, the Taft-Hartley Act was passed. This bill curtailed many of the rights contained in the Wagner Act, particularly with regard to ending the closed shop system of hiring. Unhappily for federal employees, the Act specifically denied federal employees the right to strike, and included substantial penalties for those who engaged in illegal strikes.
For more than a decade, the desires of federal employees to be allowed to bargain collectively remained virtually ignored by the Eisenhower Administration. The conservative majority in Congress, busy passing legislation restricting private sector union rights and imposing new reporting and disclosure requirements on these unions was even less hospitable to federal sector initiatives.
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed a special Task Force on Employee Relations, chaired by Labor Secretary Arthur Goldburg, to provide the new Administration with recommendations to create a Labor-Management program for federal employees.
The Task Force report noted that there was essentially no government wide employee relations program or policy. Union participation varied tremendously, from its high level of 84% at the Post Office (still then a cabinet department) to the State Department, where union membership was virtually nonexistent. The only agencies outside of the Post Office to actually engage in collective bargaining with employees were the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Interior Department.
As a result of these Task Force recommendations, President Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988 on January 17, 1962. This Order gave all federal employees the right to join - or refrain from joining - labor organizations of their own choosing. It transferred the concept of "exclusive jurisdiction" from the private sector's Wagner Act to the federal government, giving a labor union the sole right top represent the bargaining unit, provided that a majority of the members of the bargaining unit approved of the choice. The Order directed federal agencies to recognize and bargain with labor organizations that represented their employees. Finally, two new wrinkles were added: If a union had at least 10% representation in a bargaining unit where there was no exclusive representative, it was granted "formal recognition" and was entitled the right to be consulted about personnel policies; second, if a union represented 10% of the bargaining unit where there already was an exclusive bargaining representative, it was provided with an informal type of recognition, allowing the union to be heard on issues of concern.
This Order resulted in an explosion of negotiation and in an explosion in union membership. The scope of bargaining was, however, quite limited, in that wages, hours, and many conditions of employment were excluded from the negotiation process. Any disputes were to be resolved by the Secretary of Labor, who oversaw the entire program..
In 1963, an additional Executive Order issued by President Kennedy amended EO 10988 with a series of unfair labor practices paralleling those which appeared in the private sector law. However, strikes and picketing by federal employees remained totally illegal for federal employees.
Through the next several years, the growth in union membership continued to escalate within the federal sector. Most union leaders soon expressed dissatisfaction about operations under the Executive Order, and sought legislative remedies. In 1968, Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz was appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to lead a committee to investigate legislative options. The Wirtz Committee prepared a series of recommendations and was about to release them publicly, when Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection. The report of the Wirtz Committee was placed on the back burner.
With complaints about the system continuing, newly elected President Richard M. Nixon formed a new group which used the recommendations of the Witz Committee as its basis. On October 29, 1969, Nixon issued Executive Order 11491, called the "Labor-Management Relations in the Federal Service", to be effective January 1, 1970. The order retained the key concepts of the Kennedy Order, but expanded upon them significantly.
Most significantly, Executive Order 11491 noted that "the public interest" supported modern work practices, and that "efficient administration" allows employees "an opportunity to participate in the formulation and implementation of personnel policies." The Order required that negotiations be conducted in "good faith." It also created the Federal Labor Relations Council to administer the program and to hear and review allegations of unfair labor practices by both management and labor. The Order assigned duties to the Federal Service Impasse Council (FSIP), to help the parties resolve impasses in negotiations, and to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to mediate disputes between the parties. The Order also provided for binding arbitration and dues check off as items which could be negotiated by the parties.
As amendments were issued over the next several years, the scope of bargaining was expanded somewhat, but still failed to permit bargaining about wages or hours. Nevertheless, a new "permissive" area of negotiations was introduced in this period, which at least made some of the most important topics, such as means and methods of performing work, open to negotiation if both parties agreed to do so. Naturally, few agencies were prepared to take up the challenge of such new areas of negotiation.
As was the case with each expansion of employee rights in previous eras, federal sector labor unions grew in numbers and in strength after these changes were implemented. When Kennedy's Executive Order 10988 was signed in 1962, fewer than 180,000 employees worked in recognized bargaining units. By 1981, almost 1.2 million were in exclusive bargaining units. Of course, all of the rights and protections of these Orders were subject to Presidential Authority alone, since they had no basis in federal legislation. This changed in 1978.
At the urging of President Jimmy Carter, and due no doubt to the growing political muscle of federal sector labor unions, the Civil Service Reform Act, P.L. 95-4544, was enacted by Congress and became the law of the land. The Act had most of the features of the Kennedy and Nixon Executive Orders. However, the various entities created to enforce the Executive Orders were transformed into new legislatively established agencies within the Executive Branch: the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. These bodies, in addition to FSIP and FMCS were now in place to oversee the program.
Finally, in 1993, the Hatch Act was amended to allow federal employees to engage in the political process just as their counterparts in the private sector. This enhanced the ability of federal employees - and their unions - to utilize all of the tools necessary to seek Congressional review and control of the federal Labor-Management program. And under the Administration of President Bill Clinton, Executive Order 12871 has been issued, calling for the creation of a new form of labor relations, based on Partnership.
The 20th Century has seen the slow evolution of the federal Labor-Management Program. At the start of the century, federal employees were exempt from virtually all legal rights related to their employment status, and were prohibited from joining together to voice their views on issues directly affecting how they performed on their jobs. First through a series of Executive Orders and finally through statute, the right of federal employees to join together freely, to participate in and to be represented by labor unions without fear of reprisal became reality. And now, in the closing years of this century, the potential exists for federal employees, through their freely chosen labor unions, to become full players in the entire range of issues affecting their conditions of employment through the Partnership Process.
And at the Federal Aviation Administration, the 1997 Reauthorization Act provided that any
changes to the personnel system which the Administrator of the FAA wanted to make under his
previous special grant of authority would have to be "negotiated" with the exclusive
representative. Thus, at least at the FAA, Labor and Management are equal partners concerning
the entire range of personnel issues which impact the work place. For the first time, collective
bargaining approaching the scale which the private sector has enjoyed for more than 60 years may
be available to federal employees.
Back to Table of Contents
NAATS 11303 Amherst Avenue Suite 4 Wheaton, MD 20902 301/933-6228 301/933-3902 fax Gary D. Simms, Executive Director
