National Association of Air Traffic Specialists

Aviation Safety is Our Business

Bulletin #13

From

Don McLennan

When we met with the management team in Washington, DC in late October we requested an update on Reclassification, the 30 page power point pay presentation, the 50+ pay rules, the Dual Traffic Count, the Alaska Reclass/Pay Issues, the Architecture Report, Budget concerns, Costing Information, etc. The intent of this Bulletin is to update you on their perspective, as best as I could determine, concerning the compensation of our bargaining unit members.

Immediately, the first words out of one of their chief negotiators mouth, Tony Herman, were to caution us to be careful, the FAA is facing further budget cuts in an already very bleak budget picture.

He said he believes there is a "chicken or egg" problem. It seems to him that we really need to see if there is any money to fund a new system before spending time developing that system. He feels that a better way to proceed is to see how much money is available to implement a new system.   He also said that he did not understand all of the facets of implementation in the FSS option. On the topic of whether or not reclassification fits with the Core System, he said, "That may be fine but it needs to be if we are going to meet the Administrator’s expectations. It is paramount to her that we find a way to connect with the core plan." He wants to pursue finding cost offsets first. This, also, must be market based driven. NAATS asked, " What would be our interest in a market based analysis, core compensation system"? They answered they thought it would be pay. NAATS also inquired how to approach this? Mr. Herman answered that it needs to save money, be cost neutral, and be more effective and implemented within the Core Plan.He added that they were not prepared today to present any model of what they would like to see implemented.

Mr. Herman acknowledged that government is changing and he was not trying to suggest anything less than that. Wally Pike said that our preference would be to maintain the systems we have so far developed. It is not our "position" but our preference. We are anxious to hear what can be said about the pros/cons of the Core Plan. Management wondered, "If we are not interested in the product of the pay group, why should we accept it"? NAATS pointed out there is always a cost to change and the Agency needs to recognize that.  They seem to be saying that we need to change but there is no extra money to initiate this change. Mr. Herman did say that contracting out is not the major threat to our option. Instead, it is the slow withering of the option. He said that most people felt that we do a good job and we needed to insure that we were able to continue the option, as we know it. Ray Thoman, an FAA Chief Negotiator, added that when the Pay workgroup was halted, last March, it was not because management disapproved of what had been developed but that it was not clear at that time how it would fit into the core system. Herman added that maybe part timing would be a way to realize cost savings.

Mr. Thoman wanted to know, "Has NAATS discussed, or brain stormed, some cost offsets?"  Mr. Pike responded that a significant aspect of that would be what information was in the architecture report. Pike explained that the part of the architecture report about consolidation has never been briefed to NAATS.

NAATS said that cost offset discussions should surround "cost neutral", "poor budget" and "increased productivity" parameters. In other words we are not trying to gainshare the dollars because the work is still there we just have less people doing it. Mr. Thoman shared his concern that some of these types of savings take so long to be realized that there would likely be no benefit until the end of the term of the contract. NAATS claimed that if there is no money to implement reclassification then NAATS would have no interest in doing that. We would look to offsets for increased compensation but not to implement reclassification. Mr. Herman said that management might not feel they needed reclassification.

Walter W. Pike, President