NEWSLETTER E-MAIL ADDRESS:
Wally Pike, NAATS President
The pay negotiations meeting on February 14th with the mediator did not pro-duce any significant agreements. The management team is still offering 5.5% over five years and the union team is still insisting on air traffic controller pay comparability.
There was discussion about the pay disparity figure between NATCA and NAATS GS-12s. The management team stated that it amounts to 13.2% and not 18% but they did not have any documentation to support their position. They did take an IOU to provide this documentation prior to our next mediation meeting on April 17. Please note - they are not offering 13.2%, they're merely discussing our proposal.
We also had Capitol Hill meetings with Senate and House staffers from both parties with more meetings and fund-raisers scheduled in the upcoming weeks. Our new congressional representative is working on some grass roots information that will be sent to you promptly when completed. In the interim, we encourage you to maintain contact with your individual congressional representatives and to educate them on who we are and what we do.
As you probably know, there was a proposal to cut anywhere from $300-350 million from the FAA's budget this year. The Bush administration has rescinded that proposal and the FAA will receive the full Air-21 entitlement. As a point of interest, the proposed cut was from the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) budget, not the Operations budget. FAA employees' salaries come from the Ops budget.
On Saturday, February 17th, President Bush issued four Executive Orders (NAATS Webmaster John Dibble is working on posting the text), one of which revoked Executive Order 12871. While this is unfortunate, we do not expect these actions to have a significant effect on our efforts. All negotiated agreements remain in full force and effect. We will keep you updated on future FAA activity in the partnership area.
I want to extend particular thanks to DEN AFSS FacRep Darrell Mounts and his membership for their work with their representatives in Congress. They did exactly what we need:
- � They showed their representatives around the facility
- � They educated them on who we are and what we do
- � They informed them that there is a pay disparity between FAA air traffic controllers
- � They asked them to contact us at NAATS Headquarters for more de-tails (costing specifics, any possible bill number, hearing schedule, etc.)
- � They reported their progress to us, which allows us to coordinate our Hill activity, ensure message consistency, and to follow-up on the facility contacts
Again, nice work DEN AFSS.
NAATS Labor Relations Specialist Chris Klemm has resigned to take another position with the State Department. We wish Chris the best in his future endeavors. NAATS Headquarters has absorbed the LR duties and no problems or interruptions in service are expected. The BOD has authorized a prototype arbitration advocacy-training program and once the results are finalized, the BOD will make a decision on our future structure.
The Board of Directors has reiterated its policy of members and FacReps contacting their regional representatives before they call NAATS Headquarters. Some of the reasons for this are:
- � Coordination problems created in bypassing the regional officers
- � We at NAATS HQ frequently don't know the particular policies in effect at the regions or the dynamics involved.
We do want to emphasize, however, that if you cannot reach either your Regional Director or Regional Coordinator, by all means, feel free to contact us. We have a policy of returning phone calls within 24 hours and letters (including email) within one week.
We are aware of the mailing problems associated with the quarterly Bulletin and we will be correcting them prior to the next edition. The first printing and mailing of the monthly NAATS News is scheduled for March 1.
Wally
A WHOLE LOT OF SHAKIN' GOIN' ON
Elinormarie L. Morrissy, Editor
Tuesday, February 27, 2001 will be a day that will live on in the memories of all of the residents of the Seattle and Olympia, WA areas for many years to come. It was the day "the big one" hit. A magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck northwestern Washington around 11 a.m. causing serious damage to property. Seattle SEATAC Air Traffic Control Tower cab had its glass shattered, rendering it unusable for some time to come. An eyewitness at Boeing Field told of dirt spewing upward as the runway cracked down the middle. Fortunately, even in the midst of such destructive forces, relatively few injuries and only one death were attributed to the quake.
Alice Haines, Seattle AFSS FacRep reported that everyone at the facility was all right and, with the exception of commercial power going off line, the facility was not seriously damaged. Most of the evening watch crew made it to work, though a few were understandably late.
Revocation of Executive Order 12871
EXECUTIVE ORDER
REVOCATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM CONCERNING
LABOR-MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPSBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered that:
Section 1. Executive Order 12871 of October 1, 1993, as amended by Executive Orders 12983 and 13156, which established the National Partnership Council and requires Federal agencies to form labor-management partnerships for management purposes, is revoked. Among other things, therefore, the National Partnership Council is immediately dissolved.
Sec. 2. The Presidential Memorandum of October 28, 1999, entitled "Reaffirmation of Executive Order 12871 -- Labor-Management Partnerships" (the "Memorandum"), which reaffirms and expands upon the requirements of Executive Order 12871 of October 1, 1993, is also revoked.
Sec. 3. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management and heads of executive agencies shall promptly move to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing Executive Order 12871 of October 1, 1993, or the Memorandum, to the extent consistent with law.
Sec. 4. Nothing in this order shall abrogate any collective bargaining agreements in effect on the date of this order.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 17, 2001
After six months of often-contentious negotiations, the AFSCME negotiating team and the FAA have come to a tentative agreement. The final issue settled between the parties was pay. The final terms of the agreement provide the following:
- Conversion of all employees to pay bands. Employees will have their step increase "bought out" at the time of conversion. ARA employees have already been converted so this provision will have no effect on ARA. An explanation of the within grade increase (WIGI) buy out methodology and a buy out calculator are available on the FAA website. Once step increases are bought out, they will no longer be provided.
- An immediate 2.5% increase in pay for all employees with retroactivity to October 1, 2000. The retroactivity means that each employee will receive a lump sum equal to the amount he/she earned in the period from October 1 to implementation of the pay raise. In all likelihood, the lump sum will amount to 1% to 1.25% of base pay. This is in addition, to the 2.5% in-crease in base pay.
- In October, 2001 all employees will receive a 1% increase in base pay.
- In January, 2002 all employees will receive the regular Federal worker pay increase (including locality pay) plus 1.6%.
- In October, 2002 all employees will receive a 1% increase in base pay.
- In January, 2003 all employees will receive the regular Federal worker pay increase (including local-ity pay) plus 1.6%.
- In October, 2003 all employees will receive a 1% increase in base pay.
- In January, 2004 all employees will receive the regular Federal worker pay increase (including locality pay) plus 1%. Eligible employees will also receive "performance based pay" (PDP) increases of not less than .6%.
- In January, 2005 all employees will receive the regular Federal worker pay increase (including locality pay) plus 1%. Eligible employees will also receive "performance based pay" (PDP) increases of not less than .6%.
- In January, 2006 all employees will receive the regular Federal worker pay increase (including locality pay) plus 1%. Eligible employees will also receive "performance based pay" (PDP) increases of not less than .6%.
- In July, 2006 all employees will receive a 2.5% increase in base pay.
- In January, 2007 all employees will receive the regular Federal worker pay increase (including locality pay) plus 1%. Eligible employees will also receive "performance based pay" (PDP) increases of not less than .6%.
The Agreement expires September 30, 2007.
The pay agreement addresses employees in career ladders by ensuring such employees can receive up to 15% for promotions to the target level.
The agreement caps new hire pay so new employees cannot make more than the pay band maximums.
In addition, the pay agreement addresses classification upgrades of some employees in the 2152 job series and attorney job series. Eligible employees in these job series will receive an 8% increase upon reclassification.
Eligibility is determined on the basis of performance.
More details of the economic and non-economic aspects of the agreement will be available shortly. In addition, members may request an electronic version of the agreement.
NAATS
CONVENTION
2001
LAS VEGAS, NV
OCT. 17-18, 2001
- Luxor Hotel
FACREP TRAINING
OCT. 16TH
- Reservations: (To be announced)
REMEMBER - REMEMBER - REMEMBER
The NAATS National Membership Meeting dates have been changed due to the Luxor Hotel's inability to accommodate us as contracted. The new dates are October 17-18, 2001. The location remains the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
- Don McLennan,
- Northwest Mountain RegDir
2/20-22/01
San Diego, CAThis is the second meeting of this workgroup. The first was held in Herndon, VA at the Air Line Pilot Association Headquarters in early February. While NAATS was not in attendance at that meeting, we have all of the information and notes. The following is a brief description of what the JSIT is and where it came from.
In response to recommendations presented by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, chaired by then Vice President Al Gore, government and industry began a process to jointly focus on the most important safety issues to be addressed in the immediate future. The Commission was comprised of representatives from the Commercial Aviation Safety Strategy Team (CASST) and from the National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC), including its then Chairman, now Secretary of Transportation, Norman Y. Mineta.
A central concept of their report was that three separate organizations/groups should work together in a common aviation safety agenda to improve mutual understanding and to afford the greatest possible safety benefits to the public. Those entities were the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and all of the industry organizations already joined together as CASST. These three entities eventually joined forces to form the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST)
The CAST agreed to work together to develop and implement a common safety agenda that would be driven by data and focused on safety benefits. The CAST framed this agenda with a challenge in the report to the President calling for an 80% reduction in the commercial aviation accident rate in the subsequent ten years. The safety agenda undertaken by CAST would have to produce significant safety benefits in the near and midterms, but would have continuing effects for the long term.
The CAST chartered a Joint Safety Analysis Team (JSAT) to develop a process for analyzing data in order to identify interventions with a high likelihood of improving aviation safety. The CAST elected to limit the JSAT efforts into several specific areas of concern, Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT), Approach and Landing, Runway Incursion, GA Weather and Turbulence. The JSAT reported its findings and recommendations in a document covering each of these areas. The CAST then chartered a Joint Safety Implementation Team (JSIT) to develop implementation strategies and action plans. After approval by the CAST, the JSIT is to coordinate the implementation of the strategies and plans. The JSIT consists of experts from each of the parent organizations whose representatives comprise the CAST and "senior" representatives from those stakeholders who will be affected by the results and who may be responsible for implementation of those strategies.
The goals of the JSIT are to develop a process that would serve as a guide in addressing the issues recommended by the JSAT, developing implementation plans, and to demonstrate that government and industry can work on aviation safety issues more productively when approaching issues with a joint interest in promoting the most highly effective and feasible safety solutions.
Anatomy of an Unfair Labor Practice
- Kurt Comisky,
- New England RegDir
This writing concerns the Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) filed in response to the agency's actions in regards to termination of the practice of sleeping between shifts at Bridgeport AFSS. The reason for this writing is to outline the legal process to deal with the original issue and to present the options that the Union faced.
In the spring of 2000, the Union filed a ULP with the Boston Office of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. This ULP was filed in response to the agency's action. On that fateful day in the spring of last year, the Facility Manager decreed there would be no more sleeping at the facility. The Facility Manager imposed his edict without following the provisions outlined in the contract or dictated by statute. The Facility Manager is not omnipotent, without limitations.
Any Federal Manager must operate within the established boundaries. In this particular incident, the Facility Manager exercised authority that was outside the bounds of both the law and the negotiated labor agreement. Because, the Federal Labor Relations Statute, the law, and the NAATS/FAA Agreement have provisions to address violations or a failure to comply, the Union was presented a choice of which means to seek a remedy, a ULP or a grievance.
Background
Since the facility was originally opened to the present, facility management not only knew about the practice of sleeping at the facility, management openly encouraged it. The first night the facility was in operation, someone slept here. Not only is Bridgeport Flight Service a high volume and complex facility, it is a hard to staff facility in a high cost of living area. To find affordable housing, many specialists must commute considerable distances. It is not uncommon for specialists to commute more than one hour each way (myself), the longest commute is almost three hours each way. With this reality in mind, facility management over the years acknowledged the need to provide the opportunity and means for specialists to take advantage of quick turns in the watch schedule, to sleep at the facility between shifts. Over time, the specialists have come to view sleeping at the facility as a "right", part of the culture of the facility.
Issue
The fundamental issue was the fact the agency failed to notify the Union of a proposed change in working conditions and failed to negotiate with the Union as required by the contract. During the period on or shortly after the practice of sleeping at the facility was terminated, management raised various explanations to justify their actions.
Management asserted that the practice of sleeping at the facility violated agency orders and directives, it was illegal, thus management would have justification to stop the practice immediately. The only evidence produced was an order describing the unauthorized use of government facilities and equipment. Because the order was not specific, government wide and the fact that facility management knew and condoned the practice, this argument did not stand.
Further, even if the agency contended that the practice was illegal and if the agency was within their right to unilaterally stop the practice, the agency had the obligation to negotiate the Impact and Implementation of that decision. In this case, the agency refused to discuss the issue.
Management also asserted that the Union was informed of the proposed change in working conditions, both in the spring of 1999 and in the spring of 2000. The Union did not make an effort to negotiate the issue. Both of these assertions proved incorrect. There was little, if any, documentation of the alleged notifications by facility management to the Union and there was considerable testimony to the contrary.
Management also asserted that sleeping at the facility was in violation of local building and zoning codes. The Region even solicited a letter from the town stating such. The Union's position is that the agency did not apply for and receive the necessary permits as required.
Management also asserted that sleeping at the facility was not a condition of employment, thus non-negotiable. The practice of sleeping at the facility had a direct impact and profound impact on the watch schedule; an impact on the watch schedule is a condition of work.
To file a Unfair Labor Practice Or a Grievance
The basis of an Unfair Labor Practice is found in Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code as Amended (commonly referred to at the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute). In this issue management violated section 7116 (a) (1) "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter; (5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in faith with a labor organization as required by the chapter; (8) to otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision of this chapter". This violation is based on Employees Rights as identified in Section 7102. (2) "to engage in collective bargaining with respect to conditions of employment through representatives chosen by employees under this chapter".
The basis of a Grievance is found in Article 67 of the NAATS/FAA Agreement. In this issue, management violated Section 67-01 (c.) (1) "The effect or interpretation, or claim of breach of this Collective Bargaining Agreement". Also Section (2) "Any claimed violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of any law, rule or regulation effecting conditions of employment as provided in the Civil Ser-vice Reform Act of 1978." This is based upon a violation of Article 9, Union/Management Relationship. Section 9-02 "It is agreed that personnel policies, practices and matters effecting working conditions, not specifically covered by this Agreement, shall not be changed by the Employer without prior notice to, and negotiation with the Union. The basis for violations of Section 2 could be approached a few ways, a violation of Section 7202 or a misinterpretation/misapplication of the FAA Order.
In this case, the Union could file either a ULP or a Grievance. Keep in mind the issue at hand, the agency's failure to negotiate as required by both statue and the contact. A successful outcome for the Union's position would have two parts, to compel the agency to return to status quo and to negotiate as required. Return to status quo would be the resumption of the practice of sleeping at the facility; this was of prime importance. In each passing day, several specialists are profoundly and adversely affected. Realizing both avenues have unique nuances and long time frames with many chances for appeal, we decided the quickest means to the status quo and the most prudent would be to pursue a ULP. We also felt the agency would raise the issue of negotiability sometime in the process, the ULP route appeared better suited to ad-dress this issue.
As we further discuss the process and the options, should examine our short-term goals and our long-term goals. What do we really want in the end? Our long-term goal is obvious, to maintain the practice of sleeping at the facility between shifts.
In the fall of last year, the FLRA completed their investigation and concluded the Agency did in fact violate the statute and filed a complaint against the agency on our behalf. The FLRA concluded the agency did in fact change a condition of work without negotiating as required. The agency denied the charges. A hearing was scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge in New York City. Before the hearing, the FLRA will bring in a mediator in an attempt to settle the case before the hearing. In this settlement conference, realizing the agency's concern to return to status quo and dragging out negotiations, the Union suggested to limit the negotiations to the local level and if unable to reach an agreement, then to proceed directly to the Federal Services Impasse Panel (FSIP). This was agreed to, the mediator suggested the issue be presented to the FSIP on an expedited basis. The sticking issue was returning to the status quo, the agency was working towards a limited return to status quo, 90 days and the FLRA and the Union were working towards status quo until such time as the issue is finally settled. The agency did not want an open-ended status quo; the process could take several years. The agency, the FLRA and the Union could not come to an agreement.
About one week before the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge there was a meeting between the Union and the Agency. This was one final attempt to resolve the issue before the hearing. There were two Regional management representatives, the Facility Representative, Mike Sheldon and myself. For the agency, it was clear they were determined to stop the practice of sleeping at the facility and they had some reluctance to proceed to the Administrative Hearing, thus they were willing to talk.
For the Union, it was time to assess our position. Keeping in mind our goal was to return to status quo, as soon as possible and maintain the practice forever. We have to consider our likelihood of success through the process, what value do we place on what we are fighting for. At this point in time, what was the process ahead? The hearing would take place in New York City in February. The Administrative Law Judge would render his decision somewhere between 6 months to one year. I believe our position would prevail. The agency would most likely appeal the decision directly to the Federal Labor Relations Authority in DC. In about 6 months to one year later, the Authority would render their decision; I believe we would prevail again. I do not know if the agency would appeal the decision to the Federal Courts. Keep in mind there would be no status quo, no sleeping at the facility for two years or more. Once the agency would be forced to return to status quo and to negotiate, they would have to apply to the town for the necessary permits. To gain the necessary permits and zoning changes is uncertain. Further, in negotiations, the agency may refuse to negotiate on substance; the Union would have to file a negotiability appeal to the FLRA in DC.
Now the question of negotiating Substance vs. Impact and Implementation. To negotiate substance is to negotiate the decision itself, to negotiate I&I is to negotiate the impact and implementation of the decision. Management Rights are outlined in Section 7106 of the Statute, (1) "To determine the mission, budget, organization, number of employees and internal security practices and," the Union only has the right to negotiate the impact and implementation of that decision. As an example, the agency has the right to add a frequency or outlet at Inflight; the Union has the right to negotiate impact and implementation of that decision, the Union does not have the right to negotiate the decision itself. As you can see, this decision is directly related to the mission of the FAA. As an example, compare this to the issue parking spaces. Currently there are 20 spaces designated for bargaining unit employees, the agency wants to use 10 of those spaces for a trailer. The Union may negotiate the decision to reduce to 10 itself. In our case, I believe the issue of sleeping at the facility would be fully negotiable.
The Administrative Law Judge would decide on the negotiability of sleeping the facility. If the Administrative Law Judge ruled in our favor, I believe the agency would appeal the negotiability decision also. If the FLRA determines the negotiability in the agency's favor, our only option will be to negotiate the I&I of the decision. If the Union prevails still pursues the practice of sleeping at the facility and the agency still contests the practice, the process will take about another 6 to 12 months for the issue to work it's way through the process outlined in the contract then to be presented to the FSIP for resolution. The FSIP's decision could take up to one year. In addition, if the Union prevailed at the Impasse Panel, the agency could still appeal the decision of the Impasse Panel, thus adding more time and uncertainty.
As we look through the process, to proceed to the hearing and all goes well, status quo may be achieved somewhere around two years from now and the final decision in about four to five years. Most of the employees that are affected by the agency's decision will have been retired long before. I must point out, two employees will be affected for the long term, and the impact will be real. The Union decided the principle of maintaining sleeping at the facility will take many years and the outcome is uncertain. The Union decided to address the issue near term, to achieve an agreement that accommodates the effected specialists and to provide an acknowledgement of the adverse impact of the agency's poor decision-making process.
The Union accomplished:
The immediate return to status quo.
To maintain status quo for the balance of the negotiated watch schedule. This will allow those effected employees ample time to plan next years watch schedule.
Provide an acknowledgement to those employees that were directly affected by management's actions.
Provide an acknowledgement to all other employees that were indirectly affected by management's actions.
Resolve several outstanding is-sues as to put as many issues be-hind us, to look forward in our relationship with management.
As an observation, there are two sides to every issue and I find it rather interesting each side is able to make valid points in support. Management indicated that some employees had the opportunity for PCS and had chosen not to accept or others accepted the position at BDR AFSS with full knowledge of the facility location. Some employees believe that the high cost of living and the past practice elements at the facility have evolved into the concept of sleeping at the facility as a "right".
Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee
- Andrea Chay,
- NAATS Representative
Southwest Airlines HostedThe 102nd meeting of ATPAC was hosted by Southwest Airlines at their corporate headquarters at Dallas Love Airport in Dallas, TX. January 22-25, 2001. We began the meeting with a tour of Ft. Worth Center, and DFW TRACON. Then we had a tour of Southwest Airlines flight simulators and training center, dispatch operations and heavy maintenance operations. Those of us who were brave enough, (and willing to give up some sleep!) had the rare opportunity to fly SWA's B737 simulators. (The sim. period available started at 11PM). I did fly the B737-800 simulator with the HUD, heads up display, and it was a blast! They can shoot an approach down to 700 ft. RVR using the HUD, very impressive! Thanks to all at Southwest Airlines for the great hospitality, and especially to Capt. Becky Howell, ATPAC committee member and the Southwest Airlines Pilots Assoc. (SWAPA) representative, who arranged the whole tour. Everyone was fantastic, and you really can feel the Southwest Spirit throughout the entire campus!
NOTAM Re-host Program
Items that concern us in Flight Service were NOTAMS, PIREPS and VFR Flight Plan Closures. We received a briefing that F&E funds have been approved for the NOTAM system rehost program. Gary Prock, a former ATPAC member while in SUPCOM, is now our contact for operational integration, and they expect operational implementation late 2002. This means transitioning to ICAO format NOTAMS which means all NOTAMS D and L will be available to all users at all times. In addition, it was stated that a web-based NOTAM program would be part of the change. ATPAC will continue to monitor and get updates on the progress of the new NOTAM system.
PIREP Dissemination
The discussion of the problem with PIREP dissemination was covered by a handout provided by Daphne Jefferson's office (ATP-310). This is part of the General Aviation Summit for the Renaissance of Flight Service. A plan is being put in motion to develop a solicited PIREP program procedure that would be implemented in all three controller options. The test is scheduled to start in April 2001. Next is to request a long-term automation system for PIREP entry. This could include e-PIREPS, or ACARS PIREPS direct from the air carriers' cockpits. A common airline/FAA PIREP database will be looked at. Mention was made of a system to dis-play aircraft position in relation to weather for FSS controllers, and they referenced Ft Worth AFSS's ISE/SUA proof of concept, but indicated there were "problems" that could cause delays with getting the system on line for all of us. (Money? - politics??). Also using an ADDS (Aviation Digital Data Service) proof of concept at an AFSS is supposed to occur in December of 2001. Does anyone know which AFSS? Further updates will be pro-vided as we progress through the 3-year time line given to us by ATP-300.
Closing VFR Flight Plans
I brought in an AOC regarding closure of VFR flight plans by an ATC facility other than FSS. A center controller who presented a program to my chapter of the Ninety-Nines stated that if a pilot closes their VFR flight plan with center, that the center controller is not required to pass the closure to the associated AFSS. AIM para. 5-1-12 states the pilot may request any ATC facility to close a VFR flight plan, and words in the 7110.65 appear to confirm this. After more discussion, everyone agreed that unless a controller specifically advises the pilot of their inability to close the flight plan due to workload, etc., that the pilot could expect his/her flight plan would be closed with the appropriate AFSS. An air traffic bulletin will be published to reiterate the importance of a controller closing a VFR flight plan if able, with a reminder of the value of a VFR flight plan for search and rescue purposes.
ATCT Prevailing Visibility
One other item of interest concerns weather reporting at airports with really tall air traffic control towers. The AOC requested that surface visibility should be used always for the prevailing visibility since now some-times the tower is actually above the low fog. The example given was Houston IAH's new 334 ft. tower. The request was for surface visibility to always be in the body of the METAR and put the tower visibility in remarks. This would only work if the ASOS was augmented with a real live observer. We deferred this AOC for the sponsor to be present to clarify the reasons for the request.
New Home in Seattle
Oh, by the way, I have relocated! I am now working at Seattle AFSS. My husband and I have been searching for years for a location that would let us live at a residential airpark, have a reasonable drive for me to an AFSS, and a reasonable commute for Jim. He is a pilot for Northwest. Seattle fit the bill on all three counts! We live at Crest Airpark in Kent, WA (S36), I am in training (UGH!) at Seattle AFSS, and Jim is now based here in SEA, no more flights to MSP! I do have to learn a new area, radically different from Houston, and deal with OASIS, and new weather. I sit here in my living room looking out at SNOW on the run-way! The locals tell me it only snows like this once every 5 years, so I hope they are right! Once I get really involved with OASIS, I'll give my opinion, thus far I have had a 4 day class on it with some hands on training, and it is VERY different! Nevertheless, overall the controllers here at SEA AFSS really like OASIS despite a few serious problems, and many minor ones. None want to go back to M1FC. My e-mail is the same, but here is my new contact information:
Andrea Chay
17639 SE 292nd Pl.
Kent, WA 98042,
Home Phone: 253-638-1679
Work Phone:206-764-6606
- Suzanne M. Pellosmaa,
- NAATS OSH Representative
DefibrillatorsI know there has been general interest in the topic of defibrillators and at the National OSHECCOM meeting held on Feb1, 2001 it was mentioned that the FAA has purchased 33 defibrillators at a cost of $4,000 each with a monthly maintenance cost of approximately $32 for each defibrillator. Two of these have been placed at FAA Headquarters and your guess is as good as mine as to where the remaining will be positioned. Supposedly, they will be located at 24-hour facilities where a physician (medical) is available. As far as I can determine regional headquarters and the control centers will be receiving them. I did pass this information on to Wally Pike and since PASS is in the process of negotiating for defibrillator training, we need to address this subject as well. It would be interesting to know if the FAA has any plans for placing defibrillators at our flight service stations.
First Aid Kits
Recently I was given (by NAATS headquarters) four more safety and health chapters for the FAA OSH Program to review and to comment. One of the chapters specified first aid and as I researched in the CFR, I found some interesting facts reference first aid kits. I will quote the CFR 1926.50 d (2) "The first aid kit shall consist of materials approved by the consulting physician in a weatherproof container with individual sealed packages for each type of them. The contents of the first aid kit shall be checked by the employer before being sent out on each job and at least weekly on each job to ensure that the expired items are replaced." Your facility safety committee or safety rep should ensure that this is being completed. Your facility could probably get away with checking the first aid kits on a monthly basis.
North Carolina Ergonomic Standard in Turmoil
Last year North Carolina proposed an ergonomics standard following OSHA's guidelines. However, North Carolina Rules and Review Commission halted the state standard, citing a new state law that said the Department of Labor could not spend any money on an ergonomics standard. Arguing that the law was passed after they had issued the standard, the state's Department of Labor filed suit last May. That suit headed for the North Carolina Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the North Carolina Department of Labor adopted verbatim the federal OSHA ergonomics standard. A spokesperson said the department would rather have the standard they devised.
French Law Restricts Night Work for Women
The French Senate rejected a government bill to lift restrictions on night work for women. The French Labor Code still prohibits women from working in industry between 10p.m. and 5a.m., although this law has been modified to exclude managerial and technical executive positions of responsibility. European Union fines against the French government prompted the current bill, which also includes medical, pregnancy, and compulsory negotiation provisions, especially in relation to the negative health effects of long-term night shifts. Around 6% of women employees work nights in France, a large increase over the past few decades.
From the Alaskan Region Website (www.kpunet.net/~drhart/news)
Usually you hear of facilities having reduced hours thereby reducing services. After two years of being "emergency part-timed," Ketchikan FSS has returned to 24-hour operations. Staffing finally reached the minimum level that allows this facility to return to full time service. Public response has been positive!
Heritage Foundation's Recommendations for Federal Personnel
from www.FedWeek.com
The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C. based think tank with ties to Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration, has issued a report recommending ways to "take charge" of federal personnel. Many of its ideas have been tried in the past only to fail to gain approval in Congress. However, the foundation's links to the leadership of both branches, plus the persistency of some of the proposals it raises, leaves a real possibility that some of the initiatives will be tried again and that they have a chance of success, if only in modified form.
The report's authors include former Office of Personnel Management director Donald Devine, who headed that agency during the first Reagan administration, and George Nesterczuk, who until a year ago was the staff director for the House civil service subcommittee.
Some findings and recommendations are sure to be controversial. For example, the report says that while official government data show federal employees are underpaid on average by 22 percent versus the private sector, "there are solid indicators that the federal government actually overpays federal employees relative to the private sector. In the first place, federal quit rates are much lower than such rates in the private sector . . . Second, whenever federal vacancies are announced widely, the stack of resumes of applicants seeking federal government work is still very high . . . A third indicator comes from the contracting sector. Rarely do government teams win competitions to keep the work in-house, despite the bias that the contractor must underbid the government team by at least 10 percent."
Key recommendations include revoking President Clinton's executive order that created labor-management partnerships and reform the civil service to emphasize "political responsibility and accountability to the taxpayers." This would include eliminating duplicative programs, building support for a "more flexible and modern federal personnel system," moving to merit-based pay and benefits, reforming federal retirement benefits to make them "fully potable and fully funded," reform of hiring practices, reasserting managerial control and consolidating the government's central management agencies.
The report offers a series of lessons about the running the government that it says the new administration should learn from the past:
"To reform the civil service bureaucracy, the new Administration must demand accountability and enforce the crucial distinction between career and non-career employees and functions.
"Political appointments should be made in a timely fashion.
"Political appointees must be in charge of policy.
"Key management decisions must not be delegated to the career bureaucracy.
"A clear rationale must be put forth for reducing the size of the federal workforce and making management changes.
"The Civil Service Reform Act should be used to improve management and accountability.
"Good management and contracting out can save taxpayers billions of dollars.
"Federal workforce reduction should be planned and implemented in a systematic fashion.
"In reforming the federal retirement system and other federal employee benefit programs, getting serious changes enacted into law will require careful monitoring and managing of the congressional budget process."
Management Strategies
The report also outlines strategies for managing the civil service, including:
Eliminating duplicative programs and functions - "A logical place to begin the task of paring down excess and excessive government is to identify and eliminate functions and programs that are duplicated across government agencies or spread across multiple jurisdictions . . . Reformers should use the [Government Performance and Results Act] reports to make systematic determinations of what functions the federal government ought to perform, and which ones should be turned over to states or local jurisdictions, privatized, or terminated altogether."
A more "flexible and modern" personnel system - "Reformers today should call attention to federal personnel and management rules and practices that defy common sense. At the same time, they must pursue a 'high road' campaign for government reform that focuses on the need to spend tax dollars wisely and to improve the efficiency and effective-ness of government's service. Showcasing successes will validate this pursuit and keep the initiative in the public's attention.Changing the work force structure - "Rather than a pyramid, the new organizational approach to government management should look like a core-spoke-rim model. The core federal workforce would include expert, highly compensated individuals who serve as executives and managers. The spokes of the new system would be a new class of temporary employees to deal with increased workloads or changing priorities of government and professional experts to do specific jobs or projects in-house. The rim would be contractors performing the great majority of the work on the rim of government. This model would provide greater flexibility to federal executives to staff up or size down the workforce to meet changing workloads and policy initiatives."
Setting market-based pay and benefits - "The OPM should establish an initial pay rate for each occupation and region of the country and adjust it up or down based on quit rates and applicant-to-position ratios necessary to attract the right people. Agencies should set job qualification requirements, subject to OPM review, to assure a quality work-force. Knowledge, skills, and ability (KSA) standards should be used to hire the best candidates from the applicant pool. Although the process should be well advertised and open to all, selection must be based on the qualifications of the applicants."
The report also recommends a cafeteria-style offering for benefits in which the government would contribute a tax-free fixed dollar amount, adjusted for inflation, "to which the employee could add additional after-tax funds to fashion a benefits package that suited his particular circumstance. Some or all of the cash value of annual leave and sick leave accruals could be included in the calculation of the government's contribution."
Making retirement benefits "fully portable and fully funded"-The report recommends a fully portable retirement program based on 401(k) programs "consisting of government contributions comparable to the government's FERS contributions supplemented by voluntary employee contributions." The contributions would be invested much as they are now in the Thrift Savings Plan, with similar fund choices. New federal employees "could be given a choice of participating either in the FERS system or in this more flexible and likely more lucrative new system. The new system would certainly appeal more to employees who plan to spend only a few years in government (such as congressional staff, political appointees, and temporary or term-limited employees) or who enter government in mid-career from an employer that had a 401(k) plan of his own."
Consolidating central agencies-The report recommends creating an Executive Management Agency out of Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration and creating a Federal Personnel Appeals Board out of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Board, and the federal division of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to handle all employee appeals.
To all,
It is no surprise to any one of us that the FAA continues to treat the AFSS/FSS option as one of lowest priority. The union constitutes the second greatest number of FAA employees in the region. We continue to get support in AK from our congressmen and we have a large support group within the region amongst ourselves.
Now it is time to help ourselves, I would venture to say that most facilities have some minor problems and the occasional larger incident and we work it out. We can no longer continue to support the Agency without some effort on their part to acknowledge our existence. The PASS union filed 151 grievances last year to our 24. The result of their efforts got them a meeting with AF-1 and an end to some of the idiotic policies that the regional management was enacting.
We now need to file grievances on every violation of the contract and ULPs on the refusal of the agency to bargain in good faith. Put your managers on notice that we are here to work in harmony with them and only their efforts will alienate us from achieving their goals. We will fight any effort to change our working conditions without PRIOR negotiating and we will take every valid grievance to arbitration if need be.
When you decide to file a grievance please notify me so I can track it and be abreast of the issue to take to the next level and beyond. Be very aware of the dead-lines and do not fail to meet them because it is my thought not to grant extensions to the FAA either.
Additionally when you hear rumors of things that may be happening let me know and I will address it with the region. If you are knowledgeable of the issue feel free to send me your thoughts. There are several areas within this region that my knowledge is limited, such as rotational issues, and I need your information to make thoughtful and intelligent decisions.
The following items have now been verified with the NAATS national office for arbitration.
99-026 Prib 21 GS 11 for all FSS employees (includes 99-029 and 99-032)
00-002 Denial of advanced sick leave
00-006 Denial of a Fam Trip
00-007 MDS vs. BWS and the payment of Overtime
00-018 Travel over the hours of a duty day
Let us hit them with paperwork and see if we cannot earn back some of the working conditions that we require as Air Traffic Controllers.
Guylan