National Association of Air Traffic Specialists

Aviation Safety is Our Business

Bulletin #23

10/26/00

From

Don McLennan

In the last bulletin we discussed the lack of clarity surrounding the issue of when members say they favor one system over another and what that really means. Compensation for our bargaining unit has evolved to a point where it is more complicated than may be captured by the expression "I favor one system over another". This has, unfortunately, become simplistic to the point of not saying anything really very meaningful. There is so much to talk about; from reclassification and work rules to the ATC pay levels, the Core Compensation System, and, even I suppose, to wanting to remain the same. It is sufficiently complicated that when I hear someone say what they think they want I generally have about a dozen clarifying questions. For example, there are those that say "Just get me the best deal".

I feel like someone is sharing some of his or her feelings that this issue has become way too complex. It has so many facets and such a great deal of unknowns I think members are sharing their frustrations and are essentially saying, "let those people who have developed compensation reform provide the necessary guidance to the membership on what and why this is the "best deal". However, this worries me because we must all be fully informed before we vote to accept, or reject, anything developed in negotiations with the FAA.

This "best deal" seems to have about four facets. The first is reclassification. Do we want to embrace those precepts or reject them and remain the same? This is potentially a very divisive issue, especially if there is pay surrounding the levels and higher level facilities are paid at a higher rate than lower level facilities. Those in smaller facilities believe it is unfair and unsubstantiated that higher level facilities are truly deserving of greater pay. Likewise, the opposite is true for those facilities with a higher traffic count, they are tired and resentful of being paid at lower level facility pay. Secondly, are our work rules that have already been Tentatively Agreed Upon but are being held hostage by our inability to agree on a pay plan. Thirdly, what is necessary for NAATS to become converted into "ATC" like pay levels, and at what levels, and would that be a good deal for all of us? Also, if we go down the NATCA road, if in a smaller facility will you be treated unfairly as I have heard happened in the other bargaining unit? Finally, the Core System must be thoroughly reviewed to insure we know this may really be in our best interest if other options become closed to us. Each of these four facets is as important as the other is.

All of these are fair questions that deserve considerable and thoughtful reflection. We need to try and guard against being closed-minded to the point that we think we know what is best for everyone else, especially if we believe it only because that is what we believe is best for us. It is imperative, to act as a Union, that we recognize the breath, differences and dissimilar situations so many of us are in. At this point it would be greatly counterproductive, in my view, to take the "short sighted" view that what "is best for me is best for everyone". Let's make sure, in the final hour, we live up to the beliefs we all have in common and act as a Union and demonstrate nothing less than complete understanding and compassion for our fellow workers. Let's make sure we all take the high road. One sorely needed within this Agency. We will be better for it in the end.

Back to Bulletin List.

Walter W. Pike, President

This page was last updated on 26 October, 2000