From The President

Wally Pike, NAATS President

First, an update on how the pay negotiations went on April 17th, all the parties were assembled, the FAA attorney announced that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has so far refused to approve the AFSCME pay agreement with the FAA and that this meant the management team was withdrawing its 5.5% offer to us from the negotiations. He added that he could not negotiate on wages until OMB made a final determination on FAA pay agreements. However, when asked several questions regarding his authority to negotiate in good faith, he revised his statement to say he could only negotiate pay agreements that did not result in pay increases. We told him that we weren't interested in the 5.5% offer; much less any offer that did not include an increase of any kind. As there was nothing of substance left to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Both teams are subject to recall by the FMCS.

The NAATS team analysis of the situation is as follows:

• OMB does indeed review and approve the FAA pay agreements,

• AFSCME has a ULP against the FAA for failure to implement their pay agreement,

• The FAA attorney has cried "wolf" so many times, it's hard to give him any credibility on this matter. 

This is an old negotiation ploy to withdraw an offer and then force the other team to argue back to the previous point. It's not going to work here. We are not moving from our "comparability" position.

In the meantime, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has notified the FAA during that they are rejecting the tentative agreement between AFSCME and the FAA. Details are scarce but we understand OMB is concerned about pay disparity between similar job classifications. If this were correct then it would only serve to strengthen our comparability proposal. AFSCME has already filed an unfair labor practice over the failure of the FAA Administrator to sign the tentative agreement. We'll provide more details as we get them. 

I attended a meeting on the Proposal for Safety Oversight of the Performance-Based Air Traffic Organization during the week of April 20th. dealing with congressional direction regarding separating the safety and regulatory functions of the FAA. The proposal appears to be mostly transparent to us but we do have a commitment that we will be involved in the development at the pre-decisional stage. At this meeting, I talked briefly with NATCA President John Carr and we agreed to meet again in the near future. 

NAATS Eastern RegDir Ron Maisel and I met with Deputy Administrator Monte Belger at the end of April. We gave a presentation on the current status of our pay negotiations, including two recommendations.

1. That the FAA's negotiation team change its mindset and begin treating us as air traffic controllers in these pay negotiations.

2. That we initiate a joint management/NAATS team to identify the true costs and savings of the NAATS comparability proposal.

No commitments were made, but we expect a response shortly. Our presentation is available on the NAATS website.

We also met with our congressional lobbyist. Now is the time for an all out effort to convince our congressional representatives to pressure the FAA into treating us fairly. 

This requires a massive congressional letter-writing campaign. Our goal is to persuade Administrator Garvey to treat us in the same manner as the other air traffic controllers.

Please note - our lobbyist believes we will achieve the desired end result if we just do our part. We're asking that everyone to write their congressional representatives. If you need the names and addresses, they are available on our website. I want to emphasize that now is the time to act. If you believe that we should be treated as air traffic controllers, please write Congress. IA letter from House Member Connie Morella to Jane Garvey is posted on our website. It is an excellent example of the type of congressional pressure we must have in order to be successful.

Thanks to all of you who have already responded by writing your congressional letters. We fully expect it to be effective. Special recognition is due to our Alaskan Region members and Acting Regional Director Guylan Roberts for exceeding our expectations.

If you haven't contacted your congressional representatives I urge you to do so at the earliest possible time. These letters are the second step in a process that will culminate in our goal being achieved by October. It's essential that we continue to do our part according to the timetable set out by our congressional lobbyist. Your help is essential and appreciated. 

Also, thanks to all of you who are contributing to our PAC fund. Whether we approve of the system or not, it is the way business is done on Capitol Hill. A special pat on the back goes to BDR AFSS, the NE Region, and NE RegDir Kurt Comisky for their contributions to the PAC fund drive.

For the past several weeks we've been trying to get the dual traffic count stopped. As you know, the management pay team has no intentions of entertaining any form of true reclassification so NAATS changed its pay proposal to retain the current architecture. Since both teams agree on that point, it makes no sense to continue to dual count. Although Air Traffic agrees with us, the matter seems to be bogged down in ATX. I've asked our ATX Liaison Kate Breen to make moving this along a priority. Please direct questions or comments regarding this directly to Kate at 202-267-8028. 

The next Board of Directors meeting will be held June 9-10 in conjunction with the FacRep/manager Conference. If you have any items for the agenda please contact your regional representatives.

Also, we have finalized the next round of arbitration advocacy training. The session will be held June 11-12 in St. Louis at the conclusion of the FacRep/manager conference and the BOD business meeting. Our goal is to make each region self sufficient in addressing their grievances all the way through arbitration hearings thereby allowing us to arbitrate more of our grievances. If you have any questions regarding this please contact your Regional Director.

A reminder that if you want to serve as a NAATS representative at FAA Headquarters, please send us your name, a short resume, and area of interest (operations, equipment, LMR). The positions are details not to exceed one year. There are also occasional opportunities for those who would like to serve on workgroups/committees. While these are not details, they do involve occasional travel.

NAATS lost 59 members during the drop period this year. Historically, this is about half the number we usually see. Your support of our union during these challenging times is essential and very much appreciated. Of particular note SW Region who only lost two members.

Congratulations to that region and to Regional Director Ron Dawson. 
I have invitations to visit both MIA and BDR. I plan to make both those trips as soon as possible.

The Spring edition of the NAATS Bulletin is at the printers. We expect it to be mailed sometime next week. If you haven't received your copy at your mailing address by June 1 please contact Gretna at NAATS Headquarters (email [email protected]). 

Wally

Notice to All NAATS Members.

NATIONAL OFFICER NOMINATION PERIOD HAS OPENED

Pursuant to Article 7 of the NAATS Constitution, the Election Committee has caused this notice to be disseminated to all Facility Representatives, and it is to be posted from May 15 through June 15.

All NAATS members are hereby advised that the nomination period for national office (President, Regional Directors, and Regional Coordinators) has opened. Nominations must be received by the NAATS National Office no later than June 20, 2001 (nominations will NOT be accepted via E-mail and/or FAX.)

Attached to this announcement is a nomination form which may be duplicated and shall be used by interested members or candidates. Additional nomination forms may be requested from NAATS headquarters. There is no minimum number of members required to nominate a NAATS member for office.

Please note: Separate elections for facility representatives will be held pursuant to Section 8 of Article 7 with on-site, secret ballot elections between September 1st and September 15, 2001.

Pursuant to the Constitution, candidates for national elective office shall:

(a) Have met the requirements of full performance level in the Flight Service option, or the journeyman level in other bargaining unit for which the organization is recognized as the exclusive representative;

(b) Have been a regular member in continuous good standing for two consecutive years prior to the time he or she will assume office (October 1, 2001) and shall be employed within the jurisdiction the member would represent as an elected official;

(c) Be free of indebtedness to NAATS;

(d) Only seek or hold one office in any election;

(e) Not have been censured, suspended or expelled by the Association, or recalled from elective office within the preceding four years from the date of acceptance of nomination for office.

Campaign Material to Members: Anyone interested in mailing campaign material to members can submit their material to NAATS headquarters. Please plan on prepaying the expense of postage to members, as well as the cost of envelopes, mailing labels and labor cost of $11.00 an hour.

E-mail Campaign Material: If a member has collected E-mail addresses over the course of correspondence with friends, or union members at other facilities, the use of E-mail campaign literature is warranted. If however, someone was an elected/appointed official such as a RegDir, RegCo, FacRep, Liaison etc., and had access to E-mail and E-mail addresses because of their position, they do not have a right to send campaign material via E-mail, since this disadvantages other candidates who were not involved in the business of the organization. 

ELECTION COMMITTEE

NAATS Headquarters has announced the 2001 Election Committee. They are, Paul McDonnell, AND AFSS; Jim Mooney, RDU AFSS; Mike Zeman, BOI AFSS and the Alternate is Gretna De Stefano, NAATS Hdqrs. 

NAATS National

Membership Meeting

October 17-18, 2001

at the

Luxor Hotel & Casino

Las Vegas, NV

FAA CAPITULATES LAST CHANCE GRIEVANCE

Ron Dawson, ASW RegDir

We've all seen our beloved FAA management team make mistakes. If you can't recall one off the top of your head, ask your FacRep. He or she can quickly refresh your memory. This story is about, well, let's call it like it is - a blunder. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable. The story does have a happy ending though, and I believe lessons that can be learned for FAA management, and for all of us. What is astonishing to me here, is how fast the Agency sustained our grievance.

In the late winter of 2000, an AFSS employee committed a serious error in judgment by deciding to drive an automobile while under the influence of alcohol. He was on his day off. The employee was arrested, prosecuted, and subsequently required to pay the price. He knew he had done wrong, and was sorry. The problem escalated though, when he informed his employer about the arrest. When G. J. Salazar, M. D., Southwest Regional Flight Surgeon, learned of the offense, he decertified the employee from performing ATCS duties.

He then required as a condition of re-certification that the employee undergo medical testing from an addictionologist the Flight Surgeon uses for expert opinions. The specialist's report revealed the diagnosis that the employee did NOT have a drinking problem (or at least none beyond the one-time occurrence of the arrest). That diagnosis should have ended the story. It got worse.

It appears that the Regional Flight Surgeon was not satisfied with his "expert diagnosis". Although the grievance filed by the employee for restoration of lost annual and sick leave caused by the de-certification was favorably settled at the regional level, the Doctor wasn't finished. He still believed the employee had a drinking problem that would adversely affect aviation safety. Therefore, he required, as a condition of continued employment, that the employee sign a last chance agreement binding him to never consume alcohol in any form for the rest of his career. We argued vehemently that the criteria the Doctor was using for this judgment (Blood Alcohol Test of .04 or higher on a confirmation test) was being misapplied. This criteria is the DOT guidance used when on-site (workplace) BAT testing reveals an employee had consumed alcohol immediately prior to reporting for duty. The Flight Surgeon refused to change is mind after repeated attempts to educate him.

NAATS grieved the Last Chance Agreement. We decided that a Union grievance should be filed at the national level for two reasons: First, the DOT/FAA drug and alcohol policy is consistent throughout the Agency. Secondly, the Southwest Regional Flight Surgeon appeared to be pointing his finger up the chain of command, with respect to why he couldn't change his mind.

Excerpts from the January 23, 2001 NAATS Grievance (employee name removed):

DESCRIPTION:

On or about January 9, 2001, The FAA required, as a condition of continued employment, that (employee), ATCS, must sign a "Last Chance Agreement". Under duress and protest, (employee) signed the agreement. This action by the FAA effectively stripped (employee); in order to remain employed by the FAA, of his legal right to consume, while in an off-duty status, any alcohol-based beverages or medications for the remainder of his FAA career.

The restriction on consumption is broad, and includes over-the-counter, alcohol-based medications. In addition to Article 67-01 (c)(2) and (d) as a violation, the union contends that the Federal Aviation Administration violated Order 3750.4A, Appendix (12)(dated November 16, 1989). Under this section of the Order, the union believes that this employee did not have an excessive and habitual abuse of alcoholic beverages while off duty, therefore, the agency's new requirement for (employee) goes well beyond the scope of its original intent. 

The "Last Chance Agreement procedure is a part of the DOT/FAA drug and alcohol testing regulation. It is intended as a remedy for misuse of illegal drugs, and of the use of legal mind-altering substances and/or alcohol while in a duty status. In cases where an Air Traffic employee who is covered by the regulation consumes alcohol substances prior to reporting to work, and then tests on-site (workplace) with a confirmation blood alcohol test (BAT) level of 0.04 or above, the last chance procedure is authorized. (Employee) had never reported for FAA duty while under the influence of alcohol, nor has this been alleged by the Agency.

(Employee) was not alcohol tested by the FAA in this case. The FAA's use of the last chance agreement in this case stems from (employee's) off-duty use of alcohol in a "regular day off" status. This clearly is a misapplication of the regulation, and an abuse of employment authority by the FAA. In subsequent discussions of this case with the FAA Southwest Region Air Traffic Division, it was learned by NAATS that the Southwest Region Flight Surgeon based his decision to require the last chance agreement on guidance from his superior officer in FAA Headquarters. Based on the information said above, NAATS contends that the Federal Aviation Administration violated Order 3910.1C, Chapter IX (1)(e) Disciplinary Action, (December 28, 1994). The union highly doubts that the Agency can prove that the FAA even performed the basic requirements of a proper confirmation test on (employee). As required by this order, the Agency is held to follow many procedures in implementing a proper Drug/Alcohol Testing Program. In this grievance, there are many technical failures that the FAA followed in handling (employee's) case. 

CORRECTIVE ACTION DESIRED:

The FAA shall immediately withdraw its requirement that (employee) remain under the Last Chance Agreement as a condition of employment. All government held copies of the Last Chance Agreement will be destroyed, and all records relating to this action will be expunged from all Agency held files, including the employee's OPF.

Pay (employee) all differentials and premium pay he would have earned on his regular assigned shifts during the time he was removed from his normal watch schedule.

Reimburse (employee) for all medical and counseling expenses incurred resulting from the evaluation and rehabilitation requirements. This includes POV mileage to and from the counseling site at the standard government rate.

Pay (employee), at the rate of 200.00 per hour for all off-duty time spent complying with the counseling, including travel time 

(Employee) will not be treated differently from others in future drug and alcohol testing at his facility. No reasonable suspicion or follow-up testing will occur resulting from this episode. 

It should be noted that in its letter sustaining the grievance, the FAA is refusing to pay the employee what it considers "punitive damages" in reference to the amount of money sought as reimbursement for the employees personal time wasted during this ordeal. The corrective action therefore is still being negotiated by the Parties.

The following are excerpts pertaining to the Last Chance Agreement from the Agency response to the grievance:

The Agency has reviewed the merits of this grievance and we have decided to sustain the grievance. (Employee) was erroneously placed on a Last Chance Agreement on January 9, 2001. Therefore, (employee's) Last Chance Agreement is hereby rescinded. All copies of the aforementioned Last Chance Agreement will by purged from all agency files including (employee's) OPF. The aforementioned Last Chance Agreement will not be used as a basis for any potential adverse actions that may arise in the future involving (employee).

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that it misinterpreted DOT Order 3910.1C, the Drug and Alcohol-Free Departmental Workplace Order. Specifically, the Agency acknowledges that in DOT Order 3910.1C, Chapter IX (1)(e) where it states that "the agency shall initiate action to remove a covered employee from Federal service in the case of off-duty misuse of alcohol as measured by an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater on a confirmation test." it is referring to a confirmation test that is conducted by DOT personnel while the employee is in a duty status.

So, why the Flight Surgeon couldn't be convinced the first time, we do not know. Obviously, those at a higher level than he did not agree with his assessment of the Agency's authority, or the medical condition of the employee. The sadness of this episode is felt entirely by the employee. His life-style was ridiculed and slandered by his employer, who unjustly forced him into make a choice between unemployment and public humiliation. It is unlikely that the party responsible for the harm done to the employee will have to face any disciplinary action as a result of his employment error. Actually, I doubt that there would be any admission by him that he committed an error, much less any feeling of remorse for putting the employee through such a trying ordeal. At any rate, let us hope that the scope of this grievance will put an end nationally to all such FAA medical authority abuses.

The lessons? To most I'm sure they are obvious by now. Two that immediately come to mind are (1) a reminder to us all to be responsible users of alcohol, and (2) for the FAA to ensure that the good Doctor refrains from flying Beech Bonanzas.  

Seattle AFSS Recognized for OASIS Work

Don McLennan, ANM RegDir

The following text is that of the awards recognition letter given to every member of the Seattle Automated Flight Service Station for his or her efforts in bringing a new computer system on-line for the FSS option. Those within the facility who participated at a deeper level were fairly rewarded for their deeper contributions than the majority of bargaining unit members. However, this is the actual text of the bargaining unit member's letters.

On October 23, 2000 the initial Operating Capability (IOC) deployment of the Operational and Supportable Implementation System (OASIS) was officially dedicated at the Seattle AFSS (SEA), culminating in "fast site" effort that began with contract award in August of 1997. OASIS is the foundation for the successful modernization of the Flight Service Option, providing a off-the-shelf platform for future system growth and operational enhancements. The successful implementation of the large, complex program, within budget and within 7 days of the planned completion date established prior to final testing and training is a truly remarkable achievement.

Success at "first site" is crucial to the overall success of any program, also in the resolution of those concerns. AS this is the Initial Operating Capability deployment, continued testing and operational evaluation will continue to be performed by the personnel of the Seattle AFSS which will result in deployment of the OASIS system nationwide, starting in FY2002.

Each and every employee contributed in this achievement. The active involvement, support, and cooperation of everyone during site preparation, installation of consoles and computer equipment, testing, training, and transition was absolutely necessary. Employees and employee teams made the commitments and personal sacrifices required to keep the program on track. They can each be justifiably proud of their roles in helping the FAA with this accomplishment.

The success of IOC for the OASIS system at the Seattle AFSS could not have been achieved without the combined efforts of all involved personnel. You are all commended for your personal contributions. Your efforts resulted in a non-measurable benefit of moderate value with broad application. In recognition of your contributions, a 16 hour time-off award, is granted to each of you.

Upcoming Events

June 1
Spring Edition
NAATS Bulletin Mailed

June 9-10
NAATS Board of
Directors Meeting
St. Louis

June 11-12
National FacRep & Managers Meeting
Arbitration Advocacy Training will follow the meeting
St. Louis

Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

Andrea Chay, NAATS Rep., 

Seeing the ATCSCC

ATPAC 103 started on Monday, April 2, 2001 with a tour of the Air Traffic Control System Command Center ATCSCC in Herndon, VA. While I have seen this facility before, it is definitely worth seeing again, where all the traffic flow decisions are coordinated and made for the US National Air Space System. Of course, the day we were there, there was absolutely no weather across the entire US, and the telcon we listened in on between the airlines and FAA lasted about two minutes! Seeing all those little dots on the ASDE representing IFR airplanes criss-crossing the country makes one realize just how saturated our air traffic system has become.

Back at FAA Hq.

After journeying back to FAA Headquarters, we got down to regular ATPAC business. We had several visitors again at this meeting, including two from the press. Jeff Griffith, ATP-1, visited and spoke about the AMASS (airport movement area safety system) and how it is intended to be installed at 34 major airports, all hopefully to help relieve runway incursion problems. Steve Brown, ATS-1, visited, but observed only. Bill Peacock, our new AAT-1 was asked about the controversial 250KT test at IAH, and responded that Phase 2 of the risk assessment is being funded now, and that the test will continue, despite several of the user groups expressing their desire to stop the test until all risks are assessed. Bill was surprised to learn that some controllers at IAH have been offering "no speed limit" to arrivals as well as departures. (That's not supposed to happen). He did promise to look into the request to keep aircraft contained within the Class B airspace, as a few are still popping out the side during climb out. And Monte Belger, ADA-1 (acting deputy administrator fielded questions about several issues, including the Interpretive rule on compliance with ATC clearances and instructions, one that has many pilots very upset. (I did not remember any conclusive answers to that one!) 

More on the NOTAM System

This ATPAC was very light on issues that concern us in flight service. We received another briefing on the NOTAM system, and its progress in being updated. Next summer there will be a "tech refresh" which means no functional change for us, but it will deal with the FDC NOTAM numbering problem. It will put the existing NOTAM central process onto different hardware-another platform, such as Oracle, which EDS has been working with. Currently they say there are no off-the-shelf products that can meet all our needs. When questioned why can't FAA go to a web based program such as DOD's, I believe the response was that system cannot work with all the users systems, such as other countries, companies, etc. as our system can now. When questioned about ICAO format NOTAMS, John, our briefer, stated that the CNS (consolidated NOTAM system) can handle ICAO now, and that OASIS will eventually. Also, a question about why tower light NOTAMS automatically cancel after 15 days was answered by the standard "capacity issues." (And we all know how many of those tower light NOTAMS there are!) Money has been budgeted for the NOTAM system, and the best guess for full operational implementation is late calendar year 2002.

VFR Closures

Regarding closure of VFR Flight Plans by any facility, an AOC that I brought in: FAA queried several centers to determine if there was a problem with controllers not understanding what pilots were asking for when they asked to have their VFR flight plans canceled (i.e. calling flight service to cancel). The response was generally this is not a problem, that system-wide center controllers are aware of what a VFR flight plan is and had no problems closing it with the appropriate AFSS. It appeared to be a local problem in Houston and so the Air Traffic Division did not feel an ATB was needed, thus the recommendation was non-adopted. Even though an ATB won't be put out, I feel the discussions brought forth by the AOC did generate some renewed awareness about VFR flight plans, and their importance to the flying community.

Other Issues

A discussion concerning reporting visibility at an airport with a really tall ATCT was generated from the AOC requesting surface visibility be the prevailing visibility all the time and to put the tower visibility in the remarks of the METAR. If the tower is in the low scud layer, but the surface visibility beneath the clouds is good, it shuts down the airport unnecessarily. Yet, if you have localized ground fog, the opposite problem could result too-the airport could be shut down because patchy ground fog was over the portion of the airport with the weather sensor. We will await the reasons the DCP was turned down by all 9 regions and NATCA when it was presented 3 years ago to determine if we want to take any other action on this item. Other issues concerned use of headsets by Part 121 and 135 crews while communicating with ATC, pilot deviation notification, and other instrument flight procedures.

Liking OASIS

Aside from ATPAC, I promised a "review" of my impressions of OASIS as I continue working with it at SEA AFSS. Surprisingly, I like it! I say surprisingly, because I thought it would take me much longer to adapt to it than it did. There are many great features for briefing, great graphics, and a route overlay feature which is really great for finding all the new little Podunk airports that I am definitely not familiar with being new to the Pacific Northwest! 

The consoles are infinitely adjustable, and very easy to set up, plus they have individual lighting which really enhances the position. Dividers are available between each position, which SEA did order, and I recommend each facility do this once they get into console setup. The Human Factors team and the controllers at SEA AFSS have done a GREAT job working with the contractor to make the system usable. A software drop in June will resolve several more little problems. There are still several items that fall short of perfect, and I have not started working on OASIS on inflight or flight watch yet, which is where many complaints have been made about how clumsy it is to log contacts, and to handle search and rescue activities at flight data. But, hopefully, these problems will improve also with the June software update. There are still some problems with reliability, there have been times where the AIRMETs were either only partially posted graphically, or not at all. But, it is a usable system, and I hope it does go forward more quickly than 2002. So, if any of you are really desiring to get your hands on OASIS, put in an IPP for SEA, we need people and I do believe you could get an IPP fairly quickly (paying your own move, of course!)

That is it for now, contact me if you have any national concerns you'd like to see us address in ATPAC. 

[email protected]

206-764-6606 wk

Safety & Health

Suzanne M. Pellosmaa, NAATS OSH Rep.

New Faces at OSHA 

Outgoing Alexis Herman named R. Davis Layne acting Chief of OSHA, to replace Charles Jeffress, who resigned prior to the inauguration of President Bush. New Labor Secretary, Elaine Chao, has set no timetable to appoint a new agency head. The GOP has named Rep. Charles Norwood (R-GA), chairman of the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee. Norwood replaces Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NC), who led the committee since 1995. He is expected to continue a pro-employee stance as of the subcommittee.

Ergonomic Update

This is one standard I would like to have seen stay around. But recent repeal of the OSHA's Ergonomic Standard (56 to 44 in the Senate 223 to 206 in the House) concluded the Congressional action to repeal it and the President's recent signature has halted the ergonomic standard. The only approach to a musculoskeletal at your facility, is to contact NIOSH/OSHA and action can still be taken through OSHA's general duty clause, so all hope is not lost. If you have been diagnosed with carpal tunnel or tendonitis, fill out CA1 or CA2 forms. Why should you pay just because the FAA does not provide us with wrist-rests and ergonomically correct workstations? Recently, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-proposed standard on ergonomics has become much more important because of the legal action against the OSHA's standard. The proposed standard is important because it could serve as the basis for cumulative-trauma programs at many companies and is needed for employers who do not have a program to protect workers suffering from work-related musculosketal disorders. The ANSI standard is similar to the OSHA standard because it also uses a programmatic approach to ergonomic problems, while emphasizing job hazards and management commitment.

What? Any Noise Can Pose Health Risks

New research shows that even low-level noise in open-style offices may increase stress at work and lower motivation. The study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (Vol. 85, No. 51), suggests that moderately noisy open offices may contribute to heart disease and musculoskeletal problems. In it, 40 female clerical workers were randomly assigned to either a quiet office or one with low-intensity noise. It found the women in the noisier offices had higher levels of stress hormones, made 40% fewer attempts to solve an unsolvable puzzle, and made only half as many ergonomic adjustments to their workstations as did the workers in quieter offices. It was speculated that when workers try to tune out noise and focus on their main task or activity, the forced concentration leads to less flexibility in decision-making.

Lemon-Scented Cleaners May Be Hazardous to Health

That fresh lemon scent widely used in home and industrial cleaning applications may smell clean and healthy, but researchers have found that chemicals in such cleaners are dangerous to humans. The chemicals react with the ozone to create microscopic particles that can be inhaled into the lungs. Researchers at Rutgers University sprayed a wooden coffee table for 15 seconds with lemon-scented wax and measured the release of the terpene called limonene. They then loaded a test chamber with the released concentrations of limonene and mixed it with ozone. Within 30 minutes, particulates started forming and reached concentrations equal to 1/3 of EPA limits for outdoor particles. Scientists believe such levels can aggravate heart and lung disease.

DOL's New Secretary

During her recent Senate confirmation hearing, Department of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao was noncommittal on how she would approach OSHA issues. When pressed for a commitment to support the controversial new ergonomics standard, Chao did not rule out the possibility of modifications to the rule. But the new Labor Secretary also said she understood the concerns that people have on both sides of the ergonomic issue. "I will have a full and open dialogue with all of you. I will take every point of view into consideration," Chao promised the senators at the hearing. (the National Safety Council Safety and Health magazine)

Study to Test Public AED Use

Studies have shown that automated external defibrillators (AED's) save lives on airplanes. A federally-funded clinical trial is now researching whether good Samaritans can be trained to shock hearts back to normal rhythm in offices, apartments, senior centers, and other public places in 25 large cities across the country. Researchers outfitted about 40 sites in each of the cities with portable defibrillators and trained hundreds of volunteers to use them. All were trained to recognize cardiac arrest, call 911, and perform CPR. Half the sites received AED's and volunteers trained to use them. The two-year study will track long-term outcomes and costs for everyone who goes into sudden cardiac arrest. In a recent article, an administrative director for a local Wisconsin Red Cross Ambulance service, foresaw the day when defibrillators will be as common in public places as fire extinguishers. To meet this goal, the ambulance service is encouraging businesses and organizations to get these "public access" defibrillators into as many public places as possible. He said currently there are more than 140 defibrillators in the Fox Valley-Appleton area including three at the Fox River Mall. When a heart goes into sudden cardiac arrest and fibrillates or quivers, it does not beat normally and no blood is getting to the brain or major organs. When a heart is defibrillated, it is shocked through pads placed on the chest. The shock stops the heart. The heart stands still, then hopefully kicks back in and starts beating normally. In the Fox Valley, the survival rate has gone from 6% to 18-20%. The Administrative Director answered these questions about defibrillators:

1. How expensive? Approximately $3,000 for each one purchased.

2. How easy to operate? Voice commands explain each step in using a defibrillator. A computer chip in the machine analyzes heart rhythm and tells when to apply the shock.

3. Training? Usually a four hour class for persons already certified in CPR and six hours for those who are not.

Any group getting a defibrillator must notify the ambulance service in its area that it has the machine. It must also let the service know where it is located and who is trained to use it.

Consumer Product Recalls

The following three items have been recalled for various reasons, for any additional questions, please call the toll free numbers listed:

1. Alphabet Pal pull toys, 877-477-6641-Twelve inch long, green caterpillar toy that has 26 legs and sings out the alphabet. The problem is that the red plastic connectors on string can detach and be swallowed for choking hazard.

2. GE/Hotpoint Dishwashers-8---599-2929. Model numbers GSD500D, GSD540, HDA467, HDA477, or HDA487. Originally recalled in October 1999. Manufactured between 1983 and Jan 1989. Slide switch, which allows consumers to choose between settings, can melt and ignite. Contact GE for free rewiring or a rebate toward a new dishwasher.

3. Strollers-Kolcraft 800-757-4770. Kolcraft Ranger and Ranger Quattrow with model numbers 46720 and 46721 on back leg of stroller. Strollers have a reversible handle and can be pushed either facing the child or from behind. Lock mechanisms can break, causing children's fingers or hands to be pinched. Call for a free repair kit.

Correction

In April's edition, Ward Simpson's was shown as acting NAATS Administrator. This was incorrect. His correct position is General Aviation Summit Representative. 

Eli Morrissy, Editor

Regional Supplements

EASTERN REGION

More of Less

PATRICK LESS, AEA REGCO

NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS 

It is that time again, so here is a little refresher straight from our Constitution. Remember the Amendment to 3 (d). 

ARTICLE 7 - ELECTIONS

Section 1. Term of office. The term of elective office shall be three years; however the term for each facility representative shall be determined by each facility. 

Section 2. Vacancies in office.

(a) If the office of President should be vacated during the third year of the term, the Board shall appoint a member in good standing to fill the vacant office provided the member would be eligible to be elected to the office. If the office should become vacant during the first or second year of the term, a special election shall be held within 90 days. 

(b) If the office of a Regional Director becomes vacant during the third year of the term, the Regional Coordinator shall assume the office, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, and provided that s/he was elected to that office. If the office of a Regional Director becomes vacant during the first or second year of the term, or the Regional Coordinator does not assume the office, a special election shall be held within 90 days. 

(c) If the office of Regional Coordinator becomes vacant, the Regional Director shall appoint a member from that Region to fill the remainder of the term of office provided that member would be eligible to run for that office. 

(d) If a Facility Representative position should become vacant during the term of office, the Alternate Facility Representative shall assume the office, provided that s/he was elected to that office; otherwise an election shall be held to fill the vacancy. 

Section 3. Eligibility. Candidates for elective office shall: 

(a) Have met the requirements of full performance level in the flight service option, or the journeyman level in any other bargaining unit for which the organization is recognized as the exclusive representative; 

(b) Have been an regular member in continuous good standing for two consecutive years prior to the time he or she will assume office (except that a candidate for the office of Facility Representative shall have been an regular member in good standing for ninety consecutive days prior to the time he or she will assume office) and shall be employed within the jurisdiction the member would represent as an elected official; 

(c) Be free of indebtedness to NAATS;

(d) Only seek or hold one office in any election; provided however, Regional Coordinators may also run for, and simultaneously hold office as, Facility Representatives or Alternates, and vice versa.

(e) Not have been censured, suspended or expelled by the Association, or recalled from elective office within the preceding four years from the date of acceptance of nomination for office. 

Section 4. Nominations. 

(a) By April 15, 1995, and every three years thereafter, an Election Committee shall be appointed by the Board of Directors. The Committee shall supervise the elections, the counting of the ballots, and report the results to the membership. The Election Committee shall be a standing committee for the three-year term of office.

(b) Immediately following its appointment, the Election Committee shall cause a Notice of Election to be disseminated by May 15th to all Facility Representatives who shall cause it to be posted prominently, and to remain posted, on a union bulletin board for a month. The Notice shall inform all members that the nomination period has opened and that nominations must be received by the National Office no later than June 20th or the first business day thereafter if June 20th should fall on a weekend or holiday. The Notice shall include a nomination form which may be duplicated and shall be used by interested members or candidates. Copies shall also be made available promptly to members requesting them from the National Office. 

(c) The Election Committee shall verify the eligibility of all nominees and shall inform them of their nominations by mail postmarked no later than July 1st. Thereafter, candidates shall have until July 15th to accept nomination to run for one office. Candidates for Regional Director and Regional Coordinator may also submit by July 15th camera-ready, black-and-white photos of their head and shoulders only, and/or a 300-word statement to be sent to members together with their ballots. 

Section 5. Voting.

(a) Balloting materials shall be mailed to all regular members in good standing no later than August 5th. A double-envelope system shall be used for the return ballots to insure ballot secrecy. Member identification shall be required on the outer envelope, and the inner envelope in which the marked ballot is placed shall be free of any markings that could identify the voter. 

(b) The balloting materials shall inform members that their ballots must be received at the Post Office Box appearing on the outer, return envelope, no later than September 10th (or first business day thereafter) to be counted. 

(c) The Election Committee shall rent a Post Office Box where marked ballots are to be returned and to make arrangements with the Postmaster to collect and safeguard the returned ballots until their pickup by the Election Committee on September 11 (or first business day thereafter) for counting.

(d) The Election Committee shall make arrangements for eligible voters who do not receive ballots to request and obtain duplicate ballots from the National Office. 

(e) At the conclusion of the election, the Election Committee shall account for all ballots printed

Section 6. Campaigning.

(a) No Association funds shall be expended, directly or indirectly, to promote or oppose any candidate for union office. No union facilities, equipment, stationery, or supplies may be used to further any candidacy. No appointed employee, agent, or elected officer shall be required to support the candidacy of any individual or slate. 

(b) Each candidate shall be entitled to inspect the list containing the names and last known addresses of all regular members once within the 30 day period preceding the mailing of the ballots. The right to inspect shall not include the right to copy, but does include the right to compare the list with any personal list of members.

(c) The National Office shall honor the reasonable requests of candidates or slates of candidates to send uncensored campaign mailings at his/her or their expense utilizing any special mailing privileges available to the Association. All candidates shall be treated equally with respect to the expense of such mailings which shall not exceed the actual cost of the mailings incurred by the National Office. 

(d) A Special Election Publication, printed at NAATS' expense, shall accompany each ballot mailed to eligible voters. It shall contain factual information concerning election/voting procedures together with any photographs and/or statements not exceeding 300 words that were furnished to the Election Committee at the National Headquarters by the candidates.

Section 7. Ballot Counting.

(a) The Election Committee shall inform all candidates of their right to observe the pickup and counting of mail ballots, or to designate an individual to observe on their behalf. 

(b) The Election Committee shall verify the eligibility of all members who cast mail ballots. 

(c) The candidates receiving a majority of the votes cast by the members.

• The Regional OSHECOM TELCON was held on Tuesday April 24, 2001. AFSS issues discussed included DCA's problem with fuel fumes entering the building, and concerns over the life expectancy and maintenance of the acoustic wall material on the operations floor at the AFSSs. The committee's next TELCON is tentatively set for July 18, 2001. Bill Wolf is the NAATS EA OSHA Representative. If you have OSHA related questions, please contact him at EKN AFSS. 

• IPT AFSS will be hosting a Pig Roast on Saturday August 18, 2001. Everyone is welcome to attend. If your facility has not received the flyer with the information please contact IPT AFSS FACREP Robin Galicic. 

• Reminder that only NAATS Members will be able to vote on the new contract.

• NAATS National Email Updates 60-65 have been sent out.

• The next NAATS/AEA quarterly meeting is scheduled for June 28 2001 at BUF AFSS.

• The next scheduled Pay Negotiations are set for ?

• A reader poll conducted by Professional Pilot Magazine lists Flight Service Stations as #3 in the rankings for best weather services. Last year Flight Service Stations were listed as #7.

• A National WSI Workgroup is being established to deal with all WSI issues. I will serve as the NAATS EA Representative to this group. Each FACREP has been contacted to name a facility level NAATS WSI Representative.

• The 2001 National Convention will be held at the Luxor Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 17-18.

• Have you checked with the National office to ensure that you have the appropriate person(s) listed as the Beneficiary on your NAATS Life Insurance Policy.

• In the March edition of AOPA PILOT, DCA AFSS is the recipient of accolades in Thomas Klines's Article "Trust Your Briefer". 

Live Long and Prosper,
PL

Dave Vitko, Altoona AFSS

DF Update

As of this writing The Altoona DF site is to be taken out for approximately 4-5 months for the construction of a new corporate hangar at the southern end of the airport. There have been rumors that the site will not return.

Thanks to Jeff

But thanks to Jeff Trabold for his initiative in contacting AOPA and making them aware of the removal of the Altoona DF site. They are very interested and are trying to stop any DF antenna that is slated for possible removal.

They Just Keep Getting Better

Talking about AOPA; in the February issue of AOPA magazine, Tom Horne, (a friend of flight service) wrote a comprehensive and favorable article on OASIS. His ending statement was, "Just remember to reach out and touch your briefer telephonically prior to each flight."

Related News

In the March issue of AOPA magazine they printed the results of a survey which consisted of 800 AOPA members about their experiences with automated flight service stations. They said they were generally satisfied with the AFSS performance but gave lower marks to specific services such as flight plan "fast file" and the TIBS. Twenty-one percent of instrument rated AOPA members reported at least one flight plan lost in the past year. The survey covered AFSS products and services, customer satisfaction, professionalism, courtesy and timeliness.

Once Again

As I have stated before, every specialist, supervisor and manager should join the AOPA organization and give them your support. If you are already a member I congratulate you. Flight Service could not find a better friend.

GREAT LAKES REGION

Jack O'Connell, Great Lakes RegDir

May 2001

The election is now over. I would like to thank every one who placed their trust in me. I will do my utmost to represent each and every one of you to the best of my ability. I would also like to thank all that participated in the election process. 72% of those who could vote, did vote. This was the best turnout in a NAATS election in years. You have told the Region how much you care about the union by taking the time to vote. Again I thank all of you for your support. I am honored to serve as your director.

Now we must rebuild the process of working with the FAA at a regional level. For the past four months very little transpired between NAATS and the FAA, at this level. That is now changing. We should have a quarterly meeting finally at the end of May. 

Please contact me with issues you would want identified at the quarterly. If you need to reach me my cell phone number is 248-219-9979. The E-mail address is [email protected]. I can still be reached at LAN AFSS 517-327-7900. Voice mail is also available there at 517-327-7917. Please use these numbers if you need to reach me.

Kile Pits has assumed the position of Principle Facility Representative at LAN AFSS. An election will be set up for an Alternate Representative.

An election is also going on at IKK AFSS for Principle Facility Representative, to replace Lisa Brown who resigned. I would like to thank Lisa for her efforts to replace "Freddy" when he became sick and could not continue on in the position. The results of the election should be known on April 18, 2001. Work will then begin with the new representative to train them for their position. Late news flash, the ballots were counted on April 18. Jon Anderson was elected FacRep, and George Touminen was elected alternate FacRep.

I would like to welcome our new members to NAATS. Jeana Bunn, LAN, and Rene Rausch, IKK. I would also like to welcome back to the floor and to NAATS, Lisa Bjork, IKK.

We have also had some members drop their membership this past month. For some of those who choose to drop out of NAATS, this is their form of "dissent." I have been told that they were dissatisfied with the way NAATS was negotiating pay, and the way that NAATS was doing business. Unfortunately they will find out that very few will listen to their views now, as they are on the outside looking in. 

The work "dissent is derived from two Latin words that mean "apart" and "to feel." Webster's lists among its meanings: "to differ in belief or opinion; disagree." NAATS members are very familiar with dissent; after all, it's a vital part of any democratic structure. NAATS is certainly democratic. If you put 10 NAATS members in a room, you'll get 10 different opinions. NAATS members expect and even demand the right to challenge the efforts of their union, and their elected officers. 

That's good, dissent can be wholesome. It is often an effective catalyst for positive change. But dissent can also be unhealthy if its purpose is less than constructive. To make NAATS an effective, strong organization, and to have the unity of purpose that we need to survive, we need to review our procedures for dissent. What are they? Are they effective? Are they accessible to all members? Are they channeled into a proper forum for action? 

We must also review our motives for dissent. If we are honestly trying to make our organization and our profession better, then dissent is a constructive mechanism. If however, we are trying to personalize the issues and somehow distract attention from the good work performed by our elected officers, then we are using our dissent procedures as a destructive mechanism. If dissent is used to mount personal attacks on each other, then dissent is a very poor, malicious, weakening mechanism. 

Wholesome disagreement is more than welcome. It's a sign of a healthy, thriving organization that is working for the betterment of all its members. We can all see that NAATS is constantly evolving and that our current structure is designed to make our union, and our profession better. But, let's be sure that we keep in mind the motives behind our disagreement, to ensure that the change it will bring is positive for the majority of our members. After all, that's what any healthy, democratic organization, is all about.

The only way to create a change in an organization is from the inside, not the outside. If you are dissatisfied you must get involved from within. Without your involvement nothing will happen to create the change you want. The only way to make a difference is by being a member, and by being active in NAATS. Dropping out of the union is not a form of constructive disagreement. We would welcome you back. 

Till next month.

NEW ENGLAND REGION

Kurt Comisky, New England RegDir
May 2001

The key to success within a Union is communication. Here in New England we have fallen short. I want to thank the folks at BGR for reminding me that everyone in our region should be kept up to date on issues concerning our region.

To discuss the regional issues in terms of the NAATS Hierarchy of Needs:

1. Pay.

2. Watch Schedules.

3. Everything else.

For the most part pay is a national issue, however we have two issues concerning setting of an individual's pay upon entry into our bargaining unit. Both of these issues are at the Regional level, next step arbitration.

Watch schedules. There are two elements to successfully address this issue, staffing and procedures surrounding the development and implementation of the watch schedule. In terms of staffing, we have made some significant progress. The Region has been very supportive to bring the staffing up to the necessary levels.

To give some insight and history into the staffing issue in New England. Until recently, New England had the philosophy of "we can get by", "we'll make do", and "we will make it work". In a larger context, this may be viewed as somewhat noble. Maybe some management folks thought working short staff was a means to a promotion, maybe some Union folks thought this as some badge of honor, both of these views are misguided. We want our fair share of personnel resources. The staffing levels indicated in the recent Quarterly Meeting as a projection for FY-02 are the national staffing numbers. These national staffing numbers are derived by using the keystroke data collected by the FSDPS on the 10th and the 20th of each month, which calculates the necessary staffing, then these staffing numbers are pro-rated to the national target of 3000. So, as you look at the staffing at the end of the current Fiscal Year, BGR will be short 2, BDR will be short 2 and BTV will be at staffing. (The region obtained an additional training slot for the current year, to BGR, in the Quarterly minutes, the actual on board for BGR at 9/30/01 will be 32.) Keep in mind the 2 positions at BGR and 2 positions at BDR are somewhere else in the system, not here in New England. Our driving goal is to get our fair share of resources, not to "make do" and some other region receive an additional benefit in resources. The New England Regional office has been very supportive in addressing this issue.

The second component to the Watch Schedule is procedural. All facilities have developed their watch schedules and procedures for implementation and subsequent changes. BGR just recently addressed the issue of CIC usage. The CIC issue at BGR was part of a larger issue, more of a symptom rather than the illness, so to speak.

The heart of the issue is the philosophy the facility manager towards the supervisors. The facility manager gives considerable latitude to the first line supervisors. It is the common belief by the specialists that the supervisors misuse this latitude in terms of scheduling, leave and CIC usage. If the facility manager gives this latitude to the supervisors in an attempt to further develop and foster supervisory abilities is laudable, however the facility manager failed to hold the supervisors responsible for their actions, which created considerable discord. Although the Union can not negotiate the supervisors watch schedule, because of the obvious profound impact upon the watch schedule, the Union can fully negotiate the impact of CIC usage. This was a difficult issue and took considerable time and broad involvement, in the end an agreement was reached.

There are a few other issues: Facility Improvements, for well over a year we have been working towards improving the physical appearance of our facilities. Wouldn't it be nice to come to a clean, well-lit and visually pleasant facility? There are some both in and out of Flight Service view us as redheaded stepchildren. We are our own worst enemy. We accept second rate facilities. Here in New England there have been many new air traffic control facilities and many have been completely redone. I have been told the new BDLA is stunning. I am reluctant to visit; my frustration will turn in anger. The responsibility for the current state of our facilities rests squarely on the facility managers. For some reason most facility managers are reluctant to complete the necessary paperwork for facility improvements/expansion. Here again we seem to have the "make do" attitude, while the other options are like hogs at the trough. The Quarterly minutes reflect over a year of prodding by the Union.

WSI graphics, two issues. We are working on obtaining additional 21-inch monitors for the in-flight/flight watch positions. The region indicates funding is tight this year, but we will keep the issue in the forefront. The second issue is the BGR graphic issue. Some time ago the specialists at BGR began an effort to address the needs of those pilots departing to the northeast to Greenland, Iceland and beyond. These pilots low-hop to Europe. The specialists tried both internally and externally.

The facility manager was until recently, was unresponsive. The specialists also contacted their local congressional representatives. The issue involves two elements, to obtain the necessary aeronautical information and the ability to use the information. Most realize the GA Summit may eventually address the issue, however that solution is a long time off, even then it may or may not address the issue. The specialists kept up the pressure. Two weeks ago ANE 500/501 was briefed of the issue. The region has supported the concept and the 510 branch is doing the staff work, (i.e. products, costs, training and authority). The results of which are due shortly, well before the upcoming GA Summit in June. More to follow. 

NAATS Northwest Mountain

Don McLennan, ANM RegDir

Hello once again from the beautiful Northwest. Spring is upon us but it is a wet one and it is easy to forget that our summer does not usually begin until right after Independence Day. With that in mind, all facilities are gearing up for the infamous summer "traffic-spike" that will put us all down the tubes and eliminate spot leave and leave most facility personnel upset and feeling the FAA has turned its back on supporting them once again. Ah, but I get ahead of myself.

OASIS

We had requested a SEA AFSS, OASIS, update on the FAA's plan to deal with the "traffic spikes" in the summer operational workload and the possible necessity of staffing two extra positions, for as long as up to 16 hours a day throughout most of the summer? It is recognized that the facility has four less employees to cover the operation than when the fiscal year was begun back in October. It is further recognized that there is no national staffing plan to enable the regional office to authorize the hire of new employees from outside of the current FAA employment roles. It is also recognized it is not necessarily in the overall best interest of the facility to staff two extra positions if it turns out the traffic there doesn't warrant it.

There appears to be sufficient money in Overtime funds for both MMV AFSS and SEA AFSS to reasonably believe their facilities' will survive one more, heavy traffic, summer onslaught, caused by OASIS shortfalls and low staffing due to poor planning at the national level. With little to no fixes by the Harris Corp. on SAR and Inflight, it is reasonable to expect those positions may have to be split a great deal more of the time than when the facility was running M1FC. It is unfortunate that management and NAATS was not better able to communicate and coordinate selecting a few more people for TDY out of other facilities in addition to MMV AFSS. The real sad situation is that I am not sure there is any belief by anyone, other than myself, that was the high road and others would do again what they have already done to not support a novel approach to an old problem. The Agency may spend up to, roughly, $80,000 in OT, yet each employee on loan from another facility (if there was no need for backfill OT funds to cover their singular departure from the facility) only runs about $10,000 per person for TD money. That would mean that if SEA AFSS had taken only one person from five facilities they could have tremendous support in staffing and still be guaranteed $30,000 in OT. This Regional Director believes that would have been a much better solution for the same costs.

STAFFING

We have inquired of our management here as to what is the current status of FSS bargaining unit staffing in the ANM region and how many persons are needed to adequately staff the facilities in conjunction with the FAA's target facility staffing numbers?
They said the staffing standard is just a guide within this region. To be slightly over or under is not out of the question in staffing any one facility. Steve Hovey presented the CDC AFSS point of view that because we do not capture lost contacts at either Inflight or Flight Watch positions any particular facility could be busier than it appears from their traffic data. The point he was making is that if a facility could prove they have a significant number of lost radio contacts it may make the case they are short staffed and can't keep up with lost calls. This is a new bent on an old issue that we had not talked about before. We presented this to the region to see if they had taken this into consideration when submitting their staffing plans? There appears an issue that National HQ does not even consult the regions when developing a national staffing plan for the FSS option. This has another side to it. Since management is able to track lost calls on the pre-flight side there is an extra emphasis on insuring that calls aren't lost on pre-flight positions well at the expense of the Inflight position. There is a belief that this situation was created with the on-set of M1FC, but what can we do? Will the new AFSSVS capture these types of lost calls? What finally happened was we agreed to draft a facility letter, send to the Regional Director and I will present it to the region for a reading on what might be done.

We shared with management our intent to contact everyone on the CPP MOU list, wishing to come to ANM, and make him or her an offer of employment. There are eleven persons listed on that document as wanting to come to this region. We wanted to know if management is interested in working with their counterparts in other regions to try and select these employees (if so desired by both the FacRep and Facility Manager) and effectively eliminate any current use of the CPP MOU agreement?

If the region were fortunate enough to pick-up all these individuals there would be a net gain of 3 bargaining unit employees for SEA AFSS, 2 each for BOI AFSS, MMV AFSS, CDC AFSS, and GTF AFSS. Unfortunately, this does not indicate any additional new hiring for the DEN AFSS and CPR AFSS, which have the Union's highest priority at this time.

We also advised management there are Developmentals at the FAA Academy that have contacted facilities they really wanted to go to in case there was a way of reassignment prior to Academy graduation? Management initially indicated they didn't believe any Manager, anywhere would allow an employee attending the Academy to switch to another region, regardless of the reasons. We reminded them that the DEN AFSS let someone assigned to that facility go, from the Academy, to a facility in the Southern Region and we simply want to follow-up on that avenue.

There are, also, some GS-2154 Flight Data Specialists that are already in our region and perhaps we could explore the possibility of letting a bid that would enable those individuals to request promotion to DEN AFSS. Some are ex-controllers, one is an ex-PATCO member, and another was just recently resigned from the Eastern Region and came to Denver and could only get rehired as a the Flight Data Specialist. Unfortunately, for both them and us, they are not within the grasps of the hiring authority of this Agency.

CRU-X

We have inquired as to the status, in each facility, of the national implementation of the CRU-X program and the results of the Impact and Implementation bargaining that has already occurred locally?

This program will, initially, be negotiated at the national level. There is a limited MOU on a few issues at this time. In each facility there will be at least one computer (if not more) in the facilities that have this program for the personnel's use. The regional focal for Cru-X is Alan Gorskee (not sure of the spelling, my apologies), the facility focal is sometimes the AO or in other cases someone both the Manager and FacRep have discussed and agreed to work the issues. However, in other cases the FacRep is not even aware of the program or its near implementation. The primary question from the members and FacReps at this time seems to be when was this negotiated, what position does the Union have on its implementation. Management said they would take the message to the Managers to be sure and keep the FacReps in the loop. We did not receive an answer on I & I bargaining but I was told by the regional individual, who gave me the initial briefing several months ago, each facility would have to address their unique problems locally.

GTF AFSS

We have asked the following questions surrounding the selection of a new facility manager for this facility. What is the status of the search for a new Air Traffic Manager at GTF AFSS? How much longer do to you anticipate that Bill Fisher will remain on duty in a temporary duty status? Are you necessarily using the GM-15 List or may you pursue other avenues of interested individuals? If utilizing another source of candidates who has not satisfied that requirement, will you be selecting from outside the FSS option for a manager? Finally, do you have "relocation" funds to enable you to select a Manager who would otherwise not move if they had to do so at their own expense?
This vacancy announcement position closed in early May. However, it is anticipated that Bill Fisher, the current Acting Manager will remain in place for the rest of the year. He is much liked by facility personnel, but they would like to know when to expect a full-time, permanent manager. The ATNSP list is still required to be used but may entail the request of a waiver from AAT-1. That has not been made clear to the people in this region and as a result there have been no qualified candidates. The job may be re-bid with no requirement for using the list and it may consider individuals from any option background. Relocation funds have been requested (no body said anything about receiving any, though).

INTRANET

The NAATS Regional FacRep Team had an IOU from the last Quarterly Meeting, held in Seattle on 2/6/01 that said, "Some of our facilities still do not have access to T&A information on the FAA Intranet. We asked, "When can we expect this to be arranged?" Also, please update us with what has transpired and why we are not accessing the intranet in each of these facilities?
Upon a follow-up inquiry we received the same response from management that they believed this should have already been in place but would contact the facilities in an effort to ensure it was. Should the regional inquiry fail to move the management in those facilities that have not complied with attempts to get it in place sooner-than-later there will be some type of follow-up action to insure compliance.

PREVIOUS IOUs

There have been three items left over from previous Quarterly Agenda topics that need to be updated:

The suggested firefighting TFR NOTAM format changes that were submitted in August of 2000 for, hopefully, relief in the summer of 2001. The time is upon us and near as we can tell nothing has been done.

There have recently been two infamous incidents that had brought some attention to bear on TFRs. One was at Aspen, CO and the other was the over-flight of a ranch in TX. Both of these incidents were avoidable because TFR s had been issued but nothing done to reduce the tremendous length of these NOTAMS. One of the problems is the inability of the controller to find the important one or two one-liners within 4 or sometimes 5 pages of information. ANM-530 was supposed to be drafting correspondence to send to ATP but there was no update for this Quarterly Meeting.

The status of the Center "flight following" UCR. This was also an agenda item from the August Quarterly Meeting, almost one year ago now. This either needs to be dealt with or the agency needs to acknowledge they do not have the where-with-all to deal with this issue and the Union will go somewhere else to seek relief. Please provide us with an accounting of what ANM has done-to-date on this issue? The region simply said I had not met the criteria for a UCR.

We asked the region what good were they in our efforts to coordinate these issues? There was an IOU to look into ways the region could attempt to support requests from the field on safety related issues.

The tower obstruction light NOTAM procedure. See above. Same response.

These are unfortunate incidents for us to have to work through with the region. We have many talented and dedicated people in the ANM regional office, but if they refuse to help us take our issues forward, really, what good is it to meet with them. The problem is nobody cares. NAATS will have to either get someone's attention or know they have been relegated to, not second-class status as I hear some whining, but to status non gratis which simply means they don't even know you or I exist. Pretty pathetic, really. The pilot is always the one who suffers from FAA neglect.

MWE

The facilities have been charged with creating a Model Work Environment workgroup to come up with a MWE action plan. What is the Region's expectation for this action plan and what kind of accountability will facility management have for the results of such an action plan and for the local results of the Employee Action Survey? 

We are now in Phase two and there are supposed to be facility plans that should have been submitted to Cindy Benson (regional Organizational Development Specialist. She was wonderful to work with under NFP) by the 18th of April. She should be giving advice and feedback to each facility to help them develop their plan and make it as good as it can be. She will also prepare a regional document, based on all of the facility plans, of what ANM can expect to have done within the regional confines. Discussions have been held in all facilities. The question arises will there be any improvements or will it be acceptable to see continuously degrading action survey results but nobody is ever held accountable nor assistance given to change a continuously deteriorating relationships, moral and productivity? Management said the plans are being reviewed and communications will be made between the facility and the regional office but there was a short coming in any commitment surrounding issues of trust, honesty and open communications.

El Fin

That is all I have the time for this month, or perhaps, all you have the tolerance for. I know it sometimes does not look to you like anything is much getting done. It may require your participation to move some in management that thinks there is no role for the Union to play in Labor-Management Relations. We may need your support in the field in putting a little pressure on the issue of how much we do care.

Until next month, so long from ANM, and thanks to all of the FacReps who are going that extra mile to make us at least heard if not as effective as we can be. The FSS Summit should prove a wonderful opportunity to dig in with our Mangers and see what they will commit to in helping us deal with so many issues really belong in their purview, but are too important to not let them do nothing about.

WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION

RANCHO MURIETTA AFSS NEWS

Fred Kent, RIU FacRep

AND SO IT GOES

It has been, and continues to be, a long and slow-moving year here at RIU AFSS. The relationship between labor and management is at an all time low. Trust has ebbed to where little remains. We have moved from trying to negotiate the staffing numbers in good faith, to working a schedule where the staffing requirements have been negotiated and settled at the regional level. Never has morale been so low for so long. We have two CPP moves requested; one has been approved. We have several people looking at other ATC options. Others are on record that if they could replace their income they would quit. It has never been like this, and we do not like it. 

Everything that surfaces becomes an issue, a reason for contention. The question is, "How, and why, did we get here?" This is not a "model work environment!" 

From the perspective of the operations specialists, management has created a contentious (hostile) work environment by demanding an unreasonable increase of daily and hourly staffing. The management team micro-manages "the numbers," thereby limiting supervisor prerogative and flexibility. We know what working short feels like. We know what being overstaffed feels like, as well. We do not need graphs upon graphs to know what reasonable staffing looks like. In order for the data to be useful, it must be used correctly. EACH and EVERY MONTH, for the last several years, the ATM lauds the performances of the facility operations personnel with positive comments on the monthly activity report. This facility has continuously performed as demanded with the daily and hourly staffing below management's currently perceived "needs." Management has NO VALID reason for the increased staffing numbers. 

Almost daily, one or more of the operations specialists spend hours working on the facility computer system. The original local agreement limited the use of the volunteer FPL's to a "not-to-interfere-with-operations" basis. Now it appears that FPL participation is planned on and staffed for! Why should operations personnel be required to staff a FG-2152-12 to work on facility automation? The increase in staffing numbers reflect management's desire to over-staff for "other facility needs." There is a HUB AF automation specialist whose responsibilities include RIU automation. However, that person, for one reason or another, is not tasked to perform those duties. At least two professional computer courses were funded for one of the FPL's. The question is, "Why is a highly paid FPL, now a trained automation novice being paid to learn on the job?" There is an automation specialist who is somewhat less compensated (lower in grade than a FG-12) and professionally trained, whose job it is to perform those duties. Why hasn't that technician been tasked for those duties and services? The trained technician, not a learn-as-you-go FPL, should perform these duties. Our FPL's should not be asked to give up an AWS day off in order to accommodate non-operational tasks that should be covered by AF or management (like other facilities do). 

Do we ever transfer PWB, other than for equipment failures? No! Yet there are times when we take PWB from adjacent AFSS's because of their staffing deficiencies. We re-designated two positions enabling them to help take the load off PWB. The Coordinator position has become predominantly a PWB, and Broadcast picks up PWB from the "hold" when all briefers are busy and position responsibilities allow. 

Not only are we being asked to staff for the "known" annual leave (3 FPL's per day), we are being requested to cover the "unknown" sick leave (1 FPL per day), and "other facility needs" (? FPL's per day) that are obviously non-operational in nature. Management has created a problem where no problem previously existed, and, in doing so, has alienated the work force and created a hostile work environment. 

To summarize, management wants more people on the floor. Management has consistently affirmed a "good job," even with lower staffing and higher traffic levels. Management is known for animus toward Alternate Work Schedules (AWS). Management desires more operations personnel for "other facility needs." Labor has become more efficient. Labor has negotiated the staffing requirements in the past. Labor does not want to work short staffed, nor over staffed. Labor should not be required to cover for non-operational duties. 

Desired outcome: 

1. OPEN and HONEST communication between management, the union, the specialists, and the supervisors. 

2. Establish a work group to determine staffing levels based on actual data with agreed upon parameters and indicators. 

3. Hire and/or utilize a qualified computer expert for facility automation implementation and maintenance. 

HAWTHORNE AFSS NEWS

Elinormarie L. Morrissy, HHR AFSS

CONGRATULATIONS !!

Hawthorne Administrative Officer, Georgina Cano finally got her long-awaited (and much deserved) promotion. Since she's the one who knows where everything is and makes sure we get paid correctly, it's no exaggeration to say that Gina's probably the most valuable person at HHR. Way to go!

WELCOME BACK

Carlos De Moss has returned to the Operations floor after an extended period on administrative duties. We're all glad to see him well again, but I don't think anyone could be happier to see him getting back to work than Carlos himself. Imagine, he got to work Monday through Friday with weekends off - and he actually missed working on the floor!

Our other grounded specialist, Mike Hiett has also been given the Flight Surgeon's seal of approval for return to duty after a brief stint among the grounded. Mike is even sicker than Carlos in a way, he actually missed working Preflight!

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

Finally, it appears that that Western-Pacific Region is out of overtime funds. The situation has apparently pushed Regional Management over the edge, because they are now requiring facility managers to call their next higher management (either hub manager or branch manager) for overtime usage authorization on a daily basis. The only small comfort I can find in this is that it's not just AFSS managers who are saddled with this burden, but tower managers as well.