<!----Enter Date Bellow *************> Weekly Update for December 15, 2000 <!----End Enter Date Bellow *************>
Weekly Update for <!----Enter Date Bellow *************> December 15, 2000 <!----End Enter Date Bellow *************>

<!----Enter Text Bellow **********>

Sisters and brothers...

Lots happening this past week... we have been involved in negotiations concerning National Airspace Redesign, Consolidation pay rules, and the PCS/IPP MOU. I'll start with NAR...

Yesterday, the Union met with representatives from the agency in an attempt to reach agreement on a national MOU that covers all of the pertinent issues involved with airspace redesign, specifically process structure, procedures in designing, staffing and pay. The original understanding was that we would meet and develop an agreement from a blank sheet of paper. However, the Union took the initiative to put together a proposal that detailed all of the issues we feel are relevant and necessary for the success of this program. Most of the meeting involved NATCA explaining the intent behind our proposal, and in so doing, narrowed down the potential problem issues that need to be resolved.

Both parties took an IOU on certain aspects of the proposal, and we will meet again in the very near future, probably before the end of the year. We have told the agency that the prompt conclusion to this issue is imperative to the bargaining unit.

Apparently, the agency has agreed to a Consolidation pay rule after negotiations with NATCA. However, I do not believe John has signed the document at this time, since he hasn't had a chance to review it. Once he has, and the intent of the Union is confirmed, I expect the document to be released.

The parties have also met concerning the PCS/IPP MOU. The Union has proposed some changes to the MOU that would free up more IPP moves, and just as importantly, implement procedures for a centralized vacancy/bidding/selection process. We have addressed security and medical clearance issues, as well as standard offer criteria. We propose to tie all of these issues together to ensure that promotional opportunities are not second chair to new hires. The parties have met only once, but constant communication has ensued to bring clarity to the issues and proposals, with the hopes of a speedy conclusion.

CPC training failures and voluntary removals from training have been discussed by the NEB. John Carr will personally deal with the agency in resolving any issues.

The retroactive pay issue associated with reclass has been agreed to by air traffic and NATCA. We are now waiting for Monte Belger to review and sign off. Hopefully this will be concluded very soon.

Speaking of pay, the parties at the national level will be reviewing any outstanding pay grievances on January 4, 2001. If anyone has a grievance pending it should be part of these discussions. If I just received one at the third level, it may or may not have made it to the HQ level in time for this review. As usual, Laurelle is very efficient in getting these up to NATCA national in a timely manner. We will double check next week...

Many members have asked the significance of the Executive Order on the FAA Performance based Organization (PBO). The bottom line is that the EO is benign. As you have learned in FacRep training, an EO carries almost the same weight as law, however, if it doesn't have the force and effect of law. An EO can be either ignored by the Congress, or they can choose to codify it under statute. In this particular case, it only instructs the FAA how to organize itself, but does not and can not direct how to fund the agency, only Congress can do that. Therefore, without the funding stream, the agency has no obligation to enact the EO if it requires funding.

This is a very simplistic description of the significance, but I think you get the drift. It is best exemplified by EO 12871 requiring government agencies to operate under Partnership. Unfortunately, the President cannot or chose not to mandate sanctions against agencies that interpret 5 USC 7106 (b) issues as non-negotiable. Agencies rely on the law; and without teeth in the EO (or funding), agencies will continue to operate as they always have. Furthermore, AIR 21 basically requires the FAA to do exactly what the EO requires, organize itself as a PBO without the funding mechanism.

The real bright spot in the EO goes more to the statement that air traffic control is inherently governmental. This is a big boost towards our fight against privatization and contracting out. That is specific direction to the FAA that our occupation should not be sold to the lowest bidder. This was great work by John, Ruth, Ken Montoya, Christine Corcoran and the rest of the NO staff.

It will be interesting to see if our new President of the United States will let the EO stand, or whether he will cancel it; if he cancels the EO, I believe it will be telling on the future of air traffic control and the amount of work we have ahead of us. The ultimate safeguard will be if Congress puts the inherently governmental language into law... that is our next frontier.

Another issue that has come to light involves the Administrators decision to establish an OSI for core compensation employees higher than the presidential increase all governmental employees will receive this January. As you may or may not realize, we negotiated in our pay rules that the BU would receive either the presidential increase or the agency OSI plus .8%, whichever is greater. Therefore this is what we will receive:

Core Comp employees:

presidential increase = 2.7%
administrators addition = 1.0%
average locality = 1.0%
core comp SCI = .6%

Total core comp employees = 5.3%

ATC BU employees:

presidential increase = 2.7%
administrator matching = 1.0%
average locality = 1.0%
OSI = .8%

Total ATC BU = 5.5%; plus an additional .8% SCI = 6.3% for FY 2001

The 3.7% equates to the core comp OSI for rest of agency which is higher than the presidential increase of 2.7%.

The national office has filed a grievance against the agency for bypassing NATCA regarding the issuance and mandatory briefing of the "Collision Course" video. This video is inflammatory, insulting to controllers in general, and misleading as to the statements regarding the controllers involved. Prior to the issuance of the tape, the agency provided NATCA with no notice and/or opportunity to review or comment in order to prevent or correct such misappropriate material before the offending item was released to the bargaining unit. If you or you members are ordered to view the tape, make certain they do so. If BUE's are traumatized by the video, make certain that a CA-1 is issued to them, and contact Ron Oberg or Carol Jones for help in filling out and understanding employee rights concerning OWCP.

And finally, a question has arisen concerning the ability to FAM on a Holiday. The agency's policy is that they will not approve the FAM if it is on a holiday, however, there is nothing to prohibit a FAM on a holiday. Further, the agency will approve a FAM on a day in lieu of a holiday... go figure the logic.

This will be my last update for a couple of weeks; I'll be on annual leave until the first week of January; George will be acting in my stead. You can reach him at the Chicago office or by his cell phone - 630-235-1230. Unless I hear from you before then, I hope everyone has a safe and joyful holiday season...

Pat <!----End Text Field **********>

[Back] [Updates]