This week was spent working airplanes, trying to chase down congressional schedules, flurries of phone calls on various and sundry issues, and trying to remember any part of the vacation I had just a few weeks ago.

In last weeks update I hinted that we would possibly know the House conferees on FAA Reauthorization by this week.  Alas, the staffers and congressional members have not seen it fit to quit chasing their tails and get this done.  The current scuttlebutt is that only the House committee chairs and their ranking minority counterparts will edit the legislation and the rest of the House conferees only brought in for voting.  This would remove many of our supporters on both sides of the aisle from the process and the speculations as to the purpose of this unusual action are numerous, varied, and not appropriate to publish here.  Either way, further delay in the process gives our opponents more time to try and influence things back to their position.

Another hot button issue is the proposed changes to overtime in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  All of us have seen the N under the FLSA section of our paychecks.  This means that our job is non-exempt and that FLSA provisions apply in determining our eligibility for, and treatment of, overtime.

Here is some quick background.  Current FLSA regulations, with minor exceptions, are around 50 years old.  About 30 years ago Congress legislated that these rules would also apply to federal employees.  FLSA, among other things, is what defined the 40-hour workweek, the 8-hour workday, time and a half overtime pay and the guidelines for who would qualify for overtime and what under what conditions they would receive it.

The Bush Administration has initiated revisions to FLSA (contained in the Labor, Health and Education spending bill) that are a result of the urgings of some in the business community.  Their interest is in saving on salaries but to be fair (no pun intended) there are many parts of FLSA that are archaic and some of the proposed changes would positively affect many low income wage earners, assuming companies actually comply with those changes.  For example, the current maximum yearly salary, which makes eligibility for overtime mandatory, is $5000.  This would be raised to I believe $22,000.  But between $22,000 and $65,000 a set of conditions would be applied (salaried or hourly, flexible or defined hours, discretion in types of work etc.) to determine eligibility.  Above $65,000 would not qualify except in rare circumstances. That level of income would essentially be defined as white collar and ineligible for overtime. This is about the time where you pause and look at your pay stub.  Obviously most of us fall into the upper category.

How will this affect you?  Frankly we are scrambling to determine that.  Here are some of the best guesses up to this point.

PRO:  How would we be able to keep true time and a half overtime (by statute if you weren’t non-exempt the maximum rate of pay currently is time and a half of a GS-10 step one, which for many would be below normal hourly pay) for hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a day and 40 in a week?
 
  • We have a contract for ATC, engineers and architects, notam specialists and TMC.  It states we will be paid overtime at true time and a half.  It defines the situations under which we qualify for overtime pay.
  • There are provisions of law restricting the maximum work hours of ATC specialists (10 hour day, six day week, 24 hours off etc.)  While this does not guarantee us overtime pay, it at least puts a ceiling on the amount of extra time required.  We sure don’t want any part of what the Canadian controllers are experiencing.
  • We have good relationships with many in Congress and a growing PAC.  It is likely that our fate within this currently proposed revision and any after the fact exemption from it would occur legislatively.  Are you giving to the PAC yet?

CON:  If you haven’t noticed we are attempting to function under a hostile Presidential administration and a hostile FAA Administration.  NATCA mailed each of you a long letter explaining the current scenario.  I hope you read it.  It was an expensive mailing, but more than worth every penny to let you know the situation.  Marion Blakey is not our friend or even a non-combatant.  She is actively turning the clock back fifteen years or more in LMR. 

  • We have a contract.  This will expire in a few months and the administration is still playing games about an extension.  If we have to re-negotiate now how much will survive?  If we extend, what will the political landscape be like in the White House and Congress in two years when we re-negotiate?
  • There is a clause in the current legislation that says it is not mandatory for federal agencies (as opposed to private sector employers) to apply the new provisions.  Overtime is a budget liability but so is compensatory time.  And if we save the comp time in lieu of overtime until retirement, it is paid out at time and a half of the current rate.  This could be a deterrent but the administration may try to change things anyway just to dork with us and make us use more of our resources in defending this issue, leaving less to apply to other issues.
  • Many NATCA bargaining units outside of ATC would be extremely vulnerable as some do not have contracts and many have very similar private sector job descriptions, which are already in jeopardy from the new provisions.  Nurses, architects and others across the country are going ballistic over the potential impacts.

All in all, this is a big picture issue affecting millions of private sector employees and thousands of federal employees.  We are actively trying to limit potential impacts of the wording of this legislation as it makes its way through Congress.  I know you haven’t heard this one before, but give to the NATCA PAC as if your job depends on it, because it most certainly does.