|
I’m not in the general habit of plagiarizing for my update but since I am just back from a long weekend away from civilization (phone email etc.) and publishing time constraints prevent me from going much further, the rest of this update will be from Pat Forrey, the NGL NVP. Please take note of several salient points he mentions about the world of suck that may very well be our future.
Performance Management Systems - As we watch the administration implement pay for performance personnel systems in Homeland Security and Defense, it is clear that the federal government's new flavor of the decade will most likely come into fruition. Myself and others have continuously posted information concerning the draconian changes from civil service reform to a patronage form of federal service, in order to provide information and inspire activism. Literally, the Bush administration is rolling back the clock to the 19th century concerning employee rights, working conditions, benefits, salary and job security. NATCA was fortunate to have leadership that looked into the future and immersed the Union into legislative activism which we continue with today. We were prepared when the Congress first experimented with personnel reform with our work on reclassification and pay, and were able to maintain our exclusive representation status along with all federal appeal processes. This is not the case with DHS and DOD... They are losing all of these appeal processes and their right to bargain; they will be second class citizens.
Our contract negotiations will certainly involve the agency's desire to move in the direction of Defense and Homeland Security. Their proposals will include rolling back your base pay, your premium pay, your differential pay... their proposals will include strict application of management rights in changing your schedule when they desire and restrict your ability to get leave... their proposals will reduce official Union rep time, eliminate Union involvement in technology, and eliminate the requirement for midterm bargaining... their proposals will end the paid lunch provision, eliminate credit hours, and impose a dress code... their proposals will require that our personnel system will conform with non-union work force employees, essentially negating protections for due process contained in a CBA, and the ability to retain and use records of previous offenses against employees. This is the system that Defense and Homeland Security are implementing, and they call it reform????
And here's a perfect example of how tenuous your job may be... Our regulations require the prompt reporting of an operational error. In fact, Russ Chew, the father of ASAP at American Airlines, charged Jim Shear, then ATO VP for Safety, to formulate an ASAP program for air traffic controllers in order highlight the problems in the system without fear of reprisal. However, that activity was high jacked by HR, and has since ceased to be a consideration. At the Performance Institutes HR Innovations 2004 convention, Ventris Gibson, in discussion concerning the FAA's personnel system stated "If one air traffic controller has two operational errors a year, that individual is affecting the overall agency's safety goal and will not remain an air traffic controller." Well shit, no wonder HR (VG) pulled the ASAP program from the ATO, the principals of anonymous reporting of safety concerns doesn't jive with threatening and disciplining employees... there is no interest in system safety, only the desire to blame an employee for the shortcomings of the system, and the ability to tell the media and Congress that the problem has been eliminated when the employee is removed.
Right Sizing the NAS - At the ATCA "Rightsizing the NAS" symposium this week, the topic of most interest centered on how the aviation community could apply the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) philosophy to the FAA. The tenor of these discussions, especially from Rebecca Cox of Continental Airlines, was that if we don't get this out of congress's hands the FAA won't ever be able to close anything down. Obviously, Ms. Cox is no friend of ours.
Marion Blakey commented that this is a unique point in aviation history. She stated that the need to transform the system is now; the future will be a very different system, through realignment and a lot of consolidation. Blakey went on to state that today presents a unique set of opportunities to develop a new concept of operations. Aviation tax expires (FAA Reauthorization 2007), and almost a complete turnover of the workforce provides an opportunity to make these changes. According to Cox, she believes that the ATC system is broke, that everyone needs to pay for the system.
According to the administrator, consolidations can be done. A76 can be done... she believes the agency needs to do it in "bite size chunks." She doesn't appear to be interested in going to Congress with a BRAC proposal per se, but rather, a piece by piece, systematic consolidation/collocation process... leaving Congress and parochial politics out of it. She firmly believes the system as it currently stands needs to be changed, and polarization will mean a continuation of the current system.
SCI - We were informed by Heather Biblow this week, that the NATCA AT BU met one (1) SCI target during the April '04 - March '05 rating period. That target was AIRPORT ARRIVAL EFFICIENCY RATE: "Maintain 96% or greater compliance with the arrival rate at the 35 OEP airports from the corresponding period of the previous year." Because one target was achieved, the SCI portion of the June payout is .2%. Based on our preliminary analysis, we believe we have met three (3) SCI targets... however, this was derived from the data on the agency's web sites, so chances are it's wrong... We'll be requesting the data again this year to verify what they have reported.
The agency continues to avoid meeting with the Union to determine where the remaining funds from last year's SCI pool will be expended. According to the parties' agreement, which the administrator signed, any money not awarded to BUE's for meeting our performance goals, would be distributed to award facility excellence and provide resources for those facilities that had difficulty meeting these performance goals. So, what does it say when the agency agrees to use resources to help achieve performance goals, but never distributes them? I guess it means that they don't really care if we meet these performance goals... seems that "pocketing" the money is of more importance towards cutting costs, not system safety or efficiency. The agency has stated we can expect a letter to initiate bargaining in 2-3 weeks...
FY06 House Transportation Appropriations Mark Up - A total of $14.427 billion is provided to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) -- $877 million above the fiscal year 2005 level and $1.741 billion above the President's request. F&E is funded at $3.05 billion -- $600 million above President's request ($2.448 billion). AIP is funded at $3.6 billion -- $600 million above the President's request. Both F&E and AIP funding is consistent with authorized levels. This includes $8.2 billion in FAA operations and $104 million for Essential Air Service. The bill includes $25 million to hire and train 595 new air traffic controllers, and an additional $8 million above the request to hire and train of safety inspectors in the office of aircraft certification and flight standards. The bill also extends the current provisions of war risk insurance, including current premium price caps, for one additional year.
Pay Parity - The House Appropriations Committee, on a voice vote Tuesday, approved the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development spending bill, which contained an amendment extending a 3.1% pay raise for both federal civilian and military employees. Traditionally, the committee's decision on pay raises has been approved by the full House, Senate and White House. The 3.1% increase is less than last year's 3.5% increase, but more than the 2.3% increase for civilian employees President George W. Bush proposed in his FY2006 budget. Bush proposed a 3.1% increase for military personnel. The FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary and DC Appropriations bill is expected to be considered on the House floor next week.
Senate Races - SurveyUSA just conducted an interesting project: concurrent polls in each of the fifty states to measure the popularity of all 100 US Senators in their home states. Top on the list was Barack Obama (D-IL) with a 72% approval rating. The next four on the popularity scale -- with 71% approval ratings -- were Kent Conrad (D-ND), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Three more also broke the 70% approval mark: Dan Inouye (D-HI), Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). At the bottom of the scale -- the US Senator who is singularly least popular with his own constituents -- was John Cornyn (R-TX), with a paltry 40% approval rating. The others with approval ratings of 45% or less were Rick Santorum (R-PA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Richard Burr (R-NC). Santorum and DeWine at 44% and 43%, respectively, also recorded the highest disapproval scores. It is significant to note two of the "Top Ten" (Conrad, Snowe) and two of the "Ten Worst" (Santorum, DeWine) face re-election next year.
|
