What needs to happen to re-open contract negotiations?

Rooster

New Member
With 30% pay cuts across the board, arbitrarily imposed work rules, and experienced controllers leaving the profession in record numbers, this is arguably the worst time to be an Air Traffic Controller.

From July 2005 to April 2006 the FAA and NATCA were unable to agree on a new contract after the previous one had expired. Despite phraseology in that contract that read: "If negotiations are not completed prior to the expiration date, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until a new Agreement is reached.", the FAA ended contract negotiations and instead sent their "best offer" to Congress.

Congress then had 60 days to review the FAA’s proposal and NATCA’s objections. By statute, the FAA was authorized to implement its proposal if Congress does not act otherwise within the 60 days. This is what happened.

On September 6, 2006 the FAA imposed their non-negotiated rules on the controller workforce and has continued to do so ever since.

So what needs to happen to get both NATCA and the FAA back to the negotiating table so that they can come to an agreement? I imagine that Obama would need to be running the White House for there to even be a chance of this happening, but how long would it take him to address it? What do you think needs to happen before a contract can be negotiated? Will it EVER happen?
 

BoomerSooner77

New Member
With 30% pay cuts across the board, arbitrarily imposed work rules, and experienced controllers leaving the profession in record numbers, this is arguably the worst time to be an Air Traffic Controller.

From July 2005 to April 2006 the FAA and NATCA were unable to agree on a new contract after the previous one had expired. Despite phraseology in that contract that read: "If negotiations are not completed prior to the expiration date, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until a new Agreement is reached.", the FAA ended contract negotiations and instead sent their "best offer" to Congress.

Congress then had 60 days to review the FAA’s proposal and NATCA’s objections. By statute, the FAA was authorized to implement its proposal if Congress does not act otherwise within the 60 days. This is what happened.

On September 6, 2006 the FAA imposed their non-negotiated rules on the controller workforce and has continued to do so ever since.

So what needs to happen to get both NATCA and the FAA back to the negotiating table so that they can come to an agreement? I imagine that Obama would need to be running the White House for there to even be a chance of this happening, but how long would it take him to address it? What do you think needs to happen before a contract can be negotiated? Will it EVER happen?
The FAA sent over a new one to NATCA back in late June / early July, don't remember exact date. I haven't heard anything else about it though. (I believe it was suppose to be a secret, but some doofus at the FAA made it public).

Oh, and there's some new bill out there that is trying to get passed. http://www.natca.org/rss/S3416-080608.aspx
 

SkierMatt

New Member
I know my answer will come under fire by current controllers and others but here goes my best. feel free to comment.

1. Although NATCA endorses Obama. Obama is not the answer. Although this all started taking place years ago. The current situation with the federal budget being badley in the red, has some todo. War, slumping economy, banks needing bailed out. Have all had things todo with the lack of funding going torwards the FAA. The recent congressional hearings are a huge benefit and enlightment torwards the problems being seen and addressed by members of congress. I believe it will be addressed, however i won't be holding my breath.

As for the endorsement of obama being in office, I say please NO. Even if he does bring wages back up, which I'm skeptical with his agenda. You will be signing over more of your paycheck right back to the hand that feeds. So either way your damned if you doo. Your damned if you dont. I personally see the answer in congress.

Yes McCain voted towards privitization in 2003 of the air traffic control system. However things have changed from 2003 -2008. With the recent hearing and the facts coming forward. At what cost do we risk the nations safety with inadequate infrastructure in the skys ?
 

Rooster

New Member
The FAA sent over a new one to NATCA back in late June / early July, don't remember exact date. I haven't heard anything else about it though.
Ahhh, OK found it.

(June 20, 2008)

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association rejected the Federal Aviation Administration's final offer of new contract terms on Thursday, saying that only a return to the bargaining table would satisfy the union.

The agency and the union clashed sharply in written communications. FAA acting Administrator Robert Sturgell said the agency rejected a counteroffer NATCA made in March because of its "regressive nature and excessive cost, among other reasons."

Sturgell offered a 5 percent increase of the minimum salaries in each air traffic controller payband in fiscal 2009 and guaranteed payband increases in 2009 and 2010. He also offered to lift the more restrictive terms of the dress code that had prompted spontaneous protests by controllers, and allow air traffic controllers to wear jeans and athletic shoes while on the job.

"While this offer makes several accommodations that will be difficult for the agency, we are willing to make them to advance our labor-management relationship," Sturgell wrote.

NATCA President Pat Forrey reiterated statements from a January letter in which he told Sturgell the agency's terms represented "just another tactic to delay the only true resolution to the dispute between our organizations: a return to good faith negotiations over a successor collective bargaining agreement subject to ratification by NATCA's membership."

Forrey said the payband proposals were unacceptable.
"This proposal is worse than the proposal made one year ago with regard to the paybands," he wrote. "There is no need to wait until your Aug. 30 deadline to come and go. Your settlement offer is rejected."

NATCA spokesman Doug Church said the FAA offered in March 2007 to raise the minimum on the pay bands by 15 percent over five years. Pay and work rules imposed in 2006 already guaranteed an 8 percent hike on the minimum pay in each band, and the agency offered an additional 7 percent as part of a contract offer for a 15 percent total increase.
Also, the link you posted about the August 2008 bill looks very good Boomer. Here's hoping it gets through.

Matt: OK so that makes two votes for "It depends on Congress".
 

BoomerSooner77

New Member
Ahhh, OK found it.

Also, the link you posted about the August 2008 bill looks very good Boomer. Here's hoping it gets through.

Matt: OK so that makes two votes for "It depends on Congress".
Did you watch the congressional hearing from June? It's on youtube, look up "air traffic control hearing".

Also... to throw in some words of caution, as those at the M&G heard me slur out in my drunken stuper....

Before the job I have now, I was in management at a international money transfer company (is that vague enough?). One year prior to end of the Union Contract, we asked the Union to begin early negotiations. Almost immediately after the due date of a yes or no, things immediately began to get tense. While of course we were letting the Union know expenses had to be cut by X% and that cuts had already been made on non bargaining unit's expenses (ie; management's retirement, pay bands, bonuses, benefits share, etc), they Union was adament that the new contract would need all of these pieces to remain the same or be increased, particularly pay and retirement benefits. This went back and forth for months and finally we submitted what we thought was pretty fair... it was closer to what the Union asked for than what we wanted to budget. Well, the Union President (from what Union Members indicated to us as we were not in any of these meetings) somewhat tricked the Union Members into voting down final early negotiations promising they could get what they wanted because the company didn't have a choice. T

That said, we immediately informed the Union that in order to prepare for negotiation contingencies (ie, people to do the work if a strike were to occur) the cost would be deducted from the final contract how the Union saw fit and was non negotiable and allowed another two weeks to respond for early negotiations. The Union President rejected the offer.

THEN, due to budgetary concerns (that's my story and I am sticking to it), we decided to outsource a portion of work to Canada. We then announced that all US locations (where work was done by Union Members) would be closed and all employees (including management) would be layed off. All of the remainder of the work was outsourced to Mexico, Costa Rica & Philippines.

So, I said all of that to say this... it's not a good idea to be so demanding in times when everyone (not just the gov't) is trying to cut costs where they can. Agree to what is reasonable and be happy with that OR keep demanding more and more and find your ass unemployed...I am just sayin'. Look at all these large corporations making drastic cuts in benefits (especially retirement).

DISCLAIMER: I have nothing against Unions as long as they operate smartly and not selfishly. So don't call me a Union hater!
 

Prino

Well-Known Member
i would have been happy with a 5% pay increase and being able to wear jeans and tennis shoes
 

RABIRZA69

Penalty vectorer
i would have been happy with a 5% pay increase and being able to wear jeans and tennis shoes

speak for yourself dude, your not cornholed in one of THE most expensive places in the country to live at 13% locality... I'll probably fail my medical because of all the sodium im taking in from Ramen noodles.
 

mugenfan_98

Well-Known Member
speak for yourself dude, your not cornholed in one of THE most expensive places in the country to live at 13% locality... I'll probably fail my medical because of all the sodium im taking in from Ramen noodles.
Aren't you making more than we ever will (based on you retirement ticker)? And by "we" I mean the guys out here in okc living on 20k and per diem.
 

pm577

New Member
speak for yourself dude, your not cornholed in one of THE most expensive places in the country to live at 13% locality... I'll probably fail my medical because of all the sodium im taking in from Ramen noodles.
With so much time in, were you forced to ACK or chose to go there?

(In other words, why would anyone other than a new-hire work at ACK?)
 

GnW

New Member
if i posted what i wanted to post about new hires and their indifference with pay, i would be banned.
 

RABIRZA69

Penalty vectorer
Aren't you making more than we ever will (based on you retirement ticker)? And by "we" I mean the guys out here in okc living on 20k and per diem.
that ticker says it's 4 years xx months until I have another 26 years. They don't make tickers big enough for me. Essentially I tools pay cut up until recently by losing per diem. Enjoy that tax. Free govt cheese while you can.
 

Craptastic

New Member
i would have been happy with a 5% pay increase and being able to wear jeans and tennis shoes
The clothing restriction doesn't bother me much. Although I am a few weeks away from being in OKC I think the dress is a good thing. I would probably still dress professional even if they allowed jeans and tank tops.
 

mugenfan_98

Well-Known Member
if i posted what i wanted to post about new hires and their indifference with pay, i would be banned.
Say it. The only way we can learn is based on perspective. I'm not one that is indifferent on the pay. Once we get back the facility we start out at 40k and that's more than I have ever made in my life. I also whined about the dressing up (I worked concrete and in a warehouse previously) and I honestly feel better about my self dressing like that now that it's been a few weeks.

Rabirza, sorry I mis-read your ticker.
 

Prino

Well-Known Member
speak for yourself dude, your not cornholed in one of THE most expensive places in the country to live at 13% locality... I'll probably fail my medical because of all the sodium im taking in from Ramen noodles.
we arent all in the same situation, but at least under that you would be making 5% more than what you are now. Why did you take a job there if you werent going to be able to afford it? Ive known quite a few guys who have turned that facility down for that very reason.

Say it. The only way we can learn is based on perspective. I'm not one that is indifferent on the pay. Once we get back the facility we start out at 40k and that's more than I have ever made in my life. I also whined about the dressing up (I worked concrete and in a warehouse previously) and I honestly feel better about my self dressing like that now that it's been a few weeks.
i dont mind wearing slacks to work, i was simply saying that what the faa was offering was better than things are currently...i would like to have the OPTION to wear jeans and a button up to work. all i wore at my last job was jeans so i have about 10 pair that NEVER get worn cause i never get a chance to wear them. it would help reduce how frequently i do laundry

And by "we" I mean the guys out here in okc living on 20k and per diem.
not everybody in okc gets per diem :)
 
Top