Not saying I agree, but here is a FAA document...
http://www.faa.gov/about/contract_negotiations/media/FAA_AND_NATCA_Contract_Update_12-06-05.pdf
http://www.aviationdaily.com/aw/gen...tion; Controllers' Union Says It's Not Needed
http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/wm1622.cfm
Most recent one...
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40293
"The exchange continues a tense standoff that began in 2005 when the existing contract between the controllers and FAA expired. A provision in the 1996 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act allows the agency's administrator to impose a final offer on the union if negotiations deadlock. In 2006, FAA's administrator at the time, Marion Blakey, imposed new pay and work rules on controllers."
--You are probably right about controllers doing better with Clinton in office than Bush Jr., though the FAA diagrees and says that controllers received a 74% increase from 1998 to 2005. Is this true? I don't know. What I do know is that the 1996 provision was designed to #### controllers in the long run, but 'help' them in the short run. So did controllers do better under Clinton? Probably, but maybe it was designed that way to give the FAA the upper hand in negotiations in the long run which actually caused controllers to receive pay cuts under Bush Jr... So in conclusion, maybe controllers are doing worse now because of legislation that occured during the Clinton administration, that was designed to reduce the salaries of controllers because they knew an agreement would not be reached so it would be best to impose one on the workforce, rather than Bush Jr. just trying to reduce salaries of controllers.
