Table of Contents
From The President
From The CEO
The first Board meeting of the month is done; a number of issues were discussed. You will see some notes from Board minutes in this issue of newsletter. Due to cancellation of our December Board meeting there were a couple issues that were delayed until this meeting.
Issue #1 information referendum to NAATS members on pay issues will be developed and in the mail to you by the end of February.
Issue #2 NAATS National budget for 1998 was reviewed and approved, copy should be in next month's newsletter.
Issue #3 NAATS Congressional liaison, Irvin Woods has resigned for personal business reasons NAATS has contracted with Mr. Harold M. Gross for his services.
Issue #4 Per my request (last May) of those interested in being NAATS newsletter editor, we had one person interested Ms. Elinormarie Morrissy OAK AFSS, that will be putting together the National section of the newsletter.
Issue #5 The Board passed a motion to place all further discussion of Flight Service Architecture into the NFPC arena, to be worked through partnership with the FAA.
Issue #6 The three FAA Headquarters details (2 in ARS and I in ATO) will be ending in June of 1998, I will be looking for people to fill these positions. This months newsletter will include a brief description of what each of these positions are and how to apply for them.
Issue #7 The Board has organized a Public Relations Team (PRT). This team will consist of Three NAATS members, to work Flight Service and safety issues with Congress, media, users, etc... (See letter to members mailed to your facilities Jan 10th).
This is going to be a big year for everyone in Flight Service, NAATS National elections, Pay issues, restructure, Flight Service Future Architecture. For those of you who are not members you should be. Flight Service future is in the balance and your participation would certainly help all of our efforts.
(We've received some requests for a reprint of the "covered by" doctrine explanation. The article below is from the December issue of NAATS News. We've also reprinted a detailed explanation of the "covered by " doctrine, courtesy of PASS Counsel Mike Derby. Our ULP against the management team for their refusal to negotiate over this doctrine is still pending.)
As I've mentioned before the management team has chosen to take a very traditional, power-based approach to these negotiations. Interest based bargaining is nowhere in their vocabulary but they continue to complain when we beat them at their own game.
Management has been busy with half truths and misrepresentations. It's important that you know what the actual status of contract negotiations is and the reasoning behind it.
You may have heard that the FAA contract team has given us their initial proposals but that we haven't sent them ours. Or that we're insisting on the team meetings being conducted in the Washington, D.C. area Maybe even that NAATS postponed the beginning of the meetings with the FAA team. All of these rumors are true and, as usual, management neglects to tell the whole story.
The reason we have not sent the management team our proposals is because of their consistent refusal to negotiate with us on the Federal Labor Relations Authority's (FLRA) "covered by" doctrine. As many of you already know the FLRA is the agency that administers the labor relationships between federal unions and agencies. The "covered by" doctrine is complex but basically it states that if you mention an item in your contract then you should have anticipated all the ramifications of that item during the life of the contract. In other words, if we have an article that addresses details and temporary promotions then we should have negotiated everything about that subject in the master agreement and we have no right to mid-term bargain. We would have to bargain all issues around details nationally in the contract and our Facility Representatives would have no right to bargain over these matters at their respective facilities. This doctrine applies to any matter we mention in the contract (dress code, watch schedule, etc..).
The good news is that the FLRA has said the parties (union and management) can bargain about how they will apply this doctrine. We have been trying to get the FAA Chief Negotiator to agree to a reasonable application of this doctrine since last May but she has steadfastly refused to deal with the matter. We have filed a ULP regarding her refusal to negotiate and her position precludes our sending our proposals to her for obvious reasons. The fact that she sent us her team's proposals is immaterial; we have no reciprocal obligation in our ground rules agreement. If she wanted that stipulation then she should have gotten it in the ground rules. She didn't.
There are a number of reasons why we're insisting on meeting in the Washington, D.C. area:
1. both NAATS and FAA Headquarters are here with their support facilities,
2. three of NAATS team members won't have to travel,
3. staying within the '`beltway" denies travel to at least two management team members, which should be a consideration to all tax payers,
4. there is no justification for management's desire to meet in resort areas around the country,
5. our coordination with the other two unions (NATCA, PASS) engaged in contract negotiations with the FAA is easier,
6. the daily business of the union must go on despite contract negotiations. This is simplified by staying close to NAATS HQ.
We intend to continue to insist on staying in the D.C. area.
Lastly, we postponed the beginning of contract negotiation meetings until the resolution of the above discussed "covered by" stalemate. Both parties agree that we have a threshold issue to resolve. Until that time no discussion of proposals can occur. It makes no sense to bring both teams in at considerable expense to blankly stare across the table at each other with no progress possible. Once the issue is decided we look forward to meeting with the management team.
The important thing to remember is that while we're waiting on this resolution all of the provisions of the current contract remain in full force and effect. We're determined to do whatever is necessary to obtain a fair contract proposal for your consideration no matter how long it takes. Your continued patience and support are critical to our success.
I hope this better explains the current situation. If you have any comments or questions please contact your regional representatives or me.
In 1993, the FLRA adopted what is known as the "covered by" doctrine, which was supposed to provide guidance to FLRA Regional Offices on when to accept or reject unfair labor practice charges concerning claims that an agency has refused to give notice to and bargain with the union. In short, if a matter is deemed to be "covered by" the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the FLRA will reject the unfair labor practice charge and suggest that the dispute be handled under the grievance procedure. The problem is that by the time the FLRA gets around to making its decision to reject the charge, the time limits for filing a grievance have long passed. Although some skeptics believe that the "covered by" doctrine was only developed so that the budget-challenged FLRA could quickly and substantially reduce its case load, the doctrine appears to be here to stay. Thus, it is important to be aware of the doctrine's fundamentals.
The "covered by" doctrine has three prongs. If any one of three prongs is satisfied, a matter in dispute will be considered "covered by" the parties' agreement. Prong 1 is called the "expressly contained" test or the easy prong. In other words, if the matter at issue is expressly contained in the agreement, it is "covered by" the agreement. The FLRA will ask itself "whether a reasonable reader of the agreement would conclude that the agreement settles the matter in dispute." Prong 2 is called the "inseparably bound up with" test, or the more complicated prong. This means that the matter in dispute, although not expressly contained in the agreement, is "commonly considered to be an aspect of the matter in the agreement." Prong 3 is called the "reasonably should have contemplated" test, or the much more complicated prong. According to the FLRA, this means that the "parties reasonably should have contemplated that the collective bargaining agreement would foreclose further bargaining over a matter in dispute, even though the subject of the dispute is not expressly contained in the agreement or an aspect of a matter in the agreement."
In applying the test since 1993, the FLRA has interpreted the test to mean that "if the agreement contains an article that deals with the general subject matter of the dispute, absent a contrary past practice or bargaining history to show otherwise, the matter would be covered by the agreement." Thus, the FLRA looks to the general subject matter of the dispute and then looks at the parties' agreement to see if that subject is part of the agreement.
What if the agency refuses to bargain based on a mistaken belief that the parties' agreement already covers the subject matter of the dispute and grants the agency the right in a certain way? The FLRA has ruled that the agency need not prove that its interpretation of the agreement is correct (that question can be answered by an arbitrator according to the FLRA), but only that the subject of the dispute is "covered by" the agreement under one of the above-described prongs.
For PASS representatives in the field, I strongly suggest that you develop a good working relationship with one or two FLRA field representatives in the FLRA office having jurisdiction over your facility. All FLRA offices have ''officers of the day" who are responsible for answering questions from the field. When in doubt about whether an agency transgression should be the subject of a grievance or an unfair labor practice charge, call your FLRA contact for informal advice, or call your Regional Vice President, Regional Assistant, or Regional Business Agent.
PASS TIMES JUNE / JULY 1997
| **Motion: Dolan: I move to accept the
minutes with the changes noted. Seconded: Campbell Vote: yes-9 no-0 |
| **Motion: Dolan: I move that Wallv Pike
assume the duties of Acting Executive Director. pending position description development
and Board action to fill the permanently. Seconded:Dawson. Vote: yes-9 no-0 |
2) Introduced guests: Ms. L. Lodenkamper DEN, Mr. Steve Barber BOI, Mr. Robert Stanco RNO, Mr. Arthur Fox NAATS Legal, Mr. Terry Landlord OAK, Mr. Thomas Halligan BTV NAATS National Drug & Alcohol focal.
3) President:
a) CPP, McAnaw briefed the Board on where all moves requested have been approved to date. AAT- 1 advised that the FAA would have one more year of Tower closures.
b) Refinance NAATS HQ: 9/98 the balloon payment is due.
1) John Wesselhoft NAATS Treasurer, focal to refinance NAATS HQ.
2) John, to look into financing available and get a number of offers for next BOD meeting.
c) McAnaw briefed the BOD of 11% cut in National Partnership budgets. (Note - this issue has since been resolved; 11% restored to NFP budget.)
d) Approval of 1998 budget after considerable discussion.
**Motion: Dolan: I move to accept the budget as amended. Seconded: Terry
Vote: Yes- 9 No- 0
4) CEO report;
a) Congressional liaison position, Pike and McAnaw interviewed Mr. Hal Gross. We recommended Mr. Gross to Board for the position. BOD agreed.
b) Mid-term negotiations; Mr. Pike briefed board
c) Contract Negotiations, presently on hold until FLRA decision on covered and contained issue.
d) ALC Aviation Labor coalition PASS/ NATCA briefing.
e) Office report; Carol doing a fine job, temporary office help Judy Gamble is almost up to speed also doing a fine job.
f) NAATS HQ's detail, McAnaw to ask Mr. Lankford for a one paragraph position description for the two ARS positions and one ATO position, McAnaw is then to advertise positions to membership.
g) ATX human factors workgroup next week Mr. Dolan to attend.
5) LMR Director report;
a) Doring briefed Board on current arbitrations, ULP's, and grievances
b) Board new procedures to request for arbitrations.
c) Doring to send out to board training forms to Directors to sign up their Facreps for Reno training session.
6) Bob Stanco, WP Partnership Coordinator, requested the BOD to consider placing Flight Service issues, Future technologies, Reclassification into the National Partnership Council.
| ** Motion: Dawson: I move that all
discussion reference FSS Architecture be worked through the National Partnership Council. Seconded: Simpson Vote: Yes-9 No-0 |
7) Public Relations, Congressional liaison committee.
a) Ms. Lisa Lodenkamper, presented a proposal before the Board for a position of Safety Liaison that would be the focal for all activity to work on Capitol Hill, user groups (AOPA, EAA, NBAA). The areas that would be addressed are NAATS needs in Political, Media, and Users.
b) The need to develop a National mission or long range Strategic plan for NAATS, aviation safety and Flight Service.
b) Mr. Larry Burdick, presented a proposal to the Board for the formation of a Legislative committee. Which would initiate congressional action through the Membership to Capitol Hill for the benefit to aviation safety, and flight service.
NAATS Board directed both Lisa and Larry to present one proposal combining both of their great ideas.
| **Motion: McLennan: NAATS allocates
$17.000.00 to establish a Public Relations Team and Public Relations Liaison position. The
funds will be used for travel. publishing. telephone and other associated costs.
Expenditures will be coordinated and approved by the President. * The team and public relations liaison will be Elected by the President in accordance with established NAATS policy. The team will consist of three (3) union members. one of which includes the public relations liaison. and NAATS lobbyist(s). Decisions will be through consensus and the chair rotates. The team will meet via telephone and one meeting prior to the next board meeting to develop and present the operating rules and functions and initial proposals for action plan These tasks will be distributed to the board at least two weeks prior to the board meeting to allow for modifications and final approval at the next board meeting. Seconded: Comiskv. Vote: Yes-9 No-0 |
| **Motion: Comisky: NAATS opposes any further
consolidations and supports the full deployment of OASIS technology to the field. Seconded: Maisel Vote: Yes- 4 (Maisel, Comisky, Boberick, Simpson) No- 5 (Dolan, Terry, McLennan, Campbell, McAnaw) Abstained-1 (Dawson) {If you want to know why someone voted their way please contact that Director. } |
| **Motion: Comisky: NAATS will lobby congress
and user groups for hiring and adequate staffing of the bargaining unit for flight
service. to maintain and support 61 Automated Flight Service Stations and 14 Flight
Service Station. Efforts will be made to have specific legislation that accomplishes these
goals. Seconded: Maisel Vote: Yes-9 No-0 |
| **Motion: Boberick: Recognizing that Flight
Service Stations grade disparity amongst the existing FSS structure continues to denigrate
the Agencv's ability to retain and recruit qualified controllers at increasingly hard to
staff nonautomated facilities NAATS will pursue through legislative or other actions.
grade equitability for all existing FSS's Seconded: Campbell. Vote: Yes 9 no 0 |
8) Mr. Dawson briefed the Board on the latest information on Ops Concept, and Flight Service future technology. Flight Service architecture issues will now be handled through NFPC. Action item Stanco will work with Dawson to formulate NFP issue paper.
9) Mr. Simpson and Mr. McLennan brief Board on latest information on reclassification. Mr. McAnaw had meeting with AAT-l, Mr. Morgan promised to get final draft to field for comments.
a) Dolan advisory referendum to membership about reclassification. Development of the advisory referendum was originally scheduled for the December BOD meeting which was postponed. There was a necessity for the Board to be together to formulate the advisory referendum. Should be completed by the end of this Board meeting, and sent to the membership before he end of January.
10) FAA Drug and Alcohol briefing. Ms. Franklin advised that Ms. Maureen Coe FAA Drug program manager is ill and unable to brief the Board in person, but will be here to present drug and alcohol briefing document. Mr. Halligan NAATS Drug & Alcohol briefing, Tom gave a briefing on some changes, for two year period (FY 96/97) for Flight Service 11 people tested positive, only one contractor for testing, change of testing numbers from 25% to 10% of facility employees.
11) Mr. Arthur Fox NAATS Legal Counsel. No current major issues or litigation
12) Scott Chapman NAATS OASIS Representative. Briefing to Board on status of FSDPS MOU, survey, and OASIS. MOU will be submitted to NFP National Council for resolution.
13) Directors reports;
- AEA - OCCP test project AEA region only, test site MIV AFSS Budget $250 for 3years. ATCSCC- National bid was issued, Griffith
- ATO- 1 cancelled bid until negotiated with NAATS.
- AAL - 7110.10 encouraged to review SVFR OPS reference AWOS/ASOS. Possible speaker Mr. Ron Machado for next membership meeting.
- AWP -none
- ANM - Pocket calendar need to order more
- ASW - none
- AGL - none
- ASO - none
- ANE - Kurt sending out tapes on OASIS DEMO, Action item Kurt ASD letter to FAA
- ACE - STL AFSS is being rebuilt, construction on schedule, completion date roughly Oct. 98.
14) Open topics
a) Simpson Pay Negotiation. Discussion, obtain snap shot of FAA FSS budget.
** Motion: Carngbell: I move that pay negotiations be part of national contract negotiations. Seconded: Dolan
Vote: Yes- 5 No- 3 (Comisky, Dawson, Simpson) Abstained- 1 (McLennan)
b) Keith Gunnell proposal for survey focal deferred, from Las Vegas Board meeting.
Discussion.
**Motion: Simpson: I move that Mr. Gunnell review the Final draft of the FSDPS survey developed between NAATS OASIS representative Mr. Chapman. and the FAA. Seconded: Campbell
Vote: Yes-9 No-0
c) McLennan: discussion on Director expenses policies.
d) McLennan: what about CISM? Frank Pirhala FAA EAP Director, Ms. Mindy Ring (Contractor) EAP Project director. Briefing on CISD, CISD is a way to deal with unusual incidents, FAA is not funding into CISM. Discussion on confidentiality.
e) PAC treasurer is John Wesselhoft until Congressional Lobbyist situation is resolved..
f) Newsletter editor: discussions on Ms. Elinormarie Morrissy offer to be the newsletter editor. NAATS will make offer to her to do the National section of the NAATS Newsletter.
g) Discussion on survey from EAA Oshkosh Mitre booth.
h) Discussion on training policy. Changes allocation of available training slots, ASO-3, AWP3, rest of regions-2.
Next board meeting March 10-12, 1998 in DC area.
| HELP WANTED: Experienced., intelligent person, energetic., good language skills, computer experience helpful but , not necessary. Apply in person. |
NAATS is looking for a few good people.
NAATS has three people at FAA Headquarters on a one-year details. I am looking for three NAATS members to replace these people. You would be going to DCA sometime in late May, early June. The following are a brief description of what each position is. If you are interested send me your resume and which position you would be interested in. I need the resumes in to me no later than February 28, 1998.
--NAATS President Air Traffic Requirements Service (ARS) LiaisonThe ARS Liaison monitors ARS activities, provides support to ARS, and reports to the BOD on anything of interest or that might affect the bargaining unit. This person attends meeting at all levels within ARS or that may be required by the board; and, may be required to travel in support of ARS/NAATS projects (i.e. OASIS, Voice Switch, Human Factors issues, etc.).
Aviation Weather Program (ARW) Representative
The ARW representative monitors and provides support to the Aviation Weather Program directorate. This person is primarily involved with issues relating to aviation weather requirements and weather equipment, although may be required to assist with other programs within ARS or as directed by the board. This person attends meetings; and, may be required to travel in support of aviation weather related projects.
Air Traffic Operations (ATO) Representative
The ATO representative provides support to Air Traffic Operations. This may be in the form of operational expertise or research. This person is primarily involved with operational issues that affect the FSS bargaining unit, although may be required to assist with other programs and projects as directed by the board. This person attends meeting; and, may be required to travel in support of operational projects and issues.
The persons assigned do not make policy or commit the Union; essentially these representatives are the eyes and ears of, and a conduit to and from, the Board. These persons are eligible for subsistence while in the D.C. area.
For further details and specific information contact our Headquarters representatives:
Our bodies are intrinsically designed to be awake during the day and asleep at night. Scientists have found that the brain sends out signals to several control centers in the body as part of a precisely timed, 24 -hour cycle. These control centers dictate how awake or sleepy, an individual is on a daily basis. We are awake and alert during daytime hours because our core body temperature is elevated and brain activity is at its peak. Both fall at night, and even years of night work will not change the daily timing of these signals.
Did you know that tired workers cost the nation's economy as much as $77 billion a year, according to the Institute for Circadian Physiology. Worker fatigue is becoming an increasingly common consequence of the economic and family stresses that prevail in our current society.
Because fatigue is not always easily understood, or even identified as a problem, it's symptoms are often ignored. But when employers do not recognize worker fatigue symptoms, they may pay the price through reduced productivity and workers who take safety risks that result in increased insurance claims.
Fatigue's impact-
These situations may occur if employee fatigue is not properly handled;
The worn-out worker may impact your facilities overall safety and health records, for instance, if coworkers must help do the work of the fatigued (lazy) worker, dangerous shortcuts may result, sometimes from ignorance of the right way to do a job, sometimes from haste to keep the calls from becoming backed up.
Other contributions-
It is common these days to find numerous fatigue inducing stresses added to the normal day life to include;
What you can do-
Consider these suggestions as a good starting reference;
As this is written, I've been on board for only a few days, and am spending my time getting familiar with the people, issues and terminology we will face as the congressional session opens.
At the suggestion of Wally Pike, I'll use this space to tell you about my professional background. After graduating from Stanford Law School in 1961, I began practice as a trial lawyer in Mountain Blew, California, specializing in civil rights work. Among my clients was a small federal union of Navy Exchange employees, affiliated with the AFGE. Subsequently, I moved to Oregon and eventually to Washington, D. C., arriving here in 1968.
For thirty years, I've been involved in legislative work, much of it on behalf of Native Americans. I've worked for three United States Senators, several organizations, and in two different Administrations, Recently completing three years with the Department of Agriculture where, for a time, I was the Director of Congressional Relations. Among other projects at USDA, I authored a guidebook for senior administrative employees on the operation of a legislative program. Along the way, I have managed to accumulate 20 years of diverse federal service.
I look forward to meeting and working with as many of you as I can, to maintaining the cooperative relations that now exist with Abby Bernstein of PASS and Ken Montoya at NATCA, and to representing your interests effectively on Capitol Hill.The negotiations will be held at the Holiday Hotel Casino, Mill and Center Streets, Reno, Nevada.
The telephone number for the hotel is (702) 359-0411. If you are interested in attending, contact your Regional
Director to make arrangements. Only a limited number of people can be accommodated for this training, so if you want to attend, get to it!
What do you mean, the FAA can take action against me? What business do they have interfering in my personal affairs? Who the hell do they think they are? It's none of their *&X#A$ business! Now that we have all the anger out, I will explain how the FAA can (and does) take action against you.
How it works - It's as easy as 1-2-3.
Congress passed a law that allows the FAA to deny an airman medical certification to any individual that has a substance abuse problem. The law also requires that all applicants disclose, to the FAA, any substance abuse problems and traffic convictions.
As a condition of your employment with the FAA, you are required to maintain an airman medical certification (EXCEPT FSDPS).
If the Flight Surgeon, after investigation, determines that you have a substance abuse problem, an adverse action will be initiated against you. The agency will propose to fire you, unless you agree to enter into a last chance agreement with them.
So I have a pending charge against me for DWI/DUI. Do I have to run into the manager's office or phone the Flight Surgeon and tell them?
The answer to this question is really important.(Bold and Caps Lock keys on now) NO!! YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
However, if your manager finds out from another source (i.e. newspaper, a coworker, etc.), they can tell the Flight Surgeon, who can question you at any time. But, YOU don't have to tell them.
So now I'm filling out my medical form, can I lie and say that I haven't had any convictions? I mean, how will they ever know.
YOU COULD, BUT BE ADVISED: THE FAA RUNS A LIST OF ALL SSN'S THROUGH THE FBI's COMPUTERS ON A REGULAR BASIS, LOOKING FOR CONVICTIONS, AND IF YOUR NAME POPS UP AND YOU HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT, TO REPORT YOUR CONVICTION TO THE FAA, NOT ONLY WILL YOU BE FIRED FOR FALSIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, YOU COULD BE PROSECUTED FOR THIS FALSIFICATION BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. THE POSSIBLE PENALTY IS 5 YEARS IN JAIL AND A S10,000 FINE. READ THE FORM BEFORE YOU SIGN IT.
OK, now that I told them, what happens to me?
What happens first is the AME will check the box, on the form, that you have to bring back to your facility, "Decision deferred to the Flight Surgeon". The Flight Surgeon will contact you to "talk about" (read investigate) your DWI/DUI. The Flight Surgeon has to decide if you need to be sent to a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) in order to determine if you have a substance abuse problem. What happens now depends on a number of factors, including, how high was your Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), how many DWI/ DUI's you have had in your past and how candid you are with him/her. The Flight Surgeons operate under general guidelines when determining whether to sent you to a SAP for further evaluation, but are expected to use their common sense and professional judgment in making that determination.
UH OH, OK, so let's say that this is my first DWI/DUI ever and I blew a .08/.10 (lowest legal level in your state). If I tell them that I had 3 or 4 quick beers and drove within 1/2 hour of the last one (being candid), what happens?
First off, always remember that a persons BAC is pretty much a linear projection based on height and weight. The Flight Surgeon knows how much you had already, as well as in what time period, and if you are candid with him/her, most likely nothing will happen to you. However, if you attempt to lie to him/her by saying you had only 1 beer, 2 hours before driving, he/she will think that you are trying to cover up a problem and send you for an evaluation.
What if I blew a .24 BAC?
Well, he/she is going to think you have a problem and will most likely send you to be evaluated. A high BAC generally means a high tolerance to alcohol. Most regular drinkers would go to sleep at that high a BAC. They would not be driving vehicles. (Note. The Flight Surgeon I interviewed for this Article uses a cutoff of .15 -.16 BAC and stated that each Flight Surgeon uses their own professional judgment when determining a cutoff level.)
How does multiple DWI/DUI's factor into the equation?
Dr. Audie Davis, Manager of the Aeromedical Certification Division at CAMI has issued the following guidelines. "If on the application, the airman reports a current violation involving alcohol or drugs you should ask if there have been any previous alcohol or drug-related violations. If the applicant reports two or more DUI's or DWI's within a period of four years, or a history of three or more alcohol or drug-related violations within any time period, further evaluation is indicated".
OK, What happens if the Flight Surgeon thinks that further evaluation is necessary?
Well since most Flight Surgeons are not certified as substance abuse professionals, they will send you to someone who is. The FAA must pay for this evaluation and the FAA will receive the results. They also will pick the SAP who you will go to. It will not matter that you may have already been required to get a court ordered assessment during your sentencing or even that your assessment concluded that you did not have a substance abuse problem. The FAA still has the right to order another one. During your evaluation, everything that you say will be held against you. There isn't any confidentiality here. The SAP will interview (read grill) you on your drinking and drug habits. They will encourage you, in a caring manner, to tell them everything that ever happened to you concerning drugs and alcohol. They will ask you, repeatedly, in various ways, if you think that you have a problem with alcohol. Remember, they are operating from a high position. After all, you are the one that has the DWI/DUI. When the assessment is complete, the SAP will prepare a report for the Flight Surgeon and if the results come back, indicating that you have a problem, the Flight Surgeon will deny you an airmen medical certificate. It will not matter to them what your court ordered assessment concluded. The assessment that they sent you to is the only one that they have to consider.
Wowl That would mean that I am off the floor for the rest of my career, right?
Wrong! Since, as a condition of your employment, you are required to maintain a medical certification, the FAA will take action to fire you. This adverse action is taken to promote the efficiency of the service. The FAA would have a strong position, if you fought it in front of an arbitrator or judge. They would argue that the FAA could not afford to keep all drunks employed in an administrative capacity. They would most likely prevail.
So I will be fired, if I get a DWI and am found to have a substance abuse problem?
When Congress passed the law, they had the wisdom to include a provision requiring the FAA to offer you a one-time-only chance at rehabilitation. The FAA will offer you a Rehabilitation / Treatment Agreement (Commonly called a Last Chance Agreement) and if you don't agree to abide by all of the provisions contained in the last chance agreement, you will be fired! If you do sign it, the FAA McKay keep you employed in an administrative capacity, if they have meaningful work for you to do. Also, all costs for the program and time necessary to do it are your responsibility. The FAA doesn't pay for it or give you administrative time to accomplish it.
What if I self-refer under the FAA's Self Referral Program, before I report the DWI/ DUI on my medical? I'd be able to beat them to the punch and get an easier program, right?
The FAA's policy, on self-referral, is that it must occur before events happen that will identify you by other means. Accordingly, you cannot self-refer, once you have been charged with a DWI/DUI because, they say that they would find out eventually anyway. The same policy would be applied in the case where drug/alcohol testers enter the facility for the purpose of random drug / alcohol testing. You would be caught anyway, so you can't self-refer.
How about if I go to the EAP, before I report my DWI/DUI, and tell them that I have a problem with Alcohol? Will that make it any easier on me?
NO
So, what's contained in a last chance agreement?
I'm out of space, so I'll tell you next month.
From the perspective of a member in a smaller, lower volume NAATS facility:
Whether a controller works at a small or large facility the knowledge necessary to work the position is the same, the responsibilities are the same, and, the accountability for your performance is the same. So why would there be a need to develop different levels of compensation? The potential for divisiveness on this issue is high. I can remember when there used to be three levels of facilities and even though I worked in a level one facility I was as busy, if not busier, than a controller in a level three. I worked all positions at once not just one at a time. No one wants to lose money. My concern is that if the FAA is intending to pay some facilities at a higher level than others and that money has to come from somewhere. It is my suspicion it will come out of my salary. That is, eventually, if not at first I will see a pay cut. How can the FAA save money and at the same time pay some people more money that they are now?
From the beginning, pay at AFSS's was universally established according to job complexity Mom larger flight plan areas and new equipment. What circumstances have changed? If anything the job is more complicated because of the decline in quality of aviation weather products caused by automated weather observations and the NWS' stated desire to get out of the aviation weather business. Call off-loading is another sensitive area. If anything, call off-loading increases the complexity of the flight plan area a controller has to work in. It seems call off-loading will only be from larger to smaller facilities. What will be the affect on the smaller facilities taking traffic from the larger, higher compensated stations?
From what I have seen the weighting of operational duties in the traffic count formula is arbitrary. For example, why is an EFAS contact supposedly worth more than an in inflight contact? If a pilot in my flight plan area is unable to reach Flight Watch, do you suppose that I don't provide the exact same service? In fact, operating Inflight has far greater requirements and responsibilities than those associated with Flight Watch Also, there is the issue of who is really the busiest. If I am in a smaller facility there is a likelihood that even though my traffic count does not reflect large numbers of "count" what it really doesn't reflect is that in doing a great deal of work on combined positions or without additional support I am actually busier than my colleague in the large facility with staff and supervisors to help. Since there is a number of daily activities not reflected in the traffic count I may be as busy as those in larger facilities but it just won't get credited in the present traffic count formula.
The FAA wants to eliminate pay differentials and step increases. But there is a reason why they were implemented and utilized in the first place. Pay differentials are commonly used in the private sector as a way of compensating employees for working unusual hours as well as assisting in the recruitment of c competent and stable workforce. This should simply be acknowledged by the FAA as a cost of doing business. We are open 24 hours a day 365 days a year. There is nothing unusual or more reasonable than believing we should receive some sort of compensation for this hardship. This is never so true as in Union shops. In the same vein, I worry about the loss of my upcoming step increases. There has always been an inherent contractual nature to the agreement between controller and management. If I satisfactorily completed all of my dudes and responsibilities, I could count on step increases as my reward. It just seems grossly unfair to lose these small increases in compensation just because the FAA wants to be more "business" like. In fact, they would become less business like by not offering differentials to those employees working the less desirable hours necessary to complete the agencies mission.
Finally, and maybe in some ways the most important piece in all of this controversy. is the lack of communication from the FAA and NAATS on what is happening to my pay. As everyone knows rumors abound in the field. Some seem more reasonable than others. This point is, there is absolutely NO information clarify, correct or counter the rumors. It gets really complicated when realizing the FAA is currently negotiating with several different Unions and there does not seem to be any commonality to these talks. The simple point I am trying to make is that I get the distinct feeling my job is being used as a bargaining chip in the bigger picture and I don't even get the respect of being kept informed of whether these negotiations are leading or just how adversely I may end up being affected. This does not endear me to the Union nor do I feel my voice is being heard.
From the perspective of a member in a larger, higher volume NAATS facility;
Whether a controller works at a small or large facility the knowledge necessary to work the position is the same, the responsibilities are the same. What unfolded in the post-consolidation FSS though, is vastly different levers of productivity. This was, of course. not the fault of the controllers in lower volume facilities but of the FAA for poorly planning where these facilities would be placed and how many controllers were necessary to staff to traffic. What evolved into today's contemporary conditions though is a situation where some controllers perform twice the amount of work as others. This naturally affects watch schedules, leave (both scheduled and spot) and training. Not to mention quality of life issues. The multiple levels of pay would address this issue and allow for just compensation for those working harder and being more productive than others. It would also give members an opportunity to stay in facilities where, even though the pay was lower, the pace would be a little slower. This is appealing to many people. There is a cost of living component associated with this issue. The higher volume facilities, generally, tend to be in higher cost-of-living areas. So to be in a lower cost area with less volume is a quality of life issue many members will find attractive, even if they are paid less.
From the beginning, pay at AFSS's was universally established according to job complexity from larger flight plan areas and new equipment. Additionally, what really made one facility more complex than another is the higher volume of traffic workload associated with some but not all of the AFSS's. Also, not all facilities have the same responsibilities. EFAS controllers are operating in only about one third of our facilities. They are required to maintain a much larger flight plan area knowledge than the non-Flight Watch facilities have to hold a larger "current" weather picture in their heads than do the non-EFAS controllers. Both of these factors play a large role in addressing the inequities in the current FAA pay system for Air Traffic Control Specialists. It is time to make it right where someone with greater responsibilities and more difficult tasks will be compensated for those additional requirements.
The weighting of operational duties in the traffic count formula is based on a tremendous amount of data-collection, surveying and input from filed facilities. Virtually nothing was left out of consideration. It is t commonly accepted that we are not all going to agree on what should be counted, when or to what level. Actually NAATS had participated in a workgroup with management personnel that reviewed all of the data and made decisions on what was in the greatest interest of all of us. The data that was finally agreed to was based on knowledge's, complexity, workload and volume. While everything was considered not everything was finally folded into the traffic count formula. We could argue add nauseam what should be counted and what should not. I really don't think this is an issue that holds water but needs to be addressed if some individuals in our facilities across the country truly believe everyone is doing the exact same type, amount and level of work. When a controller in a lower level facility, that gets so short staffed, suffers a diminishing quality of life they have the ability to relocate to another low level facility or to a
higher level facility and receive a compensatory increase in the process to lighten the blow. This would also be the case in the eventuality that consolidation rears its ugly head again
As for pay differentials and step increases I feel the same way as my friends at smaller facilities. Why in the world would we want to let these get away from us? The FAA is never going to come across with a high enough incentive to let them go. It is inherently fair to pay those working the undesirable shits an incentive to work those undesirable shifts. If not an incentive then a reward required for being removed from their families and main stream America. I also concur with my colleagues that I want more information on what is happening in the national pay arena than I have previously seen This would all make a lot more sense if I had some, even remote, ideas of what was happening and why. I most assuredly don't forgive the Agency for not being more forthcoming with this information.
1-800-WX-BRIEF
Use It Or Lose It!
Our Address:
This and associated pages and their contents are Copyright � 1998; National Association of Air Traffic Specialists.
All Rights Reserved.This page was last updated on April 19, 1998.
Please send any comments, problems or questions regarding this site to our Webmaster.
