#31, 16 May, 2002
NAATS Legal Counsel Arthur Fox and I met with FMCS Director
Richard Barnes and representatives of FAA management this morning.
The discussion began with all agreeing that the FMCS Director is to conduct a
hearing and make an advisory ruling to resolve our pay impasse. The ruling
will include the percentage increase and any retroactivity. All also agreed
that the few remaining pay rules are to be completed prior to the hearing. We
then talked about possible hearing dates; NAATS pressed for a hearing as soon
as possible. FAA management wanted to ensure adequate time for hearing
preparation. The FMCS Director resolved the dispute by saying that his first
available date is July 30. We then talked about how the hearing would be
conducted and the FMCS Director decided that it would be no more than two days
(July 30-31).
After much discussion, the FMCS Director decided that the parties would submit
written briefs 30 days after the hearing (August 30). In response to the NAATS
request to move the process along as rapidly as possible, he said he would
render his decision within a week of the written briefs, in other words by
September 6.
The parties also agreed that Richard Barnes will personally conduct this
hearing regardless of when his successor is confirmed. He will have two
arbitrators to assist him; one with a union background and the other with a
management. He will personally render the decision and all understand and
agree that it will be a matter of public record.
As I mentioned earlier, the pay rules are to be completed by July 15 in order
to get to the hearing on July 30. I�ll meet with the FAA Director of Labor
Relations next week to move this along. I think we�re close and we can meet
the July 15 date. There was another development at the meeting but I have to
coordinate with the BOD before I can discuss it here.
Although we obviously would have preferred an earlier hearing date, we�re
nonetheless happy with the results of today�s meeting. I see Don Young twice
next week and I�ll continue to keep him advised of our progress.
Andrea Chay, SEA AFSS, has been the NAATS Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee (ATPAC) representative for the past seven years and she�s done a
great job for our membership. Thanks to Andrea and welcome aboard to her
replacement - Terri Michel, FTW AFSS.
NAATS ATP Liaison Scott Malon fully intends to make his training material from
the cruise and LAS available to the members. He�s having laptop problems but
as soon as he has those resolved he�ll make the distribution.
Wally Pike
#32, May
24, 2002
Date: May 24, 2002
TO: NAATS BOD
FROM: Wally Pike
SUBJECT: Update
Yesterday I received a briefing from ATS-1 Steve Brown and AT-1 Bill Peacock
on the decision to conduct an A76 study on FSS. OMB and OST made the decision
in coordination with the FAA. The FAA is now required to carry out the
provisions of the OMB circular (copy available on the OMB website). Details
are somewhat sketchy right now but here is what we know:
� The study will begin sooner rather than later, probably the first part of
the summer,
� It will take 18-36 months to complete,
� Cost of the study is projected to be $1.5M,
� The FAA and NAATS will work together on the study from the beginning,
� OMB will probably make the final decision on any contracting out.
I've discussed this matter with NAATS Legal Counsel Arthur Fox and he'll
monitor the situation for legal concerns. I'll also keep our congressional
supporters briefed.
These are all the details I have now. As more become available I'll keep you
advised. Obviously this has our attention but, as we discussed in the meeting,
there are opportunities as well as challenges as we move through this process.
We also discussed a national staffing agreement for our bargaining unit. Looks
like that's possible if the supplemental goes through for the FAA.
I met with the Director of Labor Relations to discuss the remaining pay rules.
Issues are OSI, SCI, pay band caps and new hire placement through interim
bands. We're close to an agreement, perhaps by the end of next week.
NAATS Chief Negotiator Bill Dolan and I met with ATA-1 Bill Peacock for our
business meeting. Nothing new on FAMS, hang-up is still security. Operational
overtime will run out next week for the centers. The supplemental, if it
includes the $100M FAA requested, will help out but not solve the operational
budget problem. Next year looks worse. Bill Peacock and I agreed to do a web
cast sometime after the new contract is approved.
I talked with Congressman Bill Pascrell (T&I) and updated him on our pay
issue. I also discussed FSS staffing with him.
We're scheduling a meeting next week with Congressman's Manzullo's staff to
discuss the 2152 legislation. We had hoped to meet this week but they were too
busy with Congress in session.
I briefed Don Young and his staff on the timelines for the FMCS hearing. I'll
continue to keep him in the coordination loop.
I met with Deputy Administrator Monte Belger and talked about several things
including the pay issue and various rumors. None of the rumors are
substantiated; the facts remain as I've indicated before. If either AOA-1 or
ADA-1 stays past the first week of August, it will be only for a matter of a
few weeks. No idea who the next AOA-1 will be but it's unlikely a replacement
will be named by August 5. Looks like an acting AOA-1 for some period of time.
Wally Pike
#33, May 24, 2002
NAATS has learned, from
reliable sources, that there has been a preliminary FAA meeting on the A76
contracting out circular. Apparently a contractor was named. I've sent the
Administrator a letter expressing our disappointment in not being advised of
the meeting and given the opportunity to be present. For those interested,
I've sent a copy of the letter to NAATS Webmaster John Dibble for
posting on our website.
On a brighter note we continued to discuss the remaining pay rules this week.
Although we don't have an agreement yet I'm optimistic about our progress.
We'll continue the talks the first part of next week.
My next meeting with Don Young is on June 11. I'll be in MCN for a membership
meeting next week with SO Regional Director Dave Hoover and MCN FacRep Carey
Hall. I'll do a swing through the GL the week of June 17 with GL Regional
Director Jack O'Connell.
As you may have heard FAM Training has been resumed for general aviation and
military aircraft. Air carriers are still pending.
Nancy Batye, COU AFSS, has been our technical representative for Federal
Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) for the past three years and she's
done a great job. It's now time to solicit her replacement. This position
requires frequent travel and an interest in the various forms of
communications technologies, e.g. telecommunications networking, internet
infrastructures, etc. If you're interested, please forward your name and a
resume to NAATS HQ.
Wally Pike
#34, June
7, 2002
As of today we still have
no agreement on the pay rules. The outstanding issues remain the pay band
caps, progression through the bands, OSI and SCI. While not many in number
these differences are nevertheless significant and must be addressed. We'll
talk again the first part of next week.
As mentioned last week, I'll next meet with Don Young on June 11. We're also
busy with other congressional meetings including Rothman (NJ) and Landrieu
(LA), Watts (OK), Sanchez (CA) and Solis (CA).
This week I attended a union meeting at MCN. In addition to the MCN
membership, present were SO Regional Director Dave Hoover, SO Regional
Coordinator Tom Forte, MIA FacRep Al Osborn, GWO FacRep Jeff Smith and ANB
FacRep Jim Rippen. Larry Schultz hosted the meeting at his beautiful house and
it was a great turnout. Thanks to MCN FacRep Karey Hall for his invitation and
to all for a very productive discussion on several issues.
The Facrep training scheduled for October has been delayed until next spring.
The reason for the delay was the close proximity to the FMCS ruling on pay and
the time necessary to coordinate the training.
I'm continuing to have email problems with the mirror addresses. The only sure
way to reach me on email is to use theaddress.
Wally Pike
The following are two updates from NAATS National OASIS Representative
Jeff Barnes and an article on OMB Circular A76 by NE Regional Director Kurt
Comisky.
06/04/02 - I recently learned that the FAA is negotiating a new MOU
with the NWS. This affects us directly in that the FAA will assume
responsibility for ALL pilot weather briefings. The NWS will continue to
provide data packages to those who request them, but will no longer do any
PWBs. This includes the international PWBs they used to do. All whether comes
in to OASIS under WMO headers (in M1FC it comes in via catalogue numbers).
These are basically collectives of weather. Those headers that contain
products we use regularly are broken down, allowing us to look at the BNA
METAR instead of looking through the collective that contains the BNA METAR
(for example). To this point a lot of the WMO headers containing international
weather are not broken down in OASIS. This means that if you need to look up
the Franfurt TAF you'll have to call up the WMO header it's in and pick it out
from the other products in there (all weather is stored in OASIS, but not all
of it is broken down). On hearing the news about the MOU and sharing it with
my management counterparts I stated that all weather products need to be
broken down in OASIS because at any time at any station we could get a
briefing request to Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. It's not my job to determine
the I&I of these briefings, but it is my job to ensure that the information is
readily available to briefers in an easy-to-use way in OASIS.
This morning I attended an all-hands meeting for ARU in which they talked
about the Terminal Business Unit (ATB). That organization has been around for
over a year now, but apparently is getting ready to crank up into high gear
somewhere in the October-November timeframe. This affects us because the FAA
is moving all projects they consider to be primarily Terminal in nature into
this unit. This includes weather products like ASOS, ITWS (Integrated Terminal
Weather System), ACE-IDS, etc. In typical FAA management style, it appears
that they have given no thought to the role NAATS will play in this
organization. I asked the question in the meeting and was met by blank looks
and mumbled "uh, I'm sure they have something in mind." NAATS is a player in a
lot of these programs and it looks like the organizational blinders are
on..."It says Terminal Business Unit, so we don't need to talk to NAATS." They
are going to find out different. I know that Bill Dolan and Jim Perkins are
taking the action to work this issue for us. One thing disturbing I heard
ARU-1, John Staples, say today was in describing how they determined a weather
system was terminal versus enroute or Flight Service. He talked about how the
information generated by the equipment was geared for a specific terminal
environment rather than broader coverage, and that it was primarily for use by
the terminal controllers and dispatchers... That's right, no mention of Flight
Service Controllers, but he did say airline dispatchers. Is it any wonder we
feel like step children when upper level FAA management pays more heed to
airline dispatchers than us? I did what I could to address the inequity in the
meeting, but he seemed not to grasp what I was trying to communicate.
The saga of equipment placement in the consoles continues. I heard this
morning third hand that a decision had been made not to support any deviation
in equipment placement in the new consoles. The quote I heard was they had
said "We are tired of being nickel and dimed to death and we aren't going to
let it happen with this." I met with the program manager (ARU-300) and asked
that he investigate this and come back to me with substantive answers. We have
past practice to show that differing needs can be accommodated in the console
equipment placement. The main problem has been at OAK where the ANI Team said
at site survey that no variance could be accommodated due to Human Factors
Team decision. This was in error, but was caught too late and now the OAK
consoles have been installed with equipment placed as ANI dictated, not as
desired by the facility. I am working to get OAK retrofitted when funding is
available, but so far I'm not getting definitive answers from anyone. So I
have turned up the heat to get answers that will either get us what we want or
require us to take further action.
In another update I mentioned that the program office wants to know what
annual events that OASIS remote workstations would be used at so they can
estimate a budget for them. The same request went out through the management
chain of command. I have gotten no response from anyone in the field, so I
have to assume that you all are satisfied with the responses given by your
management. If you haven't talked to your manager about this, or given it
serious thought you should. OASIS has the capability to be used via remote
workstations. Computers you set up on site to access your OASIS through phone
lines. You have full access to OASIS capabilities this way with the only
limitation being the poor bandwidth involved in connecting via modem as
opposed to being on the local network. This is much easier to accomplish than
with any briefing tool we have had in the past. This makes supporting events
in your flight plan area much more possible than it is now. Because of this
the program office wants to know what these annual events are so they can plan
their budget for remote workstations This is an opportunity to get more
exposure and familiarity with the flying public for Flight Service and your
facility. Feel free to e-mail me a list of annual events your facility would
like to support if your management hasn't included you in their response.
06/05/02 - With the problems that have crept up on us regarding the
OASIS consoles and equipment placement within them I was searching for help in
remedying the situation. What I found was the MOU we signed with the Agency on
OASIS Consoles (dated June 8, 2000)...specifically Section 2. Here it is in
its entirety:
Section 2. The Parties agree that during the site survey process, the
local facility manager and NAATS Representative will be briefed on the process
and activities involved with OASIS console installation. Local bargaining
shall be completed prior to the conclusion of site survey activities. Local
bargaining includes, but is not limited to, floor plan utilization, position
locations, equipment placement deployment plan, console sizes for each
position, and staffing and call transfer needs during installation.
As you can see there is a requirement to negotiate the consoles at the local
level. Equipment placement is specifically addressed here. Management has to
negotiate with you. Dictating is not an option for the site survey people. The
MOU is available on the NAATS website. This info has been shared with
management here at headquarters (who had forgotten that we had negotiated a
separate console MOU). This should dry up many of our console problems and
gives you a tool to ensure that your facility is set up to your satisfaction.
Fraternally,
Jeff Barnes
June 6, 2002
A76 Study
Recently, the FAA has informed the Union of the agency's intent to explore
conducting an A-76 study on functions performed by members of our Bargaining
Unit. The Union has begun the task of researching the A-76 issue, beginning with
the history and legislative intent, then examining the process and how the
federal government implemented the process in other governmental agencies, and
finally the issues and impact on our bargaining Unit. The intent of this article
is to provide a brief background and description of the concept.
First, this concept is not new, this has been a national policy since 1955,
which was disseminated and implemented through the Bureau of the Budget
Bulletins and subsequently in 1966 through the OMB Circular A-76. Further, a few
laws have been enacted to provide authority for the concept, the most recent and
important is The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998. (FAIR Act)
Public Law 105-270.
The OMB Circular A-76 gives the basis and articulates the foundation of the
concept:
In the process of governing, the Government should not compete with its
citizens. The competitive enterprise system, characterized by individual freedom
and initiative, is the primary source of national economic strength. In
recognition of this principle, it has been and continues to be the general
policy of the Government to rely on commercial sources to supply the products
and services the Government needs.
It is the policy of the United States Government to:
-
Achieve Economy and
Enhance Productivity. Competition enhances quality, economy, and productivity.
Whenever commercial sector performance of a Government operated commercial
activity is permissible, in accordance with this Circular and its Supplement,
comparison of the cost of contracting and the cost of in-house performance
shall be performed to determine who will do the work. When conducting cost
comparisons, agencies must ensure that all costs are considered and that these
costs are realistic and fair.
-
Retain Governmental
Functions In-House. Certain functions are inherently Governmental in nature,
being so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance
only by Federal employees. These functions are not in competition with the
commercial sector. Therefore, these functions shall be performed by Government
employees.
-
Rely on the Commercial
Sector. The Federal Government shall rely on commercially available sources to
provide commercial products and services. In accordance with the provisions of
this Circular and its Supplement, the Government shall not start or carry on
any activity to provide a commercial product or service if the product or
service can be procured more economically from a commercial source.
The Introduction to the OMB
A-76 Supplemental Handbook provides some good insight to the implementation of
the concept:
The August 1983 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76,
"Performance of Commercial Activities," establishes Federal policy for the
performance of recurring commercial activities. This Supplement . . . provides
updated guidance and procedures for determining whether recurring commercial
activities should be operated under contract with commercial sources, in-house
using Government facilities and personnel...
As noted in the Vice President's Third Report of the National Performance
Review, "Common Sense Government: Works Better and Costs Less," (September
1995), Americans want to "get their money's worth" and want a Government that is
more businesslike and better managed. The reinvention of Government begins by
focusing on core mission competencies and service requirements. Thus, the
reinvention process must consider a wide range of options, including: the
consolidation, restructuring or reengineering of activities, privatization
options, make or buy decisions, the adoption of better business management
practices, the development of joint ventures with the private sector, asset
sales, the possible devolution of activities to State and local governments and
the termination of obsolete services or programs. In the context of this larger
reinvention effort, the scope of this Supplemental Handbook is limited to the
conversion of recurring commercial activities to or from in-house. . .
Circular A-76 is not designed to simply contract out. Rather, it is designed to:
(1) balance the interests
of the parties to a make or buy cost comparison,
(2) provide a level
playing field between public and private offerors to a competition, and
(3) encourage competition
and choice in the management and performance of commercial activities. It is
designed to empower Federal managers to make sound and justifiable business
decisions.
Reliable cost and
performance information is crucial to the effective management of Government
operations and to the conduct of competitions between public or private sector
offerors. Unfortunately, this information has not been generally available and
has often been found to be unreliable. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
(CFO Act) includes among the functions of chief financial officers "the
development and reporting of cost information" and "the systematic measurement
of performance." This includes performance by in-house, contract or ISSA
resources. In July 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA), which mandates performance measurement by Federal agencies. The
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts No. 1, "Objectives of Federal
Financial Reporting (1993)," stated that one of the objectives of Federal
financial reporting is to provide useful information to assist in assessing the
budget integrity, operating performance, stewardship, and control of the Federal
Government. In 1995, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB)
recommended standards for managerial cost accounting, which were approved by the
Director of OMB, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller General.
These standards were issued as the Statement of Federal Accounting Standards No.
4, "Managerial Cost Accounting Standards for the Federal Government." This
Supplement relies on the managerial cost accounting and performance standards
established in support of the CFO Act, GPRA, and the Federal Accounting
Standards, as they are developed and implemented. Cost and performance
information developed for cost comparisons required by the Circular and this
Supplement should be drawn from the data base established by these standards and
adjusted as appropriate. . . .
The FAIR Act provides the structure and procedure to develop and make public a
list of governmental functions that may be supplied by commercial means. The OPM
provides an overview of the FAIR Act:
The FAIR Act directs Federal agencies to issue each year an inventory of all
commercial activities performed by Federal employees, e.g., those activities
that are not inherently governmental. OMB is to review each agency's Commercial
Activities Inventory and consult with the agency regarding its content. Upon the
completion of this review and consultation, the agency must transmit a copy of
the inventory to Congress and make it available to the public. The FAIR Act
establishes a limited administrative appeals process under which an interested
party may challenge the omission or the inclusion of a particular activity on
the inventory as a commercial activity. With completion of the inventory,
including the challenge and appeals process, the FAIR Act requires agencies to
review the activities on the inventory.
. . .
For purposes of the FAIR Act, there are two kinds of activities that are
performed by Federal employees: those activities that are "commercial" in nature
(and are, therefore, included on an agency's FAIR Act inventory) and those that
are "inherently governmental" (and are, therefore, omitted from the inventory).
The FAIR Act requires each agency to prepare an inventory of its activities that
"are not inherently governmental functions" (i.e., are "commercial"), and the
FAIR Act defines an "inherently governmental function" as one "that is so
intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal
Government employees."
What is "inherently governmental"? From the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP):
As a matter of policy, an "inherently governmental function" is a function that
is so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by
Government employees. These functions include those activities that require
either the exercise of discretion in applying Government authority or the making
of value judgments in making decisions for the Government. Governmental
functions normally fall into two categories: (1) the act of governing, i.e., the
discretionary exercise of Government authority, and (2) monetary transactions
and entitlements.
An inherently governmental function involves, among other things, the
interpretation and execution of the laws of the United States so as to:
(a) bind the United States to take or not to take some action by contract,
policy, regulation, authorization, order, or otherwise;
(b) determine, protect, and advance its economic, political, territorial,
property, or other interests by military or diplomatic action, civil or criminal
judicial proceedings, contract management, or otherwise;
(c) significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private persons;
(d) commission, appoint, direct, or control officers of employees of the United
States; or
(e) exert ultimate control over the acquisition, use, or disposition of the
property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, of the United States,
including the collection, control, or disbursement of appropriated and other
Federal funds.
Inherently governmental functions do not normally include gathering information
for or providing advice, opinions, recommendations, or ideas to Government
officials. They also do not include functions that are primarily ministerial and
internal in nature, such as building security; mail operations; operation of
cafeterias; housekeeping; facilities operations and maintenance, warehouse
operations, motor vehicle fleet management and operations, or other routine
electrical or mechanical services.
The next question is why is the A-76 study being to our Bargaining Unit now?
There are still some answers to the obvious questions that Wally Pike needs to
receive, however the A-76 process has been going on for many years and the FAIR
Act has been listing governmental functions since 1999.
In a March 2001 Memorandum, The Office of Management and Budget has provided to
Agency Heads:
. . .
For FY 2002, agencies will complete public-private or direct conversion
competitions on not less than 5 percent of the FTE listed on their Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act inventories. Agency plans will include the
number of FTE by function and location being competed, training requirements and
planned contract support. The President's commitment is to open at least
one-half of the Federal positions listed on the FAIR Act inventory of commercial
functions to competition with the private sector.
Agency plans should outline how the agency intends to meet these goals. If the
agency does not believe that it will achieve these goals within the FY 2002
Budget time-frame, the agency should describe the actions the agency intends to
take in order to mitigate this problem. Agencies should provide a time-line
showing when it expects to achieve this FY 2002 Budget goal.
. . .
Many government agencies have been listing functions available for commercial
sources, the Department of Defense is the most notable. The point is, there have
been many functions examined for potential commercial outsourcing, so we have
considerable data to review in terms of the process and the protection of
employee's rights through exclusive representation.
A search of the web provides an overwhelming volume of information concerning
OMB A-76 and the FAIR Act, my hope is to work with John Dibble for some links
for the NAATS Web Site, the task would be to limit to those links that are
relevant.
The A-76 study, if the agency decides to pursue, is a complex and comprehensive
study with many facets and requirements. The employees, through the Union, has a
right to participate in the process. It would be in our interest and the
interest of our customers to insure the study is thorough and complete,
regardless of how long it takes or how much it costs. We have only begun to look
at this issue, more information to follow.
Kurt
#35, June
14, 2002
It's going to take some
time to resolve the last two pay rule issues. Tentatively (no deal is TAU'd
until all elements are completed) we have agreement on OSI and SCI but pay
band caps and progression are still in dispute. We talked this week and we'll
continue next week. My guess is that it will be another few weeks before this
is completed. I still believe we'll have agreement before the July 15
deadline.
It's been another busy week with meetings. In addition to our issues and to
the Administration's Executive Order deleting "inherently governmental" from
the previous EO (see Kurt Comisky's article below), there are three items of
particular interest on the Hill. We're working on a press release.
H.R.4760 is a bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that
service performed by an air traffic controller who is transferred or promoted
to a supervisory or staff position continue to be treated as controller
service for retirement purposes. Since Jim Oberstar (MN) is one of the
sponsors on this and is the ranking member on the T & I Committee, it has a
chance of passing.,
S.871 is a bill to amend chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, to provide
for the computation of annuities for air traffic controllers in a similar
manner as the computation of annuities for law enforcement officers and
firefighters. NATCA initiated the legislation and we're included and
supporting it. Latest Major Action: 6/21/2001 Referred to Senate subcommittee.
Latest Status: Committee on Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on
International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services.
Congressman Don Manzullo (IL) intends to introduce legislation to correct FAA
inequalities in pay. This is similar legislation to the last year's attempt.
We are not included in this; I've talked with Manzullo's people but I'm not
pushing since NATCA is adamantly opposed and I feel the bill will have almost
no chance of success.
I met again with Chairman Don Young this week. He continued to express his
support for the FMCS hearing on July 30 to resolve the pay dispute.
The next few weeks are also very busy with meetings including an OPM briefing
on Monday for the union presidents to explain the new Department of Homeland
Security. Because it's so busy now I've had to postpone the GL region facility
visits. My apologies but I'm firmly committed to making these trips as soon as
possible.
Wally Pike
Following are two
articles; one an OASIS update from OASIS National Representative Jeff Barnes and
the other an article on A76 by NE Regional Director Kurt Comisky.
06/10/02 - We are getting close to an In Service Decision (ISD) on OASIS. The
briefing package has been written and will be presented to the heads of the
lines of business Thursday, with the presentation to Steve Brown, ATS-1
scheduled to take place on the 20th. It is hoped that at that time his response
will be approval which will make SEA and AND fully operational and will continue
OASIS moving forward with the planned phased ISD program. We will have at least
two more software upgrades leading to the final ISD which is scheduled to take
place with the 25th site installation at BDR. The briefing package asks for
approval to continue the program until the 25th site, at which time there will
be another Independent Operational Test and Evaluation
(IOT&E) leading (hopefully) to the final ISD.
I may have miscommunicated my intention somewhat when I was talking about remote
workstation use at events in your flight plan area. What we are trying to do is
give the Program Office data so they can make an estimate of what remote
workstation usage there will be each year. There is no need to make/get a
commitment to actually work these events at this time. That will depend on
staffing and other factors that you have to work at the local or regional level.
The purpose here was to get an idea of what kind of usage of the remote
workstations each year to ensure we have access to enough of them. So there's no
need to try to get commitments from management to set up a temporary FSS at
these events right now. Just think of events it would be good to try a temporary
FSS at. Also, just because you're number 50-something on the waterfall you
should also be thinking about this. These estimates will be carried forward
through the life-cycle of OASIS so getting the information from everyone is
important. Also, these figures are estimates, so they will be subject to
adjustment as reality shows itself down the road.
I head to Harris tomorrow to take our first look at the first half of the
software upgrade under development for the STL installation. There is enough new
software involved in this installation that it was decided to test it in two
chunks. The major testing will be taking place at the Tech Center with OASIS
Human Factors Team participation in July. We will be testing the whole
package this fall.
Planning is underway to install the OAWS (Not sure of this acronym...even I draw
a blank occasionally. hehe) at SEA and AND early in August. This will be the
server that backs up all our weather data for 13 hours so that we can restore
svc A data after an OASIS failure at any site. The early installation is a good
thing because it will allow us more test time prior to the requirement for them
to go operational when STL does. Preliminary results have been promising with
full database restorals taking about 12 minutes with faster times thought
possible.
Fraternally,
Jeff Barnes
By now you must has heard or
read the news that the Bush Administration, through Executive Order has modified
a Clinton Administration Executive Order concerning the proposed ATO/PBO for the
FAA.
What actually occurred is the Bush Administration removed the determination that
air traffic control is an "inherently governmental" function from the previous
Executive Order.
I am sure there is more there is more going on (like some contractor getting a
hold of the several billion dollar NATCA payroll), however this in itself is a
clerical correction.
The term "inherently governmental" function has a specific meaning in the
executive branch. This term provides a significant distinction in governmental
functions in the OMB A-76 circular. It is my thought that in some discussions
between the FAA and OMB the Clinton Executive Order was brought up in the
context complying with the FAIR Act. By OMB directive/policy, in terms of the
A-76 study, it is the Agency Head that determines if a function is "inherently
governmental", subject to OMB review. The error was that in the Clinton
Executive Order, the president made the determination, not the agency head.
With that said, it does appear that there is thoughts on an A-76 study for NATCA
and OMB is cleaning up the paper trail to withstand an appeal. [The agency head
decision of whether a function is inherently governmental is appealable through
a internal process to the FAA, not in the civil court, so basically what the
administrator determines will survive unless there is significant new
information presented at the appeal process or significant political pressure.]
Two observations;
I would be willing to bet a dollar that the new administrator determines that
Air Traffic Control is not an inherently governmental function, thus the air
traffic control functions will be placed on the inventory list as indicated by
the FAIR Act.
Second, several weeks ago, I learned of a rumor going around in FAA HQ that the
other two options were to be contracted out and the FAA was going to keep flight
service in house. . . .
As a final closing thought, I think it may be in our best interest to have Jane
make the decision whether Flight Service is "inherently governmental". If by
some fluke, she does determine we are, the appeal process will take place
quickly, not giving our opponents a fighting chance to make a successful appeal.
[The appeal process is rather short.]
Kurt
(One note - technically we're in the feasibility determination of the A76
process. This means there's been no final decision to actually conduct the A76
study yet. It's possible that a determination of "inherently governmental" could
be made for FSS and that no study would therefore be conducted. That's why we're
so concerned about being involved at the earliest stages. -WP)
#36, June
28, 2002
I met with ADA-1 Monte Belger yesterday
to ask him to revisit the issue of the pay band transition and cap. He agreed
to talk with the responsible FAA managers and get back to me prior to the July
15 deadline. We're also approaching select congressional representatives with
these issues. I�ll advise you as soon as I know anything further.
It�s been extremely busy with
congressional meetings again this week. I�ve talked with Bono, Lowery, Solis,
Rothman, Sanchez, Landrieu, Barton, and Morella regarding the possible A76 study
and our pay situation. I�m also continuing to work with Oberstar and Hollings�
staff on A76 and contracting out. I�ve provided them with copies of our
correspondence with the FAA and they advise me that contracting out "won�t
happen on their watch". I�ve also been informed that there may be legislation
from Hollings to define ATC as "inherently governmental" but they haven�t
finalized a game plan yet. We agreed to continue to work together on this.
One thing I�ve been asked to provide congress is anecdotal evidence of our
contributions to aviation safety and the loss represented if we were contracted
out. Please send any such examples to me as soon as possible.
I�ve talked with PASS President Mike Fanfalone and we will meet next week to
discuss a common approach on contracting out. I�ve also talked with Carl Goldman
of AFSCME and I�ll talk with NATCA President John Carr on July 8 for the same
purpose.
Regarding my letter to him, I have a meeting next Tuesday with ABA-1 Chris
Bertram to discuss how the FAA plans to proceed on A76. I�ve also talked with
some subject matter experts (contractors) here in DC and gotten their advice.
One thing is certain, A76 is lengthy and complex; we have to be careful how we
proceed and participate. I�m comfortable we�re where we need to be at this stage
of the process.
There are two bills on the subject of official time. Strom Thurmond (R, SC) has
introduced one (S2383) last April to limit official time to 25% of the
employee�s workweek. Dan Miller (R, FL) has introduced HR4904 to track union
time. We�ll keep an eye on both.
Wally Pike
Following is an OASIS Update from National Representative Jeff Barnes.
06/26/02 - Last Friday I attended a briefing in Steve Brown's (ATS-1) office.
The purpose was to brief him on where OASIS is and what is ahead for it so that
he could make a decision regarding the In Service Decision (ISD) for OASIS. An
ISD was required for the program to continue forward, and the ISD requested here
was to keep the program going until the 25th site at which all the problems have
to be fixed in OASIS and a final ISD will be made. The briefing was presented by
the program office and the requirements team lead. They discussed each of the
problems identified by the Independent Test And Evaluation (IOT&E) that was
recently completed at AND AFSS and supplied action plans to resolve each of
those problems. None of the problems identified in the IOT&E report were rated
as high priority. There were some medium and the rest were low. Also, PASS had
some issues which had been identified in the IOT&E with one addition. Again the
program presented an action plan to address their additional issue and PASS
accepted the plans to resolve all their issues. I was asked for NAATS position
and said that we were pleased with where the OASIS is and where it's going. We
are on track with the OASIS MOU we signed that allowed for the phased ISD and
the program and Harris are working hard to make as many improvements and fix as
many problems as they can for each software drop. Based on our position, the
PASS position, and the information presented in the briefing Steve decided to
approve the ISD. This means that the OASIS program has been approved to go
forward to site 25 where we go through the ISD that will take us to all our
AFSS's and FSS's. Everyone in NAATS who has been involved in OASIS has done an
outstanding job to get us to this point, and I am sure will continue to do an
outstanding job to see us to a full deployment of the system. Aside from the pay
issues, if ever there was a reason to be in NAATS it would be to contribute to
saving a system like OASIS, which was doomed to be Model One all over again
until we were brought in and reformed it into a program that is responsive to
the controller's needs, not headquarters or Harris's needs, and making the
program understand that's a good thing.
Having said the nice stuff it's time to get mean... The one issue in OASIS that
keeps rearing its ugly head and creating problems that just aren't going away is
the OASIS consoles. There are actually two requirements for equipment placement
in the OASIS consoles. Number one is that all the equipment in the standard
preflight console has to go to the left of the monitors. This is a no-brainer
since there is no console to the right of the monitor bay. I was reminded of a
second requirement, and that is that if you have the Litton ICSS the frequency
selector panel has to go to the right side of the standard inflight console due
to the depth of the unit. It physically cannot fit in the console to the left of
the monitors on the standard inflight console. Beyond this there are no
equipment placement requirements mandated in the OASIS consoles. Further, by the
OASIS console MOU equipment placement (amongst other things) is to be negotiated
at the local level. However, I have continued to hear that as little as three
weeks ago ANI was still dictating equipment placement. This should not be
happening anymore and it has made me furious to continue to hear about it long
after I have gotten multiple promises from the program that it would stop. I
have given the program notice that if this doesn't stop and if they don't
develop a plan to retrofit those facilities who were mislead into undesirable
equipment placement NAATS will take this issue higher in the Agency to ask for
resolution and what rolls downhill onto the program from that is unlikely to
smell or feel good.
On the issue of the Denro ICSS... When the frequency selectors for the Denro
ICSS are placed on the right side of the console there is a selector switch that
blocks view of the indicator light, making it difficult to impossible to see
which frequency a pilot is calling in on. For those facilities that had the
panels to the right side in the Model One consoles the OASIS consoles seemed to
be an improvement because the placement angled the panel 23 degrees toward the
controller. It was indeed an improvement for these facilities, but because of
the misrepresentations by ANI they didn't realize that those frequency selectors
could have been installed on the left which would remove the obscurement problem
entirely. This did not become apparent until they did the RAL AFSS (a Denro
site) installation and told them that the frequencies would have to be on the
right, creating a problem that had never existed because at RAL AFSS the
frequencies had been on the left in the Model One consoles. I am insistent that
a retrofit be offered to all Denro sites that have been installed to this point
to give them a chance to move their frequency selectors to the other side of the
console if they choose to. The program has acknowledged that this has potential
safety implications, so I feel that on this at least they will commit to doing
the retrofits.
If you're wondering why I didn't bring up the consoles at the ISD briefing it's
because the console program is a separate program from the OASIS even though
they're funded from the same money. The ISD was to determine the suitability of
going forward with OASIS and had nothing to do with the consoles, making it an
inappropriate forum to address the console problems. If need be we can schedule
a meeting with Steve Brown to try to get some resolution to the console issue,
and I'm sure Wally will support that if we are forced to go there.
Fraternally,
Jeff Barnes
#37,
July 5, 2002
We will know the results
of the ADA-1 meeting on the pay rules by the first part of next week. We'll
take the necessary actions depending on the answer. The understanding is that
the pay rules must be completed by July 15 in order for the FMCS hearing to
proceed.
Earlier this week I met with ABA-1 Chris Bertram, ABU-100 Ron Page, ABA-2 John
Hennigan and ALR -1 Ray Thoman regarding A76. They reiterated that we're in
the feasibility part of the process and that no other decision has been made.
They assured me that they would keep the Administrator's pledge to work with
us through all of the process and they offered to allow a NAATS participant
for the feasibility work group that's meeting with the contractor Grant
Thornton.
FAA management also offered to have a Grant Thornton brief the BOD at our
meeting later this month. I agreed and we're scheduling them for what promises
to be an extremely busy and important meeting.
I met with PASS President Mike Fanfalone and we agreed to jointly address our
outsourcing issues with congress. We also agreed to work on a joint press
release; I've asked PRT Chair John Dibble to contact his PASS counterpart to
begin this process. I've talked with AFSCME and they are interested in jointly
addressing mutual issues of concern. I'll talk with NATCA President John Carr
Monday regarding the same.
Last year a grievance was sustained regarding misinterpretation of DOT Order
3910.1C, Drug and Alcohol-Free Departmental Workplace. Specifically the Agency
applied on-duty alcohol test results to an employee who
was off-duty. Bottom line is they erroneously put an employee on
a last chance agreement that later had to be rescinded. We have been in
contact with Labor Relations to attempt to find bargaining unit members who
are similarly affected. If you feel this applies to you please contact your
Regional Director with the specifics of your case.
The problem with my email address seems to be resolved. Apparently the website
links were the culprits and I've had all of them removed. Please note - the
only way to reach me on email is to use theaddress, no
other links will work.
Wally Pike
#38, July 12,
2002
We have reached tentative
agreement with FAA management on the remainder of the pay rules. As soon as
these are finalized they'll be posted on our website. This agreement now allows
us to proceed to the FMCS Hearing on July 30.
We've received a letter from ATS-1 Steve Brown advising that furloughs may be
necessary if the FAA supplemental isn't passed soon. I've asked John Dibble to
post a copy of this on our website. This is just a preliminary notice, no
specific actions are planned at this time. We're doing what we can to help
congressionally on this and our hope is that this budgetary matter will be
resolved soon.
I met with NATCA President John Carr this week and we also had a telephone
conference. We've agreed that our organizations should address mutual areas of
concern such as out-sourcing and A76 matters. We also agreed to schedule more
regular meetings and to work together more closely.
Wally Pike
Following is an OASIS update from National Representative Jeff Barnes
07/12/02 - It figures...the OASIS program seems to be cooking with gas;
everybody getting along and working together to make the program successful. All
that means is that someone just had to come in and mess it up. The someone this
time is management (of course), specifically mid-level management in air
traffic. A source of constant pain in this program for some time now. Air
Traffic (ATP) management has gone behind our back and done a severely flawed
survey of ATM's regarding facility staffing. They have used those numbers to
justify cutting the numbers of OASIS positions and consoles going into most
facilities. I've thought about it and I can't come up with any other way to say
it...these people are just plain whacked. Everything I have learned so far has
led me to believe that there was very little rational thought involved with this
effort. Rest assured that we will oppose it every way we can. Oh, and one of the
really nice things was how we found out about it. Scott Malon, our ATP Liaison,
confronted ATP management in a meeting last week, telling them we have heard of
something going on from every region in the country and we wanted to know what
was up. An hour or so later Richard Jehlen showed up at his cubicle with some of
the information in the form of a memo with an attached spread sheet. The spread
sheet had been severely censored, so we could only speculate on what had been
cut. Then amazingly enough, we were asked to schedule an Article 9 briefing on
this only a few days later. ATP should really stop the cloak and dagger stuff,
they just aren't very good at it.
While all this is going on all of you getting consoles installed or site surveys
done have to stick with the numbers we agreed to before. DO NOT let them tell
you that you are getting anything less than what has been agreed to. Any number
adjustments that happen will not happen until after negotiations are complete. I
will say it again. Our position is that the current numbers of consoles and
OASIS positions are the result of negotiations between union and management and
are not subject to change unilaterally by management.
A bit of a bright note...I met with the program office and the person
responsible for the conduct of the console site surveys. It has been made very
clear, and everyone understands, that the ONLY equipment position that is not
able to be designated by the facility is the standard pre-flight console and the
Litton frequency selectors in the standard in-flight console. There had been
lingering confusion that needed a face-to-face meeting to clarify (I hope...let
me know if you have problems with it). We also got a commitment to offer
redesigns to those facilities that have been site surveyed and installed prior
to now. The facilities that were forced to place their Denro frequency selectors
on the right side of the console will be offered fixes first as this has
potential safety implications. The timing of all this is still unresolved as the
program wallet is extremely thin for this fiscal year...more on this as I learn
it.
I just returned from an OASIS Program Management Review (PMR). These occur every
one or two months and give Harris and the FAA a chance to see where the program
is and where it's going in the near term. Sometimes I find out some pretty neat
stuff at these things...sometimes some not so neat stuff. There was a bit of
both this time. On the good side Harris is going to begin working on task
descriptions to do graphic depiction of TFR's, they're continuing to look at
fingerprint identification (no more worrying about what the latest password you
set was), and they are going to start to develop task descriptions to provide
similar functions to SUA/ISE in OASIS.
They are also designing a new way to access graphics from remote workstations
that could significantly speed them up. That would be very nice at airshows and
other events where we set up temporary stations. On the downside is that I
discovered that the NSTS program has asked the OASIS program office to ask
Harris to develop task descriptions to provide NSTS functionality in OASIS. Not
that the functionality is a bad thing. The fact that they're all doing this
without any input from the union or the Human Factors Team is very bad. It means
that they're disregarding the working relationship we had established over the
past few years, and that's very disturbing. I really don't like that they're
looking to add functionality to OASIS without consulting me or the Human Factors
Team. Here's my speculation...The NSTS program found out how many workstations
it would have to provide and it had a cow. So they are trying to save money by
placing the functionality in OASIS so there's no need to purchase all those
workstations. The OASIS program office will support it I'm sure as long as it
comes with dollars, some of which could help to address money problems they are
facing as the end of the fiscal year arrives.
Of course one of the most disturbing parts of these activities is the failure to
include the union in them. I thought we had a pretty good partnership
relationship going between the union and the agency on OASIS. In fact that is
why OASIS is where it is now. However, it seems that the agency has decided to
ignore that and return to the bad old days of an adversarial relationship. This
is really unfortunate and bodes ill for the future in OASIS and with the broader
relationships we have with the agency.
Fraternally,
Jeff Barnes
#39,
July 19, 2002
It appears that it will be
next week when the final signatures are on the pay rules; however, the
tentative agreement will be sent to NAATS Webmaster John Dibble today for
posting to our web page. The agreement, along with the work rules, is subject
to membership ratification once the hearing is completed. At that time we will
explain all the tentative agreed upon (TAU articles) in detail along with the
reasons for what we got, what we didn�t and why and the accurate application
to our bargaining unit with no "spin" attached. Members can then decide
whether they want to approve or disapprove the TAU�s. I�m aware that, among
some, there are misunderstandings but there is no time now to address all the
rumors. We�re extremely busy with preparation for the FMCS hearing as well as
the A76 and furlough issues. My commitment to you is to allow sufficient time
during ratification to answer your questions and concerns. Your patience and
continued support is appreciated.
The BOD meeting was held this week; a summary will be distributed Friday, July
26 in accordance with BOD policy. This was another excellent meeting with many
important issues being addressed. The BOD also adopted two additional areas of
membership benefits (dental and credit union) that we�re excited about; look
for a brief explanation on these in the BOD meeting summary as well as
membership mailings in the near future.
On the furlough front, there�s been a tentative agreement between the House
and Senate on the FAA supplemental. Details are sketchy right now but any
agreement is subject to President Bush�s signature. I expect to have something
more firm by this time next week.
Wally Pike
#40,
July 31, 2002
The FMCS hearing was
completed yesterday afternoon. The next step will be to submit written briefs
by August 30.
The following is a summary of the hearing.
It began at 9am at the FMCS. NAATS went first. Following are the elements of
our presentation.
-
The bargaining history
between the parties,
-
An explanation of the
NAATS proposal,
-
Overview of the air
traffic mission and flight service controllers� essential contributions to
same,
-
Discussion and examples of
what flight service controllers do,
-
Criticality of flight
service controllers during times of national emergency,
-
Summary of presentation so
far,
-
Critique of FAA proposal,
-
Costing of both proposals
and discussion of offsets,
-
Summary.
After lunch the FAA then
presented its case. Some excerpts from their representatives:
Warning -- you will find what you are about to read insulting and inaccurate.
(Note -- the FAA only referred to NAATS bargaining unit members as controllers
one time, all other references were to us as specialists. Where the term
"controller" is used it applies to terminal/enroute.)
-
Should be no coupling
between controllers and flight service specialists,
-
FSS should not be paid
same as controllers,
-
Specialists are preflight
weather briefings, a pilot could fly all across the country and never talk
w/FSS or file a flight plan and many pilots do,
-
Towers give weather
briefings and rescue aircraft in trouble also,
-
Controllers separate
aircraft, direct aircraft, tell big, commercial jet aircraft what to do every
minute of every day, very important job, no flight service specialist can do
that,
-
Center controller work is
just remarkable, center directing 30 planes, huge chess game, three
dimensional,
-
Agency lawyer went to DCA
AFSS, one woman was recording NOTAMs, very relaxed attitude, preflight weather
briefer giving his own gloss to pilot on phone, very different job than tower,
as different as night and day, Canada has an air traffic control system,
enormous distinction in pay between flight service specialists and air traffic
controllers in Canada,
-
Big distinction is in
separating aircraft, specialists are relaying information from center, not
giving pilots directions or clearances,
-
Center controllers give
weather briefings,
-
NAATS is inaccurate in
saying specialists would get no raise, 5.5% over 5 years much more than that,
on top of government-wide increase, any union would die for this, treated all
other unions other than controllers the same way, Air traffic controllers are
at the center of agency mission. Problem with NAATS proposal on retroactivity
on several points, language in July 1999 letter states "if any pay adjustment
is agreed to by the parties", paragraph has no application because parties
have been unable to agree to cost savings/pay increase.
-
In short what union wants
to do is stay with the old ways, at the same time personnel reform statue
gives agency greater flexibility on compensation of personnel, agency is
trying to do this by complying with language,
-
No fewer than 11 reasons
for panel to accept agency proposal, specialists and controllers do very
different jobs and have many different, significant functions,
-
Air traffic controllers
handle thousands of lives in what they do,
-
Flight service specialists
give preflight briefings to pilots who fly small aircraft,
-
Training and medical
requirements are very different for specialists and controllers,
-
Navcanada should be
studied hard,
-
FAA gave NATCA engineers
5.5%, why should NAATS get more,
-
Specialists have some
importance, technicians particularly important, equipment would fall apart if
technicians not there, 5.5% is precisely the increase the agency gave PASS,
-
No offsets offered by
NAATS,
-
NAATS proposal is simply
unaffordable, retroactivity very costly,
-
Giving NAATS the pay raise
they want would be bad for NAATS, there is an A76 study, FSS would probably be
gone already except for political pressure, Duats duplicates what FSS does in
large measure,
-
Pilots drink coffee in
flight service stations,
-
Historical divergence
between specialists and controllers, personnel reform requires greater
emphasis on cost savings,
-
Performance management
system - differences between controllers and specialists,
-
ATC levels established
moving controller GS-12s to ATC bands 6, 7, 8, 9. This was based on job
complexity and job performed.
-
Do not see great stress in
FSS, specialists provide preflight briefings,
-
Difference in functions
between specialists and controllers, FSS dealing with small aircraft, terminal
enroute dealing with huge aircraft,
-
Great huge differences
between FSS and air traffic controllers,
-
Different skill sets
between specialists and controllers, controllers juggle aircraft under great
stress,
-
Training is vastly
different and distinct, skills and duties are not the same between specialists
and controllers,
-
Training failures, a great
number become specialists, these failures can pass FSS training but not
terminal/enroute,
-
Medical exam differences
noted in visual fields, general medical, diabetes, cardiovascular,
-
Not all air traffic
controllers are in three options, 700 2152s in different pay plans,
-
Nav Canada data
introduced, Canadian specialists are not air traffic controllers, Canadian air
traffic controllers do what ours do, Canadian specialists do what ours do,
-
Canadian specialists are
unionized, and engage in collective bargaining, Canadian FSS specialist makes
no control decisions, same as in US,
-
Median for FSS Canadian
specialist is 28k, 47k for Canadian terminal/enroute,
-
US specialists make 100%
more than their Nav Canada counterparts,
-
US specialists are doing
better than their counterparts in Canada,
-
PASS and NATCA AF
agreements compare favorably with offer to NAATS,
-
Agency always maintained
there had to be offsets, NAATS portrayal of offsets as something new is
incorrect,
-
NAATS idea that 5.5% is
all members would get is misleading, core comp document introduced, H band cap
of $68,800 is higher than a GS12 can now make, specialists in core comp would
make out better than they would have otherwise, government-wide increase
adjusts the band (OSI),
-
Wig buyout is benefit,
members receive money sooner than otherwise would have gotten,
-
ATRA - rolled in at the
rate of 4.1%, another increase,
-
OJTI, specialists will
receive 10% of higher salary,
-
CIC Differential -
specialists will receive another 10%,
-
Specialists will receive
locality pay,
-
OSI/SCI - specialists
eligible for both, will receive 1% although not guaranteed,
-
Management offer is 41.3%
increase over 5 years,
-
Personnel reform language
requires "every reasonable effort to identify cost savings and increase
productivity within each of the affected bargaining units", this is
requirement,
-
OMB requires offsets,
-
NAATS has not identified
any offsets for 1999-01 so no retroactivity, no negotiated offsets, no agreed
upon pay for that period of time,
-
True cost to agency for
their salary proposal is $58.4M, $1 increase actually represents $1.38 to
agency in cost because of early retirement - another member benefit,
-
Agree shouldn't renege on
previous agreements but NAATS must agree to their offsets of holidays or find
others,
-
Management proposal gives
specialists 10 additional days off that they didn't have before,
-
Part-timing - technology
wasn't there during negotiations, contractor has developed technology to do
this, consolidation and staffing will be an impact,
-
Consumer price index -
5.5% offers compares favorably,
-
Other unions have agreed
to 5.5%, PASS agreement noted,
-
NATCA engineers accepted a
5.5% increase,
-
FMCS should reject NAATS
pay proposal,
-
NAATS proposal flawed and
misleading,
-
Parity argument has no
merit, skills and medical exams are different,
-
Not all 2152s are assigned
to FSS, terminal or enroute,
-
Specialists and
controllers did not have parity from 1978 to 1989,
-
Retro is inappropriate and
unsupportable, $50M liability to FAA, retro pay for retirees a major concern,
-
Past attrition in FSS is
not a legitimate offset,
-
NAATS offer would drive
increase much higher than the 13.2%,
-
FAA cannot calculate what
out year costs would be,
-
NAATS proposal calls for
pay increases first, with no identified offsets as required,
-
True cost of the 13.2% is
$164.6M, $50M cost of back pay,
-
Nav Canada specialists are
paid less for virtually same work,
-
Financial condition of
agency cannot support the NAATS proposal, furloughs are imminent,
-
FAA letters to congress
support agency financial condition,
-
A76 study initiated for
FSS, FAA cannot understand how NAATS would propose 13.2% increase at this
time,
-
NAATS proposal would
disrupt the FAA compensation system after many years of work.
The hearing evidentiary files for both the FAA and NAATS
are being posted to our website. As you can see, there is much to rebut in the
FAA�s misleading �smoke and mirrors� proposal. We will maintain a collection of
comments and suggestions for the written brief so we very much value your input.
Please send any comments to
or mail
them to NAATS, Attn: Hearing, 11303 Amherst Avenue, Suite 4, Wheaton, Maryland
20902.
We have much yet to do but I want to take this opportunity to thank several
people for their efforts in preparing for the hearing. On the Hearing Team -
Legal Counsel Arthur Fox was critical as were SO Regional Director Dave Hoover
and WP Regional Director Mike Stafford. EA Regional Director Donna Holmes and
A76 Representative Kate Breen came in with very short notice and provided
quality help. Virtually the entire Board of Directors was present to lend
support. Chief Negotiator Bill Dolan and GA Summit Representative Ward Simpson
also did everything they could to aid our effort.
As I said, the next step is the written brief to the FMCS on August 30. The FMCS
will then issue the ruling on September 5 or 6.
Wally Pike
#41, August 9, 2002
We've received a considerable number of
responses for the written brief due to the FMCS on August 30. Your input and
ideas are very much appreciated.
We're sorting the responses according to three criteria:
-
Nav Canada,
-
FSS ATCS value to the NAS,
-
Budgetary.
It would be helpful
if you would structure your comments with this in mind and submit them to
.
Again, thanks for all your help.
On the A76 front, Kate Breen, BDR AFSS, has been designated as our A76
representative for the communications process. Kate will provide updates to you
and I encourage you to contact her with any questions or comments. She can be
reached at
.
Our congressional activity on Capitol Hill has decreased due to the August
recess but we did have a presence at the Don Young fundraiser in Alaska
yesterday. He again restated his commitment to us on pay and also said that he
wasn't going to allow the FAA to contract out FSS. Thanks to AK Regional
Director Alan Baker and Marc Lackman for their efforts.
Earlier this week I met with the members at HHR and SAN. I want to thank WP
Regional Director Mike Stafford, HHR FacRep Scott Morrissey and SAN FacRep Mike
Puffer for their invitation. I enjoyed the meetings and, as always, picked up
several good ideas and suggestions from our membership. I'll start traveling
again in September and I plan to visit all the facilities that I had to postpone
the last few weeks. If you want me to meet with your membership, please contact
your Regional Director.
Wally Pike
#42, August 16, 2002
As we work toward the written brief deadline of August 30 I
think it�s important to bear in mind that pay isn�t the only challenge we have.
The A76 feasibility process continues to grind on and we�re devoting more and
more of our attention and resources on it.
I met with PASS President Mike Fanfalone this week and we agreed
to work closely together on our approach to this challenge. Next Tuesday Mike
and I will meet with NATCA President John Carr to develop a common methodology
for our three unions. I�ll keep you updated on our progress.
With this in mind the following articles are of considerable
interest for all of us. The first is from OASIS National Representative Jeff
Barnes. FYI � I have a meeting with AOPA President Phil Boyer on August 21. The
second article is by Kate Breen, A76 Communications Representative.
Wally Pike
-----------------------------------------------------
08/13/02 - Like Jason and Freddy, it seems the console equipment
placement controversy just won't die. I had an agreement in place with the OASIS
program office to offer equipment placement changes to all the facilities who
had been told they had to place equipment a certain way in the consoles. The
program office controls the money, so that should be good enough, right? Well,
no...turns out we didn't let everyone else here be involved in the decision, so
it became a turf issue and now we have a person blocking us because we haven't
followed the proper procedure. Okay, fine...we didn't follow proper procedure,
but one thing you'd better never tell me as the NAATS Rep is that I can't make
an agreement with someone. I can make an agreement with whomever I please in the
Agency to get what we need done. Now, if that person who made the agreement
wasn't supposed to do so...well, that's the FAA's problem, not mine. So, this
person has thrown yet another wrench into our plan to do the right thing...no,
the required thing by our MOU. The worst thing is that this person is in
ARU-300, the organization I work most closely with. The organization that I
expect to facilitate solutions to problems rather than throwing up roadblocks
with no thought for correcting the problem. I had a long talk with the division
manager today and I hope the problem will be resolved soon. What it means right
now though is that we have to identify this process and communicate it out to
the field. Hopefully in the next couple weeks although I'm not holding my
breath. I don't think this hurts us too bad because I'm sure the program has no
more money to spend for the rest of the fiscal year. However, I will be keeping
on top of this to ensure it gets resolved and the process gets communicated to
the field so that the changes (the safety related ones being given the highest
priority) get made early in the next fiscal year.
Today I gave a demonstration of OASIS for a group of people at
the Harris Corporation facility here in DC. the primary reason for it was an
invitation from Harris to AOPA to see OASIS and see how it has changed since
they last saw it. From AOPA Andy Cebula, Senior Vice President for Government
and Technical Affairs, and Melissa Bailey, Vice President for Government and
Technical Affairs. Phil Boyer was invited but couldn't attend due to travel. The
purpose of the demo from Harris' and the OASIS Program Office's point of view
was to ensure continued support of OASIS by AOPA. I believe AOPA does continue
to support OASIS...however... I printed out the President's report that included
the FAA's oral argument data and brought it with me. I highlighted those
arguments that presented GA as second class citizens and gave that to Ms. Bailey
after the demo. Also, I had talked to Wally and Ward and found out that Phil
Boyer has written a letter to NATCA supporting the return of language saying
that air traffic control is an inherently governmental function. At Wally's
request I asked Mr. Cebula and Ms. Bailey if AOPA would provide a similar letter
to NAATS. Mr. Cebula answered no. He said that for flight service AOPA supports
language saying that it is a governmental function, but not an inherently
governmental function. Also, in the words that were used to answer my question
it is clear that AOPA does not consider us to be air traffic controllers.
The rest of this is my opinion, not necessarily that of NAATS.
It fits with what I've observed of AOPA's relationship to NAATS and flight
service for years now. The "no" answer provided me with the crucial piece that
makes this a certainty in my mind.
If flight service is a governmental function (without the
"inherently") it would mean that flight service could be contracted out with the
contractor having significant liability protection because of that specific
language.
Also, AOPA has been strangely silent on consolidation
considering how opposed to it they were in the past. They are also extremely
interested in the progress of the AFSS Voice Switch and the particulars of the
installation waterfalls for the voice switch and OASIS. they are also highly
involved with the effort to integrate DUATS into OASIS although this would be
understandable regardless.
Based on this evidence, which I think is substantial if
circumstantial, I think AOPA has an agenda that they are trying to keep hidden.
I believe that AOPA wants to see consolidation happen, wants to see the
"governmental function" language, and wants to see OASIS and voice switch
deployed in a particular way so that they can be the entity that takes the
contract that removes flight service from the government. This would also mean
they have no intention of giving us any support in our pay dispute because it
would hurt their ability to pursue their plan.
I would like to think that I watch too much "X-Files", but this
hypothesis fits everything I have observed much too neatly for me to hold out
much hope of being wrong. I would love to be proved wrong and see a benevolent
AOPA be a white knight for us, but I'm convinced that isn't going to happen. I
think we shouldn't be looking to AOPA for any kind support, much less a rescue.
Fraternally,
Jeff Barnes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The A-76 team is out briefing the regions on the process and
answering questions. The regions already done are AWP/ASW/ANE/AGL coming up the
week of 8/26 I will be traveling with the team to AAL/ANW, a separate team will
be briefing the regional offices in ACE/ASO. They have had trouble getting the
Eastern Region nailed down, I'll pass along the information to your directors as
soon as I have any particulars. The way most regions have been handling the
briefings so far, is inviting the director/regco/facreps to the meeting. There
hasn't been money for travel, but some have gotten the official time to attend,
others have been doing it by telcon.
As you've heard, the feasibility study has been complete and we
are waiting for the release of that and the inventory list of duties we perform
to see which ones the government marked as "inherently governmental." Trust me
when I tell you we have tried everything we can to get the study/list before it
gets released but the agency absolutely refuses. When the study and list is
released, it will be gone over with a fine toothed comb and a challenge will be
prepared and submitted through the proper channels.
After the public announcement is made the rest of the process
will begin, to keep it simple in this forum, a communications plan will be set
up to keep everyone informed. The first big piece of the process is the
Performance Work Statement (PWS), this is where we will work with the agency to
list everything we do. Included in this is what the training requirements would
be, performance standards (service levels), other requirements folks would have
to follow 7110.10/NWS requirements and so on. After that is complete, a Most
Efficient Organization (MEO) will be developed this is were the
consolidation/contractor talk will come in. This is were they take the PWS
activities and design how to perform those activities in the "most efficient
manner at least cost." The process then moves into the review and appeals,
finally transition either to a "MEO" or a private company. From start to finish
it should take about 24-36 months.
We are still working the congressional angle, if we can get
support from the Hill this whole process could be stopped in it's tracks.
If you have any questions, please send me an
E-mail
. I will do updates regularly, keeping you all informed is very
important.
Thanks,
Kate Breen
#43,
August 23, 2002
Met with AOPA President Phil Boyer and the AOPA leadership this week. It was a
productive meeting - see Ward�s article below for details.
We anticipate that we will need representatives for both A76 and
Performance Management Systems (PMS) workgroups. If you are interested in
either of these please send your name and a resume, including pertinent
qualifications, to NAATS Headquarters. More details on this as they develop.
We expect congressional activity to increase sharply when the members
return after Labor Day. Latest word is that Administrator Blakey�s hearing is
on hold for an undetermined time.
A new bill was introduced in the House during the last session. The bill is
very similar to S.871 on air traffic controller retirement. The bill number
and status is HR4957 - Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform on
6/18/2002. Status on S.871 5/10/2001: Read twice and referred to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs. 6/21/2001: Committee on Governmental Affairs referred
to Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services.
Next week I have meetings with ATS-1 Steve Brown and AAT-1 Bill Peacock.
I�ll brief you on the results.
Chief Negotiator Bill Dolan has posted the status on his negotiations
issues on our WebPage. I encourage you to check this out and provide any
comments to Bill.
Wally Pike
Following are articles by GA Summit Representative Ward Simpson and Voice
Switch Technical Representative Steve Glowacki.
NAATS and AOPA held a meeting this morning (8/21) at AOPA Headquarters in
Frederick, Md. Attending for AOPA was its President, Phil Boyer, as well as
Melissa Bailey and Andy Cebula. Besides myself, Wally and Kate Breen, our A76
representative were present.
Of the many things discussed, the main cause for the meeting was to find
out just what AOPA's position was on the future contracting out of some/part
or all of Flight Service (the A76 issue) and did AOPA believe that our jobs
were inherently governmental.
Phil Boyer stated he will go on record that all controller's jobs in the
towers, centers and flight service stations are inherently governmental and
will support that position. He stated that it is in his organization's best
interest to deal with a government run entity where there is regulation
involved vice dealing with contractors and/or private industry.
He went on to say that he does not believe that the A76 study will lead to
the contracting out of the Flight Service functions. If AOPA truly believed
this, they would have been down on the hill this very minute. In short, Boyer
believes that the A76 is a study on cost savings and not really on contracting
out. He believes it will focus on inefficiencies on how things are currently
being done, and foresees changes made in technology and the current makeup of
the system. This change in makeup might include the consolidation or closing
of some of our flight service stations. To believe Flight Service will be
doing business unchanged in the year 2005 or 2007 is unrealistic. Change is
inevitable and he believes A76 will cause this. Instead of everyone hiding
from this fact, it is best all the players get involved and agree as to how
this road map to the future should look.
Fraternally,
Ward
AFSSVS Update
To all Air Traffic Controllers in the AFSS option:
Although Northrup Gruhman has been selected as the AFSSVS vendor, there is
still an outstanding action by Frequentis - the vendor that didn't get the
contract. They have filed a "protest" regarding the selection. This protest is
a semi-legal process that may or may not result in impacting the program.
Unfortunately, it's anyone's guess what the outcome could be, however I don't
believe there would be a large impact to the current effort. As I see it, the
FAA made a business decision focusing on cost. The FAA was largely forced to
make this decision since the pre-award evaluation didn't reveal a large enough
difference in quality between the two vendors, that is, enough to counter the
difference in cost between the two bids. But as they say, the jury is still
out.
We and NG are currently in ongoing talks regarding the details of the
contract. Largely, these exchanges focus on the day-to-day aspects of doing
business. There's a bit of testing the waters and team development-like effort
going on, as well. A Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) was recently held
where the exact operations the new equipment should have was clarified. This
was a two-week effort that included technical and operational issues. There
was a lot of high-level discussion regarding how an AFSS Controller performs
the daily work functions. It's been apparent from the beginning (as displayed
during the arbitration) that many people, vendors included, don't understand
what we do, how we do it and the driving philosophy that governs our work
effort. This may seem a bit 'non-technical', however there is an inherent
relationship between this and the technical design of the voice switch system.
This TIM provided an opportunity (and an eye-opener for the vendor) to finally
start to understand what we were asking for. The fallout meetings from this
reveals some hope for the new equipment to "fit like a glove."
The Human Factors Team is almost completely selected. All NAATS slots have
been filled, but management has two remaining selections to make. The first
effort of the HF Team should occur sometime in October and should quickly
develop into a monthly schedule with NG focusing on operational functionality
and the Computer Human Interface (CHI) of the Touch Entry Display (TED).
- Take care.
- Fraternally,
- Stephen A. Glowacki
#44,
August 30, 2002
The
written briefs are being delivered to the FMCS today and copies will be posted
to our website. Thanks to all of you who sent in comments and suggestions. Now
we�ll wait for the decision next week.
The Board of Directors has decided that the tentatively agreed upon work rules
(TAUs) should be sent to the membership for ratification. There are sound
reasons for doing this and I fully support the idea. The work rules are
complete and, in my opinion, represent a significant improvement on our
existing contract. There is no reason for further delay. Regardless of the
outcome of the pay impasse, the work rules should stand on their own merit.
I�ve informed the FAA of our decision and, if they are ratified, I�ve asked
that the FAA to agree to implement immediately. The ballots are being mailed
to each member with hard copies of the TAUs being mailed to all FacReps.
Copies are also on our
website; electronic
copies are available from
upon
request. Please note -- this is not the pay increase or pay rules
ratification. That will occur later.
TAU rationales are being completed and will be provided electronically and at
the NAATS website. NAATS Chief Negotiator Bill Dolan is also preparing a
pros/cons analysis of the TAUs. Please note the following:
TAU 93 -- Overtime. Section 1 (a) is not effective until a final pay agreement
is reached.
TAU 118 -- Wages. Remains open until a final pay agreement is reached.
Please direct questions to your Regional Director, Chief Negotiator Bill Dolan
or me.
A76: I�ve been interviewed and published twice by AVweb. I�m writing a
commentary for the Fedtimes and I�ve been in touch with the Federal Employees
News Digest. NAATS A76 Communications Representative Kate Breen will continue
to update you on the process status and Chief Negotiator Bill Dolan is working
on A76 MOUs.
I met with Steve Brown yesterday and discussed the information that was
received in the ATL A76 briefing. Specifically the statements in the event the
MEO remains in the FAA:
1. The new MEO will not be FSS,
2. New MEO will not protect pay,
3. Historically, organizations with new MEOs have average wage decrease of two
pay grades,
4. Existing collective bargaining agreements will not bind the new MEO,
5. No rights to previously negotiated pay.
He advised that he had never heard of this before and has questions on the
basis for the statements. He is not sure of their validity but he will
follow-up and get back to me. I�ve also asked Kate Breen to follow up up on
this information. See her article below.
Our congressional activity will pick up sharply beginning next week. Our three
major issues remain pay, A76 and staffing. I�ll pick back up on the facility
visits when time allows.
The next meeting for Homeland Security is September 13. The first meeting for
the DOT Labor Relations Council is October 22. Next BOD meeting is the week of
October 6. I�ll report on the details as I get them.
The recent correspondence between Acting Administrator Monte Belger and AOPA
regarding TFR violations is extremely disappointing. I�m following up with the
Administrator and I�ve asked GA Summit Representative Ward Simpson to talk
with AOPA�s Andy Cebula.
Wally Pike
A-76 UPDATE 08/29/02
Well here I sit in Seattle Washington after one heck of a week! First let me
thank Jenny in Palmer, AK and Dwight in Kenai, AK for doing an outstanding job
in showing the A-76 team what goes on up in Alaska. Jenny was right out
straight and the team was amazed that one person could do so much at once, and
Dwight did an outstanding job showing the team some of the different equipment
up there and explaining the differences between the AFSS facilities and the
FSS facilities. At Seattle today Alice and Marci did a great job briefing on
OASIS and showing the team around the facility. Thanks to you all, you make me
very proud to be a 2152 in the flight service option.
Now first let me help explain something that Wally asked me today. The
question at hand is:
If we (NAATS) do become the Most Efficient Organization (MEO) not the
contractor, does our contract rights and pay go away or diminish in any
capacity?
NO, unless in developing the MEO we bargain away some of our rights and pay in
order to compete to become the MEO. The Union is the only one who can open the
Collective Bargaining Agreement and negotiate concessions, the agency cannot
force us to do it. As this whole process unfolds, and we see what the
Performance Work Statement looks like we may need to make some decisions at
that point. It will all be up to the people working on the MEO and how they
see the competition going, it�s still pretty early to speculate on that.
While we�re talking about the PWS/MEO teams, please let NAATS headquarters
know if you�re interested in either of these teams. You cannot be on both
teams, it�s either one or the other. The first team up will be the PWS, it
could start as soon as NAATS and the agency decide on how many will make up
the team (Sept/Oct). There will be travel associated with it, to start looks
like monthly, after that could be as frequently as 2 or 3 times a month.
Please be prepared to travel and committed to either of these teams, this job
is too important to be swapping people out in the middle of the process. The
MEO will be the next team developed and probably have preliminary meetings
starting sometime this fall/winter. As the time frames unfold a little more, I
will pass the information along to you. I will be there to assist both teams
in whatever capacity they need. I was very adamant about needing back fill
overtime, NAATS will not be held hostage to the staffing issue, we will put
our best people on these teams and the agency will have to back fill where
needed.
Now for the Feasibility Study that was released last week, first to AOPA and
then to NAATS! Ok I�ll stop my whining about that now!! I�m going to make this
as concise as possible, if you have more questions on it please let me know I
just don�t want to make this update so long you all fall asleep. Both reports
sited the reasons why Flight Service was selected to go forward with this
study "suggest that current and future demand for Flight Services may be met
with fewer FSS sites without compromising aviation safety.� It talks about
rationale to support recommendations on which Flight Service activities
should/should not be subject to competitive sourcing.
Now unless you consider a whole ton of assumptions rationale, the report is
just full of assumptions:
-
Contractor
personnel can obtain security clearance required to perform FSS work.
-
National
Weather Service certifications can be issued to contractor personnel for work
related to weather observation.
-
Military
operations will accept support from contractor personnel for the services FSS
currently provides.
-
Commercial
sources will have adequate liability coverage.
-
Foreign
countries are willing to work with non-FAA employees (Note: This only applies
to those FSS sites that have international interfaces.)
These were taken from page 13 of the feasibility study.
Now for a
few more assumptions:
-
What about
certification from the NWS for briefing and flight watch?
-
What about
security concerns, 9/11 is not that long ago and still very fresh in all of
our minds and hearts.
-
What about
finding qualified personnel under the age of 56 to provide these services?
-
What about
the training at the FAA academy?
-
What about
the list of FSS activities on the Fair Act Inventory for FY2002 that has not
and will not be released until sometime the end of this year. NAATS has not
seen the list or been given the opportunity to appeal it yet, so therefore it
is assumed it will stay as it is.
-
The two
individuals that were considered FSS subject matter experts have not had a
headset on in the last several, more like 10 years. Yet it was assumed they
knew what they were talking about to complete this study. (I can tell you from
being off the boards for two years while I was the NAATS ATX Liaison, you lose
a lot of your intimate knowledge of what goes on day to day.)
I�ll stop
here, I could go on with more, the point I�m trying to make is you cannot do a
viable study using all of these assumptions (and more) and maybe some "other
considerations that may be pertinent to or worthy of continued analysis").
The
activities considered for competition are below:
Pre-flight pilot briefing services
Services to aircraft in flight
Search and rescue
Notices to Airmen only L NTMS
Aviation weather and information broadcasting
Navigation aid monitoring
Weather Observations
Enroute flight advisory services (Flight Watch)
Other FSS activities (e.g., provide international customs notifications, support
other law enforcement agencies, coordinate with emergency facilities)
NOTAM D�s were separated out and will not be studied due to the affect they have
on the National Airspace System.
Taken from page 4 of the study.
On to page 9, a total of 12 companies were targeted for market research and
selected based on three different criteria:
-
Known
industry leaders in aviation services
-
Candidates
identified through independent research conducted by Grant Thornton
-
Candidates
recommended by the FAA
And
the candidates were! DynCorp, EDS, Harris, Lockheed Martin, Midwest ATC
Services, NAV Canada, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Robinson/Van Buren, SAIC,
SERCO, and Signal Corporation. The 3 that responded were Midwest ATC Services,
SAIC, and SERCO.
Any or all can bid on our services, these 3 were simply the only ones that
responded to the market research that Grant Thornton put out. Rumor has it
because they had a very quick turn around, go figure, trying to push one more
piece through in a hurry! If you would like further info on any of the 3
candidates let me know and I�ll provide what I have.
I can�t go into every question in the survey in this update, I�m hoping your
directors now have copies and it will be put on the web site as well for all to
read. However, the way Grant Thornton did some of the charts it is very hard to
read, let me know if you need any further clarification.
The long and short of it is, the study is filled with assumptions and false
truths like in the industry availability responses, did you know there are
commercial sources out there right now performing Flight Watch services in the
US?! I didn�t, I must still be living in that vacuum!!!!
I have been in touch with AFGE who represents the folks in DOD who have been
under the A-76 knife for years and will see what insight they can provide to us.
I�ll update you on that as soon as I know more.
In closing, the definition that Grant Thornton uses in their briefing package on
page 15 describes commercial activity "an activity which is operated by a
Federal executive agency and which provides a product or service that could be
obtained from a commercial source. A commercial activity also may be part of an
organization or a type of work that is separable from other functions or
activities and is suitable for performance by contract." Now if you look at the
definition of inherently governmental from the OMB circular A-76, "An inherently
governmental function is a function which is so intimately related to the public
interest as to mandate performance by government employees." Now looking at the
both of those, do you think Grant Thornton is putting a little slant on this
whole process?! Is there anyone out there who thinks the things we do day in and
day out are not intimately related to public interest? Other than the Grant
Thornton folks, FAA legal, FAA financial, and the President of the United States
of course! Ask the folks who called after 9/11 if our functions were intimately
related to public interest, not to mention safety and security. I�ll stop here
for now, as always, let me know if you have any questions.
Kate Breen
A-76 Rep.
#45, September 6, 2002
The Board of
Directors held a telcon at 5pm this afternoon to analyze our situation and
discuss our next steps.
The FMCS
decision was disappointing but not a total loss. Retroactivity, in particular,
was affirmed. It was also gratifying to see that none of the subjective,
immaterial data (NavCanada, "specialist" vs. "controller", etc.) presented by
the management team warranted a mention in the decision. During the next few
weeks I�ll be approaching several congressional members, including Chairman
Young for their assistance in legislation. I�ll also be meeting with the other
unions to coordinate a common approach on pay as well as the A76 issue.
A little
history. I was contacted by the FMCS Director last Friday and informed that both
the Agency and NAATS proposals had serious problems. Both the FAA and NAATS were
asked to either submit a new proposal or to eliminate the "baseball" arbitration
requirement and allow the mediators to structure an agreement. I strongly felt
that we had to stay with our comparability proposal but that we could eliminate
the "baseball" arbitration. The FAA refused to agree to either so nothing was
changed. Given the FMCS decision, I�ll now try to convince senior FAA management
to eliminate "baseball" arbitration and allow the mediators to structure a
decision.
I heard
today that AFSCME has had their ULP charge against the FAA dismissed. No other
details at this time.
There has
been some confusion about the decision last week to separate the work rules from
pay and to send out the membership ballots for ratification. The BOD feeling was
that there was no further reason to delay ratification of the work rules and
that they should stand on their own merit. With the uncertainties of final
resolution on pay it makes good sense to move forward with the work rules. The
ballot you were mailed is for ratification of the work rules only. The pay rules
and pay adjustments will be ratified later when they are available. If ratified,
our hope is that the FAA will agree to an immediate implementation of the work
rules. If you have any questions please contact your Regional Director or me.
If you saw
the Marion Blakey hearing on CSPAN Tuesday afternoon you were probably as
disappointed as I was in not hearing any references to our pay and A76 issues
with the FAA. We have been working with Senator Kerry�s (D-MA) staff and we had
given them our position paper. AFSCME was mentioned by both Kerry and Chairman
Rockefeller (D-WV) but the bottom line for both unions was disappointing. We�ll
follow-up with Kerry and Rockefeller and I encourage those of you who are their
constituents to do the same.
I nominated,
and the BOD approved, Kate Breen from BDR AFSS as our next Administrator.
I
recommended, and the BOD approved, hiring a team of three expert consultants to
help us with A76. They will provide all necessary support and will coordinate
our A76 efforts. We�ve budgeted $45K annually for this but actual expenses are
expected to be less. One of their first jobs is a grassroots congressional
effort.
Wally Pike
Following
is an OASIS update from National Representative Jeff Barnes.
09/05/02 -
As we all have weightier matters in mind today I will keep the update short. It
looks like we are moving toward resolution of the equipment placement issue in
the OASIS consoles. I am working with Scott Malon to make a questionnaire that
will go to all facilities who have been site surveyed or more for the consoles.
This will go to ATP-400 for their agreement and distribution through the regions
to the facilities. It will basically ask if you're satisfied with the equipment
placement in the consoles at your facility, either planned or already in place.
If the answer is no we want details. What the problem is, which types of
consoles does it affect, how many of each type, and why it should be changed.
Those will be returned to ATP over the signature of the FacRep and ATM and ATP
will send them over to ARU to get the requirements identified for the changes an
on to the program office for the funding. It's a lot of levels of bureaucracy,
but unfortunately that is the process we have to follow. I'll have details for
you in another update, and will e-mail the form to John Dibble so you'll be able
to access it on our web site should you need to.
Also, I
found out this week that ARU had a telcon with HNL and told them their number of
OASIS and consoles would be reduced. This was a unilateral move taken without
negotiation with NAATS and represents a violation of the already agreed upon
numbers between the Agency and NAATS. If you are told for any reason that your
console or OASIS numbers are being dropped let your Director know immediately so
he or she can tell me and I can pursue it up at headquarters where these stupid
decisions are being made. Do not agree to any reductions! If we do make any
reduction agreements it will be through negotiations at the national level and
no such negotiations are happening right now. If we have to we'll grieve this on
the national level. Hopefully more on this next week also.
Fraternally,
Jeff Barnes
|