No decision yet from the FMCS Director on whether he will hear the pay dispute and make his recommendation for resolution. As soon as I hear something I�ll update everyone.

I�ve just talked with AT-2 Jeff Griffith and Air Traffic has decided to allow walk-in pilots at our facilities beginning tomorrow.

I�ve talked with NAATS Chief Negotiator Bill Dolan and he has advised me that, after some discussion with management, the agreement is to procedurally handle the matter the same as in the past. This means that our controllers are not responsible for checking pilot credentials for security purposes.

I�ve had a number of meetings this week with some still to happen. Expect a HQ update either Friday or Saturday.

Jeff Barnes - OASIS Tech-Representative

This week I got the opportunity to return to my home facility BNA and give demos of OASIS to the people there along with the folks who came for the ASO quarterly on Wednesday. The demos were well received.

Over the time I have been involved with the program I have noticed a change in the people who have seen our demos. At first the demos were met with skepticism occasionally bordering on hostility, and rightly so given the state of OASIS at the time. However, as time has gone by and OASIS has changed due in large part to the efforts of the Human Factors Team I have seen reactions soften to neutrality and now I'm seeing a further change to genuine interest with a lot of controllers even looking forward to using OASIS. Arnie Holmes has been able to demo OASIS at Eastern Region facilities recently and he has had much the same response as I have. This is good, because despite what rumors you may have heard about funding, OASIS is coming. In fact, the only uncertainty that bears on this right now is that we still don't have a signed MOU for the phased deployment. When the MOU has been finalized and signed the deployment of OASIS will be a sure thing.

I mentioned funding above... As I reported before the OMB pass back budget cut OASIS funding in FY 2003. We are going to fight the cut, as is the Agency. The Agency already wrote a non-concur that I shared with you previously. Now the Agency has finally sent a non-concur to the Inspector General's report that called for further consolidation of Flight Service. I have gotten a copy of that and will share it with you in a future update. If the cut does remain it will likely impact schedule for deployment and system development, pushing them both further down the calendar, but not canceling either one. The pass back cut is actually counterproductive to promoting consolidation because one of the keys for consolidation in the report is OASIS and the cut will delay OASIS. I will be returning to headquarters next week and meeting with the program office to get feedback on specific expected results of such a cutback so that we can present hard facts on the impact in the OASIS section of NAATS testimony to Congress on the 2003 budget. I plan to share the information I get with AOPA to enlist whatever aid they can give us to ensure that full funding is restored by Congress.

For those of you who will be able to attend the National Meeting the plan right now is to have two hours for OASIS. I plan one hour for a demonstration to be given to the meeting by projecting our laptop remote workstation onto a large screen with a hookup into the Tech Center OASIS, then the remainder of the time for a report on the program and questions and answers. As in the past I will have whichever OASIS people who are able to be there up on the podium with me. I will also be inviting the Program Manager from the FAA to attend so he can listen and answer any questions you might want to hear answered from the Agency perspective.

Fraternally,

Jeff Barnes

PRESS RELEASE

Attendees: Bob Geranis, Don McLennan, and Ron Maisel
Various issues were discussed and reviewed in order to implement the FSDPS Transition Plan.

Concerns Addressed
Some concerns: "At the field level will currently employed personnel be allowed to return to their home facility, and if so will they have to perform pilot weather briefing functions?" The answer is there is only one staff position dealing mostly with automation issues and that position was created specifically for the these persons. However, nothing prevents the FSDPS personnel from bidding on other staff positions currently in the facility.

"What happens when an individual declines an offer to return to their parent AFSS?" The best answer is that the most senior person in the FSDPS (through reverse RIF procedures) will first be offered the new staff support at their home facility. If that person refuses, the offer will be made to everyone else based on these same procedures. If everyone declines the offer the most junior person may well be given a "directed reassignment." Refusal to accept a "reason-able" offer could result in an involuntary separation. If you are not in a co-located facility you may be eligible for "discontinued service retirement." However, if you are not in a co-located facility you may be looking at the standard Agency removal package.

The question came up, "What about those people who, it turns out, are unable to pass the medical examination for the FSS option?" If they are unable to pass that exam and are not able to find another available job for which they can be selected, unfortunately, they may be subject to being removed from federal government service.

It should be remembered that the original goal of the partnership team was to somehow in-sure that every employee who could either, find a new job if that is what they wanted, or if they couldn�t meet FSS ATCS requirements would not simply be mandated to have to return to the facilities that many left a long time ago. That is the primary motivation, from the Union side, to see to the placement of all of our people. A major factor for the management team, it must be remembered, is cost savings at a time when this Agency is experiencing many budgetary short-falls.

Appendix 5 of the Transition Plan lays out the process for being put on selection lists for movement within a region and across regional lines.

Stage 1
Under the Stage 1 process the Air Traffic Division Managers and the NAATS Regional Directors will develop a list of those AFSS facilities within the region that have "Meaningful Work." This list is then submitted to the NAATS/FAA Partnership Council (NFPC) who will compile the information into a single national list and share it with everyone. Both of these list will be updated Quarterly and be provided to the regions. These lists are provided via the Internet that is accessed through http://FAA.GOV/ATS/ATP/ATP300/FSSHOME.HTM. This site is updated by Mr. Bob Geranis in ATP-320 and we are grateful to him for his expertise and dedication to this project. Among the many items available to you to keep you informed of the Agency progress are the links for the FSDPS Transition Plan. This lets you see the plan in its entirety and allows you to download the document if you prefer. Also available is the link Estimated Schedule for OASIS where you will find the OASIS Human Factors Team OASIS Waterfall and the projected closing dates of all FSDPS facilities. These are color coded to make tracking of them easier to see. Also, there is a link titled Project Timelines and Status that has really up-to-date information on when certain aspects of the process is supposed to unfold. Additionally, there is a link for Questions and Answers to get responses to you for those parts of the Transition Plan that you don�t understand or that doesn�t make sense to you.

Regions to Supply Copies of National Lists
Regions will provide a copy of the national lists to all AUSs within two weeks of receipt. This "providing a copy of the national list" may well look like the Regions saying, "Everybody in an FSDPS needs to call up the Web Page to review everyone�s requests". Within four weeks, or the date specified, after receipt of the list from the region, all AUSs who desire to return to an AFSS, as an ATCS, will be given an opportunity to request relocation to their parent facility, other AFSS locations within the region or other AFSS locations in other regions. See 6.1.1 "Volunteer for AFSS" in the Transition Plan. These requests may be prioritized. The signed requests shall be submitted to the NFPC (actually Kevin Kelley at the Boston FSDPS [ZBW]) as soon as possible but no later than the date specified in the documents received from the regional and which bidder is more senior in status based on the "reverse" RIF procedures. This information will be compiled by Mr. Kelley based on the information he receives from all of the regions. There will be a national list, regional lists and a facility lists.

If the individual�s parent facility is within the FSDPS commuting area, no PCS moves will be authorized. However, individuals in this category may submit requests for inter and intra-region assignments with the understanding that no PCS will be paid.

Stage 2
Under the stage 2 process it addresses the Support Specialist-Volunteer stage and will be addressed later. However individuals who volunteered for an automation position and were not selected, may if qualified, volunteer for assignment to an AFSS ATCS position. The process is described above in Stage 1 with one exception. Within two weeks of notification by the region of non-selection for automation Support Specialist position those AUSs who, at that time, wish to volunteer for an AFSS ATCS position must submit their request to the NFPC. Also, under this Stage is what the Plan labels the Volunteer for the Support Specialist (SS).

Listings will be prepared to determine an AUS�s ranking for the Support Specialist Positions both within the facilities and as compared to other facilities within a specific region. An individual�s ranking on the list will be by a process known as reverse RIF. This process will only be used to establish relative seniority for placement decisions and for absolutely no other purpose. The type of process used to close facilities mandates this procedure. In this case it is not "Reduction in Force" closing but a "Transfer of Function closing." Mostly because many of the M1FC functions are transferring to the OASIS platform. In the process, individuals are first ranked and placed on the list according to established RIF procedures. After this list is established, the ranking is reversed so that the individual who would have been the last to be riffed is now the first to be offered a vacant slot.

Sometime between now and the implementation of OASIS at Anderson AFSS (and after that six months prior to every remaining facility), the Regional Office will prepare a reverse RIF list for the new SS position.

When a site is collocate, the reverse RIF list for the SS position will be limited to the AUSs assigned to that parent (collocated) facility in order to avoid the payment of a PCS move. After the list is developed by the RO, it will be given to the parent AFSS Manager who will make a selection based on the above criteria. This will be accomplished within two weeks after the list is received at the facility. If no one from the FSDPS selects the position at the parent facility, the last individual on the list will be given a directed reassignment to the position. This process applies only to the collocated sites and should be completed prior to establishing a regional list. This will afford the opportunity for all AUSs within the particular region who were not selected by a parent AFSS Manager to be considered for all other opportunities within the region.

Each RO will place the remaining names of non-selected AUSs and the not collocated AUSs who desire to be considered for a SS position at an AFSS within their region on the regional list. In coordination with the RO the remaining AFSS Mangers will canvas the individuals on the list in appropriate order to determine selections for all remaining SS positions within the region. The individual highest on the regional list will be offered. The first opportunity to select an SS position at any of the remaining AFSS locations within the region.

If an AUS within the region has not been selected by an AFSS Manager at any of the remaining facilities that are not co-located, that position will be opened for consideration to all AUSs throughout the nation. The NFPC will notify all AUSs who have not been selected for an ATCS or SS position of the remaining openings and allow those individuals four weeks to apply to the NFPC. If there is more than one request for the same position, the selection will be made based on the national reverse RIF list. If there are no requests to fill the vacancy, it will be filled by directed reassignment of the last individual on the regional list of AUSs as of that date.

That is about the totality of the processes designed and agreed to under partnership by NAATS and the FAA. The directed reassignments may seem harsh but may, in some in-stances, may be ameliorated at the regional level by conducting negotiations with the Union to find a more appealing solution to filling vacant positions within their facilities.

The Union and FAA remain committed to this process under the rules of partnership even though the agreement has been overcome by events well known by the affected members on both sides of this issue. The four person steering committee that vowed to see this through to the end still all remain committed and enthusiastic about the ideal of finding meaningful work for those employees who are so interested.

Please begin to become familiar, on a regular basis, with the WEB site. It will be an invaluable source of ever-updated information that I am sure you find helpful.
  

Room Rate: $85.00/night

FOR RESERVATIONS CALL:

(800) 311-8999 or (702) 730-7000

AFSS Formula Workgroup

Don McLennan, Northwest Mountain Region Director

A NAATS/FAA Workgroup convened just before the holidays to consider what information would be most beneficial to design the tracking of business costs of our option to the Agency. I believe this is an outgrowth of the Agency wanting us to move into a PBO (Performance Based Organization). This would be a first step in developing accounting procedures to see what our functions really end up costing. These procedures will then be followed in the (CATTS). It is a little disarming that in Headquarters it is commonplace now to receive briefings that begin something like, "We don�t really even know what our costs are." I can only share with you my belief that as little as two years ago you wouldn�t be considered "management material" if you adopted some position along those lines. Maybe we are making headway, we will have to wait and see.

Those in attendance at this meeting were: Don McLennan SEA AFSS, Kate Breen, BDR AFSS, Steve Jones, MIA AFSS, Alan Baker, FAI AFSS and Linda Sterling, JBR AFSS for NAATS. Mike Lammes, HHR AFSS, Leonard Hopkins, MIA AFSS, Ed Castagna, PNM AFSS, Peter Quinn, ATX-320, and Keith Gunnell, ATQ-200 for Management.

On the first day Sue Helzer, ATX-330, Head of Staffing Standards Branch and Arthur Furnia, ATX-330 distributed a briefing paper labeled Air Traffic Staffing Standards Program and AFSS Staffing Standards. Along with distributing these briefing papers they made presentations to explain them. What follows is, in essence, the final report of the Workgroup. We first brainstormed a list of facility functions and then agreed to which warns warranted the importance of posting their activity on a Web Site where anyone could tap in and check activity levels. For the sake of more clearly understanding what the work group did with their brainstormed list, I offer to you the following table:

On the second, we developed the following:

1. Definitions

2. Methodology, i.e., how it is collected

3. Quality Control

4. Accountability--Schema�s

The workgroup decided that there were so many identifiers for a Controller to remember that we would try to combine and define as many identifiers as possible in one definition.

Terms Defined

In defining N1 and N2 they were separated into N1 and defined as "All NOTAM D and all NOTAM L that are issued". N2 was defined as all NOTAM D and all NOTAM L that were cancelled. The Methodology for this is, "Every employee completes the task and enters N1or N2, as applicable, on the command line". The Quality Control is "Every employee enters N1 on the command line." The Accountability is that "There will be periodic reviews of local activity reports." This is the example that will be followed in developing the data on all subsequent identifiers.

PB Definition: A Single Item Briefing, Multi-leg Briefing and all Pilot Weather Briefings as defined in FAA Order 7110.10, Chapter 3. This definition supercedes the Note contained in 7210.3R, Paragraph 16-4-1. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters PB. For each additional leg (departure and destination) make an additional PB entry on the command line.

FP Definition: A Flight Plan Filed as defined in FAA Order 7210.3R, Paragraph 16-2-2. Methodology: As currently prescribed in FAA Order 7110.10,Chapter 6, Section 2.

IFP Definition: An International Flight Plan Filed as defined in FAA Order 7210.3R, Para-graph 16-2-2. Methodology: As currently prescribed in FAA Order 7110.10,Chapter 6, Section 2.

DAC Definition: A contact is a count taken for each flight in which air to ground communications is established and terminated. This will exclude the application in the FAA Order 7210.3R, Paragraph 16-2-3. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters on the command line the Aircraft Contacted including the type of flight category as currently prescribed in FAA Order 7110.10, Paragraph 4-2-5.

IAC Definition: A contact is a count taken for each flight in which air to ground communications is established and terminated. This will exclude the application in the FAA Order 7210.3R, Paragraph 16-2-3. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters on the command line the Aircraft Contacted including the type of flight category as currently prescribed in FAA Order 7110.10, Paragraph 4-2-5.

SAR Definition: The initiated SAR will already be counted in Model One Full Capacity. The reply to or request for information on SAR will be counted as an S1. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters S1 on the command line.

LAA Definition: A Local Airport Advisory as defined in FAA Order 7210.3R, Paragraph 16-2-2. Methodology: As currently prescribed in FAA Order 7110.10, Paragraph 4-2-5.

WX OBS Definition: This would consist of Actual Weather Observations and ASOS Augmentation. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters W1 on the command line.

N1 Definition: See Above.

BCST Definition: Any recording of the TIBS (TRC), HIWAS (HI), VOLMET (V1) and TWEB (TW). Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters B1 on the command line.

SCI Definition: A Special VFR Clearance Issued as defined in FAA Order 7110.10, Paragraph 4-5-1. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters SC on the command line.

ICI Definition: An IFR Clearance Issued as defined in FAA Order 7110.10, Paragraph 4-3-7. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters IC on the command line.

ADCUS Definition: Notification to the U.S. Customs Service as defined in FAA Order 7110.10, Paragraph 7-2-2. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters A1 on the command line.

TECS Definition: The Treasury Enforcement Computer System is defined as the Customs and Air Defense notification for trans-border crossings. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters T1 on the command line.

NAD Definition: Accident/Incident Messages, Operational Error Messages, Near Mid-Air Collision Messages, Pilot Deviation, Service B Movement Messages. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters M1 on the command line.

PIREPS Definition: Pilot Reports as defined in FAA Order 7110.10, Paragraph 9-2. Methodology: Every employee completes the task and enters UA on the command line.

The last day began with a brief-out to Pam Foss, ATX-2, and Tony Tisdale, ATX-200. Ms. Foss said that she was surprised that we had 16 items that we would put up on the CATTS site. Her caution was that we should try and focus on what was so important that we wanted everyone who would go on the Web page to see about us. The warning was a good one in that she was trying to tell us "Don�t go down into the minutia level" to where we water down what the employees are doing for the federal government. I am still not clear on the issue of were we developing this list to track our cost (since that is what CATTS is designed to do) or developing information for a Web Site, or both. If I ever get the answer I will be sure and share it with you.

UK Air Traffic Body Seeks Price Rise, Denies Crisis

Courtesy of Kim Weber, FAI AFSS/OME FSS

LONDON, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Britain's air traffic controller said on Tuesday it had asked its regulator to increase the amount it can charge airlines while rejecting reports it risks collapse as fees have slumped from airlines since September 11.

The National Air Traffic Services, of which the government owns 49 percent, said it had not deferred any debt repayments, its monthly board meeting on Tuesday was "not a crisis meeting" and its banks supported its plans to recover from the downturn.

"There is no question of the banks forcing us into administration," NATS spokesman Robert Wright told Reuters after newspapers said the banks had threatened to push air traffic control the way of collapsed rail operator Railtrack (RTK,Trade).

He said the company had applied to the country�s aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, for an increase in the price cap it could charge airlines for flying in UK air space.

The centre-left Labour government sparked uproar among its own backbenchers when it reversed its long-held policy that it would retain the NATS in public ownership.

Last year it sold a 46 percent stake to a consortium of British airlines, including British Airways Plc ((BAY.L)), British Midland Airways Ltd [BMID.UL], easyJet Plc ((EZJ.L)) and Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd [VA.UL] for 800 million pounds.

Employees were awarded a slice of five percent.

Transport Secretary Stephen Byers, who has been under pressure over his handling of the country�s delay-prone and overcrowded railways, has cast doubt on the NATS business plan.

The revenue risk for the NATS is on the transatlantic routes where it earns nearly half of its income.

Traffic volumes were already declining before September 11 as the U.S. economy slowed. Since the hijacked plane attacks on U.S. cities transatlantic traffic has decreased sharply, forcing British Airways, Virgin and British Midland to slash jobs and cut flights.

Wright said NATS had not asked the government for cash.

A transport ministry spokesman said that none of the four banks -- Abbey National, Barclays Capital, HBOS and Bank of America -- was attending the NATS board meeting on Tuesday.

Guidance Issued on New Pay, Other Policies

Courtesy of www.FedWeek.com

February 27, 2002

The Office of Personnel Management has issued guidance on several changes in pay and leave administration policy contained in the fiscal 2002 Defense Department authorization act (P.L. 107-107).

Health Benefits for Reservists Called to Active Duty in Support of Contingency Operations Section 519 of Public Law 107-107 amends subsection (e) of section 8906 of title 5, United States Code, to provide agencies with discretionary authority to pay both the employee and Government health benefit contributions (and any additional administrative expenses related to health care coverage) for certain employees called to active duty and their families for a period not to exceed 18 months. The employee must (1) be enrolled in an approved health benefits plan, (2) be a member of a reserve component of the armed forces, (3) be called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation, (4) be placed on leave without pay or separated from service to perform active duty, and (5) serve on active duty for a period of more than 30 consecutive days. This new authority applies to employees called to active duty on or after December 8, 1995, and agencies may make retroactive payments to covered employees for premiums paid on or after that date.

Military Leave for Funeral Honors Duty Section 563 of Public Law 107-107 amends 5 U.S.C. 6323(a)(1) to permit employees to use the 15 days of military leave provided under that section for "funeral honors duty" as described in section 12503 of title 10 and section 115 of title 32, United States Code. This new entitlement to military leave became effective on December 28, 2001.

Each agency is responsible for administering the use of military leave for funeral honors duty for its employees. OPM has no authority to issue regulations governing this new provision.

Hostile Fire Pay

Section 1111 of Public Law 107-107 amends subchapter IV of chapter 59 of title 5, United States Code, by adding a new section 5949 that provides the head of an executive agency with discretionary authority to pay an employee hostile fire pay. The new law provides agencies with the authority to pay hostile fire pay at a rate of $150 for any month in which the employee is:

1. subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;

2. on duty in an area in which the employee was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period of duty in that area, other employees were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; or

3. killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of hostile mine, or any other hostile action.

Agencies may pay hostile fire pay to an employee hospitalized for the treatment of an injury or wound for not more than 3 additional months during which the employee is hospitalized. Section 5949 prohibits the payment of hostile fire pay for periods of time during which an employee receives post differentials under 5 U.S.C. 5925, because of exposure to political violence, or danger pay allowances under 5 U.S.C. 5928.

This provision is effective retroactive to September 11, 2001. The head of an executive agency may grant hostile fire pay for any hostile action that took place on or after that date. This new payment for civilian employees is similar to the hostile pay currently available to military personnel under 37 U.S.C. 310.

Each agency is responsible for administering hostile fire pay for its employees. OPM has no authority to issue regulations governing this new provision.

Payment of Expenses to Obtain Professional Credentials

Section 1112 of Public Law 107-107 amends chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, by adding a new � 5757 that provides agencies with discretionary authority to use appropriated funds or funds otherwise available to the agency to pay for (1) expenses for employees to obtain professional credentials, including expenses for professional accreditation, State-imposed and professional licenses, and professional certification; and (2) examinations to obtain such credentials. Agencies may not use this authority on behalf of any employee occupying or seeking to qualify for appointment in any position that is excepted from the competitive service because of the confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character of the position.

Monroney Amendment

Section 1113 of Public Law 107-107 reinstates a pay provision for the Department of Defense's (DOD's) blue-collar workforce commonly known as the Monroney Amendment. The Monroney Amendment requires the importation of out-of-area wage data for local wage surveys when large numbers of Federal Wage System (FWS) employees are employed in specialized occupations (e.g. aircraft mechanic, electronics mechanic, etc.), but few comparable jobs in local private sector companies. This provision will apply in certain wage areas that meet specified employment threshold levels on the next normal effective date of each applicable wage schedule. OPM will issue guidance on the implementation of this change after receiving advice from the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee.

Biweekly and Annual Limitations on Premium Pay

Section 1114 of Public Law 107-107 modifies the biweekly and annual limitations on premium pay under 5 U.S.C. 5547, removes the separate premium pay limitation for law enforcement officers, and provides agencies with authority to waive the biweekly premium pay limitation for employees performing work critical to the mission of the agency. The new premium pay limitations will become effective on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after April 27, 2002. OPM will issue interim regulations governing these new premium pay limitations on or be-fore that date.

An amendment to 5 U.S.C. 5547(a) provides that an employee, including a law enforcement officer, may receive premium pay in a pay period only to the extent that the aggregate of basic pay and premium pay for the pay period does not exceed the greater of the biweekly rate for (1) GS-15, step 10 (including any applicable special salary rate or locality rate of pay), or (2) level V of the Executive Schedule.

An amendment to 5 U.S.C. 5547(b) provides that the biweekly premium pay cap in section 5547(a) does not apply in any pay period during which an employee, including a law enforcement officer, receives premium pay for work in connection with an emergency (including a wild-fire emergency) that involves a direct threat to life or property. The amendment clarifies that work in connection with an emergency includes work performed in the aftermath of the emergency. Such employees may receive premium pay only to the extent that the aggregate of basic pay and premium pay for the calendar year does not exceed the greater of the annual rate for (1) GS-15, step 10 (including any applicable special salary rate or locality rate of pay), or (2) level V of the Executive Schedule.

Another amendment to 5 U.S.C. 5547(b) provides the head of an agency with discretionary authority to waive the biweekly premium pay limitation in � 5547(a) for an employee, including a law enforcement officer, who receives premium pay to perform work critical to the mission of the agency. Such employees may receive premium pay only to the extent that the aggregate of basic pay and premium pay for the calendar year does not exceed the greater of the annual rate for (1) GS-15, step 10 (including any applicable special salary rate or locality rate of pay), or (2) level V of the Executive Schedule.

An amendment to 5 U.S.C. 5547(c) authorizes OPM to prescribe regulations governing how the annual limitation provisions in � 5547(b) apply to employees receiving certain forms of regularly recurring premium payments (i.e., availability pay for criminal investigators under 5 U.S.C. 5545a, administratively uncontrollable overtime pay under 5 U.S.C. 5545(c)(2), standby duty premium pay under 5 U.S.C. 5545(c)(1), and regular overtime pay for firefighters covered by 5 U.S.C. 5545b.) The regulations may provide that these types of premium pay continue to be capped on a biweekly basis even though other types of premium pay are capped on an annual basis.

FedWeek.com

Average Raise above 18 Percent Indicated

The Congressional Research Service has said that in order to comply with the 1990 pay law -- which was supposed to make federal raises virtually automatic, based on private sector wage increases and locality pay -- federal employees would have to be granted average raises of 18.56 percent in 2003. That counts both an across-the-board component of 3.1 percent as indicated by the pertinent employment cost index measure plus locality pay that would have to range among localities up to 27.13 percent in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose locality.

Pay Reform Law Lost in the Shuffle

The 1990 pay reform law has been virtually overlooked in the developing pay debate over the 2003 federal raise. The White House budget contained no discussion of that law as it proposed a 2.6 percent 2003 raise for federal employees and 4.1 percent for the military. In their comments on the raise issue, administration officials have focused on other aspects, such as the availability of within-grade increases to federal employees and the special hardships military personnel endure. However, employee organizations have not forgotten the 1990 law -- the American Federation of Government Employees for example recently noted that under the law's terms the federal-private pay gap was supposed to be virtually closed by now but that official figures show it remains about as large as in 1990. However, for now, they say the best chance for sweetening the federal raise appears to be an argument in favor of parity with the military, not an argument in favor of complying with a law that has little support in either party.

Report Cites Issues with Pay Law's Calculations

The CRS report notes that the 1990 federal pay law, called FEPCA, "has never been implemented as originally enacted. Since 1995, locality payments have been much lower than FEPCA requires. Additionally, while the methodology for setting federal pay adjustments has been questioned since the enactment of FEPCA, it remains a particular concern because the Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys documenting non-federal rates of pay were not approved for use in determining the 2000, 2001 and 2002 locality payments and are not being recommended for use in determining 2003 locality pay." CRS notes that figures from as long ago as 1994 were "aged" to calculate 2003 locality raises indicated under the law. Critics of the pay law believe that such manipulation of numbers -- which they consider incomplete in the first place -- make the calculations under FEPCA unreliable and offer little reason for complying with the law.

Personnel Reform Hearings Coming

Hearings could be held next month in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on proposals by the Bush administration and committee member Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, designed to give agencies greater flexibility in hiring, managing and retaining employees. The two measures have many common themes and provisions -- for example both would create a new government wide buyout authority with offers subject to Office of Management and Budget approval and both would repeal the recertification requirements for senior executives. Officials say the most likely outcome would be that the two would be combined into a single measure. The effort is considered separate from the longer term drive the Office of Personnel Management hopes to launch soon to reform the way federal pay is set.

Other Key Elements of Proposed Reforms

Other key elements of the Bush administration Managerial Flexibility Act proposal (S-1613) include: enhancing authority to give recruitment, retention and relocation bonuses; permitting agencies to develop and use alternative personnel systems; authorizing broader use of early retirement authority; and raising the cap on total compensation for senior executives to the Vice President�s salary, while revising the way their performance is evaluated. Other key elements of the Voinovich plan (S-1603) include: requiring agencies to put greater emphasis on career development training for employees, including broadened payments for academic degree training; allowing phased retirement for certain specialized positions; reducing the notice period before disciplinary action for employees with poor performance from 30 to 15 days, and requiring a General Accounting Office study of the disciplinary and termination process relating to federal employees with unacceptable performance. The bill also would establish a chief human capital officer in agencies.

White House to Tackle FECA Program

The Bush administration has said it will propose reforms in the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the program providing medical benefits and rehabilitation services to federal employees who are injured or become ill on the job -- and perhaps the employee benefit program that stirs the most contention. The administration�s budget proposal says the Labor Department Office of Workers Compensation Policy will continue efforts to review claimants periodically to determine if they still are unable to work, prevent overpayments to individuals and medical providers and review the appropriateness of medical services. That's an ongoing effort that the administration says has saved an estimated $500 million since 1992.

Other FECA Changes Proposed

The administration budget further proposes to: add an administrative surcharge to the amount billed to federal agencies for FECA compensation costs related to their employees, "bolstering their incentive to improve workplace safety;" amend FECA to move the waiting period for benefits to immediately following an injury, and apply it to all claims in line with state workers' compensation systems in order to "deter illegitimate claims;" and for future beneficiaries only, change the program so that individuals over age 65 receive the same benefits as are available under federal retirement programs. The budget says that because FECA benefits are tax-free, they are on average about 25 percent more generous than an individual could receive under retirement benefits, "possibly providing an incentive for individuals to remain on the FECA rolls past when they would otherwise have retired."

OPM Authority on Overtime Policies Affirmed

The Office of Personnel Management's policies on overtime eligibility for federal employees need not match rules issued by the Labor Department governing the private sector, the United States Court of Federal Claims has said in a case (No. 96-931) rejecting a back pay claim of supervisory border patrol agents who contended they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay eligibility. The employees contended that the OPM standards for exempting employees on grounds that they are executives conflicted with the comparable Labor standards and that the OPM rules therefore were invalid. But the court said OPM is empowered to administer the Fair Labor Standards Act as it applies to federal workers and that Congress did not require OPM�s rules to "precisely mimic" those issued by Labor. The court also said the issue was moot as it applied to the employees in the present case, saying they would be ineligible for over-time under either set of rules.

Guidance Issued on New Pay, Other Policies

The Office of Personnel Management has issued guidance on several changes in pay and leave administration policy contained in the fiscal 2002 Defense Department authorization act (P.L. 107-107). Affected policies include health benefits for federal employee Reservists called to active duty in support of contingency operations, eligibility of Reservists to take military leave for funeral honor duty, eligibility for hostile fire pay, payment of expenses to obtain professional credentials, changes in how salary studies are conducted for certain wage-grade employees, and changes in the biweekly and annual limitations on premium pay.

Standards for Alternative Approaches Issued

The Office of Personnel Management has defined the extent to which agencies with special personnel authorities still must comply with general government-wide personnel policies, such as the merit system principles. The guidance is timely because numerous agencies have been carved out of the general personnel law, called "Title 5," in recent years, giving them far greater discretion over issues including hiring, promotion, discipline and firing. The policy, called the "Standards for Agency HRM Accountability Systems under the Merit Systems Principles," also give OPM a framework for reviewing or assessing performance of those agencies. The policy does not cover the national security agencies, however.

Market-Based IT Pay Backed

The Chief Information Officers Council, a group of agency information technology chiefs, supports breaking IT personnel out of the general schedule and setting their pay according to market conditions, potentially through the use of pay banding. In a statement, the group said it also endorsed creating a stronger pay-for-performance link for those employees and said agencies need to do more to improve the balance of work and home life for IT employees. The idea might make its way soon into legislation, possibly sponsored by Rep. Tom Davis, R-VA., head of a House subcommittee on government technology, who has expressed support for the concept as well.

Unintended Consequences Department

One step already taken to address pay issues in the IT sector is starting to have unintended consequences, according to some employees in that category. Certain IT employees up to GS-12 last year were made eligible for special rate pay that in some cases boosted their salaries by a third or more. Now some of them are getting promotions to the GS-13 level, which doesn't have special rates-but because of policy that states that anyone promoted cannot suffer a decrease in salary, they effectively are getting to keep their special rate pay as GS-13s. That has spurred complaints from IT GS-13s who reached that level before the IT special rate pay kicked in; they point out that they are receiving lower salaries simply because of the timing of their promotions. The Office of Personnel Management has said it is aware of the issue but it is unclear what can or will be done about it.

FEHB Withholdings Issue Clarified

The Office of Personnel Management has sent out guidance to agencies on how to handle payroll withholdings for their employees in the CSRS-Offset retirement system who participate in the "premium conversion" arrangement in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, in which premiums are paid from pre-tax money. The issue relates to a change in the way retirement deductions are handled if those employees pass the maximum salary for Social Security deductions-which CSRS-Offset employees pay up to that limit, currently $84,900. OPM indicated that some payroll offices have been using incorrect procedures, resulting in employees being overpaid. In Benefits Administration Letter 02-304, OPM said it will not require those payroll offices to change their procedures before tax year 2003 but notes that that affected employees might have to be assessed a "catch-up" withholding when their basic pay reaches the Social Security deduction maximum.

By Phil Brown, FAI FACREP / AAL PR Focal / AAL NAATS NTSB Liaison  

NOME FSS --

The controllers at the Nome FSS are gearing up for Iditarod 2002. Iditarod means clear water and was named by the Shageluk Indians for the Iditarod River.

Today, the Iditarod is known as Alaska�s most famous sporting event, rich in its heritage and tradition. While the race officially commemorates the 1925 Serum Run to Nome, it is really a reconstruction of the freight route to Nome. The 1,150-mile dog Sled Race starts on Saturday, March 2nd. Competitors and spectators from around the world are expected to attend.

Our NAATS brothers and sisters at the Nome FSS are an important part of this celebrated event. The controllers of the Nome FSS have been providing excellent service to the flying public on a daily basis under somewhat less than desirable conditions. Recently a random test of the drinking water at the Nome FSS revealed elevated levels of lead and copper. Due to the tenacious manner in which the Nome FACREP, Margaret Ames, and other NAATS brothers and sisters pursued this issue; the FAA agreed to pay for blood tests for all of our Nome controllers. Thank goodness, all of the tests were normal. Nome FSS, however, still has only non-potable water running through the pipes. Margaret Ames fears that this problem may be common to many of the old FAA buildings throughout the Alaska region and urges similar testing to ensure the safety of our Union brothers and sisters.

Northway FSS --

"Change two to change three!" Situation normal...all fouled up (SNAFU). The FAA�s budget debacle is taking its toll on the Northway FSS. We have gone from one extreme to the other now. Our facility that was going to open March 1st with four controllers has now had the opening postponed until May 1st with only three controllers. There are also rumors of a "contingency" plan looming in the shadows that may preclude Northway from opening at all this year if the budget does not improve! Obviously, the uncertainty of it all is very unsettling to our broth-ers and sisters already assigned to the detail.

Fairbanks AFSS --

The NAATS membership at the Fairbanks AFSS is a strong 92%. We are not 100% Union yet but we can see it coming! The FAA�s budget fiasco continues to be our major concern. A budget contingency plan still looms over the Fairbanks AFSS Hub. As of this date, management has still not shared "all" the details with us but we believe their contingency plan includes not opening our seasonal facility at Northway and reducing hours at Deadhorse FSS, Barrow FSS and Kotzebue FSS. While these ideas may save money, the political fallout may be crushing and hopefully more than the FAA can stand. In a state where most areas are only accessible by air, cutbacks of this type are simply unacceptable to the flying public. We are launching a letter writing campaign to ensure that all those affected by these extreme proposed measures are well informed. We are also asking that they relay their concerns to their appropriate political representatives.

Grievances & ULP�s --

Management sustained our previously mentioned grievance regarding the mandatory use of government credit cards. We filed another grievance this week regarding jury duty leave. FAI management has unilaterally imposed a new rule requiring all hub employees to work an admin schedule when assigned jury duty. Clearly, this unilateral act is a violation of Articles 9, 21 and 28 of the Union contract. As a resolution, we have asked for a cease and desist order, an order of status quo ante and for the FLRA (or NAATS personnel designated by the Union) to conduct remedial LMR training for all FAI AFSS management personnel. We have also asked that the FAA pay for any related travel expenses. If you need more information on any of these grievances please feel free to contact Phil Brown at FAI.