|
NAATS CONVENTION April 22-23, 2003 Closing Remarks You�ve heard many conscientious and hardworking representatives discuss their particular areas of responsibility. That�s the great edge we have, devoted people who work tirelessly on behalf of our membership. The agency can�t match that level of dedication. But we all know it�s not a level playing field. All the other advantages belong to the FAA. We can�t do anything about that, especially with this Congress. It�s just the game we�re in and we have to make the best of it. That�s why it�s necessary to have unions; to provide support and to become involved in union activities. As union representatives our obligation is to remain responsive to the membership and make every effort to achieve membership goals. I want to recognize the efforts of this Board of Directors. More than any other I�ve been a part of they�ve had difficult issues to address. They�ve done so with admirable foresight and plain hard work. They have my admiration. We have to develop more members for leadership roles in our union. I don�t for a moment buy into the theory that we have anyone that NAATS can�t replace; my experience is that someone always steps up. But we can reduce the learning curve as well as inject new ideas into NAATS by allowing more members to participate. An ideal blend is one that has experience with new ideas. The Board has that makeup but there�s much more work to do and room for all to contribute. We have to take maximum advantage of our resources. We should stop and examine some of our gains. As recently as 11 years ago we never met with AT-1 or even ALR-1. We depended entirely on contract help for our arbitrations, national negotiations and congressional relations. A significant part of the BOD was out of the loop on national affairs and we didn�t even know what a liaison program was. The effect of the above was that we never met directly with the FAA managers who made the national decisions that affected us. We were dissatisfied with the number of arbitrations we conducted in enforcing our contract as well as the agreements we negotiated with the FAA. We really had no idea what our congressional liaisons were doing, if anything. Some of the Directors had no idea about what national decisions were made on behalf of our union until after the fact. We missed many opportunities at FAA HQ to influence programs at the pre-decisional stages. Contrast that to now. We meet regularly with AT-1, ATS-1 and the FAA Administrator. We conduct our own arbitrations, negotiations and congressional relations. All of the BOD is knowledgeable of and, has input into, our national affairs. Our liaison and technical representative programs are resounding successes. We should congratulate ourselves on this evolution that has placed Flight Service people in different job functions. In my opinion we have better products for the membership in every area I�ve mentioned. No one will work as hard for us as we will ourselves. Bottom line - We�re far better structured to meet challenges than we have been in the past and this evolution is on going. It�s a good thing we�ve done this. Never before have we faced the crises we have now in Flight Service. We in NAATS share all the general concerns with the other federal workers but we also have specific ones to FSS. Staffing, pay, A76 all combine to make this our most challenging time in my career. If we restrict ourselves to traditional methods, there�s no light at the end of the tunnel on the pay impasse. Lawsuits, EEO complaints, and ULP's will not give us comparability. No one on either side of the aisle in Congress wants to intervene in a pay dispute between the FAA and one of its unions. There is the possibility of legislation inserting the FSIP as the final arbiter but that has to track a torturous process to become law. Even then, the current makeup of the FSIP and its rulings so far do not give us great cause for optimism for the adoption of our proposals. Administratively, the FAA has chosen to value us less than the other air traffic controllers. Right or wrong, the personnel reform legislation allows them to do this. Sometime back we made an informed decision to adopt comparability. We further stated that we would go to the mat for this concept. Today, we find that we�ve done that with the issue still unresolved. Neither do we have the choice of
staying GS-12s while the FAA converts all other employees to core. Ultimately
they can act unilaterally when they make the decision to do so. We have value of our own that we need to emphasize and enhance. We can either stick our heads in the sand and complain about our situation or... We can act innovatively and have a say in what our future will be. There is an opportunity here if we�re astute enough to act on it. Currently there are both reauthorization and appropriations hearings being conducted for the FAA. A consistent theme of these hearings is that the FAA must become a performance-based organization. Industry, generally recognized as AOPA, has repeatedly stated that Flight Service needs to streamline and modernize. We should embrace the available technology and direct our future to ensure our viability. This requires some hard decisions that are not going to be universally popular but they are necessary nonetheless. We can use all these calls for consolidation to our advantage by requiring the FAA to:
We have initiated alternative A76 discussions with senior FAA managers to achieve these goals. They are initially receptive but the devil will be in the details. Again, we cannot change the hand we�re dealt. We can either have it done to us or we can influence these developments and make them work for us. Clearly the latter is the better choice. Our commitment to you is to approach these tasks with tireless energy, foresight and the best interests of our membership and option at heart. If anyone wants to talk to me I�ll be around this evening. Thanks for coming and have a safe trip home. Wally Pike |