2018 Convention

GulfBravoPapa said:
I am amused by the one that offers to let people quit the local union but stay in the national union...
Click to expand...

I’m on the fence about that one, but it’s a good way to get some national attention to a poor local. And as soon as the person is replaced, their funds revert back to the local.
 
How would one go about proposing an amendment to the ERR MOU that people at below staffing min facilities can submit ERR's after 5 years of post-certification time at a facility? Or saying the union should pursue something like that?
 
DankVectorz said:
How would one go about proposing an amendment to the ERR MOU that people at below staffing min facilities can submit ERR's after 5 years of post-certification time at a facility? Or saying the union should pursue something like that?
Click to expand...

5 years seems long. 3 years would be a happy medium.
 
corn4ahead said:
5 years seems long. 3 years would be a happy medium.
Click to expand...

5 years is a lot shorter than forever. I'm fine with doing my time and training a couple replacements, but let me see a light at the end of the tunnel or they can watch my motivation wither and die.
 
5 years post certification does sound fair assuming that person becomes an OJTI and does their part in training a replacement, or at least putting in the amount of OJT hours other put into them.

It is certainly shorter then The ‘facility of preference’ article in the contract, which I believe is 15 years.

3 years isn’t too much unless you are talking places you checkout in like 6 months I suppose.
 
DankVectorz said:
How would one go about proposing an amendment to the ERR MOU that people at below staffing min facilities can submit ERR's after 5 years of post-certification time at a facility? Or saying the union should pursue something like that?
Click to expand...
Dolan alluded to it, but all these amendments are to the NATCA national constitution. We don't have the authority to change an MOU/Contract without agency involvement.

The deadline has passed for proposed amendments, but you can see if they would take an untimely amendment.

You would need to find an applicable section of the NATCA National Constitution and create an additional bullet point stating that NATCA should pursue x. Even then the National Constitution Committee might kick it back and say it's not applicable to the constitution.

As with any amendment, you need to make it as air tight as possible or it will get picked apart on stage. Like with a 5 year rule. What happens when everyone at N90 with 5+ years experience bids out, how are selections determined, etc.
 
Any insight on the likelihood of the Computed Service Date amendment passing? I would think that would have major impacts on seniority across the board. Anyone have any data on what percentage of controllers are prior-service?
 
Couldn’t change the ERR MOU directly. It would need to be something like “require a majority vote before agreeing to significant changes... yada yada yada”

Huntin_GI said:
Any insight on the likelihood of the Computed Service Date amendment passing? I would think that would have major impacts on seniority across the board. Anyone have any data on what percentage of controllers are prior-service?
Click to expand...

Yeah it would. CSD would be a poor reference point for military service though. Anyone with any federal service would have a longer SCD.
 
Huntin_GI said:
Any insight on the likelihood of the Computed Service Date amendment passing? I would think that would have major impacts on seniority across the board. Anyone have any data on what percentage of controllers are prior-service?
Click to expand...

Historically it appears that very few if any of the seniority amendments have passed.

Last convention had several from counting military time, to counting time in the academy, to how permananet supervisor time should be redone when returning to the bargaining unit and not one went anywhere.

Seniority for the most part is pretty black and white. The only ‘grey’ to some people is the time people get when they were at a contract tower before being hired that wasn’t represented by NATCA when they were there. Then that tower later becomes represented by NATCA and they get that time. That one bothers some people, but most of the time, it isn’t a lot of time added since most people just did contract for a short stint before getting picked up by the FAA.

However, as the demographics and seniority of the union change, you never know what could happen at a convention.
 
Huntin_GI said:
Any insight on the likelihood of the Computed Service Date amendment passing? I would think that would have major impacts on seniority across the board. Anyone have any data on what percentage of controllers are prior-service?
Click to expand...
0% chance. I'd expect it to be withdrawn before ever hitting a voice vote. Every convention there are numerous seniority amendments that the ones that actually have merit are drowned out.

There are numerous things wrong with the current seniority system (different bargaining unit dates depending on which region you started at, different dates depending on if you started at the academy at RTF (pass/pass), different dates if your contract tower was represented by NATCA, etc.)
Unfortunately, there was an amendment last convention to have a universal seniority date (day you started at the academy or at your first facility if you were a direct hire), but there were so many seniority amendments that it just got lumped into the rest and discarded.
 
jdatc said:
Historically it appears that very few if any of the seniority amendments have passed.

Last convention had several from counting military time, to counting time in the academy, to how permananet supervisor time should be redone when returning to the bargaining unit and not one went anywhere.

Seniority for the most part is pretty black and white. The only ‘grey’ to some people is the time people get when they were at a contract tower before being hired that wasn’t represented by NATCA when they were there. Then that tower later becomes represented by NATCA and they get that time. That one bothers some people, but most of the time, it isn’t a lot of time added since most people just did contract for a short stint before getting picked up by the FAA.

However, as the demographics and seniority of the union change, you never know what could happen at a convention.
Click to expand...
That’s why I wonder why the hate for adding military time.

Example being people getting angry last time this came up that we’re CTI or OTS that had been in the agency since say 2013.

Adding military time for someone that had been controlling for 5 years before that would push them ahead in seniority.

Shouldnt it? I personally got tired of people with a couple more months “seniority” in the agency looking down on me as if they were more experienced, when in reality I had been in the field 6 years longer than them.

I get that FAA and military are different, but it’s still experience so why not count it
 
CaptainObvious said:
That’s why I wonder why the hate for adding military time.

Example being people getting angry last time this came up that we’re CTI or OTS that had been in the agency since say 2013.

Adding military time for someone that had been controlling for 5 years before that would push them ahead in seniority.

Shouldnt it? I personally got tired of people with a couple more months “seniority” in the agency looking down on me as if they were more experienced, when in reality I had been in the field 6 years longer than them.

I get that FAA and military are different, but it’s still experience so why not count it
Click to expand...
Just plain military time doesn't equate to being in the ATC field. There are tons of vets who were infantry, desk jockeys, missile techs, and even people who went to military academies that didnt even graduate or fulfill and actual military service that could bump them many years of seniority. I'm a vet but I was a guard bum so only my deployed time counts toward my SCD, so I am personally against it.
 
CaptainObvious said:
That’s why I wonder why the hate for adding military time.

Example being people getting angry last time this came up that we’re CTI or OTS that had been in the agency since say 2013.

Adding military time for someone that had been controlling for 5 years before that would push them ahead in seniority.

Shouldnt it? I personally got tired of people with a couple more months “seniority” in the agency looking down on me as if they were more experienced, when in reality I had been in the field 6 years longer than them.

I get that FAA and military are different, but it’s still experience so why not count it
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the old experience should count argument..::

Then why not add all of contract tower time, as those people were controllers too the whole time?

Then why not add people’s time who went to advanced ATC or CCBC and earned CTO’s

What about flight service personnel? Are they controllers when you factor in Airport Advisory service?

How about a step further, we do seniority based on the level of facility you worked at. A guy who spent 5 years at a 12, gets more points then a guy who spent 10 years at a 5? I mean, on a bid, that’s how they do ranking right? Add points for degrees, aviation ratings, correspondence courses,time off awards received?

It becomes madness.

NATCA seniority should be NATCA seniority period.
 

Similar threads

E
Airlines, Airlines for America (A4A) Members Abandon Push for Privatization
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
NovemberOscar
N
F
2023 NATCA Convention
Replies
1
Views
1K
FightingIrish2012
F
G
2023 Convention Amendments
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
8K
Seeyoufly
S
GulfCharlie
Serious Abolishment of Section 804 through N90->EWR
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
I.DO.VEHCTAHS
I
GulfCharlie
In the interest of National Security
6 7 8
Replies
158
Views
9K
Raise when?
Raise when?
Back
Top Bottom