Justin Dailey for NATCA President

[blarg]

I'm not trying to call you out or go aggro on you, blarg , I'm just using your comment to say it loudly and clearly enough for everyone to understand:

The June length of service raise is inadequate even when evaluated solely as a length of service raise.

The 1.6% length of service raise in June was meant to solve BUEs never needing to deal with the performance reviews and “Within Grade Increases" (WGIs) like the rest of the federal workforce, but the length of service raises have never been close to comparable to that system. It takes a “standard” federal employee approximately 17 years to start at Step 1 of their pay band and progress to the top at Step 10 (IIRC it's 1 step per year for steps 2-4, then 2 years per step for 5-7, then 3 years for 8-10). This 17 year timeline does not include “Quality Step Increases" (QSIs) which are awarded frequently and shortens that 17 year timeline substantially for a federal employee: a single QSI can shorten their timeline by 3 years, multiple QSIs for an employee are not uncommon, and QSIs do not negate/reset the normal progression timer of WGIs. It is not uncommon for a federal employee to be at the top of their pay band in less than 10 years due to QSIs stacking on top of WGIs. You can search federal employee reddit threads and see for yourself the amount of people that get blessed with their 2nd/3rd/4th QSI in conjunction with their normal WGI; if they get a WGI to step 9 along with a QSI to step 10, that's roughly 7 of our June raises in one go.

Our annual 1.6% “length of service” raise means that it takes us almost 19 years only when in the same pay band. Unless you are able to luck into the enroute “golden ticket” at the beginning of your career, you are doomed to spend - at minimum - several years climbing facility levels until you get to your final facility. And it isn’t until you are at your final facility when that 19 year timer starts; that effectively guarantees you will never see the top of your pay band in your career. NATCA needs to be negotiating for those that don’t win the facility level lottery in year one.

The June raise needs to be 2.5% at minimum, but optimally it should be higher (closer to ~3.2% in my opinion). At 2.5% it would still take approximately 13 years in the same pay band to reach the top; that barely beats a “standard” federal employee who never sees a QSI in their career (which is uncommon). My personal preference at 3.2% puts that timeline closer to 10 years. Most BUEs in the terminal track are defined by when they can transfer from their first facility, and usually there is at least one middle facility before they reach their “dream facility.” A 10 year progression timeline helps to account for those where transfers may disrupt the first half of someone’s career progression.

Another possible solution could be to track the length of service raises on the SF50 somehow and make them raises that don't reset upon facility transfer; it becomes a length of service raise with the agency and not the facility. With that kind of a mechanism, a 2.5% raise would seem more reasonable/acceptable at the negotiating table; a faster than average progression should still be fought for by NATCA since controllers face the earlier retirement age.

I wouldn't take it that way at all. Great detailed explanation about the length of service raise. And even if it was as high as you suggest, which I agree with entirely, it still shouldn't be considered with respect to inflation adjustments. Jan raise AND June raises should be substantially more. Or at least the 1.6% increases should be preserved across any kind of transfer/training change that might happen along the way.

 

[32andBelow]

I wouldn't take it that way at all. Great detailed explanation about the length of service raise. And even if it was as high as you suggest, which I agree with entirely, it still shouldn't be considered with respect to inflation adjustments. Jan raise AND June raises should be substantially more. Or at least the 1.6% increases should be preserved across any kind of transfer/training change that might happen along the way.

This is an easy fix for the next contract regardless of raises. We need a series of lanes and steps. Like d2 you’d move to the next lane but you’d keep all your steps. Same with when you transfer. Basically as you moved into higher lanes you will move down steps so you never lose your raises. Idk if that makes sense.

Most school districts have what's known as a “step and lane” salary schedule for teachers. These grids specify how much raises are worth. Teachers earn a “step” increase for each additional year of experience, with many teachers peaking with the highest “step” at around age 55.

 

[Nothanks]

Real question. When Santa and Mick get voted out and JD and Redmond drain the swamp…what happens to them? Do they just go back to controlling?

Santa retires. 100%
Mick- not sure, doesn’t really matter though. Being a controller is much less work and less stressful then all those national neb positions. F that shit

I don’t know how JD can win without ever having to had sign his name to any document he negotiated. Going from that to trying to navigate a contract negotiation? I’ll wait to hear how he sways me to have confidence in him, other than he’s an “outsider”

 

[GroundClutter]

I'll say it again. Including the 1.6% in your consideration of "keeping up with inflation" is wrong. The federal raises in Jan should be what keeps us up with inflation. Mid-year is a length of service raise, which means you are getting paid more because you're a more experienced, valuable employee. Not barely keeping up with costs. What about anyone with more than 18-20 years when they hit the top of the pay band? They don't get those any more. They aren't keeping up with inflation.

All the more reason that you shouldn't lose them as you progress through training.

 

[DocHolliday39]

Really been enjoying this thread. Pay definitely needs to be addressed in the CBA. The fact that you lose your “NATCA raises” when you transfer to a higher level facility is fucking clown shoes.

Consider this. I’ve been at my level 5 facility for a decade. And my newest CPC just got rated a month ago. We both put in for a level 9. We both get accepted to the same facility, in the same NCEPT. We both get certified at the same time at our new level 9 facility. Now we make exactly the same amount. My time in the agency means nothing. All those 1.6% raises mean nothing. I just go to the bottom of the pay scale.

“But you get a pay raise”. That’s why NATCA national says.

 

[32andBelow]

Really been enjoying this thread. Pay definitely needs to be addressed in the CBA. The fact that you lose your “NATCA raises” when you transfer to a higher level facility is fucking clown shoes.

Consider this. I’ve been at my level 5 facility for a decade. And my newest CPC just got rated a month ago. We both put in for a level 9. We both get accepted to the same facility, in the same NCEPT. We both get certified at the same time at our new level 9 facility. Now we make exactly the same amount. My time in the agency means nothing. All those 1.6% raises mean nothing. I just go to the bottom of the pay scale.

“But you get a pay raise”. That’s why NATCA national says.

And the 2 year cpc at the 9 makes more than you 💀

 

[DocHolliday39]

Here’s how dumb NCEPT is and not for the reasons most of you think. NCEPT fucks the smaller facilities. Here’s how.

Let’s say my facilities 100% CPC is 10. That means at 9, we can release. At 8 we are at 80% which means we are below 85% and we can’t release.

So at 9 CPC’s, we can release. The NCEPT panel convenes and they transfer one of my BUE’s. NCEPT then declares that my facility cannot release anymore (because we are now at . This is correct.

The next fucking day, that BUE that got picked up on NCEPT is still on our books. Still counted on the PPT as staffing. So when the next NCEPT convenes… the same fucking BUE is still on our staffing workbook. So NCEPT says that our facility can still release. So another BUE gets picked up.

So instead of being “one in and one out” my facility is down to 7 CPC’s. All because the NCEPT board won’t agree to remove a BUE that’s been picked up from the current CPC numbers. Hence the fucking.

That doesn’t include the FLM removals from our boards. HR does that in the staffing workbook. Not us. So again, we get screwed. And then instead of the academy just sending us a steady slate of new BUE’s, let’s say 1 every 6 months, they see that we are 60% staffed now because of a FLM bid and 2 NCEPT fuckings… so they send us 5 trainees at the same time. So now we have to train 5 trainees with a 60% CPC staffing ratio.

I’ve sent these suggestions to the NCEPT reps and to the EVP himself. They didn’t wanna hear about it. NCEPT is perfect in their eyes. They moved 80 bodies last NCEPT. YAYYYY 🎉🥳

And the 2 year cpc at the 9 makes more than you 💀

Facts!!!

 

[32andBelow]

Also the reverse is that if you go from a 12 to a 10 you just get to be capped out for the rest of your career. Make it make sense

 

[ajmezz]

If you think having fairly consistent releases (basically a revolving door) is you being fucked by ncept, you really don’t understand the process as much as you think you do.

 

[DocHolliday39]

If you think having fairly consistent releases (basically a revolving door) is you being fucked by ncept, you really don’t understand the process as much as you think you do.

2 releases every 3 years or so is a “revolving door” ? Interesting.

 

[mattey22]

Here’s how dumb NCEPT is and not for the reasons most of you think. NCEPT fucks the smaller facilities. Here’s how.

Let’s say my facilities 100% CPC is 10. That means at 9, we can release. At 8 we are at 80% which means we are below 85% and we can’t release.

So at 9 CPC’s, we can release. The NCEPT panel convenes and they transfer one of my BUE’s. NCEPT then declares that my facility cannot release anymore (because we are now at . This is correct.

The next fucking day, that BUE that got picked up on NCEPT is still on our books. Still counted on the PPT as staffing. So when the next NCEPT convenes… the same fucking BUE is still on our staffing workbook. So NCEPT says that our facility can still release. So another BUE gets picked up.

So instead of being “one in and one out” my facility is down to 7 CPC’s. All because the NCEPT board won’t agree to remove a BUE that’s been picked up from the current CPC numbers. Hence the fucking.

That doesn’t include the FLM removals from our boards. HR does that in the staffing workbook. Not us. So again, we get screwed. And then instead of the academy just sending us a steady slate of new BUE’s, let’s say 1 every 6 months, they see that we are 60% staffed now because of a FLM bid and 2 NCEPT fuckings… so they send us 5 trainees at the same time. So now we have to train 5 trainees with a 60% CPC staffing ratio.

I’ve sent these suggestions to the NCEPT reps and to the EVP himself. They didn’t wanna hear about it. NCEPT is perfect in their eyes. They moved 80 bodies last NCEPT. YAYYYY 🎉🥳


Facts!!!

I thought that changed but could be completely wrong

 

[abc1234]

Real question. When Santa and Mick get voted out and JD and Redmond drain the swamp…what happens to them? Do they just go back to controlling?

you know what happens-

They collect their federal pension, supplement, and cash out the hundreds of hours of leave over the max that they've magically approved themselves to carry over. They then start a consulting company and collect $300k a year.

 

[ajmezz]

2 releases every 3 years or so is a “revolving door” ? Interesting.

While being inundated with 5 trainees (reference your scenario) sucks, if you’re at a facility with a cpc number of 10 and can only release 2 every 3 years, it might be worth looking at your facility training as a whole. As an example. I’m at a facility with a cpc number of 11. We have released 9 and eligible to release 2 more next panel, pending certifications, in the little over 3 years I’ve been here. So again, maybe it’s internal if you’re receiving trainees and only able to release 2 every 3 years.

Also the ATM controls the staffing work book for each facility, not HR or the ncept board. If that information is incorrect, it is up to your ATM to fix and your rep needs to ensure it’s showing correctly. The staffing work book is what comprises the PPT, which is what HR/NCEPT utilizes and there are many categories/columns to calculate your staffing % and overall needs. People turn down selections every panel, so until they’re officially out the door, they won’t show off the books, but if the SWB is updated accordingly (once they officially have a TOL/FOL), they will affect your projected % due to being shown as an outbound. If you have projected inbounds or trainees, that also slightly affects it depending on success rate, training time, etc which could lead to an additional release, as they’re expected to be counted as staffing.

 

[KP-ATC]

Really been enjoying this thread. Pay definitely needs to be addressed in the CBA. The fact that you lose your “NATCA raises” when you transfer to a higher level facility is fucking clown shoes.

Consider this. I’ve been at my level 5 facility for a decade. And my newest CPC just got rated a month ago. We both put in for a level 9. We both get accepted to the same facility, in the same NCEPT. We both get certified at the same time at our new level 9 facility. Now we make exactly the same amount. My time in the agency means nothing. All those 1.6% raises mean nothing. I just go to the bottom of the pay scale.

“But you get a pay raise”. That’s why NATCA national says.

Not disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate...
If someone works their career at a level 5, then to pump up their high three they bid to a 12 after they are ~52 years old - should they go to the top of the 12 band? Just the same as someone who spent their career at a 12?

 

[Logical_Mongoose]

Not disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate...
If someone works their career at a level 5, then to pump up their high three they bid to a 12 after they are ~52 years old - should they go to the top of the 12 band? Just the same as someone who spent their career at a 12?

YES.

Opponents will always fabricate every anecdotal Kobayashi Maru scenario they possibly can to cut the argument at its knees, no matter how valid it may be. NATCA's job is to channel their inner Henry Hill and say "fuck you, pay me" and then show the facts that X amount of transfers occured by Y amount of controllers with Z amount of years in the agency and the current policy has been screwing them over.

It is, or it should be, NATCA's job to look out for all BUEs; it's the agency's job to look after the "high 3 scammers" that apparently inundate every level 11 and 12 facility across the nation.

Anecdote: in my 2 short years so far at my 12, we've had well over 60 trainees come (including all sources: AGs, transfers, and OS hires) and only one person comes somewhat close to the "high 3 scammer" criteria.

 

[Periculant]

Not disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate...
If someone works their career at a level 5, then to pump up their high three they bid to a 12 after they are ~52 years old - should they go to the top of the 12 band? Just the same as someone who spent their career at a 12?

Should probably have something like a "raise retention" after you have NCEPT paperwork on file. If you tried to get to a level 12 your whole career I would answer YES to your question. If they are trying to game the system by working 20 years at a 5 and then go to a 12 that wouldn't necessarily be fair. So the moment you have NECPT paperwork in you retain your annual raise. If you get selected on an NCEPT panel and turn down the job the "raise retention" would reset.

 

[32andBelow]

Not disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate...
If someone works their career at a level 5, then to pump up their high three they bid to a 12 after they are ~52 years old - should they go to the top of the 12 band? Just the same as someone who spent their career at a 12?

Yah why not. You still have seniority over those people. I can’t think of many places where you’d have seniority but make way less than the people below you

 

[DocHolliday39]

If you think having fairly consistent releases (basically a revolving door) is you being fucked by ncept, you really don’t understand the process as much as you think you do.

2 releases every 3 years or so is a “revolving door” ?

Not disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate...
If someone works their career at a level 5, then to pump up their high three they bid to a 12 after they are ~52 years old - should they go to the top of the 12 band? Just the same as someone who spent their career at a 12?

ive thought about it quite a bit. I don’t think they should go to the top of the pay band nor do I think their years in the agency should account for nothing.

My thought was something like carrying your exact raise amount over. For instance. My level 5 bottom of the band is 78. I’ve been there awhile so my base pay is 96. If I got accepted to say to a level 12 with a base of 150… you’d add the 18 I’ve made in NATCA raises to that. So my pay would be 168. The top is 204.

It’s not perfect and there are things that would need to be worked on… but I feel like it would at least be a start in the right direction. For my particular scenario.

 

[N737ER]

ive thought about it quite a bit. I don’t think they should go to the top of the pay band nor do I think their years in the agency should account for nothing.

My thought was something like carrying your exact raise amount over. For instance. My level 5 bottom of the band is 78. I’ve been there awhile so my base pay is 96. If I got accepted to say to a level 12 with a base of 150… you’d add the 18 I’ve made in NATCA raises to that. So my pay would be 168. The top is 204.

It’s not perfect and there are things that would need to be worked on… but I feel like it would at least be a start in the right direction. For my particular scenario.

Unfortunately it requires some math but how about this, using your example (RUS Base Pay):
Current 5 - Bottom: 78.9 Top: 106.6. Current: 96.0, which is 61.7% of the way through the level 5 band.
Transfer 12 - Bottom: 149.6 Top: 201.9. At 61.7% through the band you'd get 181.9 (plus whatever 1.6% raises happen while training at the 12)

This way after a transfer you go to the spot in the new band as though you've been there your whole career. Topped out at a 5 already, then you'll top out at the 12 when you CPC, which leads to this:

Not disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate...
If someone works their career at a level 5, then to pump up their high three they bid to a 12 after they are ~52 years old - should they go to the top of the 12 band? Just the same as someone who spent their career at a 12?

I know this methods has flaws as well. It doesn't address the above issue. However, I'd (personally) keep in mind that the career 5 transfer over their entire career has made boatloads less than the career 12 CPC has and if one stays put it takes 19 or 20 years to progress completely through the salary band. Are we really hurt that the 20yr level 5 CPC transfer is going to make more than a 10yr level 12 CPC? In the areas I've been in when we get a transfer in the first question everybody asks is "Whats their seniority date" which inevietably leads to "who do they fall in front of/behind" in the list. It's never been about pay, it's been about seniority

I realize another flaw with my system is that it hurts people transferring down levels more than the curent system does. It's certainly not perfect, but how do we get to a system that will please everyone well enough to be deemed acceptable?

 

[Nothanks]

Here we are. Back to ncept. Off topic from the thread of JD for president. He was posting a whole lot before he announced, making memes, AI art. Now this thread has returned to the same old echo chamber of .65. Why hasn’t he weighed in on anything in here ?


Go to an ncept thread to discuss ncept. Stay on topic for once.