2024 NATCA Election & The Purple and Light Blue CBAs

[echster]

Attached is what I referenced in my earlier post. As you can see from the right-side column, this CBA is a lot of no change; incorporating a technical correction; updating language/reference; or incorporating Article number and/or language from the Slate Book.

For almost all Lines of Business/Work Groups covered by this CBA, they neither gained nor lost a single thing as a result of this negotiation.

Basically... this is giving folks a 1.5% ratification bonus that is not applied to basic or base pay and is completely and totally f*cking useless as it relates to High-3 to keep what they already have.

And NATCA is claiming a "win" over keeping the 1.6% raise in June... a 1.6% raise that is still significantly less than the raises provided by step increases under the GS scale (3.0-3.3%). And NATCA did nothing to compress either 1) the Core Comp pay scale or 2) the time required to get from the bottom to the top of the Core Comp pay scale. The pay scale is significantly wider than the GS scale... which requires 5-7 years longer than a GS scale employee to go from bottom of the band to top of the band.

With friends like NATCA... I'd rather be under the GS scale and Title 5 than have NATCA advocate pay and benefits on my behalf.

But you get a 2000 dollar bonus that doesn’t help your retirement and doesn’t compound

It's worse... one has to make roughly $134k to get $2k as a ratification bonus. While many Support Specialists (MSS-1) make this, very few Region X employees (Core Comp) get paid this.

 

[Liveatc123]

Can the Trump administration remove telework completely even though theres “strong” language in the CBA regarding telework?

 

[echster]

Can the Trump administration remove telework completely even though theres “strong” language in the CBA regarding telework?

My two cents: There actually isn't "strong" language in the CBA regarding telework.

The CBA provides the parties with criteria to apply for telework agreements (Art 68, Sec 8). But the CBA also provides procedures for modifying (including agency-initiated modification), denying, and terminating telework agreements (Art 68, Sec 9).

This criteria in Sec 8 is large enough to drive a Mac truck through: "The request would not have an adverse impact on any Agency operation or the mission of the FAA, including customer service and team productivity[.]"

If any Administration (not just the Trump Administration) says telework has an adverse impact on the Agency and orders the Administrator to terminate all telework agreements, then telework agreements are going to get terminated. At the end of the day, if that happens, you have to immediately comply and then grieve any telework agreement termination lest they fire you for insubordination or failure to show up for work (AWOL).

 

[Logical_Mongoose]

My two cents: There actually isn't "strong" language in the CBA regarding telework.

The CBA provides the parties with criteria to apply for telework agreements (Art 68, Sec 8). But the CBA also provides procedures for modifying (including agency-initiated modification), denying, and terminating telework agreements (Art 68, Sec 9).

This criteria in Sec 8 is large enough to drive a Mac truck through: "The request would not have an adverse impact on any Agency operation or the mission of the FAA, including customer service and team productivity[.]"

If any Administration (not just the Trump Administration) says telework has an adverse impact on the Agency and orders the Administrator to terminate all telework agreements, then telework agreements are going to get terminated. At the end of the day, if that happens, you have to immediately comply and then grieve any telework agreement termination lest they fire you for insubordination or failure to show up for work (AWOL).

This is why this proposed CBA is absolute bullshit.

Practically all "gains" are just bringing guidelines up to the standard metrics of being a federal employee, whilst baking in the ability for the agency to rug-pull on whatever they deem "adverse" down the line.

This is a defacto extension and to think they spent 9 months "negotiating" this shows how inept the NATCA negotiating team is; especially with how they have purposefully kept us in the dark about it all along the way.

Vote it down and go to arbitration. Succeed or die on your feet while fighting, you cowards.

 

[32andBelow]

This is why this proposed CBA is absolute bullshit.

Practically all "gains" are just bringing guidelines up to the standard metrics of being a federal employee, whilst baking in the ability for the agency to rug-pull on whatever they deem "adverse" down the line.

This is a defacto extension and to think they spent 9 months "negotiating" this shows how inept the NATCA negotiating team is; especially with how they have purposefully kept us in the dark about it all along the way.

Vote it down and go to arbitration. Succeed or die on your feet while fighting, you cowards.

Maybe the strategy of sending BUEs instead of an army of lawyers and dawgs isn’t best

 

[echster]

I wish I could share something here but I do prefer to maintain some anonymity.

The hard-selling and outright begging for these members to ratify this trash agreement is on-going. It's basically "ratify or Trump" but no one is willing to admit they spent 9 months basically negotiating the status quo. These idiots should have spent 3 months negotiating the status quo and 6 months arbitrating for what members really want.

 

[Termine]

ratify this trash agreement

Question, what's the actual outcome if the members vote down the agreement? The agreement is between the Agency leads and the NATCA elected brass, not between the Agency leads and the members directly. Yeah our internal NATCA constitution says that we vote on the agreement, but does that vote actually mean anything? Legally speaking?

 

[Gauff]

Question, what's the actual outcome if the members vote down the agreement? The agreement is between the Agency leads and the NATCA elected brass, not between the Agency leads and the members directly. Yeah our internal NATCA constitution says that we vote on the agreement, but does that vote actually mean anything? Legally speaking?

Haven't read the constitution but if it's like a normal union the members are voting to ratify the cba.

If our vote is more of just a show and NATCA can do what they want regardless of say 90% of members voting no, then NATCA would have pretty much solidified that they are just an extension of management and should be de-certified as a union.

 

[32andBelow]

unions have to ratify their own contracts.

 

[RadarRick]

Since the Slate Book, NATCA likes to 'gain', or celebrate, language that is actually being applied to all Federal Employees, and then tout it as some kind of huge win. I challenge someone to show us something that NATCA has negotiated in the last decade that is better than what every other Federal Employee already gets. I dont think you can find it.

Thats if they even manage to get us what every other federal employee gets. Remember when they forget about us for PPL?

This contract doesnt move us forward in any way. Hopefully it gets voted down

 

[echster]

Question, what's the actual outcome if the members vote down the agreement? The agreement is between the Agency leads and the NATCA elected brass, not between the Agency leads and the members directly. Yeah our internal NATCA constitution says that we vote on the agreement, but does that vote actually mean anything? Legally speaking?h

I would also like to know what happens if a contract isn't ratified. I'd like to think someone at NATCA National (or someone negotiating on NATCA's behalf) would actually speak to members to ask them what they wanted in a re-negotiated contract. In case you're wondering, no one with NATCA asked members what they were looking for before starting negotiations.... except for some (not all) of the reps for these employees. This has been very top-down with little to no communication to the plebes of the union.

Anyways... the ratification vote is open December 10th-17th.

 

[32andBelow]

I would also like to know what happens if a contract isn't ratified. I'd like to think someone at NATCA National (or someone negotiating on NATCA's behalf) would actually speak to members to ask them what they wanted in a re-negotiated contract. In case you're wondering, no one with NATCA asked members what they were looking for before starting negotiations.... except for some (not all) of the reps for these employees. This has been very top-down with little to no communication to the plebes of the union.

Anyways... the ratification vote is open December 10th-17th.

Negotiate again or go to impasse

 

[FightingIrish2012]

This is why this proposed CBA is absolute bullshit.

Practically all "gains" are just bringing guidelines up to the standard metrics of being a federal employee, whilst baking in the ability for the agency to rug-pull on whatever they deem "adverse" down the line.

This is a defacto extension and to think they spent 9 months "negotiating" this shows how inept the NATCA negotiating team is; especially with how they have purposefully kept us in the dark about it all along the way.

Vote it down and go to arbitration. Succeed or die on your feet while fighting, you cowards.

What the discussions like among your coworkers today? Did it seem like they were pissed to and going to vote no on the contract, or are they drinking the kool aid that they need to accept this “or else face Trump”?

 

[LennyA21]

“The heart of NATCA is education and collaboration“ President Daniels

Well folks it was fun while it lasted but pay and benefits are no longer at the heart of a union it’s learning and talking

 

[Logical_Mongoose]

What the discussions like among your coworkers today? Did it seem like they were pissed to and going to vote no on the contract, or are they drinking the kool aid that they need to accept this “or else face Trump”?

There's quite a few of us Support Specialists that have a national group chat to share resources and ask each other questions; no real chatter on it other than a few adjacent funny memes of dissent (more of a CYA thing I think since it could blur into union talk on the clock). In my Z, the SSS that's heavily involved in NATCA (and got in trouble for presenting my idea) is unfortunately full Kool-Aid and has seemingly convinced a few others to drink up. My main hope is that the Light Blue people really step up and slam the door on it.

Sure would be something if Slate Book people showed up to the virtual briefings asking questions about what they should expect for their contract negotiations if this is what was "negotiated" for other BUEs this time around...

https://www.natca.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Briefing-Schedule_12062024.pdf

 

[Nothanks]

Haven't read the constitution but if it's like a normal union the members are voting to ratify the cba.

If our vote is more of just a show and NATCA can do what they want regardless of say 90% of members voting no, then NATCA would have pretty much solidified that they are just an extension of management and should be de-certified as a union.

Ah , more posting of what if’s. Not knowing what you’re talking about

 

[AnyTrafficPleaseAdvise]

Sure would be something if Slate Book people showed up to the virtual briefings asking questions about what they should expect for their contract negotiations if this is what was "negotiated" for other BUEs this time around...

https://www.natca.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Briefing-Schedule_12062024.pdf

Trying to listen in on the 6:30 meeting currently with no luck

Edit: made it in.

 

[Logical_Mongoose]

Trying to listen in on the 6:30 meeting currently with no luck

Edit: made it in.

Don't let the boredom deter you. They're trying to "dull" this into passage.

 

[AnyTrafficPleaseAdvise]

Don't let the boredom deter you. They're trying to "dull" this into passage.

The explanation of pay is what we all thought. Something along the lines of, “The tenor of negotiations changed after the November election”- Lebovidge. We’re fucked when the slate book gets negotiated.

 

[Logical_Mongoose]

They're literally trying to blame the presidential election for why they didn't do anything on Pay. So for 8 months they decided to NOT negotiate pay and then gave up on doing anything for the last month?