ERR MOU Change Campaign

If you're in Texas isn't your RVP one of the two natca signatures on the mou? Ask him how he sleeps at night

Dolan said:

If you're in Texas isn't your RVP one of the two natca signatures on the mou? Ask him how he sleeps at night

Click to expand...

Indeed he is.

I would have, except he refused to speak with me.

Do you think it's a good thing that they are reading these threads? What good could come out of it?

corn4ahead said:

Do you think it's a good thing that they are reading these threads? What good could come out of it?

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you want them to know what you think? They are supposed to be representing you, not ruling over you.

Excellent.

There needs to be a competitive process to leave.

Since 98% percent of the movement in the agency has been halted, those of us lucky enough to have a light at the end of the tunnel to leave are fighting with multiple other coworkers to be the ONE who gets to go, yet there is no competitive process to leave. Someone with 6 months in the agency can get out ahead of someone with 6 years. It is an extremely cut-throat competition, yet no competition: it is not experience or merit-based.

Example:

My current fear is this:

I've been in the agency 6 years, have 2 CTO's, have been on 5 training teams, 3 of whom just got certified, the other 2 will, was FacRep last year, and got a cash award for redeveloping the training program.

I'm "competing" with a controller who only has 2 years in the agency, only one CTO, and is such a pain in the butt trainer that he's not on any training teams because they request not to work with him, and has not done the extra-curricula's I have done.

We can lose ONE PERSON in the next 18 months, and it could be him. (I've applied to 5 facilities in the top 80, and have 15 more points than him). Not to mention, all 3 of my newly certified trainees have paperwork in, and it could just as easily be them.

THIS is what this MOU has created. Wouldn't YOU be furious? Wouldn't you wonder why you're spending your energy training, only to have someone who is not contributing to training at all, be the ONE person in 18 months who gets to be released?

Forget filing a grievance. This is worth lawyering up.

I clearly have a passion for ATC or I wouldn't have done all the extras for my tower, and now, I'm wondering why the heck I'm passing down what I've learned to the new people, if they're just able to take my exit slot? Or why am I training, when someone who doesn't train could get to leave without contributing new CPC's?

You are taking someone who has a passion for this business and turning them extremely bitter at a premature 6 years in the agency. I know this is just my story, but it is a common problem.

When you have 7 people who want to leave a facility, and only one can go, there MUST be a competitive process to leave.

Suggestion:

Ask to hear from the controllers about a solution to the problem. There are so many great ideas that have been fueled from fury, why not ask the people who are affected for their ideas? In an open forum where everyone can see what's submitted, and then have us vote on them?

Something to give us a voice, please. If this many people are furious, then you should be listening as to why, not conducting meetings with people who are so far removed, and whom it does not directly effect.

likeaBOSS said:

There needs to be a competitive process to leave.

Click to expand...

Precisely. There are rules already in place that state this, they are choosing to ignore them. This is the harm it does to the workforce, but there are other factors that hurt the facilities as well.

Take a look at the priority list, and see how ridiculous it is. There are 2 level 4 towers in the top 50 of priority and able to select people, meanwhile there are tracons and CENTERS that are not able to select people. BWI is able to release 13 people and ranked 40th in priority. It's insane.

some quick numbers...
This quarter, less than 318 selections able to be made, with 73 of them from centers.
638 total "vacancies". take out N90 and its 490. take out ZNY and its 427.
161/314 facilities cannot make a selection (51.3%), and 180 facilities cannot release anyone (57.3%)
Less than a year and we're already near parity, where facilities can't release or select.

MJ0730 said:

Precisely. There are rules already in place that state this, they are choosing to ignore them. This is the harm it does to the workforce, but there are other factors that hurt the facilities as well.

Take a look at the priority list, and see how ridiculous it is. There are 2 level 4 towers in the top 50 of priority and able to select people, meanwhile there are tracons and CENTERS that are not able to select people. BWI is able to release 13 people and ranked 40th in priority. It's insane.

Click to expand...

I hope it's true your RVP reads this forum!

likeaBOSS said:

I hope it's true your RVP reads this forum!

Click to expand...

Well, you don't need to rely on this. Call them, write them, do whatever you can do.

The only argument I ever hear in support of this MOU is that "the old way was broke", or "something had to be done", as if what they came up with is the only possible solution. As an exercise, I put some of the things down that myself and others have talked about, and came up with my version of what the ERR process should be. I'm not writing this as some official proposal or anything like that, just to illustrate that 1) there are alternatives to the garbage we currently have, and 2) it's not that difficult. So here we go...

Objectives

• Appropriately staff facilities based on need and importance.

• Allow better insight into movement of personnel to establish pipelines into large faculties, and accurately place new hires where they are needed.

• A standard, predictable process giving employees the ability to substantially influence their careers, that is not subject to change or revocation on a whim based on factors outside their control.

• Keep employees in place long enough for them to substantially contribute to the facility operation, while still allowing the opportunity to be considered for merit based promotions/transfers.

Individual Eligibility

1. Must be at facility 3 yrs, with at least 12 months as CPC. Or,
2. 18 months as CPC.

Terminal: Can transfer upward a maximum of 4 levels. Exception, lvl 4 can move 5 levels. No restriction on downward movements.

Any CPC can transfer to any EnRoute level.

Facility Eligibility
*Breakpoint is a staffing percentage representing when a facility begins to experience stress (increased overtime, leave denials, etc), not a meaningless number that a bunch of desk jockeys "feel good" about.

*well staffed is a CPC target number determined by when a facility can operate with little overtime, denial of leave, etc.

If facility is well staffed, release of 3 mo or less.

If facility is below breakpoint, one person may be released every 6 months with a 12 month release date.

If losing facility is above breakpoint: and
A.If the gaining facility is higher in priority: and
1)Losing facility projected is more than 10% above gaining facility, release in 3-6 months
2)losing facility is less than 10%, release 9-12 months.
B.gaining fac lower in priority and
1)losing fac 10% above gaining, release 6-12 months.
2)losing fac below 10%, ineligible


Process

• Get out of the 80's and ditch the fax machine. Use USAJobs/aviator for all applications.

• ERRs on file out of a facility will be tracked and integrated into the decision lens model for facility priority. It will be reported as (# of CPC with active ERR on file) / (# of CPC)

• Placement occurs monthly. Gives better insight into where people are leaving, so replacements can be slotted more accurately.

• Manager ranking is removed. In the event of more applicants than available slots, the applicant from the lowest priority facility is selected.

• NCEPT panel no longer needed. Can be run through computer program, then validated by each party.

• 6 month or less release dates for facilities at above 89.5%. 6-12 months release below 89.5%.

• Facilities are eligible to select enough to staff the facility to 100% or 15% above the national average, whichever is higher.

• Individuals moving up into a 9-12 facility have priority over someone moving down/lateral.

• Release the proposed rules prior to implementation for a question/commentary period.

I know sometimes words are hard, so here's a flow chart of how it would work:

I agree with everything you are proposing except there should be no limit to how many levels a controller can transfer to. Our facility is a small level 6 but has had many transfers to level 11/12's. Most controller's first assigned locations aren't where they desire to be so if they want to try and skip the level 8/9 facilities, then I say let them.

I like that the new MOU addresses time maximums for releases. Sucks if you were at a well staffed facility but your ATM gave some arbitrary release date, sometimes causing you to be passed over by a facility.

But I'd really like to see ATMs to decide on a release date (more than a year), for facilities outside of CAT1 or CAT2. ATMs have a better picture of their staffing than a spreadsheet using a generic certification time or telling them what staffing level is acceptable.

This would allow 2 things. 1) light at the end of the tunnel for CPCs who facilities may never reach the National Average. and 2) allow lower level facilities to wait for experienced CPCs who want to be at that facility vs academy graduates who want to leave ASAP.

After much procrastination, I've finally finished the letter to congress. Attached to this post. It's been template-ized; you need to change the text in red as appropriate. And of course, change whatever else you'd like. Just send it, and get as many other people to send it too.

Below are the names of the relevant committees in the house and senate, and links to their contact/email page. If you don't know who yours is, or they aren't on the list, use the links at the bottom to find them.

The template is in letter form, in case anyone wants to be classy and send a physical letter versus an email.

House T&I Aviation Subcommittee
Frank A. LoBiondo, New Jersey, Chairman
Don Young, Alaska
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
John L. Mica, Florida
Sam Graves, Missouri
Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Richard L. Hanna, New York
Reid J. Ribble, Wisconsin
Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Rodney Davis, Illinois
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Rob Woodall, Georgia
Todd Rokita, Indiana
Ryan A. Costello, Pennsylvania
Mimi Walters, California
Barbara Comstock, Virginia
Carlos Curbelo, Florida
Lee M. Zeldin, New York
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio)
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
Daniel Lipinski, Illinois
André Carson, Indiana
Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona
Dina Titus, Nevada
Sean Patrick Maloney, New York
Cheri Bustos, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California
Michael E. Capuano, Massachusetts
Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Richard M. Nolan, Minnesota
John Garamendi, California
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon (Ex Officio)

Senate Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Subcommittee
Ayotte, Kelly (NH), Chairman
Wicker, Roger F. (MS)
Blunt, Roy (MO)
Rubio, Marco (FL)
Cruz, Ted (TX)
Fischer, Deb (NE)
Moran, Jerry (KS)
Sullivan, Dan (AK)
Johnson, Ron (WI)
Heller, Dean (NV)
Gardner, Cory (CO)
Thune, John (SD), Ex Officio
Cantwell, Maria (WA), Ranking Member
Klobuchar, Amy (MN)
Blumenthal, Richard (CT)
Schatz, Brian (HI)
Markey, Edward J. (MA)
Booker, Cory A. (NJ)
Udall, Tom (NM)
Manchin, Joe (WV)
Peters, Gary C. (MI)
Nelson, Bill (FL), Ex Officio

Find Your Representative · House.gov
U.S. Senate: Senators of the 114th Congress

Good on you for writing this, but I think it's probably a little long and jargon-y for a letter to congress. A staffer is going to open it, see that it says something about ATC staffing, and send back a form letter. I mean, it can't hurt, but maybe we could simplify the issues and problems, and clarify what we want done?

N172PT said:

Good on you for writing this, but I think it's probably a little long and jargon-y for a letter to congress. A staffer is going to open it, see that it says something about ATC staffing, and send back a form letter. I mean, it can't hurt, but maybe we could simplify the issues and problems, and clarify what we want done?

Click to expand...

Length was a concern, but I didn't know how to make it any shorter and still address the things I wanted to address. I thought about a bullet point style letter, but it just didn't convey the way I wanted it to.

The subcommittee hearing that's mentioned actually impressed me with the level of understanding they had of ATC. they at least sounded like they know what they were asking about, so the jargon isn't really a concern. The acronyms are all spelled out once, and I don't really see anything else that's overly specific. For congressmen outside those committees, you may be right.

That being said, anyone is free to change it however they like and if anyone wants to create other versions of a template or whatever, I'll help in whatever way I can. I could even set up a thread for a group collaboration.

I've always posted everything I've done and asked for others input and help, so anyone can contribute if they feel inclined.

Finally received my level2 grievance reply. It was denied obviously, but they basically ignored what I wrote and responded that they are not violating anything because of the err mou.

When you have 7 people trying to leave a small facility the FAA should be staffing that facility with new hires up to 150% This gets the new guys trained and helps with upward mobility at a fast pace. The only way this is going to work is if there is ongoing hiring. There is NOT. I hate this MOU because what it does is freeze us all in place because of the FAA dropping the ball on staffing for so many years. THIS IS NOT RIGHT. I am in the agency. I am a CPC. It should be easy for me to move on and move up. We should not have to fight to move up in our career. Also, I was told that there would be a new change coming up for us poor sucker lower level facilities. If you are a level 6 and below and want to move to a level 8 and above (DUH) they will allow that level 6 and below to go one below the national average. That was supposed to happen on this last round (DEC '16). Has that happened? Almost everybody at my facility is trying to move on. If we can only release one at a time that just makes it so hopeless. This ERR MOU needs to be changed immediately OR at least start staffing the lower level facilities to 150%! Get us moving up faster.

I'm at a level 9 trying to go to a level 8 with a very low priority rating, even though they are still well below the national average. We haven't been able to release anyone because management keeps promoting controllers to supervisors. When the day finally does come where we will be able to release people, I'm going to be in the same position: not being able to leave because everyone else has ERRs in to higher priority facilities.

What I think they need to do is look at where they are trying to send new hires and then see if an employee already has an ERR into that facility. If an employee does then it should work much like a swap, the ERR can go to where he/she wants to go and the new hire fills their spot.

mikejulietizrad said:

I am in the agency.

Click to expand...

I've never understood why the FAA is so often referred to as the Agency.

Aeronautics Branch: 1926-1934
Bureau of Air Commerce: 1934-1938
Civil Aeronautics Administration: 1938-1958
Federal Aviation Agency: 1958-1967
Federal Aviation Administration: 1967-present

What made the Agency name stick....

Caldwell said:

I'm at a level 9 trying to go to a level 8 with a very low priority rating, even though they are still well below the national average. We haven't been able to release anyone because management keeps promoting controllers to supervisors. When the day finally does come where we will be able to release people, I'm going to be in the same position: not being able to leave because everyone else has ERRs in to higher priority facilities.

What I think they need to do is look at where they are trying to send new hires and then see if an employee already has an ERR into that facility. If an employee does then it should work much like a swap, the ERR can go to where he/she wants to go and the new hire fills their spot.

Click to expand...

Supervisor job open at that Level 8 I saw yesterday.

Stinger said:

I've never understood why the FAA is so often referred to as the Agency.

Aeronautics Branch: 1926-1934
Bureau of Air Commerce: 1934-1938
Civil Aeronautics Administration: 1938-1958
Federal Aviation Agency: 1958-1967
Federal Aviation Administration: 1967-present

What made the Agency name stick....

Click to expand...

The only agency I've ever heard called by that "agency" name is the CIA. Most people just say they work for the FAA or that they're an air traffic controller. I don't know why the guy above replied like he did.