- Messages
- 3,162
I'll have it posted later tonight.
Andrew
Member
- Messages
- 130
Anything new?
- Messages
- 3,162
whoevers paperwork was on file first.
- Messages
- 31
- Facility
- BOI Boise Tower
Really? I believed that the manager's preference list comes into play at that point, and if the manager does not submit a preference list, then the NCEPT panel gets to decide. The fact that the one with the earliest ERR date is terrible because they only last 15 months, so it's a false representation of who has been requesting the facility longer, and I think they know that, but that seems to be how they have decided to do it.
- Messages
- 31
- Facility
- BOI Boise Tower
So the Estimated Vacancies and the Estimated Controllers Over National Average lists are out, but I'm not following some of their calculations. There are some facilities that say they have a negative number on the PPT for "Number of controllers needed to reach national average" but they are showing an estimated vacancy of 1. Take SLC for example, I think it says -.06 in the PPT, but the estimated vacancies shows 1. There are several others like this. Do we know why?
MJ, will you post the list of valid ERRs again once the list gets generated?
MJ, will you post the list of valid ERRs again once the list gets generated?
Outta curiosity, if a facility on the the NCEPT priority list is in the top 30 or so, but says 0 on eligible to select, does that mean under no circumstances they'll select anyone in the upcoming selection panel? Or does that facility have any shot in acquiring someone if they're coming from a pretty well staffed facility several bodies over?
Thanks!
Thanks!
I think someone had mentioned that the higher priority facilities with zero vacancies is just a "bad output" by the PPT program/whatever other data they're using to develop the priority list. Those facilities wouldn't be picking anyone up.
The last time I checked (last week?) some of those high priority w/ zero vacancy facilities were Cat 1 status, so going with the last few NCEPT panels, they wouldn't be getting anyone.
Per the ERR SOP and Q+As:
3.4. Prioritize Candidates.
3.4.1.If applicable, facilities will prioritize all candidates and return their lists to ASG within five (5) business days. Prioritized lists are for reference purposes only. “Priority Placement” and “Priority Consideration” qualified candidates shall be handled in accordance with the CBA and applicable MOUs.
Q9. Will a facility be able to prioritize the personnel that they would like to receive under this process?
A9. If applicable, the facility will be sent a list of applicants for prioritization. However, there are no guarantees that the facility will receive the employees they indicated as most desired.
So yeah, the ATM's ranking is really just a "warm fuzzy" that the NCEPT may or may not take into consideration which was shown the last panel when people were offered TOLs to facilities with negative reference checks/listed lowest priority by the gaining ATMs.
It'll be interesting if the SOP/MOU hasn't been modified in a year or so to develop a better tie breaker than the ERR paperwork filing date. Especially since most people probably already had the 15 month clock ticking on-file when the MOU went into effect. I couldn't imagine the frustration that someone would have if they had to re-file to keep their paperwork active and lost their filing date to another controller.
On those facilities that have the negative number, what's the CPC projection? Maybe the projection is below the national average so taking training time into consideration, the estimated vacancy is to keep the projected staffing above the national average? I don't have access to the updated vacancy list right now so I can't verify.
- Messages
- 3,162
As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.
Your career being determined by a time stamp on a fax isn't acceptable? I hear that's how all the fortune 500 companies do it. Completely random and arbitrary career progression, with zero incentive to be a productive employee. It's how all of our leadership got to where they are, I believe.
I was looking into it, because I thought I knew the answer. So..
One more fantastic feature of this process, is that it gets changed at every panel, without disclosure. Didn't I see an email saying they are making this as "transparent as possible"...
My line of thinking was that it had to do with rounding. As in if it was more than -1 or maybe -.5 (rounding) one slot would be available. I'm sure I saw this somewhere, but I haven't the motivation to try and find it. However, at least with the data presented in the PPT, this is not the case. I began to look at other factors between facs with say -.6 where one had a slot and one didn't to find the difference. I stopped when I found an error in the spreadsheet in how they are classifying facilities. In columns BA and BB they have a formula to group facilities into green, yellow, red status. Green > 5% above avg, red < 5% below, yellow between (sound familiar? maybe they are listening). They switched the values around for green and yellow, so every facility that should be showing as "Green" IE: well staffed, is showing as yellow, and vice versa. I don't know if this classification is actually used for anything. But if it is, it's a pretty significant screw up.
To answer your question, I have no idea why some facilities above the average are allowed to select and some aren't.
EDIT: I lied. It looks like any fac with > -0.9 gets a slot. I don't know if it's a hard number or varible.
Last edited:
While it's encouraging to see there an effort to "improve" the ERR process, it boggles my mind that they seem to be making changes each NCEPT after the ERR submission deadline, where no one is given an opportunity to adjust their aim to an ever moving staffing target.
These changes should be announced well before the ERR submission deadline so members are able to, or at least attempt to, make a smart(er) career decisions about where to ERR without worry that new data will be introduced to skew numbers. I think it would go a little ways to show members that there is a concerted effort to make the process "as transparent as possible" while improving data points such as facility-specific training time to CPC, etc.
Also, for the rounding...it was addressed in the Q+As where standard rounding would be used.
These changes should be announced well before the ERR submission deadline so members are able to, or at least attempt to, make a smart(er) career decisions about where to ERR without worry that new data will be introduced to skew numbers. I think it would go a little ways to show members that there is a concerted effort to make the process "as transparent as possible" while improving data points such as facility-specific training time to CPC, etc.
Also, for the rounding...it was addressed in the Q+As where standard rounding would be used.
- Messages
- 3,162
Rounding probably isn't the right term. Floor? I don't know..too much numbers and math and I burned my pizza while looking at this. The cutoff point, essentially. Por ejemplo, you can go .2 below avg on a selection. -0.9 might be the cutoff where a fac is given a slot.
If it's constantly being changed, then it's not tweaking, its broken. There shouldn't be changing criteria for career progression every three months. This whole thing has been nothing but trial and error with the lives of 12,000+ people. It's fking amateur.
Ahhh, I see what you mean...yeah, I remember seeing something on the .2 below the national average would still be eligible for selection...I think it was on one of the NCEPT meeting minutes?
I wonder if the changing criteria is to keep the ERR offers constantly increasing each quarter to show the MOU is "working". I haven't crunched the numbers but I'd guess that there's only going to be a few more panels where there's any movement because the ERRing CPC attrition will outpace the CPC projections causing facilities to drop below the national average (while the average should be increasing over the same time period).
- Messages
- 3,162
This is exactly right. There isn't much wind left in the sails.
- Messages
- 31
- Facility
- BOI Boise Tower
I don't know if this will be valuable to anyone else, but it was interesting to me. This is a summary of the estimated vacancies and overages by facility, going as far back as the NCEPT public site has data available. These are generated every month, (except there were three in the last three weeks) but there are not panels every month, so it might be a little misleading, but you can see some trends. You can hide the columns or sort however you want if you're an excel guru.
I can't guarantee the data is all correct, and the August numbers are strange for a lot of facilities, especially centers, showing vacancies and huge overages. Anyway, take it for what its worth, maybe it will help someone analyze the situation better.
I can't guarantee the data is all correct, and the August numbers are strange for a lot of facilities, especially centers, showing vacancies and huge overages. Anyway, take it for what its worth, maybe it will help someone analyze the situation better.
Excuse my ignorance but I'm frustrated and confused. Which final list does NCEPT use for selections - the Facility Priority and Estimated Vacancies Sept 2016 Chg 2 or the New Hire Placement Plan Sept 2016 (updated 9/16/16) under Facility Placement Dashboard?
- Messages
- 3,162
New hire placement plan has nothing to do with ncept. It's for new hires.
- Messages
- 3,162
not dumb. they're each compared to their counterpart. current vs current, projected vs projected.
