A Call for Questions!

Do you have any sort of idea or plan to some how give people who have gone to an undesirable facility, certified, put in their time, trained replacements etc... the opportunity to ERR to the more desirable locations before allowing academy grads, previous experience and NEST folks to go to those desirable places?
I think that just generally falls under the ncept questions he answered a few posts up.
 
I don't think anyone else had this question, but if so, sorry.

Do you have any sort of idea or plan to some how give people who have gone to an undesirable facility, certified, put in their time, trained replacements etc... the opportunity to ERR to the more desirable locations before allowing academy grads, previous experience and NEST folks to go to those desirable places?

There has got to be a way to allow someone to ERR (who has earned it) the available slot before sending newbies to great places. At least somehow look and see if there are eligible ERRs into said facility before throwing them on an academy, previous experience, or NEST list.. before the final PPT comes out for a panel. Time and time again there have been desirable facilities that need people, they get filled with newbies, and THEN the final PPT comes out (a couple weeks prior to a panel, in which our facility can release), and the slots JUST got filled, and now they can't accept anyone anymore. It's frustrating seeing a brand new hire get the opportunity to go to a great first facility and meanwhile there are numerous CPCs that are stuck at 4's, 5's, and 6's in the middle of nowhere. Granted, I get that they can't wait to send people to those places forever, but at least make the conscious decision to allow an eligible ERR to go there first on a panel. Then, after the panel, continue to throw those facilities on lists.
The problem is, who gets to decide what is a desirable facility and what is not? Who gets to decide if people are stuck or simply not wanting to leave?
 
The problem is, who gets to decide what is a desirable facility and what is not? Who gets to decide if people are stuck or simply not wanting to leave?

Ya, I mean, I know it's all a matter of opinion, but there are some facilities that will never have an ERR into them (I'm currently at one)... some would say "hard to staff" or where almost every single person at the facility has ERRs out.. where between 10-15 people there are hundreds of ERRs to get out, haha.
 
Question: Where do you stand on the line between the duty to represent and collaboration?
 
Question: Where do you stand on the line between the duty to represent and collaboration?

Duty to represent comes first, not collaboration. The individual is guaranteed fair representation. What is fair representation? Ensure that the process is followed and that the right of the individual to go through the process is respected at all times in an unbiased manner. (From my notes, I will of course double check)
 
Question for Both Candidates: A wise man once told me, your first day in office you should start looking for and grooming your replacement. With the overall age of our current NEB and with Paul and Bryan only being eligible for one more term. Do either of them have a protege in mind that they believe can lead the union after they are gone?
 
Hopefully he has answered them all, but he missed any, please message the campaign and let them know.
Q: Do you have ideas or a plan to somehow provide employeeswho have gone to an undesirable facility, certified, put in their time, trained replacements, etc., the opportunity to ERR to more desirable locations before allowing academy graduates, those with previous experience, and NEST employees to go to those desirable places?

A: There has to be a way to allow someone to ERR (who has earned it) the available slot prior to sending newbies to more desirable locations. Or, at least somehow look and see if there are eligible ERRs into said facility prior to placing the facility onto an academy, previous experience, or NEST list before the final PPT comes out for a panel.

Time and time again there have been desirable facilities that need more people and they get filled with newbies BEFORE the final PPT comes out and because the slots are not full, the facility cannot accept additional employees. It's frustrating seeing a brand new hire get the opportunity to go to a great first facility and meanwhile there are numerous CPCs that are stuck at 4's, 5's, and 6's in the middle of nowhere. Granted, I understand that they can't wait to send people to those places forever, but at least make the conscious decision to allow an eligible ERR to go there first on a panel. Then, after the panel, continue to throw those facilities on lists.

Q: The problem is, who gets to decide what is a desirable facility and what is not? Who gets to decide if people are stuck or simply not wanting to leave?

A: I wish the answer to this question was as simple as demanding change from the Agency. Title 5 of the Law allows the Agency to do these things without input or ideas from the Union. That being said, we need to continue down the path that we have and try to expand the agreement to cover our needs as well as the Agency’s. I believe we need to be more aggressive in the collaborative discussion to increase the number of times that we address the needs of the employee when it comes to NCEPT. Waiting for the staffing modeling to truly determine need has been too slow, and we have put too much importance on the benefit of movement that the NCEPT has created. We need to bring these discussions to the membership, listen, and work on more sustainable solutions rather than simply insist that it is working as is.

Q: Where do you see the union in five years?

A: I have watched the relationship between the Union and the Agency change and evolve for over 30 years. This relationship has constantly reinvented itself into what we see today. Internally, as Union leadership has changed, a creeping notion that no one could be better than current leadership has infected that way that we operate. The idea that only one person or select group is capable of protecting and strengthening the Union and the membership hasnever proven to be true. Our Union has changed, expanded, and improved with every group of individuals that have led our great Union. In 5 years, we will find ourselves with even more new improvements, not matter who wins this election. However, I have seen over time that current leadership has continued to narrow the scope of who is allowed to participate and has restricted the ability for members and elected leaders alike to express ideas that may differ from the status quo. Our strength comes from the diverse ideas of our membership pathing the path to the future, not a select group of leaders.We stand on the shoulders of giants who sacrifice endless hours working on behalf of this Union and who walk into Congressional offices to share our message as activists that represent our interests. In five years I hope to facilitate an expansion of the great work being done and eliminate the idea that a select few completely control every aspect of our success.

Q: A wise man once told me, your first day in office you should start looking for and grooming your replacement. With the overall age of our current NEB, noting that Paul and Bryan are only being eligible for one more term, do either of them have a protege in mind that they believe can lead the union after they are gone?

A: I do not support the idea of grooming and handing the membership a replacement. Similarly, I do not support the idea of a President and Executive Vice President ticket. I believe that the obligation of leadership is to groom many people with varying viewpoints to ensure the membership has a choice of who their next leaders might be. The membership should have the ability to listen to their views and choose the direction of our Union based upon their platforms. Limiting the membership to one set of ideas and one single platform does not help make NATCA great. Today, we have to0 many people trying and competing to be that replacement, resulting in a culture of blind compliance in hopes of individual gain. I will have failed all of you if you are left with only one choice for President after my term.
 
Back
Top Bottom