Q: What ideas do you have to improve the NCEPT?
A: The problem that I see with NCEPT is the impact it has had on facilities. The process was taken on to improve upon a known problem: Employees getting bypassed for selection and the frequency in which two-year or more release dates ended with the employee never actually moving. While more people are moving, to improve upon the process we need to include the ideas and input from bargaining unit employees and activists actually working an operational schedule. It is time that we stop patting ourselves on the back for having put ourselves in a position to collaboratively help people move. It is time to research the negative impacts and decide whether our bargaining unit members want to see change.
Q: Are you for or against the possibility of limiting the amount of ERRs for a person to say three or five localized geographical areas?
A: As with the previous question, I am open to discussing anything. However with all changes, we must be mindful of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. We currently have no limitations on the number of ERRs an employee may file. Since it was expressly covered, and ratified by a majority of our bargaining unit, this type of change may or may not be possible during the life of our current CBA. We can certainly discuss it and determine how best to move forward if change is needed. I do believe it will have to be handled by some other means than restrictions.
Q: How would negotiation teams for things like NCEPT be chosen?
A: The National Executive Board will select negotiating teams and Activists, with a focus on ensuring diversity of positions and viewpoints when it comes to participation. We will carefully ensure that opposing viewpoints are represented. The current reality of get in line with the direction of the organization or get out will not continue.
Q: Do you have any idea on how those stuck at Cat 3 facilities can see a light at the end of the tunnel for getting out?
A: The only way to fix this problem is to deal with the overall question of whether we are appropriately staffed as a workforce. This is not something that will likely be fixed with an MOU. As a Union, we will continue to attack this on the Legislative front. We will however, sit down and evaluate whether Agreements like the NCEPT is helping or harming our overall battle with appropriate staffing. We need to have a better understanding of whether there has been negative impact, as we’ve seen that while we’ve created more movement, we simply shifted the ability of movement for others. We need to decide as a Union whether this is acceptable.
Q: What do you think about possibly dividing the centralized NCEPT process to assigned regions, which still communicate, but focus more on the necessity of their regions?
A: I participate in the Collaborative Resource Workgroup process. When Service Areas or legacy Regions handled the process, as HR still operated there, the process was broken beyond description. I do support the concept of a national process. If we are going to have one, it needs to be fair for us all. Most importantly, we need to evaluate whether the impact it has had is acceptable or not. That can only be accomplished with participation of the field facilities.
Q: Would it be a good idea for people to work a certain amount of time after checking out before being allowed to ERR?
A: The important thing to remember is that an ERR is a request. On a basic level, I do not support suppressing the ability for people to make requests. I would instead want to focus on the process, answering questions like, “Is the NCEPT accomplishing what it was intended to do?”, and “How has it impacted the workforce?” The membership needs to tell leadership what is best for them as a respected voice participating in their Union, rather than leadership telling you what is best for you and excluding your voice for disagreeing.
Q: Are you for or against the possibility of negotiating a facility level cap for the NCEPT?
A: I have no aversion to taking a position on a level cap for ERR upgrades. I was an off the street hire that was assigned to a level 12 facility, ZAU, as my first facility. It would be hypocritical of me to say that someone at a level 4 or 5 facility is less qualified than I was. I am open to having the discussion and coming to an understanding of how this may help or hurt our members. I will never make false promises. This topic, under the Law, is something that the Agency can choose to do without our involvement. Every topic is on the table for me to discuss. The purpose of your National Leadership is to serve you, not tell you what is best for you.
Q: Are you for or against having a penalty in place for people who are picked up from a facility thus blocking others from leaving and then turning their offered transfer down?
A: I do not support actions as described here, where employees use tactics to manipulate a process and prevent others from being able to transfer. A penalty would be difficult to impose without creating a new problem. That being said, it needs to be corrected.
Q: Are you for or against the idea of sending all training withdrawals right back to the facility they transferred from versus letting them play the NEST Lotto?
A: The concern behind this is the process — where a handful of people use the provisions of the priority release MOUs to get out of their facility. There is a perception and some accusations that employees have purposefully withdrawn from training to get a list of facilities from the NEST. This perception, whether real or perceived, has been harmful to our Union. It makes negotiating MOUs difficult as the Agency is leery to agree to joint fixes to our common problems. While this suggestion would solve the problem, the Agency is not open to the idea of limiting themselves to placement at a specific facility regardless of staffing. Under 5 USC, they do not have to agree to provisions such as this one. That being said, this problem needs to be fixed. I am open to whatever path fixes this loophole. The Executive Board is currently trying to fix this, and those discussions will continue should I be elected.
Q: What will you do to change the culture of exclusion, intimidation, and retaliation? What will happen when representatives of NATCA are found to be behaving in such ways?
A: The culture of exclusion, intimidation, and retaliation is very disappointing to me. The issue will be dealt with immediately upon taking office if I receive the honor to serve as your president. I learned at a very young age in NATCA the importance of diverse viewpoints and positions. My passion even when misdirected was accepted and fostered by my NATCA National Leadership. It has molded my own style as a Regional Vice President. My team is encouraged to challenge and disagree with me. It is important to remember that there are several different things happening when it comes to dealing with our current culture. Many members are afraid to lose their involvement in NATCA. I have encouraged anyone that has come to me with that concern to do what they feel they need to do to protect themselves. I only ask people to listen to my message and, if you relate to it, I would be honored to have your vote. Most importantly, this is a secret ballot. I have even encouraged some of my closest friends that they should bend to the pressure and write an endorsement if they feel that will protect their Union involvement. I knew what I was getting into with this election. My supporters did not in many cases. I expect members and activists to have a loyalty to NATCA, not any one individual. Someone who supports Paul because they feel that he is the better choice for NATCA should have no fear of losing their position, nor should individuals that felt it important to protect themselves from retaliation. For those activists that have behaved in a way to circumvent the democratic process, suppress access to information, or have outright behaved in a threatening manner to other members, we are going to sit down as an Executive Board with them and discuss where their loyalties and priorities are. There is no room for disrespectful or inappropriate behavior in NATCA. Every member deserves to be treated with respect and to be heard. I feel it important that we address this as an organization. We need to make it clear to those that support the culture of intimidation that NATCA will no longer tolerate that behavior.
Zilonis President Natca Election 2018 | Zilonis2018