Issue Privatization

[GulfCharlie]

Poole of course is at it again, however upon completion of watching this video he mentions that there was not a coalition to support AIRR in the Senate (which is true and why the bill died, thank you GA). It would be logical for NATCA’s next step to build this coalition so that in the future when it (or some future form) will be introduced, that it passes. Keep that in mind this election...

 

[BunnyBear]

Anyone who is in favor of privatization is a fool. All it took was for the last remaining PATCO guys to die out and the idea rears it’s ugly head again. This time with naive children at the ready. And what do we do? Follow the piper down the dark street.
We regurgitate senseless terms and stupid ideas.
Forgive me if you take offense to this. It just makes me sick.

Just curious how did fighting privatization work out for the flight service guys and gals.

While I am here I'll give my two cents on privatization while I imagine it will go over like a led balloon.

I am been legislatively involved in the union for 7 years now and have attended 6 NATCA in Washingtons. I cant even begin to stress how radically congress has changed over those six years and those who think your pensions and retirement benefits are safe are kidding yourself. All it takes is one law change and bam, game over. I know what you are thinking, "dude, that is never going to happen". I thought things like furloughs, government shut downs, pay freezes, etc would not happen.

Not only am I not against it but I am for non for profit privatization. Reasons being;

1. We could bargain things that are not permissive subject now like staffing, hiring, medical, work hours (other than 40 hour work week), etc. While the FLRA rules are great in many areas they hamper the union in others.
2. Right now the trust fund brings in more money than is given to the FAA. Take away congress and the appropriations process that means more money for things like new equipment, pay raises, etc.
3. The procurement issues. I feel like I shouldn't have to say anything about this but lets be honest the gov sucks at this. We are getting our rear ends handed to us by the other ANSPs. Like we are buying their tech instead of selling ours and making money.
4. Bonding and long term capital improvements. This is huge for me personally working in a center. So far I have seen asbestic removal and we are currently dealing with a mold issue. There are currently no plans to replace any of the centers of which are 50 plus years old. While you see some towers get replaced every now and then the majority are still old and out of date. With the current political climate and being trillions of dollars in debt do you see the gov ever giving a line item to replace a center? Never. Imagine just if we got one center replaced a year it would still take 20 plus years. This to me leads us to a crisis moment where instead of replacing centers they will try to force consolidations as certain centers become in even worse condition. Being in a non for profit would allow for bonding and long term capital improvements like replacing facilities. (Ive been to both Toronto and Moncton center and don't even get me started how much nicer they are)


Personally I think the wiring is on the wall. When more liberal and stronger pro government working countries like Canada, most of europe, etc, have gone private its not a matter of if only a matter of when. I just hope we are smart enough to realize that time and not make the mistake the flight service people did because every flight service person I have talked to regrets trying to fight it.

Again just my two cents but I am glad to see respectful debate. We will only survive the future as a union if we remain in solidarity even through our differences.

 

[ehmeye]

Just curious how did fighting privatization work out for the flight service guys and gals.

While I am here I'll give my two cents on privatization while I imagine it will go over like a led balloon.

I am been legislatively involved in the union for 7 years now and have attended 6 NATCA in Washingtons. I cant even begin to stress how radically congress has changed over those six years and those who think your pensions and retirement benefits are safe are kidding yourself. All it takes is one law change and bam, game over. I know what you are thinking, "dude, that is never going to happen". I thought things like furloughs, government shut downs, pay freezes, etc would not happen.

Not only am I not against it but I am for non for profit privatization. Reasons being;

1. We could bargain things that are not permissive subject now like staffing, hiring, medical, work hours (other than 40 hour work week), etc. While the FLRA rules are great in many areas they hamper the union in others.
2. Right now the trust fund brings in more money than is given to the FAA. Take away congress and the appropriations process that means more money for things like new equipment, pay raises, etc.
3. The procurement issues. I feel like I shouldn't have to say anything about this but lets be honest the gov sucks at this. We are getting our rear ends handed to us by the other ANSPs. Like we are buying their tech instead of selling ours and making money.
4. Bonding and long term capital improvements. This is huge for me personally working in a center. So far I have seen asbestic removal and we are currently dealing with a mold issue. There are currently no plans to replace any of the centers of which are 50 plus years old. While you see some towers get replaced every now and then the majority are still old and out of date. With the current political climate and being trillions of dollars in debt do you see the gov ever giving a line item to replace a center? Never. Imagine just if we got one center replaced a year it would still take 20 plus years. This to me leads us to a crisis moment where instead of replacing centers they will try to force consolidations as certain centers become in even worse condition. Being in a non for profit would allow for bonding and long term capital improvements like replacing facilities. (Ive been to both Toronto and Moncton center and don't even get me started how much nicer they are)


Personally I think the wiring is on the wall. When more liberal and stronger pro government working countries like Canada, most of europe, etc, have gone private its not a matter of if only a matter of when. I just hope we are smart enough to realize that time and not make the mistake the flight service people did because every flight service person I have talked to regrets trying to fight it.

Again just my two cents but I am glad to see respectful debate. We will only survive the future as a union if we remain in solidarity even through our differences.

The glaring mistake many people make is assuming that privatization will save their benefits and retirement. It won't, it will make it easier for the "non-for-profit" to slash your benefits and eliminate retirement. Courts all over the country have been ruling against workers and unions for decades and you believe that removing us from the federal workforce and those protections is somehow strengthening our position. The current administration is installing conservative judges as fast as possible, and I wouldn't want to go to court in front of them at all. As soon as staffing is at acceptable levels and contracts are due to be renegotiated, that language in whatever privatization legislation passes that protects pay and benefits will come under attack by the corporation, aided by their allies in Congress. With one seat on the board, it is a pipe dream that income surplus would go to controllers, or even equipment really. This isn't Canada or Europe, the airlines aren't looking to pay their OWN workers more, why would they do anything but cut fees? This country has weakened protections for workers so much, you cannot compare this situation with more liberal, worker-friendly countries.

If you want to potentially trade your pay, retirement, and maybe your job for a new building, then ok. But a not-for-profit corporation won't be airlines, GA, pilots, and controllers holding hands while we skip into the future. It will be what this country has become. Big business attacking labor and slashing benefits, or crushing them altogether.

 

[BunnyBear]

The glaring mistake many people make is assuming that privatization will save their benefits and retirement. It won't, it will make it easier for the "non-for-profit" to slash your benefits and eliminate retirement. Courts all over the country have been ruling against workers and unions for decades and you believe that removing us from the federal workforce and those protections is somehow strengthening our position. The current administration is installing conservative judges as fast as possible, and I wouldn't want to go to court in front of them at all. As soon as staffing is at acceptable levels and contracts are due to be renegotiated, that language in whatever privatization legislation passes that protects pay and benefits will come under attack by the corporation, aided by their allies in Congress. With one seat on the board, it is a pipe dream that income surplus would go to controllers, or even equipment really. This isn't Canada or Europe, the airlines aren't looking to pay their OWN workers more, why would they do anything but cut fees? This country has weakened protections for workers so much, you cannot compare this situation with more liberal, worker-friendly countries.

If you want to potentially trade your pay, retirement, and maybe your job for a new building, then ok. But a not-for-profit corporation won't be airlines, GA, pilots, and controllers holding hands while we skip into the future. It will be what this country has become. Big business attacking labor and slashing benefits, or crushing them altogether.

An interesting argument. While I disagree with your ascertitions and I could debate point by point I am curious if you think the way we are going now is sustainable? I am curious how many years you have left in the agency. As someone who has more than 10 left the writing is on the wall and if either they come for our jobs or our benefits. Federal workers are easy targets when we are close to 20 trillion dollars in the whole.

 

[Maintainvfr]

The glaring mistake many people make is assuming that privatization will save their benefits and retirement. It won't, it will make it easier for the "non-for-profit" to slash your benefits and eliminate retirement. Courts all over the country have been ruling against workers and unions for decades and you believe that removing us from the federal workforce and those protections is somehow strengthening our position. The current administration is installing conservative judges as fast as possible, and I wouldn't want to go to court in front of them at all. As soon as staffing is at acceptable levels and contracts are due to be renegotiated, that language in whatever privatization legislation passes that protects pay and benefits will come under attack by the corporation, aided by their allies in Congress. With one seat on the board, it is a pipe dream that income surplus would go to controllers, or even equipment really. This isn't Canada or Europe, the airlines aren't looking to pay their OWN workers more, why would they do anything but cut fees? This country has weakened protections for workers so much, you cannot compare this situation with more liberal, worker-friendly countries.

If you want to potentially trade your pay, retirement, and maybe your job for a new building, then ok. But a not-for-profit corporation won't be airlines, GA, pilots, and controllers holding hands while we skip into the future. It will be what this country has become. Big business attacking labor and slashing benefits, or crushing them altogether.

I don't believe the airlines would have any more say over taxes and fees than they do now. They would get a say over how it is spent, sure, the money is going into the corporation either way.

That being said, the main point of your argument is that the airlines are going to be incentivized to cut our wages and I don't think that's the case. Every business has a subclass of professionals that they have to pay well. They relentlessly cut the pay of easily replaceable labor, I don't agree with this either for the record, but if it costs less to keep replacing you then that's what they'll do. We do not fall into the easily replaceable labor subclass.

Even ruthless companies pay the employees that their success depends upon well. The board would be incentivized to have a happy controller workforce because the efficiency and safety of their business depends on it.

 

[ATC_av8er]

I am not convinced the staffing issue would get any better. Rather than have a formula in place, like there is now (good or bad, it outlines how staffing numbers are determined), you would have this "not-for-profit" (different from a non-profit) that would get to decide, unilaterally, what facilities get more than others. And with other aviation interests making up the board of directors, air traffic would be left at the mercy of the rest of the board.

@Maintainvfr I disagree that we aren't easily replaceable. I don't disagree with the concept, as people oftentimes fail to consider training times and this job is nothing like "Pushing Tin", they also know that there is a line of literally tens of thousands of people who would love to do this job, and are willing to do it for whatever the corporation wants to pay them. While I don't see this not-for-profit model doing a clean sweep of the highest-paid controllers, I can see them start to erode the pay scales down as the more senior controllers retire (i.e. I topped out at $150k after 25 years. You are 5 years behind me, at the same facility making $140k. You now hit your 25 year mark and can now only top out at $145k)

I know NATCA loves to promote this as a way to continue to operate, while protecting out collective bargaining rights. But at the end of the day, top management will hold most of the cards when our contract comes up for re-negotiation. If NATCA doesn't want to play ball, management will simply keep chipping away until the union has no choice but to agree to avoid going to impasse. I hate the bring up the White Book, but I think NATCA is shortsighted in their support and can easily see negotiating with a new ANSP turning into a White Book-esque situation pretty quickly.

 

[ATC_av8er]

An interesting argument. While I disagree with your ascertitions and I could debate point by point I am curious if you think the way we are going now is sustainable? I am curious how many years you have left in the agency. As someone who has more than 10 left the writing is on the wall and if either they come for our jobs or our benefits. Federal workers are easy targets when we are close to 20 trillion dollars in the whole.

I have only been in the Agency 6 years. There is no writing on the wall. NATCA just wants you to think there is. It's fear-mongering and scare tactics. They can just as easily push for Congress to carve out the Airway Trust Fund (self-sustaining and brings in much more than it pays out) and remove it from the budget entirely, and keeps us employed as government workers, but for some reason they think completely revamping the whole system, at an unknown cost, is the best way to go. I love NATCA and I don't mind paying dues, but this is one area where they completely missed the mark.

 

[ehmeye]

An interesting argument. While I disagree with your ascertitions and I could debate point by point I am curious if you think the way we are going now is sustainable? I am curious how many years you have left in the agency. As someone who has more than 10 left the writing is on the wall and if either they come for our jobs or our benefits. Federal workers are easy targets when we are close to 20 trillion dollars in the whole.

This is how the government works. Poorly. When there is no other option they will fix the problem for the foreseeable future. It's what they did to Social Security in the early 80's. They will have to do something again in about 10 years. But it won't happen until then.

I have 16 years and change left and I expect to continue as we do now. Federal workers enjoy protections that other workers don't have. I'm not prepared to surrender those. The staunch conservative comes at us every few years and they get thrown back by Democrats and the more moderate Republicans.

 

[ehmeye]

I don't believe the airlines would have any more say over taxes and fees than they do now. They would get a say over how it is spent, sure, the money is going into the corporation either way.

That being said, the main point of your argument is that the airlines are going to be incentivized to cut our wages and I don't think that's the case. Every business has a subclass of professionals that they have to pay well. They relentlessly cut the pay of easily replaceable labor, I don't agree with this either for the record, but if it costs less to keep replacing you then that's what they'll do. We do not fall into the easily replaceable labor subclass.

Even ruthless companies pay the employees that their success depends upon well. The board would be incentivized to have a happy controller workforce because the efficiency and safety of their business depends on it.

You must not pay close attention to the airline industry then. It isn't just "easily replaceable" labor that they give short shrift to. Ask the pilot's union how well their contract negotiations went in the early 2000's. Pay cuts around 30% were not unusual. 30% and they were actually flying the airplane! We don't even need to talk about the baggage handlers union and the mechanics who took big pay cuts at the end of the 2000's while the corporate office gave big bonuses to senior and mid-level executives for "retention purposes".

We are skilled labor, but we are employed by one entity and the skills of this job don't translate readily into another occupation.

 

[Maintainvfr]

I am not convinced the staffing issue would get any better. Rather than have a formula in place, like there is now (good or bad, it outlines how staffing numbers are determined), you would have this "not-for-profit" (different from a non-profit) that would get to decide, unilaterally, what facilities get more than others. And with other aviation interests making up the board of directors, air traffic would be left at the mercy of the rest of the board.

@Maintainvfr I disagree that we aren't easily replaceable. I don't disagree with the concept, as people oftentimes fail to consider training times and this job is nothing like "Pushing Tin", they also know that there is a line of literally tens of thousands of people who would love to do this job, and are willing to do it for whatever the corporation wants to pay them. While I don't see this not-for-profit model doing a clean sweep of the highest-paid controllers, I can see them start to erode the pay scales down as the more senior controllers retire (i.e. I topped out at $150k after 25 years. You are 5 years behind me, at the same facility making $140k. You now hit your 25 year mark and can now only top out at $145k)

I know NATCA loves to promote this as a way to continue to operate, while protecting out collective bargaining rights. But at the end of the day, top management will hold most of the cards when our contract comes up for re-negotiation. If NATCA doesn't want to play ball, management will simply keep chipping away until the union has no choice but to agree to avoid going to impasse. I hate the bring up the White Book, but I think NATCA is shortsighted in their support and can easily see negotiating with a new ANSP turning into a White Book-esque situation pretty quickly.

Having people that want to do the job isn't the same as having people that are able to do the job. I also think that saying they are willing to do it for whatever the corporation is wants to pay them couldn't be more wrong. A huge number of applicants are due to the compensation.

You must not pay close attention to the airline industry then. It isn't just "easily replaceable" labor that they give short shrift to. Ask the pilot's union how well their contract negotiations went in the early 2000's. Pay cuts around 30% were not unusual. 30% and they were actually flying the airplane! We don't even need to talk about the baggage handlers union and the mechanics who took big pay cuts at the end of the 2000's while the corporate office gave big bonuses to senior and mid-level executives for "retention purposes".

We are skilled labor, but we are employed by one entity and the skills of this job don't translate readily into another occupation.

I'm going to ignore the baggage handlers part because that is my point of easily replaceable labor.

Companies view labor like a resource, and salary is based on supply and demand. If they have an excess of qualified workers, then the supply is up and if the demand hasn't changed then the worth of that supply goes down. There's are huge fundamental differences between us and pilots. First is we are a much much much smaller workforce. We are currently going into a shortage of pilots, but that's because of the supply and demand arc. In 2000, we had more pilots and WAY WAY less flights. That just doesn't work, the situations are apples and oranges. Too many pilots, pay less, less people want to become pilots, then you have to incentivize more people to get into the field.

Now, I know this is the part where you say "MVFR, you idiot, that's what's gonna happen to us." Let me explain why the two situations are miles apart. When you want to be a pilot, you go to school for it. You typically would invest a large amount of money for it. So by the time you apply for a job, you're qualified. You've done all of your training on your own dime and your own time. ATC on the other hand is completely different. Even if CTI was a requirement, your applicants are entirely unqualified until they go through the training process. The ATO spends a huge amount of money to put someone through the training process, whether or not they certify. Our workforce will never have a huge surplus of qualified employees, because it doesn't make fiscal sense to overload the system.

 

[ATC_av8er]

Having people that want to do the job isn't the same as having people that are able to do the job. I also think that saying they are willing to do it for whatever the corporation is wants to pay them couldn't be more wrong. A huge number of applicants are due to the compensation.

This may be true, but I am willing to bet a lot of them also apply for the chance to do a different kind of job. One that doesn't require them to be stuck in a cubicle 8 hours a day. One where every day at the office is something different. Let's face it. We have an awesome, interesting job. How many people outside of air traffic or aviation know an air traffic controller? You'd be surprised how many people would be willing to take a pay cut if they feel like their job actually means something

 

[ehmeye]

Having people that want to do the job isn't the same as having people that are able to do the job. I also think that saying they are willing to do it for whatever the corporation is wants to pay them couldn't be more wrong. A huge number of applicants are due to the compensation.



I'm going to ignore the baggage handlers part because that is my point of easily replaceable labor.

Companies view labor like a resource, and salary is based on supply and demand. If they have an excess of qualified workers, then the supply is up and if the demand hasn't changed then the worth of that supply goes down. There's are huge fundamental differences between us and pilots. First is we are a much much much smaller workforce. We are currently going into a shortage of pilots, but that's because of the supply and demand arc. In 2000, we had more pilots and WAY WAY less flights. That just doesn't work, the situations are apples and oranges. Too many pilots, pay less, less people want to become pilots, then you have to incentivize more people to get into the field.

Now, I know this is the part where you say "MVFR, you idiot, that's what's gonna happen to us." Let me explain why the two situations are miles apart. When you want to be a pilot, you go to school for it. You typically would invest a large amount of money for it. So by the time you apply for a job, you're qualified. You've done all of your training on your own dime and your own time. ATC on the other hand is completely different. Even if CTI was a requirement, your applicants are entirely unqualified until they go through the training process. The ATO spends a huge amount of money to put someone through the training process, whether or not they certify. Our workforce will never have a huge surplus of qualified employees, because it doesn't make fiscal sense to overload the system.

That is a fair point. Should privatization occur, it will be interesting to see what steps the airlines attempt (if any) to depress wages or cut fees. I much prefer your scenario.

 

[ATC_av8er]

That is a fair point. Should privatization occur, it will be interesting to see what steps the airlines attempt (if any) to depress wages or cut fees. I much prefer your scenario.

It is absolutely a fair point. I just don't think it will be all sunshine and puppies that many people believe privatization will bring in. (NOTE: This is NOT directed to anyone in particular)

 

[Maintainvfr]

This may be true, but I am willing to bet a lot of them also apply for the chance to do a different kind of job. One that doesn't require them to be stuck in a cubicle 8 hours a day. One where every day at the office is something different. Let's face it. We have an awesome, interesting job. How many people outside of air traffic or aviation know an air traffic controller? You'd be surprised how many people would be willing to take a pay cut if they feel like their job actually means something

You're absolutely right, one of my friends was an engineer for Airbus and quit. He works at a level 5 tower now making a third of the money but is twice as happy. That being said, I do think we would lose a lot of OTS applicants that just apply for the salary and have no idea what the job is. Although I'm sure that would make a lot of other applicants happy haha

That is a fair point. Should privatization occur, it will be interesting to see what steps the airlines attempt (if any) to depress wages or cut fees. I much prefer your scenario.

It is absolutely a fair point. I just don't think it will be all sunshine and puppies that many people believe privatization will bring in. (NOTE: This is NOT directed to anyone in particular)

I don't think it will ever be sunshine and rainbows. This is probably one of the closest we've been to that, and yet we're still under attack every day. It's just impossible to move forward with the current system. There always going to be people that want to attack us, but I believe there is a better alternative.

 

[theflyingpig]

ATC Privatization: It’s Back

#VOTE

 

[Dontbotherme]

ATC Privatization: It’s Back

#VOTE

...and also why everyone should consider giving money to the PAC...

 

[axman]

...and also why everyone should consider giving money to the PAC...

Forgive me if I’m wrong, and being facetious...if the agenda of our current president and vp is to privatize how will giving to the PAC discourage that the privitization. If it the desire of ‘the higher powers of NATCA’ it’s going to obviously trickle down to Washington as well that that is our desire.

 

[Maintainvfr]

My first comment is gonna be that all of this should be in the privatization thread, not this one. That being said...

Forgive me if I’m wrong, and being facetious...if the agenda of our current president and vp is to privatize how will giving to the PAC discourage that the privitization. If it the desire of ‘the higher powers of NATCA’ it’s going to obviously trickle down to Washington as well that that is our desire.

The agenda isn't to privatizate. It's to break the status quo. If this kind of discussion is going on, I certainly want our people involved and helping to influence our future.

 

[GulfCharlie]

My first comment is gonna be that all of this should be in the privatization thread, not this one. That being said...



The agenda isn't to privatizate. It's to break the status quo. If this kind of discussion is going on, I certainly want our people involved and helping to influence our future.

Then pushing to remove us from appropriations and working with the Senate to get the votes for it should be the goal brother. We all agree on “stable and predictable” funding but not at the expense at changing from something that crosses state lines and is inherently governmental.

 

[Maintainvfr]

Then pushing to remove us from appropriations and working with the Senate to get the votes for it should be the goal brother. We all agree on “stable and predictable” funding but not at the expense at changing from something that crosses state lines and is inherently governmental.

If that doesn't work, then what? You can't limit yourself to one option.

And unfortunately the precedent has already been set. It has already been ruled that we are not inherently governmental. No matter what our own feelings are on the issue, that fact doesn't change.