This was sent 07/23/15
Headlines, Headlines, Headlines!!!!
Air-traffic control union chief: Privatization possible, but funding crucial
While the above headline isn’t exactly accurate, it is not as bad as some that have come out indicating we support ATC privatization. The headline, of course, is the most important part of an article. Busy people keep their lives manageable by deciding almost instantly whether something is worth their time. It's the headline's job to entice them, engage them, and capture their attention so that they ignore all other distractions to read the article. Without a headline that pulls the reader in, the article just won’t be read. And, in today’s market where online readership equals advertising dollars, the clicks matter.
With that said let’s get into the meat of the issue with a simple Q & A….
Q: What does NATCA oppose?
A: At this point NATCA opposes the
two extremes of the issue: maintaining the status quo and for-profit privatization. Because we don’t know all of the specifics of the soon-to-be-introduced FAA Reauthorization Bill (the legislative vehicle where any likely change will occur), we cannot take a position, either supporting or opposing.
- Status Quo - We have repeatedly sent updates to members, have stated in speeches, and have explained in panel discussions that defending the “status quo” is not an option. The status quo is riddled with funding uncertainty.
- Annual appropriations - Congress has not passed a Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bill since 2006. Instead, the FAA has been funded either with short-term spending bills known as continuing resolutions (CRs), larger omnibus funding packages, or a combination of the two. Additionally, due to the controversial nature of funding bills, we almost had a full government shutdown in April 2011 and did have a 16-day shutdown in October 2013. Unfortunately, we will see another shutdown, unless there is an agreement on a funding bill—THUD or CR—by October 1.
- If the THUD bill is signed into law, we will still experience significant cuts in the Facilities & Equipment (F&E) budget. This will negatively affect modernization of facilities and maintenance of facilities and equipment. The operations budget is virtually flat, which could affect hiring even if it does not cause furloughs. The President issued a veto threat because he opposes sequester-level caps being written into appropriations bills.
- If a CR is signed into law, FAA will be funded at FY15 dollars, which would leave operations funding short. This would likely require a hiring freeze for some lines of business, including the ATO, and could also lead to facility closures.
The bottom line is that the two likely appropriations bills do nothing to solve the problems of unstable and unpredictable funding, and could actually make things significantly worse. This fiscal uncertainty has made it difficult for the FAA to make any long-term commitments for spending on modernization programs, hiring, facility maintenance, training, and certification of new and updated aircraft, among other things.
- Sequester - Sequestration is set to take effect again on October 1. Cuts to the FAA operations budget are projected to be much worse than in 2013. Maintenance delays and hiring freezes were put into place in 2013, and with those cuts, there was still a $253 million shortfall in the operations budget. That deficit forced the FAA to furlough every employee for one day per pay period for 11 pay periods. As you recall, we were able to rally, advocate, and work with Congress to pass a law allowing the Administrator to move $253 million from Airport Improvement Programs (AIP) budget to plug the shortfall in the operations budget and end the furloughs. Sequester is a 10-year budget process though, and FY16 is only year four. FY13’s sequester cuts led to the furloughs, threats of tower closures, a nine-month hiring freeze, delayed maintenance, and FAA’s withdrawal from modernization activities. Congress and the White House reached a budget agreement to delay sequester cuts in FY14 and FY15. If sequester funding levels are applied to FY16, there will be system capacity issues resulting from reduced staffing, furloughs, equipment outages, and other FAA-implemented cuts.
The current state of the FAA, and our status as government employees, is certainly not the status quo we advocated for and defended in the 90s. With that said, our preferred position is to remain government employees in an agency or structure safeguarded from the threat of sequester, government shutdowns, and short-term funding bills (CRs). We seek a funding system that is predictable and allows for hiring, training, modernizing, and infrastructure improvements—not one that burdens the NAS with furloughs, staffing shortfalls, tower closures, and aging equipment and buildings.
Privatization For Profit – We have had to be clear in our opposition to any model that derives profits from ATC services, like we saw with Lockheed Martin and the Flight Service Option (AFSS), or the contract towers run by Serco, Midwest, and RVA. The media and others continue to describe a federally chartered not-for-profit corporatization (a model like NavCanada’s) as privatization. These two systems are significantly different.
Q: What does NATCA support?
A: A seat at the table and a voice in any discussion about the system. We believe we have better opportunities to meet the needs of the system and our membership by properly advocating for key elements that need to be addressed in any of the scenarios.
- Enhanced Status Quo Model - In this model, governance would remain within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), but changes would be needed to address the manner in which the FAA is funded without changing it structurally.
- Government Corporation or Independent Agency - This model would pull the entire FAA—or parts of the FAA—out of DOT, and create a government corporation or independent agency. The government corporation model would require the formation of a governing board that includes stakeholders and government officials. This model would leave air traffic control functions within the government, but would remove them from the DOT.
- Not-For-Profit Corporate Model - This model would also require the formation of a governing board, which would include stakeholders and government officials. An example of this would be NavCanada, whose board has three directors elected by the government of Canada. In this model, safety oversight and regulatory functions would remain within the FAA.
We have done our best to prepare for any scenario. We have advocated for all of the following pieces to be included in any change, although some would not be necessary depending on what model, if any, becomes law.
- NATCA would continue as the exclusive representative of those represented today, with nation-wide bargaining units. (If there were a split between operations and safety/regulatory, we would continue to represent units in both areas.)
- Hybrid Labor Code - FLRA would maintain jurisdiction, but NATCA would have the negotiation rights of a private sector union, to allow NATCA to negotiate those matters covered by statute for the federal workforce but not covered by statute for private sector employees.
- Dispute Resolution Process - Grievances would be resolved through mediation, followed by binding arbitration for issues at impasse.
- Protections of FERS/CSRS, TSP, Survivor Annuity, and the ability to negotiate pensions in the case of a model outside of government.
- Sick leave, annual leave, comp time, and credit hour carry-over.
- Pay, compensation, and benefits remain in effect, including COLA to locality where occurring, and the ability to negotiate benefits in the case of a model outside of government.
- Collective Bargaining Agreements, orders, rules, practices remain in effect until renegotiated.
- Grievances, lawsuits, etc., continue in process.
- Workers’ Compensation under the Federal employee program (FECA).
- Whistleblower protections.
- Liability protection: employee indemnification where acting in the course of their duty.
- Process for movement between new entity and regulatory FAA.
- Transitional Agreements to deal with the multitude of issues that would arise during any transition. Unresolved issues would be subject to the binding arbitration, dispute resolution process.
- Bi-Lateral - Between labor and the new entity
- Tri-Partite - Between labor, the new entity, and the safety/regulatory entity.
- Labor seats on the governance board.
We will not support—and will aggressively oppose—any bill that does not protect these things, or threatens our ability to exist as a union, negotiate all work rules, pay/benefits, and participate in a fair dispute resolution process. The devil is in the details, and we intend to pore over every detail in the draft bill, when it is finally released.
We continue to discuss these issues with House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking Member Peter DeFazio. We will ensure that the Chairman and Ranking Member know how important each item is to us. We have also been cautioning committee leaders that the transition will have to be carefully examined and cannot be done in haste.
Safety will always remain our top priority. We want to see the NAS grow, innovate, modernize, and create jobs. The right kind of change can bring certainty and growth to our nation’s aviation system, and security to the committed professionals who operate it.
We have to be strategic and thorough on any support or opposition. Right now the Congressional committee members want to know what we need. This issue has been around for decades, and if change does not occur now, the issue will be resurrected again sometime in the future. If that happens we will be glad that we already did the work, as future committee leadership might not give us a seat at the table. Having laid the groundwork now will only serve to benefit us in the future, because new committees will likely start from where this one finishes. Our collaboration, expertise, and attention to detail will protect us now and down the line.
We have to learn from the past. We have to be careful when we fight and with whom we fight. We must remember that we have not always been successful, even when our fight is righteous. We lost the contract tower fight, and we endured many years of pay freezes and imposed work rules. Ultimately, we have and continue to organize the Federal Contract Towers. We negotiated a fair contract and worked with Congress to pass a fair dispute resolution procedure to ensure that work and pay rules will never be unilaterally imposed again.
The next Chairman may not give us the time of day, and the next President may not care about us. This is not just about what could happen now, but also about being prepared for what may happen in the future. We need to work with those who will work with us. That means we cannot start from “no.” We can only oppose a bill once we’ve seen everything in it and we know it doesn’t meet our needs. Then our opposition has to be measured and messaged in a way that shows the effect of such a bill on the system, economy, and safety, because many in Congress simply will not prioritize the needs of our workforce.
As you know, the current FAA Authorization expires at the end of September. Given the new expected timeline for introduction of FAA Reauthorization, we anticipate that Congress will have to pass an extension to the current Authorization. Stay tuned to our updates. We will provide more information as soon as it becomes available. Until then, thank you for your dedication and commitment to maintaining the safest, most efficient airspace in the world.