Protect Retirement Benefits for Air Traffic Controllers

T

+TSRA

Trusted Contributor
Messages
134
Somenewguy said:
Cute, now that it impacts all of you paying less than 4% people are really upset. Fuck off
Click to expand...
Not to say I have zero sympathy, but I have to note the significant difference in scenarios is that people paying the 4.4% amount knew what they were signing up for.

I.E, nothing was taken from you.

If they passed a bill in 2016 that made it so that those hired 2013 and earlier would have to pay more, then you'd have my full support.
 
I understand what you're saying and I don't agree with it.

There were thousands of controllers who chose ATC in the military and went through CTI programs before the switch that will end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more throughout their career.

I would be willing to bet over a thousand applied to the FAA when the FERS contribution was lower and weren't onboarded until later on.

But that is only part of the problem. If the FAA cut payscales tomorrow and had new level 12 controllers making 90k/year at CPC and level 5 controllers making 40k/year as CPC, that wouldn't be ok. And it doesn't matter if it only impacts new hires, it's just not reasonable to ask someone to do the same exact job as you without the ability to earn the same amount.

I did differentiate "the ability" because your coworkers paying an extra 3-4% don't match your earnings even if they go through the exact same job progression. Their payscale will always start lower and always top out lower.

My take: NATCA is not a group of professionals trying to maintain workers rights for the profession. It's a bunch of individuals trying to grab what they can that benefits themselves. And that's why it's down the shitter.
 
Somenewguy said:
Cute, now that it impacts all of you paying less than 4% people are really upset. Fuck off, I hope natca leadership loses their entire FERS in fucking solidarity.
Click to expand...
Horrible take. I understand you may be jealous of more senior controllers who only pay 1.3%, but that is very shortsighted of you. For what it's worth I agree with you in principle that everyone should pay the same percentage, but that is not the reality we live in.

If you support changes that erode benefits for older employees, you are essentially endorsing the precedent that benefits can be taken away retroactively. That same logic can — and almost certainly will — be applied to YOU later. When workers are divided, it's easier for the government or management to chip away at benefits incrementally, under the radar.


If the 1.3% group loses their rate, what’s stopping them from raising everyone to 9% later? Or taking away locality? Or any number of things?
 
Raise when? said:
Horrible take. I understand you may be jealous of more senior controllers who only pay 1.3%, but that is very shortsighted of you. For what it's worth I agree with you in principle that everyone should pay the same percentage, but that is not the reality we live in.

If you support changes that erode benefits for older employees, you are essentially endorsing the precedent that benefits can be taken away retroactively. That same logic can — and almost certainly will — be applied to YOU later. When workers are divided, it's easier for the government or management to chip away at benefits incrementally, under the radar.


If the 1.3% group loses their rate, what’s stopping them from raising everyone to 9% later? Or taking away locality? Or any number of things?
Click to expand...
While I agree with your point, they’ve increased it multiple times already, so I don’t think it matters how united/divided the union is bc they seemingly just do what they want anyways.
 
+TSRA said:
The Union is FINALLY fighting something.

Let's put our feet in our mouths for this and help out.

Tell Members of Congress They Need to Protect Retirement Benefits for Air Traffic Controllers

NATCA Members: Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its budget framework (budget resolution), establishing top-line limits for spending, taxes, deficits, and the public debt. The budget resolution is not law, but it...
www.votervoice.net
Click to expand...

This has been out since at least April 21 because that’s when I filled it out
 
Somenewguy said:
I understand what you're saying and I don't agree with it.

There were thousands of controllers who chose ATC in the military and went through CTI programs before the switch that will end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more throughout their career.

I would be willing to bet over a thousand applied to the FAA when the FERS contribution was lower and weren't onboarded until later on.

But that is only part of the problem. If the FAA cut payscales tomorrow and had new level 12 controllers making 90k/year at CPC and level 5 controllers making 40k/year as CPC, that wouldn't be ok. And it doesn't matter if it only impacts new hires, it's just not reasonable to ask someone to do the same exact job as you without the ability to earn the same amount.

I did differentiate "the ability" because your coworkers paying an extra 3-4% don't match your earnings even if they go through the exact same job progression. Their payscale will always start lower and always top out lower.

My take: NATCA is not a group of professionals trying to maintain workers rights for the profession. It's a bunch of individuals trying to grab what they can that benefits themselves. And that's why it's down the shitter.
Click to expand...
I got a TOL in 2011... didn't get an FOL until 2014. Thanks FAA.
 
Somenewguy said:
I understand what you're saying and I don't agree with it.

There were thousands of controllers who chose ATC in the military and went through CTI programs before the switch that will end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more throughout their career.

I would be willing to bet over a thousand applied to the FAA when the FERS contribution was lower and weren't onboarded until later on.
Click to expand...
Fair point, and maybe the government could've/should've given a grace period to take those people into consideration.

But I'm not going to agree that the government shouldn't be allowed to make changes that only affect new hires.

Especially when you consider that we would all be paying 4.4%, not 1.3%.

In other words, the fairness you seek would result in dragging down old hires, not lifting up new hires.
 
Raise when? said:
If you support changes that erode benefits for older employees, you are essentially endorsing the precedent that benefits can be taken away retroactively. That same logic can — and almost certainly will — be applied to YOU later. When workers are divided, it's easier for the government or management to chip away at benefits incrementally, under the radar.
Click to expand...
It's definitely not fair that benefits be taken away retroactively. But it's also not fair that benefits be taken away from half of the workforce. Fighting for pay and benefits is about more than my personal compensation - when this career field only pays as much as a bucees manager you are going to see the standards continue to drop. Nobody with other opportunities is going to choose this job at a certain point.

My point is that NATCA leadership isn't picking any battles that they have to sacrifice any amount for other BUEs. But they are fine with whatever out group making the sacrifice.

Do I wish that government employees weren't cannon fodder right now? Yes. Wil I lose any sleep when people have to pay 4.9% into FERS for a couple of years? No. They never lost sleep about the "other" half of the workforce doing the same for over a decade.
 
Last edited:
Somenewguy said:
My point is that NATCA leadership isn't picking any battles that they have to sacrifice any amount for other BUEs.
Click to expand...
It almost sounds like your argument is that raising older employees up to your rate is a sacrifice that'll help you.

The battle as I understand it was to protect everything we currently have. It sounds like we'll come out successful on 2 out of 3 fronts (high 3, retaining current contribution rates), and unsuccessful on the supplement.

To be fair, a lot of us (who want to/will retire before 56) would be better off upping to 5% contributions VS losing the supplement.

Dontbotherme said:
Every controller should be paying 1.3% for dealing with the shitty schedules and shitty work conditions. They shouldn’t be trying to raise it after people signed up for a certain FERS contribution rate.
Click to expand...
Low bar. Every controller should be getting a 20-30% raise for dealing with the shitty schedules and shitty working conditions (among other reasons).
 

Similar threads

E
Airlines, Airlines for America (A4A) Members Abandon Push for Privatization
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
NovemberOscar
N
P
Our current state of the union
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
11K
SquawkHijack
SquawkHijack
GulfCharlie
Hiring Bid (ARTCC) Public Notice for Air Traffic Control Specialist Persons with Disabilities (PWD)
Replies
4
Views
1K
GulfCharlie
GulfCharlie
G
Hiring Bid FAA-ATO-25-ALLSRCE-94224
Replies
9
Views
2K
GulfBravoPapa
G
M
The Twenty Percent
Replies
0
Views
521
miker1369
M
Back
Top Bottom