Hey Everyone I just wanted to share with everyone the responses I have received from Trish, I sent an email back in December, as well as last week and Trish responded both times.
Let me know what you all think...
Dear Paul & Trish,
I would like to take a minute of your time to voice many of my fellow co-workers and mine concerns to upper leadership regarding the current ERR process and the inability for proper staffing.
As you are aware under the old ERR system, after being selected by a new facility, the two facilities agree on a release date and the transfer would be completed. In smaller lower level facilities, these release dates would more often than not be upwards of two years. Under the old system there were challenges, like it being a "who you know system" and higher level facilities perceptions of low level facility staff members skill level.
Now we are presented with the new ERR process that is staffing the whole NAS. This new system has corrected some issues like sending new academy graduates to only low level (level 4, 5, 6, 7 and
facilities, allowing experienced new hires the flexibility to be placed in an appropriate mid to higher level facilities and providing shorter released times of six months to a year.
But with this change, it has created some severe short comings in the system. The largest being a grid locks in allowing for current employees to ERR to different facilities. As you are aware and the perception at a local facility was to hire employees to staff the lower level facility, and then once checked out, allowing for someone to move on to a higher level after the facility meets national average. The short fall has come with not enough staffing being sent to the low level facility to be trained, in a timely manner, and the unreasonable expectation of the national average staffing level, both which is holding up any forward movement of the employees.
It has been the experience at our current facility that new employees are being checked out in about two years and due to the reality of not being able to ERR to a higher level facilities in a timely manner, it is fueling them to leave for a DOD position or abusing the Hardship Program to move to a more desirable or higher level facility. This leaves the employees that trained the new employee stuck at the low level facility with no reasonable chance to move to a higher level facility due to inadequate staffing and poor influx of new employees.
While we understand that there would some growing pains into this new ERR process, the new ERR is impeding current employees from moving forward in their career. As time goes on without any aggressive communication plan with current staff on the progress on fixing the ERR process, the FAA will continue to lose many more employees to DOD or to other job and career opportunities.
I would like to thank you for your time and hoping to hear from you soon regarding how, specify, the Leadership plans fix the staff issues to allow upward movement within our NAS.
FAA employees ~
start of email
I have added your RVP and the address I have for your facrep which seems to be different from the one you cced in your email.
You have captured some of the issues with the old ERR system which in fact was not a system or process at all. You have also captured some of the positives in the current ERR process. You state the shortfall being that not enough staffing is being sent to the low level facilities to be trained. That in fact is a problem because the FAA has not hired adequately for quite sometime. We are at a 27 year low of CPCs in the system and the FAA (up until this current year) had not met their hiring target. The only reason they met and exceeded it this year is due to congressional (two hearings), media and the DOT level pressure we put on them to staff the workforce properly. It will be another year before we even start to come close to even keeping up with retirements.
The growing pains are not really due to the new ERR process but rather the historically low staffing in the system. Unfortunately they have coincidentally happened about the same time. If we had not implemented a process (which by the way in its one year is poised to move more people than the old one) then everybody would have continued to be held two years at all facilities and been leap frogged by Academy grads into the mid and high level facilities.
With that said, we are constantly working with the FAA to address the process. One of the main goals, is to both easily and transparently, allow those that want to, to move through the system. Andrew, your RVP is on the NCEPT (the group that works the process) and can answer some of the areas being discussed to accomplish that goal.
I did look up MLU and see that it is at just over 80% Target/CPC with 7 in training and in two years forecasted to be at 91.8%. Comparing that to many other facilities people do have an opportunity to move out albeit not all at the same time. Now I get that people resigning mess that up but there isn't a thing we can do about that. They are giving up a great career as an FAA controller when they do that. As far as hardship abuse, Andrew will have to take that one as hardships are all done on a regional level. We have people that game many processes/programs (Old ERR, Hardship-which is pretty hard to do, Flight Deck Training, Credit hours) which as you stated was part of the problem with the old one. Unfortunately, when our members game the system, regardless of which one it is, they hurt us the next time we have to negotiate something on their behalf that can help them.
Have a save, happy and healthy new year,
Trish
Good Afternoon Ms. Gilbert,
During this confusing times and "toddler years" of the new ERR process, I wanted to reach out to you to get some clarification and ask some difficult questions. I recently heard there was many issues on the staffing TELCON back on August 23, 2017. I didn't have the opportunity to sit in on the TELCON. Sadly, I was told that none of our NATCA Representatives were able to be a part of the TELCON either. Many employees throughout the agency are talking and aren't happy with what was stated by the NATCA higher ups, so I was wishing to inquire and ask for clarification on what transpired during this event.
I would like to provide a few examples, the following that is rumored to happen but are not word for word:
"The agency never promised career progression".
"Level 7 and below employees, you all might just want to strap in and get comfortable and just accept being at a low facility for the near future, if not your career".
“If you are that desperate to progress go to N90 or C90.”
"Come to Washington D.C. for the NATCA convention to state our opinions"
I would like to offer some thoughts on these above "rumored" states, if they are true.
If our union, NATCA, is unwilling to fight for its general membership, to say the least about a vote on major changes that affect the larger general membership / workforce, how does NTACA expect to keep the general membership behind the union? This new MOU/ERR process, to this point has been detrimental to the MAJORITY of the general membership and their progression in their careers. The process was supposed to be impartial and fair, but yet the local managers are still grading or ranking the list of potential transfers.
How can the union expect the general membership to support (pay dues) to NATCA if it does not listen to its general membership and support processes and plans that are unproven to be successful ( US airspace privatization; please see current UK airspace issues and pit fall post privatization) and stagnant career progression (current MOU for the ERR process)?
If the union truly feels that if a controller's only option to progress should be a direct transfer to N90 or C90, then extensive and exhaustive look should be placed not only on those facilities themselves (high training failure rate and why would an employee would want to transfer to facility that they would never be able to transfer out of), but why most people want to move back to their home states and families.
During this TELCON, it was stated to come to Washington D.C. for the NATCA convention to state our opinions. My question is how can we do that if we are at a low level facility were staffing doesn't permit? Also how can we come to the convention if an employee doesn't have the money for all the expenses? We as American citizens don't have to come to D.C. to voice our opinions when a political election and or things need to be voted on. Why should this be any different?
With the current staffing issues, it appears NATCA only cares and fights for their higher level facility members. Why is NATCA not pushing to have ALL new employees placed at a Level 7 or lower and then allow those Level 7 and below move to a higher level facilities?
It was also brought up in the TELCON that employees in low level facilities aren't happy and there isn't any movement so employees are left with no choice but to hardship and or quit to go work for the DOD or contract facilities. It was stated in response that the agency will deal with its loss's and will just hire new employees. So that tells me that we are just pawns on a chess board and can be replaced at any time.
While I understand that most of this may feel that I am just venting, I need for you to understand that MLU and the current state of the general membership is in great distress.
MLU is currently 205 on the list to get more people. We have an average of 15 CPC's. We currently have 9 CPC's with 7 Developmental. That totals 16 CPC's that will be certified in the future in about 1.75 years. We need at least 12 CPC's to even be considered to let an employee go. Which to get to 12 CPC's we need 4 more to certify. No telling how long that will take. At the moment we have 2 people threatening to hardship (on top of the 3 that have already hard shipped in addition we have lost 1 due to going back to the DOD in the last 18 months) if things don't change and we have 2 people waiting to apply to A80 bid when it comes out. Furthermore, they wouldn't even be considered because there will probably be a level stipulation like usual. As this is all speculation that would put us at 12 CPC's which is still below the national average and we wouldn't be able to let anyone go. If those people stay it will only be one in and one out movement, "if we get to see that day". I currently have been here for 5 years applying to facilities under the old process and now under the new process with no light at the end of the tunnel for progressing in my career and or in my fellow NATCA brothers and sisters careers. Also there is no light for anyone in MLU because we are not slated to be getting any new people. Also out of the 16 employees here in MLU only 4 CPC's and 3 Management have self-identified that they want to stay here at this facility. Everyone else wants to progress and go home to their home states. What is NATCA's plan to help its members and other low level facilities in this horrible situation?
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your written response to the above rumors and how NATCA is going to ensure that its general membership is able to and willing to continue its support the union.
start of email
Sorry you couldn’t make the telcon. We are looking to schedule another call as well as a webinar on the NCEPT process. We were very clear that while the process is being tweaked as we continue to try and improve that the reason people are not moving as quickly as they can is because the staffing nationwide is so bad. We only have 10595 CPCs and should have just over 13000. The FAA does not agree with that and we continue to be at impasse on what the number should be. With that said, the FAA has reached their hiring goal only two years out of the last 10 years with nobody getting hired in 2013. In 2014 they changed the hiring process which contributed to their inability to meet their goal many years in a row. The timing of putting in an ERR process, where one really did not exist, unfortunately coincided with the worst staffing we have ever had. We are at a 28 year low of CPCs.
As far as your quotes:
1) Not what was said however there was a conversation about the definition of an ERR (Employee Requested Reassignment) meaning that it is just that. A request. Except now with NCEPT it is not arbitrary and can’t be denied for no reason, like in the past. Now there is a very transparent process and three times the movement than we have saw before it was in place.
2) Not said or anything like that.
3) It was said that priority releases exist for some of the critically harder to staff facilities. That point was made when somebody asked why they were not approved and somebody else was released.
4) We explained how to introduce resolutions for the convention body to consider, debate and vote on. Convention sets the course of the union for the next two years. With regard to things like this which we have to either collaborate (usually nonnegotiable) or negotiate with the FAA then we get a sense of direction we should take with the FAA as we are not in full control of the decision. The convention is in April in Philadelphia not DC.
Ranking employees is a statutory management’s right. Not something we can ever change.
The convention delegates twice voted on the strategy on supporting the AIRR Act. Prior to both conventions every member was mailed the proposals on it. Members voice their concerns to their delegates before they attend the convention. The delegates debate, amend and vote on any proposals. That is what occurred. We agree the UK model is a giant mistake. The UK model is profit driven and nothing like the non-profit as outlined in the AIRR Act.
We do not believe the ERR process is a failure. In fact many more CPCs have been moved in the 18 months it has been in existence. Much more than the previous 3 years where there lacked a process. Again movement is slower than most would like due to the significance of the lack of staffing in the system. Exasperating the situation with regard to CPCs wanting to move is the way the FAA places out of the Academy. If at least they would let individuals pick facilities in one of the nine legacy regions or at least one of the three service areas instead of nationwide placement then we would have individuals in areas of the country they want to be in. This is something we continue to push the FAA to change.
“If the union truly feels that if a controller’s only option to progress should be a direct transfer to N90 or C90, then extensive and exhaustive look should be placed not only on those facilities themselves (high training failure rate and why would an employee would want to transfer to facility that they would never be able to transfer out of), but why most people want to move back to their home states and families.” This is not even close to what was said. BTW, we have finally gotten the FAA to look at and improve training at the Academy (modified RTF, modified TSEW and a new assessment for 10, 11 and 12 facilities called TETRA - Ten, eleven, twelve radar assessment). Additionally we are validating Human Factors training in four of the large TRACONS. If successful, we intend to continue to push the FAA to implement it at the large TRACONS in hopes that it will improve the success rate there.
NATCA is trying very hard to get the system staffed. We have held two staffing hearings before Congress on the issue as the FAA doesn’t necessarily think they are understaffed. We changed the law last year to allow a more expeditious hiring process with CTI grads and military vets skipping the BQ. Also allowing experienced CPCs to come in up to the age of 35 instead of aging out at 31. We continue to also publicize the shortages with Congress and the media. Things would only get worse if some of the proposed cuts to retirements become law. If that happens we wouldn't be able to staff the system and likely we would see many lower level facilities contracted or closed. While that would push those members into higher level facilities it would be a devastating thing to do to the system and the profession.
I understand you and many members are frustrated with the staffing situation. We absolutely are as well.
Trish
