Target number shenanigans

[MJ]

first a bit of background for context. Our old staffing range was 21-24, when the target numbers were released it was set to 17. As far as I know, the atm questioned this but we were told that's all you need. Recently, we've had a huge increase in overtime and numerous ATC zeros for staffing. Appearantly this got the attention of the district. ATM again said we don't have enough people. This time they came back and said we made a clerical error, you should have 22 (29% increase.. Some clerical error. We currently have 13 CPC). So that's the setting...

Several people asked me about target numbers and getting them changed, etc. during the err mou debacle, so that's why I'm posting this info. I think back room deals or otherwise shady dealings should be put out there for others to see.

So this is what we're being told right now: pick what you want: the lower target number and work very short staffed, with a microscopic chance for someone to transfer in the next 2-3 years, or the higher target number and work short staffed until our dev's certify and we get new dev's reach the new target, and no one has any chance of leaving. We were told to vote on it at the local level!

This is not a local issue, nor is it our responsibility or right to determine. In my opinion, it's the higher ups giving us the choice between two bad options so they can blame us for their "mistake" and the situation they've created.

 

[MJ]

This is what I came back to:

Essentially, the FAA is telling the controllers you decide between:
1) proper staffing and safety of operations, or
2) the possibility of career advancement

Totally morally and legally wrong. Supposedly this has been okayed at the RVP and DM level.

 

[echster]

Just my two uninformed cents, but I believe this is a violation of federal law (5 USC 7106). The Agency is responsible, as a management right, for determining how its organization is comprised and the number of employees it has. I say uninformed, however, because the FAA is exempt from most of 5 USC. Therefore, what rights have the FAA maintained?

If the union contract has a "management rights" section, you may want to review that to see which rights the Agency kept and which rights they gave up to future negotiation. If the Agency retains the right to determine the number of employees it has, then I would file a grievance in that the Agency is in violation of that article of the contract. However, if the Agency allows for negotiation of its employee numbers, what is its definition/interpretation of "organizational subdivision?" In other words, how low does the "subdivision" go down to? Is it national, regional, or facility level? The Agency and union have to negotiate a proper staffing level down to that "subdivision."

I would be wary of anything that leaves individual facility staffing to negotiation between the Agency and individual facilities. A better place for negotiations, in my opinion, is at the national or regional level. This is because, should something happen, the Agency will not be able to lay blame in the employee's laps down to the facility level.

 

[MJ]

I don't think you're wrong. I was pretty upset when I heard this was going down, and so were a couple of my coworkers. I posted it to get it out there becuase it's shady and several people sent me questions specifically about target number changes, so who knows if this is happening at other places as well. People will be pretty upset if one fac or group doesnt have to follow the same rules everyone else does. Why they ever thought this was ok is beyond me.

We were looking at filing an OIG complaint.

This last part doesn't really pertain to anyone else, but just to complete the story, our Facrep screwed up the voting but not securing the box and not marking ballots (ya know, national rules and all) and said he didn't need to follow the rules when it was protested by numerous people. Last night he said the vote was screwed up (because of not following the rules?) and declared he would decide the choice on his own.

 

[mikemike]

Does anyone know if there's anyway to view the data that was used to determine the CPC target number for a facility (I.e., KSN website, etc)?

I know the MOU/SOP establishes the target number using the "90th percentile busiest day of air traffic" & a few other metrics but I don't recall ever seeing the actual data that was submitted.

 

[MJ]

Does anyone know if there's anyway to view the data that was used to determine the CPC target number for a facility (I.e., KSN website, etc)?

I know the MOU/SOP establishes the target number using the "90th percentile busiest day of air traffic" & a few other metrics but I don't recall ever seeing the actual data that was submitted.

I don't think it was ever published anywhere. If you wanted to validate the data, I think the ATM could request it.
How's it goin at orf

 

[JP]

I don't think it was ever published anywhere. If you wanted to validate the data, I think the ATM could request it.
How's it goin at orf

Its pulled out of thin air...
My number was 15-19 and the FacRep and ATM just picked 17 without really knowing the reason...
Needless to say, we've never had 17 people and we had 11 cpcs at the time...
We have so many area rated developmentals tho, that to put them to work, actually justifies our number, even though we're basically opening up a worthless position just to give people stuff to do.
It's a complete waste of money imo. We could easily work with 12-13 cpcs.. but nope, we have to all wait multiple years to get to the magic 16-17 so one person can leave. Just to all wait another year for a new guy to get qualed and the race for the one spot starts again... 9 people bidding for 1 spot per year means that some people are never getting out.

 

[corn4ahead]

Its pulled out of thin air...
My number was 15-19 and the FacRep and ATM just picked 17 without really knowing the reason...
Needless to say, we've never had 17 people and we had 11 cpcs at the time...
We have so many area rated developmentals tho, that to put them to work, actually justifies our number, even though we're basically opening up a worthless position just to give people stuff to do.
It's a complete waste of money imo. We could easily work with 12-13 cpcs.. but nope, we have to all wait multiple years to get to the magic 16-17 so one person can leave. Just to all wait another year for a new guy to get qualed and the race for the one spot starts again... 9 people bidding for 1 spot per year means that some people are never getting out.

Sounds about the same for us. Our TOP is so high right now because we have so many people that FLMs don't know what to do with all them. So we have basically every position split off when realistically we need 1 up and 1 down. Yet, we are considered 59% to our target number. 13 CPCs. Target is 22. 9 decelopmentals.

The FAA needs to find some way to account trainees. We have plenty of people that can work positions if need be that are not fully CPC yet.