FAA Watch: Debunking the FAA and DOT's Misleading and False Statements

The "FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006" was introduced to bring more fairness and accountability to the bargaining process between the FAA and NATCA. But since the bill’s introduction last week the FAA and DOT have been working in overdrive to spread misleading, or downright false, statements about what the bill would do. The attacks against their own employees are nothing new, but some of the falsehoods are. Below you’ll find the latest rebuttals to the FAA and DOT’s increasingly desperate attempts to smear America’s air traffic controllers and this important new piece of legislation.

And this issue is larger than the FAA and NATCA.  It is about the way Congress checks the executive and the proper relationship between any executive and his or her workers.

Congressional Oversight

The FAA: “Senator Obama’s bill dismantles the long-standing statutory method for resolving wage disputes with the FAA and its unions, removes Congress’ control over the appropriations process, damages the FAA’s current negotiating position, and could end up costing the taxpayer billions of dollars.”

DOT: “Senator Obama’s S.2201 Removes Congressional Control Over FAA Appropriations”…

The Truth:

• This bill allows for an “up or down” vote - thus placing the burden of accountability on both parties at the bargaining table. It ensures fairness in the process and allows Congress to take an active oversight role.
  
  
• The provision that the FAA refers to as a “long-standing statutory method for resolving wage disputes” actually makes no mention of wage disputes and has only been used once to resolve a collective bargaining issue - last year. It is the FAA’s actions last year that revealed a fundamental unfairness and lack of accountability that the new legislation seeks to insert.
  
  
• There is nothing in the bill that removes Congressional control from the process.  In fact, quite the opposite: the negotiating proposal is sent to Congress, lawmakers are given an opportunity to act before any binding arbitration begins. Congress retains the full authority to adopt the FAA proposal or allow it to go to binding arbitration. Under the Obama legislation, it is only when Congress determines that its intervention is not required that binding arbitration would occur.

Right to Negotiate Pay

The FAA: The FAA is one of the only federal agencies that negotiates pay.  Most agencies simply set pay.  This unusual right was given to the FAA in 1996.  In exchange, Congress required disputes over pay be sent to the Hill.  Because new contracts could cost billions of dollars, it only makes sense that Congress would want the final say.

The Truth:

• There was no quid pro quo when FAA reform was passed in 1996.  As the system was reformed, neither side asked for the right to negotiate pay and the provision was not put in place because no such request was made by the parties.  
  
  
• The overriding issue was that the major FAA reforms be implemented quickly.  Congress wanted to ensure that there were no dilatory tactics used to slow reform. Pay negotiations were not mentioned in the legislation or debate.  After FAA reform was passed, it was still an open question whether pay was to be a subject of bargaining. It took another year before that process began.

Role of a Third Party Arbitrator

The FAA: Under Senator Obama’s bill, all future pay disputes between the FAA and its 9 major unions, which represent 45 bargaining units, would be sent to binding arbitration, thereby giving Congress’ control of the FAA’s budget to a third-party arbitrator.  This would be unprecedented in government.

The Truth:

• The statement that “under Senator Obama’s bill, all future pay disputes…would be sent to binding arbitration” is not true.  Under the bill, future disputes would go to Congress, which would be given the opportunity to act on the conflict or choose to allow it to go to binding arbitration. 
  
  
• In the event that Congress chooses not to act, the dispute is sent to binding arbitration. However, the bill reduces the likelihood that pay disputes will occur because it ensures that both parties bear equal risk in a dispute resolution. In fact, last year was the first time in NATCA history that the union was not able to obtain a voluntary agreement with the FAA.  A voluntary agreement that can be sent out for ratification by employees is the current goal and should continue to be the goal. A level playing field for dispute resolution encourages both parties to reach a voluntary agreement, making dispute resolution unnecessary.

The Role of An Arbitrator

DOT: The bill would eliminate long-standing methods for wage disputes between FAA and its unions by removing Congress from the appropriations process, potentially allowing an arbitrator to set controller salaries.

The Truth:

• Congress in not removed from the appropriations process or the dispute.  The FAA  just has to make its case to Congress for its last best offer and have Congress authorize the Agency to act.  Otherwise, the issue will be sent to binding arbitration.

Controller Compensation: The Current Contract

The FAA: The 1998 contract – which was the first time the agency ever negotiated pay - - resulted in a massive windfall for the union.  What was promised to cost $200 million over the first 3 years, actually cost $1.1 billion over the same period.  The controllers received a 75% pay increase since 1998.

DOT: NATCA’s Contract Already Too Rich For American Taxpayers…Airline Employees Take Pay  Cuts While Controllers Ask For Huge Raises…

The Truth:

• The FAA’s statement about “what was promised to cost $200 million…” is manufactured. When the FAA and NATCA jointly reclassified the pay system and the manner in which facilities are evaluated, both parties knew (as did Congress) that the decisions would increase payroll by $200 million per year – and that the increase would be phased in over three years. NATCA does not confuse an annual increase with total cost.
  
  
• NATCA also worked together with the FAA to identify cost offsets which accounted for approximately 50% of the increase.  Three reports evaluating the cost savings were produced by the FAA; however, the agency no longer produces these reports. The reports showed significant productivity gains as controllers assumed additional duties and the cost savings were materializing. It is as a result of these cost savings and productivity gains that the FAA has been able to absorb traffic increases without increasing (and actually decreasing) staffing.
  
  
• The 1998 contract did not constitute a “windfall for the union.” The agreement was a restructuring of pay for FAA employees that the agency also extended to thousands of employees not represented by NATCA.  Also, controllers are not airline employees.  The FAA and its workers do not serve the industry, they play a vital role to serve the public and protect them.

Controller Compensation: The Next Contract

FAA: NATCA’s current contract proposal would put the average controller compensation package for all controllers over $200,000 within 5 years.  The FAA opposes this, and as a result, NATCA wants to legislate an outcome that allows them to further increase their already high salaries.

The Truth:

• NATCA is not “pushing for more.”  The union has asked for nothing more than the status quo – which means that controller pay raises would continue to align with any pay raises Congress passes for public employees. The NATCA pay proposal keeps Congress in charge of our pay. The FAA proposal would cut pay for all employees and subsequently institute a multi-year pay freeze for nearly 80% of the agency’s controller workforce.
  
  
• NATCA does not want to “legislate an outcome.”  NATCA wants to legislate a process that recognizes a simple fact: true good faith bargaining cannot exist if one party is able to impose its will on the other.

The Purpose of the "FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006"

The FAA: NATCA believes is has a better chance with an arbitrator than with Congress.  Moreover, it allows the union to further stall negotiations.  The reason we have not reached agreement is that NATCA negotiators have refused to seriously discuss key wage issues with the agency.  Why?  Because they want to change the rules.

The Truth:

• NATCA is not stalling.  In fact, 91 of the 151 articles being negotiated have already been agreed upon by both parties.  Progress continues to be made every day.  The FAA has never made this much progress so quickly on any negotiation with any bargaining unit, including the contract extension in which most articles were rolled over. Administrator Blakey oversaw that process, which took one full year. 
  
  
• Good thorough bargaining takes time. Negotiating the terms and conditions of work for nearly half of the agency's employees demands hard work.  The contract covers every element of the day-to-day work life of employees.  Neither side can rush to judgment on such important issues.

Mediation and Impasse

The FAA: If NATCA were serious about a negotiated settlement, then they would accept the agency’s repeated requests to mediate before an impasse is reached, as required by current law.  NATCA’s professed desire to reach a settlement can’t be taken seriously.  Why pass a law requiring arbitration when the union won’t even participate in mediation?

DOT: Why require arbitration when the union refuses to participate in voluntary mediation?

The Truth:

• Mediation occurs when the parties reach impasse – which has not happened on any topic in the current negotiations. Good faith negotiations ask the parties to move as far as they can on a voluntary basis before a third party is invited in to mediate. NATCA welcomes the use of the mediation process when it is appropriate. 
  
  
• This is not a stalling tactic.  It is the use of the mediation process for the very reason it was designed – to assist with impasse.   That is how mediation is used in every collective bargaining agreement inside and outside the FAA.
  
  
• The FAA’s premature call for mediation appears to be an attempt to short cut the process and move to impasse faster.  This would allow the agency to assert that mediation has been completed when impasse is reached – and by doing so avoid the post-impasse mediation required by law.  

Main Menu
Bill Seeks to Restore Fairness