Ruth Marlin remarks to NATCA in Washington 2003

02/25/2003

Good Morning,

Whenever I am preparing to speak at an event, I try and get a sense of the conference and see if there are any themes that emerge. As I have listened to each speaker and the questions from the audience, it struck me that if there is any theme emerging out of this conference, it is one of fine lines. For each issue and for each position, there are very fine lines of distinction. It is within these fine lines that we will determine our victory.

The first and most important fine line for our union, is the issue of national security. We do not want to position ourselves as so vital to national security that we are stripped of our union rights, because it is only by virtue of these rights that we are able to fight these battles. Many have talked about the risk of being moved into the TSA or Department of Homeland Security and I agree with our earlier speaker that that risk is not great, because it would take so much to add agencies into the model that has already been adopted. However, that does not mean that the risk is not there. The president retains the ability to determine ATC is national security and excluded us from chapter 71 ? the labor-management statute that includes collective bargaining rights.

This is not a new argument. When President Kennedy granted collective bargaining rights to federal employees for the first time, then FAA Administrator Halaby argued unsuccessfully that air traffic controllers should be excluded. Under FAA reform, there was an effort to exempt the entire FAA from chapter 71, but with NATCA?s help and the support of organized labor, congress and the president acted to reinstate our collective bargaining rights. This history works in our favor, but we still cannot take this risk lightly, we must maintain vigilance when walking this fine line.

In our arguments, we must focus on aviation safety. I am not saying we should ignore the role we each play in national defense, our jobs are what they are and we are not trying to hide anything. But inherently governmental is not the same as national security. There are many, many, jobs in government that are inherently governmental but not national security. Being inherently governmental does not give the president authority to exclude us from collective bargaining rights.

That is the fine line we are here to walk. Air traffic control should be an inherently governmental function. It is a public safety function; it is our national civil aviation infrastructure. The reason we are not primarily national security is because if the nation were suddenly secure tomorrow, we would still need to separate the airplanes, and we would still need the infrastructure ? navaids, surveillance, runways ? and as some members pointed out yesterday, our transportation policy has its roots in the constitution. There is a national interest that is served by providing this network.

We heard a lot of different perspectives on the issues, but one thing has been clear from each speaker. The issues are complex there are fine lines of distinction and each side can use the rhetoric to support their own positions. For example, yesterday we heard from the Majority Staff on the AIR 21 panel that in order to privatize ATC it would take an act of Congress. Well, yes and no. It all depends on how you define privatization. That is where the subtly of our arguments come in, the fine lines.

For those that want to stop the debate, when all of the polls say that the public opposes ATC privatization, and it has clearly become a political liability to support privatization, it is in their interest to argue that privatization is not even a threat. The easiest way is to say that it would require legislation and that there is no will in Congress to privatize ATC, just dismiss the argument. In the rhetoric of Washington, D.C. they don?t see a conflict between saying you are against privatization but for contracting. How can that be the case? Simple. Define privatization as it relates to funding. That wholesale privatization means that the funding structure is completely removed from the government ? essentially, user fees. And in fact, that would require an act of Congress and it is extremely unlikely.

So the administration, seeing inadequate support in Congress, seeks to use other avenues available to achieve the same goal. Classifying ATC as commercial is an administrative act. Expanding contracting out whether it is in our non-ATC bargaining units, the former level two towers or every single facility in the country does not require Congress to act. The only difference is that the government retains the funding.

So pro-contracting members of Congress can say they oppose privatization because the subtle distinction is made on the funding side. For those of us working in the system, the outcome is the same. The safety of our nation?s civil aviation infrastructure is put in the hands of a private company who must ensure profitability ? even if safety is the trade off. Whether the funding comes directly from the users or is paid on a government contract is irrelevant, the outcome is the same.

The problems identified in Professor Sclar?s report ?The Pitfalls of ATC Privatization? occur under a contracted system as well as a self-funded system. In some ways, the contracted out system could be worse as the door remains open to subcontracting putting another layer profit incentive into the system.

When you are talking to your members of Congress today and tomorrow be prepared for them to say that privatization would require an act of Congress, be prepared to respond that it looks like the administration is laying the groundwork to circumvent Congress by privatization through contracting out the service. The facts are in your issue book. We must effectively communicate the issue, the path is clear. The actions taken by the administration are not without a purpose.

I have seen in briefings from OPM and OMB that one of the strategies of this administration is to find the path of least resistance. Currently, that path is one that goes around Congress. In the briefing on the proposed changes to the A-76 process, the OMB made it very clear that they had no intention of getting input from Congress.

In fact, I looked at one of the information boards at this hotel yesterday and one of the sessions for the group from the Department of Justice was titled ?Creative Uses for Existing Legislation.? Any lobbyist in DC will tell you that it is much easier to stop legislation from moving forward than it is to advance it. So the administration is choosing battles that they can move forward without legislation, which puts the opponents in the position of having to advance legislation to intervene. This is a very clever course of action ? it immediately puts the opposition at an extreme disadvantage. For us, we are the opposition and this approach by the administration puts us at that disadvantage.

That only means that we must work harder. We must stay focused and we must communicate our position clearly and explain why we are looking for legislative intervention. The administration will say the have made us reason code A ? core mission and not subject to privatization. That is their fine line, detailed rhetoric that is used to dismiss the issue, to deflect debate. But reason codes are not the issue and we don?t want to be dragged down into a technical debate where we are talking about reason codes instead of substance. Don?t assume the members of Congress or staff that you talk to have any knowledge or interest in reason codes, they don?t. In fact with the changes proposed by OMB the reason codes will change anyway.

We need to make the distinctions in these fine lines ? not by one reason code or another, but rather by a plain language explanation of the issue. Make your arguments simply. OMB has reported ATC as a commercial activity and while it is listed as a core function this year, that offers no protection for the future. Tell them that this is an overt change that the administration is not taking this action for no reason.

Rather than ask them to support S. 338, ask that they support the Safe and Secure Skies Act. The words mean more than the numbers. The safe and Secure Skies Act is a very good name, what member of Congress would want their voting record to say they are opposed to Safe and Secure Skies? Ask members of Congress to write a letter to the administration opposing contracting or privatization of the air traffic control system.

Which brings me to another fine line. We oppose the actions of the administration, however we must be careful to ensure that the administration does not define success by this issue alone. Failure to privatize or contract out the air traffic control system cannot be seen as a failure of the administration. This is where we see the line between policy (or ideology) and politics. Just as we were told yesterday about the steel tariffs ? the free market ideology would oppose tariffs on imported steel. But the steelworkers union and the employers staged a very public campaign to support the tariffs. Many Republican Congressional districts would be adversely affected if the tariffs were not implemented. At this point politics conflicted with policy ? and politics won. The tariffs were implemented.

Our issue can be characterized in much the same way. There are many members of Congress that believe in smaller government, embrace an ideology that the private sector is more efficient and less expensive than government ? yet those same members of Congress may have a great deal to lose in their districts if more facilities are contracted out. Investment is diverted from smaller facilities to larger ones. It is simple math. The 25 busiest airports in the country are only in a few more than 25 congressional districts. The other 300 or so are the ones likely to be at the short end of the stick. The numbers are on our side, provided we make the arguments correctly.

If we are to succeed this cannot be NATCA vs. the President of the United States. In that regard, the denials, the fine lines being walked by the administration works to our advantage. The administration is on record opposing privatization. Politically, the President can sign a bill that prevents privatizing all or part of the system without contradicting himself. Imagine the day that the legislation is signed declaring our professions as inherently governmental, it is very important that the White House is able to say that they never intended to privatize it in the first place, or we might risk a veto. This battle is about achieving our goals and it is not important who gets credit for it. Victory will come from preserving our professions, not from getting bragging rights.

By the same token, we do not want to make this issue a battle between Republicans and Democrats. There is nothing that would be better for our union than when NATCA wins, for both parties to declare victory. In a traditional conflict there are winners and losers, in politics with a closely divided House and Senate, those who win their issues are the ones who can uncover the winning ground for each side.

That is where it is important that you develop and customize your message. Part of your job is to get to know your member of Congress. Read their web site, see what is important to that particular member of Congress and see how your issue fits within their goals. NATCA?s issues are not Republican or Democrat and we must majority-proof this union. We should not be in a position where our future hangs on the next election ? our goal is to achieve a NATCA majority in Congress.

At the reception at Bullfeathers the other night, one of our activists was telling me it was hard to separate his political views from the issues when they are in town lobbying. Yes, it is difficult, but if we are to build a NATCA majority, we must remember that we are here for NATCA, that it is our brothers and sisters that have paid for us to be here and sometimes that means we have to check our personal politics at the door.

Just as Joe Lockhart and Mark Lampkin said yesterday, do not walk in the door as a Republican or Democrat, but as a constituent and always remember what is good for your community is good for your Congressman?s district. And what is good for his district is good for his re-election.

Think about your facility and how privatization might affect it. If you are not one of the top 25 airports, it is likely you would see investment diverted from your airport to one that may be more profitable. As the FAA is trying to ?run more like a business? we are already seeing this effect when it comes to modernization. If you are one of the top 25 ? the drive for even greater efficiency may push the limits of safety. Only you know the specific pressures you are under already ? how might that be exacerbated if ever increasing capacity with minimal investment becomes the goal. And if you are a center, consolidation plans could pull the entire federal facility out of the district and the associated funding and economic benefits brought to the community by the workforce would be lost. Take a few minutes and think about the specifics of your facility. See what examples you can think of and think of the angles that will appeal to your Congressman.

Building a NATCA majority is our goal. Getting members of Congress and their staff to understand and appreciate our positions will pay dividends not only on this issue, but on all of our issues. But in order to achieve this goal we must be willing to make the investment in educating Congress.

When you talk to our supporters, thank them. Read the names in the briefing book and thank every one that has sent a letter. Ask what you can do to help them advance this issue. For those that have not yet taken action, take the time to invest in education. Ask questions, if you meet a pro-privatization legislator, ask them why they have taken that position, don?t argue, educate. Find out why someone is on the opposite side of the issue and arm yourself with tools to help convert them. Tell them that the recent Zogby poll indicated that 71% of Americans oppose the privatization of ATC. Talk about the Sclar report and give them time to let the information sink in. You will not change an opinion in a 15-minute meeting, but use it as a starting point.

When you go to the Hill today, remember that the facts are on your side. Stay focused, but relax, engage in conversations and get to know your member?s office staff and their views if you don?t already. And remember: This a marathon, not a sprint. We will not finish this battle this week, but we will move closer to our goal. Look around you at the activists that have joined you today and remember you are part of an amazing team. We have fought harder battles and won, we have the potential not just to push back these efforts, but to defeat them once and for all.