First and foremost, on behalf of all the attendees from ZSE, thank you for allowing us to represent you at the 2016 NATCA Convention in San Diego. Special thanks to Drew. He was extremely busy with the constitution committee and still making it back to sit with us and hear the business on the floor. We recorded the outcomes of all the amendments and resolutions, but I have narrowed it down to 4 main issues. They are as follows: FCT time, Sup time, Military time, and privatization. Not to bury the lead, but, nothing changed. If you’re in a hurry, you’re welcome. For those with time, here’s a little more information.
FCT Time: Coming off of our pre-convention meetings we as a local overwhelmingly said we wanted to take away the retro-active FCT time. When we left, we intended to carry this message but cautioned that if we learned more information that we might change the facility stance. The information we learned was that the retro-active time that FCT’s enjoy was not an oversight but purposely in there and debated back in the Pittsburgh NATCA convention in 1996. To cut to the chase, if we voted to go with NATCA Bargaining Time we would have removed the retro-active time of the FCT’s, and TMU’s, and engineers, and controllers that have been around since before 1987, etc. We felt that it would harm too many members. Likewise, if we specified FCT’s, they would now be the only unit under the NATCA umbrella that is NOT afforded retro time and thusly singularly discriminated. The organizing committee lead, John Bratcher, explained that we represent just under a hundred contract towers as well as making efforts to expand into other aviation areas. If we want to continue to expand the size and reach of NATCA (and we do), it makes it that much harder when we walk into a building and say “Come join NATCA so we can zero you out.” The body was overwhelmingly against this, and we voted against it.
Sup Time: Again, we left ZSE with intentions to split the vote when it came time. This measure garnered some debate but almost no support. Arguments were made that it’s time to move forward and embrace collaboration and predictions of many sups waiting to jump back in if we “fix” this one thing. Ultimately, we were there to represent dues paying members in good standing. It was very hard to fathom we would spend time at our NATCA convention and advocate for those that are not in and, frankly, aren’t guaranteed to ever come back. The only certainty is that we might’ve given them time back. It also didn’t help that no one lent a voice to the issue from personal experience (former sups). We did split the vote for ZSE.
Military Time: Despite the venue and theme of this convention (Salute to Service) this issue garnered little, if any, support. Similar to our pre-convention meetings, a large contingency that spoke in opposition of this change were military vets. We cited that we didn’t join and serve our country for personal recognition, we get the benefit of more leave throughout our FAA careers, buying back time served to add to retirement, and lastly, we didn’t want to fracture our union with this. It was very humbling to witness the selflessness of all the vets there. We voted against this change.
Privatization: This topic was one of the most prominent in our proposed amendments and resolutions book coming into the convention. At the request of our NATCA President Paul Rinaldi, we first heard R16-12. This resolution would re-insert the word privatization. With the exception of Miami Center, the body rose and strongly voiced opposition of this resolution. We felt that this would limit our leadership in talks of ATC reform in all iterations (private, quasi-governmental, gov corporation, federal government, etc.) as they are a possibility and we need them to be in the room and fight for us in all of those discussions. After a standing vote, we struck this down and proceeded to go back in the original order. Beginning with R16-06 and the 14 day prior, 30 day voting period, and 2/3 Majority requirement for our leadership anytime privatizing is brought up. Practically speaking, this method was impossible. It was voted down but Paul insisted on equal debate for the record to show that both sides of the issue were represented. After that, the remaining anti-privatization or “Federal Government at all costs” measures failed without any real contention. Of note, the authors of these measures were not in attendance to defend their stance and they were also allegedly absent at their respective local pre-convention meetings to discuss. In my opinion, we sent a clear message that we trust our leadership and want to give them full autonomy in guiding this profession and union into the future.
Again, thanks for giving us the opportunity to attend and please ask us questions if you need more info.
