Hey all! I got the minutes typed up from last week’s All Members meeting. It was a long one. There was a lot of debate over proposed changes to our National Constitution at the convention coming up next week. Some of it went back and forth so quickly I couldn’t write it all down, but I have the gist of it below. It was great to hear everybody’s thoughts and ideas at this meeting. Anyway, here are the minutes, hope everybody is good!
Chico
All Members Meeting 6/5/23 East/West Conference Room
Start time: 1:02 PM Food: Birria Tacos provided by ZSE NATCA Local
Amendments and Resolutions -
Amendments and Resolutions to be proposed for our National Constitution are the only order of business for today. The goal is to get an idea of how the membership feels about each one so that we can vote in the interests of ZSE at the convention.
There was only one side note, which was that Chico forgot to get the receipt for the tacos that were provided for the meeting. There was a motion to reimburse Chico without a receipt which passed. (I have since gone back and obtained a receipt and filed a correct voucher, but thank you!)
R23-02 -
This resolution would calculate dues off of base pay instead of with locality included. Devin did a lot of math on this, it would basically cut the union budget by 28%. This would be a really significant change. This would hamper the union significantly. This resolution probably won’t even be heard because it will be deemed out of order, but the feeling on this one was a No.
R23-03 -
This one would take a portion of dues rebates that smaller facilities get, and use that money to create an internet subsidy fund. This fund would help facilities get internet access into their buildings. This would essentially take money from smaller facilities that already don’t have much and then give it to potentially bigger facilities to gain internet access. This one is a No.
R23-06 -
This one would increase the amount that national would cover for smaller facilities to send their people to training. Once again, Devin did research on this and found that most smaller facilities should normally have enough to send people to training. When they don’t have enough, there are other ways to achieve it by either reaching out to the region, or even bigger facilities nearby. The room had several no’s, but then a few yes’s of people citing that training was important and we should be making sure we can send people. This is true, however, for now, it seems that the people that want to receive training are getting it. If there starts to be a lot of people that want to go that aren’t able to because of the cost, then maybe this is a big problem, but for now this doesn’t seem like the best move, so it fell to a No.
A23-01 -
There was an old amendment that went through the constitution and made all the language gender neutral. In doing so, other grammatical errors were created. This amendment goes through and fixes those errors. All were in favor.
A23-02 -
Currently the constitution states that a majority of votes is required in order to ratify a negotiated agreement. This amendment would change it from majority to two-thirds. This one will probably not be heard. It was a No.
A23-03 -
When you apply for or voluntarily accept a supervisor job, you can’t perform in any capacity for NATCA, and if you return to NATCA, you can’t hold a position for 12 months. This amendment would make it so that you could. This was a No.
A23-04 -
This one has to do with term limits. It would limit people from holding positions for more than two terms (a term is three years). There were some caveats with this, refer to your booklet if you want the specific wording. There was a lot of back and forth here. Some argued that term limits are good, and we should be getting new people in charge every so often. The counterpoint was that these positions are not popular and we don’t have a wide range of candidates to choose from. The term limits would also keep us from keeping somebody good in there that we like. Still others came back and said we don’t have a lot of candidates because it is difficult to win against an incumbent, and this would probably encourage more people to run. In the end we landed that we do like term limits but would change it from two to three terms.
A23-05 -
This amendment would eliminate the rule that any supervisor that is returning to the bargaining unit has their seniority reset to the day they return. A few people in the room seemed to think that you should keep your seniority regardless of time in management. Amy clarified that management will take from our ranks and leave us short. This rule protects controllers by keeping more of them on the boards. This one gets a thumbs down.
A23-06, A23-09 & R23-13 -
These deal with employees working past age 56 on extensions. The amendments would reduce seniority in some way for people that do this. The resolution would have NATCA work toward age 57 retirement. NATCA’s position on extensions is that they don’t want them done. Every time we demonstrate that we are able to work past age 56, it gives them leverage to move our retirement age up. We want to protect our retirement as it is now. The room generally agrees with this stance, but didn’t really like the idea of reducing seniority in any way for people that do this. All three of these get no votes.
A23-07 -
This would change seniority in a way where people who have bought back time from the agency would be able to include that in their seniority date within NATCA. This was a No.
A23-08 -
This one would change seniority to add time spent at the FAA Academy. You are not actually eligible to even be represented by NATCA while you are there, so this is a No.
A23-10 -
This was a grammatical change. It is a Yes.
A23-11 -
This is another seniority one. It would add a component to seniority that would include the amount of time spent at the current facility. This would penalize people who are assigned facilities that they didn’t want to be at. This was a No.
R23-01 -
This one fixes a typo, it is a Yes.
R23-04 -
This one would create a one time open season where members who have left the union could rejoin with no initiation fee. The initiation fee is one year’s worth of dues. As it stands now, a lot of Locals can just reimburse the initiation fees back to the BUE if they choose to. Amy mentioned that they usually do that for somebody who has left the union and then come back. However, if somebody is repeatedly going back and forth, then the fee isn’t waived. That isn’t a rule written down anywhere, but it has been somewhat of the standard way they operate. The room seemed open to this resolution in order to try and recruit more people back into the union, it was a Yes.
R23-05 -
This one additionally has to do with an “open season” for people to join NATCA with no initiation fee. Currently the NEB (National Executive Board) has the authority to declare an open season. This resolution would have the NEB do this based on the Organizing Committee’s recommendation. Nobody had much interest in this one at all.
R23-07 & R23-08 -
These were both grammatical type changes, both a Yes.
R23-09 -
This would require any records of negotiations to be released to the membership upon request. This would tie the hands of the union and limit their negotiating strength, so this was a No.
R23-10 -
This amendment would require a representative from a local facility be a signatory on any nationally negotiated agreements that involve that facility. Usually nationally negotiated agreements are done by professionals and lawyers that are fully trained to do so. By having a FacRep from the facility be a signatory, you involve somebody who may or may not be qualified to do the negotiations and may or may not have the entire big picture. For these reasons this was a No.
R23-11 -
This one would make it so the membership would have to vote on extending the current contract. This generated a lot of discussion. When the slate book was last extended and then celebrated as a victory, it took a lot of members by surprise. The members wanted to hear the rationale behind extending our contract instead of reopening negotiations and trying to get us even more. If the members were given the “why” we wouldn’t need a resolution like this. Some of the arguments against this one were that it takes a long time to bring everything back to the membership for a vote, and it also limits negotiation power by having to constantly go back and check with the membership. We have to trust that the people we elect are doing the absolute best for us, and if we think they are not we have to try and elect somebody that we think will. Extensions are useful and can be used to create windows around negotiating with the most union friendly people we can. If this resolution passes, it will essentially make it so that extensions won’t happen anymore. Our union is federal which makes it very different from the private sector unions. We are hoping that leadership understands how terrible the messaging was around this and that will be enough for them to learn their lesson. In the end, this is a No.
R23-12 & R23-14 -
These both have to do with privatization. Currently we have it in the constitution that NATCA will strive to have a “seat at the table” if privatization were being pursued. These would remove that. We think that by taking this out, they will just have to put it back in if privatization becomes a possibility, so we may as well leave it in. These were a No.
R23-15 -
This one creates a tier system of facilities and a method of how to handle transferring CPC’s. It is a No.
R23-16 -
This one has NATCA strive to ensure each facility has internet access, separate from the FAA network. This is important to be able to get union business done, this was a Yes.
R23-17 -
This one simply says that NATCA will pursue legislative efforts to increase the amount of sick leave we earn. This was a Yes.
R23-18 -
This one changes priority placement, it was a No.
R23-19 -
This one will have NATCA work towards a 32 hour workweek, without the reduction of pay or benefits. Everybody seemed to like this one, however there was one thing that hung people up which was the language says “32-hour (or less) workweek.” This would prohibit doing anything between 40 and 33. So, if this could be amended to say something like “less than 40 hour workweek” the room liked that better and it would make it a Yes.
R23-20, R23-21, R23-22, R23-23 & R23-24 -
These are all either grammatical changes or renaming equipment or honoring certain individuals, and they were all a Yes.
Meeting adjourned at 3:01 PM