COMPENSATION BULLETIN #15
Don McLennan, NW Mountain RegDir
AGREEMENT between the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AIR TRAFFIC
SPECIALISTS (NAATS) and the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSTRATION (FAA)
on RECLASSIFICATION, COMPENSATION and OTHER BENEFITS
This document has been prepared on your behalf and will be presented to management on or about, the middle of March. I know it is very important to you, and you expect to know the general content contained within this Agreement. The contract negotiations to date have not represented any real serious intent by either side to persuade the other side of the importance attaching to their proposal. I would characterize the exchanges so far as more of a "feeling" each other out. Are there any burning issues? Does there exist "imperatives" or "can’t live without?" That may well change with this document. It is constructed in such a way as to allow for as far reaching changes as we can contemplate or simply maintain a status quo into the future.
As of this writing I also need to explain that it will not be in our collective best interests to continue to share, in wide publication print, some of the specifics, or particulars items of the contract negotiation I have been trying to do so far. The reason for this is simply that you can’t conduct an effective contract negotiation when only one side is willing to share information. Therefore, since you know the management team has not shared with the rest of their management personnel, and they have no intention of doing that in the near future, and are enjoying reading what NAATS is doing or about to do, this can’t continue, can it? It is not about secrecy as much as it is about another topic. That topic is called interest based bargaining. You will remember we requested this approach over two years ago as the date to begin negotiations approached. They rejected this approach, it seemed at the time simply because they had never done it that way before, why start now? In any event, we are way past that pivotal point and NAATS needs to insure we maintain an environment in which security and openness together thrive to allow the team to vigorously debate the issues within the privacy necessary to insure the management team does not enjoy an unfair advantage.
It is my intent that you will continue to receive valuable updates as we progress into future negotiation sessions. I committed to keep you as up-to-date as I possibly could and will fulfill that commitment. I felt it necessary to share with you that the previous level of specificity may be somewhat downgraded. It is in our collective best interest’s to insure the contract negotiation team can operate in an environment in which they can brainstorm, develop, debate and negotiate on your behalf the very best possible deal for all of us. More to come.
NAATS has met, again, with management in early January to continue discussions on a new compensation system to cover the FSS option. Their proposal to NAATS has the following provisions:
The new AT/NAATS pay plan will continue to use:
A job numbering nomenclature based on our existing job series, 2152.
Qualifications Standards. The Qualifications Standards Handbook, X-118, published by the Office of Personnel Management.
ATS PRIB 21. It is being retained as a supplement to the Qualifications Standard and will be updated as needed. NAATS will be invited to participate in periodic updates to ATS PRIB 21.
Pay Cap. The policy for setting the maximum base pay level for an employee is unchanged. The maximum pay level (adjusted base pay) can be no higher than the FAA Administrator.
Components They Wish to Add:
Job Categories. Job series are grouped together into categories that reflect similarities in the nature and type of work to be completed.
Career Level Definitions. Career level definitions describe work typical of each career level. Career level definitions replace current position descriptions and the grade level criteria of the OPM classification standard for the 2152 series.
Pay Bands. The FY-00 core pay bands are included at the end of this section. The core pay bands will be reviewed each year and updated as appropriate.
Incorporation of Air Traffic Revitalization Act (ATRA) operational differential compensation into base pay. Upon conversion to the new system, the ATRA differential will be incorporated into the base pay of employees who are currently eligible to receive it. Increasing the base pay by 4.1 percent, rather than 5 percent, offsets the resulting increase in other areas such as retirement and life insurance. Upon implementation of the AT/NAATS Pay Plan, operational differential will no longer be applicable.
Components They Wish to Eliminate:
Classification Standards and Guides. Reference to the grading criteria of OPM Classification Standards and Guides has been eliminated.
Position Descriptions. Position descriptions will be replaced with Job Category Definitions and Career Level Definitions.
The existing FG Pay Schedule. The new pay bands will replace the FG Pay Schedule.
Pay Grades. The 15 FG pay grades associated with the FG Pay Schedule will be replaced by newly designed pay bands.
Steps. The ten steps associated with the current FG Pay Schedule and pay grades will be eliminated.
This is a disappointing, and an operationally weak, initial proposal from the management team. It rolls in your 4.1 operational differential and, near as I can tell that is it. It is certainly not a very responsive proposal to the needs of the organization nor one NAATS will be very excited about going to in the near future. I see almost nothing in it for the ATS organization. They will get none of the things they have been seeking for years. My conclusion is that management’s chief negotiators are not taking the ATS organization’s needs into account. Only the desires of LMR are being put on the table. LMR always hopes to not grant anything new to a Union, even if it means a stronger operational entity, because of their fear that other Unions will want the same thing and how could they tell them NO! More news in the near future, this is the concrete stuff I trust you were asking for?
When we met with the management team in Washington, DC in late October we requested an update on Reclassification, the 30 page power point pay presentation, the 50+ pay rules, the Dual Traffic Count, the Alaska Reclass/Pay Issues, the Architecture Report, Budget concerns, Costing Information, etc. The intent of this Bulletin is to update you on their perspective, as best as I could determine, concerning the compensation of our bargaining unit members.
Immediately, the first words out of one of their chief negotiators mouth, Tony Herman, were to caution us to be careful, the FAA is facing further budget cuts in an already very bleak budget picture.
He said he believes there is a "chicken or egg" problem. It seems to him that we really need to see if there is any money to fund a new system before spending time developing that system. He feels that a better way to proceed is to see how much money is available to implement a new system. He also said that he did not understand all of the facets of implementation in the FSS option. On the topic of whether or not reclassification fits with the Core System, he said, "That may be fine but it needs to be if we are going to meet the Administrator’s expectations. It is paramount to her that we find a way to connect with the core plan." He wants to pursue finding cost offsets first. This, also, must be market based driven. NAATS asked, "What would be our interest in a market based analysis, core compensation system"? They answered they thought it would be pay. NAATS also inquired how to approach this? Mr. Herman answered that it needs to save money, be cost neutral, and be more effective and implemented within the Core Plan. He added that they were not prepared today to present any model of what they would like to see implemented.
Mr. Herman acknowledged that government is changing and he was not trying to suggest anything less than that. Wally Pike said that our preference would be to maintain the systems we have so far developed. It is not our "position" but our preference. We are anxious to hear what can be said about the pros/cons of the Core Plan. Management wondered, "If we are not interested in the product of the pay group, why should we accept it"? NAATS pointed out there is always a cost to change and the Agency needs to recognize that. They seem to be saying that we need to change but there is no extra money to initiate this change. Mr. Herman did say that contracting out is not the major threat to our option. Instead, it is the slow withering of the option. He said that most people felt that we do a good job and we needed to insure that we were able to continue the option, as we know it. Ray Thoman, an FAA Chief Negotiator, added that when the Pay workgroup was halted, last March, it was not because management disapproved of what had been developed but that it was not clear at that time how it would fit into the core system. Herman added that maybe part timing would be a way to realize cost savings.
Mr. Thoman wanted to know, "Has NAATS discussed, or brain stormed, some cost offsets?" Mr. Pike responded that a significant aspect of that would be what information was in the architecture report. Pike explained that the part of the architecture report about consolidation has never been briefed to NAATS.
NAATS
said that cost offset discussions should surround "cost neutral", "poor budget" and "increased productivity" parameters. In other words we are not trying to gainshare the dollars because the work is still there we just have less people doing it. Mr. Thoman shared his concern that some of these types of savings take so long to be realized that there would likely be no benefit until the end of the term of the contract. NAATS claimed that if there is no money to implement reclassification then NAATS would have no interest in doing that. We would look to offsets for increased compensation but not to implement reclassification. Mr. Herman said that management might not feel they needed reclassification.Don McLennan
.
Pay system "conversion" is that process of how to move from one pay system to another pay system. Our view is that we would like to "buy out" our pending WIG increases. This means that you would have added to your initial "new", base pay, in the new system that percentage of a WIG you had already earned within the old system. As a conversion element for bargaining unit people now getting Interim Incentive Pay, the IIP will be rolled into their initial base pay setting, and IIP will no longer be a factor for FSS option. There is the whole subject of how do you convert somebody’s pay at the Academy at the time of conversion. NAATS suggested "Grandfathering" those individuals who would be caught up in this dilemma. Instead of running two pay systems, management suggested converting everyone’s pay to the highest level of pay then in place at the Academy at the time for conversion. We also tried to categorize how we feel about which is most important to pay for Reclassification, Job Levels or Performance. The Union felt it was 1,2 and 3, while management felt it was 1,3 and 2. This means that at the time a new pay system is turned on we would begin to immediately pay people differently. Some employees would get more of a pay increase than others would.
We need to agree with management on a break-even amount to make an ATRA roll-in acceptable to both management and the Union. That is, how much money would go to an employee and how much money reserved to the government so they do not incur any additional expenses as result of taxes, retirement, etc? The Agency agreed with NATCA and PASS to an amount of 4.1%. NAATS wants to cost this out but agreed to that amount for the sake of consistency with how the Agency deals with Unions. Any available money left over (should it not really cost the Agency .09% to fund our roll-in) should be identified as potential cost savings to be spent elsewhere.
We also continued our discussion of pay banding. The point of having wider bands is to insure adequate overlap. Also, the wider the band is enables you to capture more people within the band as opposed to having to set people’s pay outside the band. If you have more money you will need a wider band to accommodate placing people at higher levels. This was the philosophy used when determining where to set the Core Compensation System bands where they are. Currently the Core philosophy is that in a voluntary change to a lower level of pay your pay is set in the lower band just as it is in the higher band. If you fall outside the band you need to have a pay rule to establish the new point of pay. Do we want to utilize pay retention, set pay at the highest point in the new band, have the same relationship in a new band as they were in the old band, etc? All questions to be answered soon.
COMPENSATION BULLETIN # 10 From
Don McLennan
To comprehend the concepts in a pay-banding system we need to understand we are in a one-career family. This captures everything from walking through the door for the first time to becoming a high-level high facility specialist. AAT will have a dual track, career entry level, because they have two bargaining units. Management very much would like to develop a proposal to incentivize developmental’s completion of training. When you reach a certain level of competence you would get a pay increase. For example, when you complete the Academy you get a reward, not when you enter a facility. Somewhat a semantics issue but an important one. There may be a difference in establishing initial, Academy salaries. We recognize it may take varying amounts of money to attract people with differing levels of skills and credentials. This is the issue of "specialized" experience versus no experience at all on initial hiring. Also, once beginning developmental training after Academy graduation the same salary should exist for like levels of experience regardless of which facility level you would ultimately be assigned to.
Pay bumps would begin to differ at the completion of the first level of developmental training. This is an important topic to discuss later – how often do you want to reward developmental employees? Should we establish incremental increases at the developmental levels, or pay the entire difference between Academy graduation and FPL certification all at once? Once you reach the FPL level there may be several bands to move through to become a senior level specialist. We must decide on the number of bands to have and what should be the widths of the bands? Also, do we want them identical or should some bands be different from others, should there be overlapping bands or all the same width, how are they adjusted, and finally, how do we set the bands relationship to one to another?
We also discussed a five level (three now two for the future development of the option) facility structure. Once you become a facility rated FPL you will finally enter the FPL ranks, at three differing levels of facilities at three different levels of pay. What is the relationship between a level one facility to a level two facility to a level three facility? It will depend on how much money for implementation is available, and agreed to, at the contract negotiations level. In the NATCA pay plan there are all kinds of variances and differences in the relationship between percentages of increases between bands and in the band widths. Another aspect of developing a pay system for NAATS will be in establishing expansion levels for future growth. To narrow a band is perceived as cost containment, whereas to separate the bands farther apart is more likely to be costly. The question is how much variability in pay is there for someone doing the same level of work? This questions concerns those people whom are all working within a singular band but who are all being compensated at different rates of pay. More on this as we get it.
COMPENSATION BULLETIN # 9 From
Don McLennan
.
NAATS asked what would "extra" levels within a pay band system look like? Most likely there would be extra "ghost" like parallel bands added on to each specific facility level. Why have supplemental levels within a pay band? It can save money for other uses, allows seasoning, and means people need to stay within the bargaining unit for a longer period of time before getting as much money as possible and moving on, and, allows for the requirement to develop some extra skills. A concern for NAATS is we need to be careful in how long we hold someone at a certain level for fear they may decide to go someplace else (most likely cross option) if we hold them too long at one level. We would like to try and develop this further and will work on this topic over the next several meetings. I will keep you posted with our progress.
The next issue we attacked is what happens from the time you enter on duty at the Academy to finally attaining the highest level of FPL status. Right now all we want is some basic structure of where and how you move through the system. This mostly consists of defining the criteria/requirements to move through different/multiple job levels. As a business decision, the FAA does not want to run anyone through two developmental training programs; this is very time consuming and costly.
NAATS’ presented their desire to establish a policy on annual increases. We have had extensive briefings on both the ARA and NATCA methods of doing this. It is imperative that even though we are developing a specialized pay system for Controllers we must still, in some way, connect to the FAA Core Compensation System. This is the FAA wide pay system that will replace the General Schedule. Primarily, we are interested in connecting within the Core system components of the Organizational Success Indicator (OSI) and the Superior Contribution Increase (SCI). There is a "Payroll Rise" of 1.6% caused by your annual WGI increase. Over the eighteen years of getting from a step 1 to 10 that is the average annual increase. In the core system Within Grade increases are abolished and a pool of money is created instead, using the WIG money to fund the OSI and the SCI components. The OSI is paid annually to everyone and the SCI is also but only to the organization’s top 15% best performers. NAATS suggested adopting a formula for our OSI/SCI: the bargaining unit will receive the GI plus 1.2%. In the event that the pool is even greater than the GI + 1.2%, NAATS will split any money above that amount along with the other .4% SCI pool by a 50/50 split between the SCI and the OSI.
Don McLennan
The primary purpose of pay bands is to treat people fairly. A pay band identifies high and low levels of pay for a particular occupation. This is usually determined through a market analysis. The Agency believes that to treat people fairly, those doing less work should receive less pay. In private enterprise it is normal to have three different skill levels (e.g. senior, intermediate and junior). NAATS’ has different skill levels (academy, developmental and journeyperson), but the question is do we want to have more than a singular FPL status? We could decide that we want someone to serve at a lower band of pay the first three years they are a journeyperson, for example, then progress to the higher level status. Probably the negative response to this would be that once a person is facility rated they should receive "full" controller pay and we should not create some sort of "B scale" pay system. Also, would this be creating two levels of experienced controllers that could possibly put the Agency at risk if there were to be a post accident question of competency (that is, a legal issue)? Is this newer person really as competent as a more experienced controller is? A major issue is, what do you use as reasonable criteria (to be determined) to decide when and how to increase someone’s pay to the level of the more experienced controller? What kind of developmental opportunities are there for our people to become better controllers instead of preparing them to go into a management position? We will take this issue up before we close out our meetings.
In private enterprise pay raises (increases to pay) are given to insure that the most competent employees have competitive pay levels and valuable employees are not lost to the competition. Smaller and smaller numbers of employers are getting cost-of-living increases. Fortunately, cost-of-living increases are also more likely seen in a unionized environment than in a non-union environment. Companies spend a great deal of time on how they spend their money. Is it to be spent on across the board increases, or performance, or positions within a range (WIG)? What drives pay increases in the private sector depends on what other companies are doing. In government it depends on what other government agencies are doing. Why do companies pay differently within a single band? The market value of a job, based on surveys, can determine an average of what salaries are; junior as well as seasoned senior employees will be on either side of that figure. This is, in essence, how a pay band is formed. We will build on these discussions, but I am sharing with you those issues, concepts and decisions necessary to develop in the future to design and implement a new pay system that will meet our needs.