Attempt to Reassign MOS Duties to FDCS

Jacksonville Center (ZJX) management recently attempted to reassign the Military Operations Specialist (MOS) duties to the flight data unit without any discussions or negotiations regarding an increase in pay for assuming the MOS duties.

The FAA’s position was that under Section 7106 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statue management may assign work. The Union countered that Management may only assign work within the job description.

With some assistance from NATCA, the ZJX NAGE FACREP was able to prevent the FAA from moving forward with the proposed change to conditions of employment. Kudos to Bruce Gregory!

To date, this is the fourth attempt by the FAA to assign work outside of the job description. The Union is not closed to the idea of assuming duties that are currently outside our job descriptions; however, the Agency’s attitude that a major reassignment of work (change to conditions of employment) does not justify an increase in pay is deplorable.

ERAM All Capital Assets

Please click to view the All Capital Assets - En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)

Core Compensation vs.Federal General Schedule (GS)

The following comments regarding core compensation and the federal general schedule (GS) pay systems were posted under "Your Two Cents" on the Focus FAA news webpage:

Enticement or Retribution

Every year when I look at the pay raises granted by the administrator, I pause and wonder at the difference between those on Core Compensation and those on the federal general schedule (GS). If my memory serves me well, every year those on Core Compensation seem to receive approximately one percent more of a raise than those in the GS. For example, this year the Core Compensation will receive a 2.5 percent increase, compared to a 1.5 percent increase for the GS.

Why is there a one percent difference? Maybe, as one of the little people, I don’t understand the inner workings of the pay systems. I, however, at this time of year have often pondered as to whether this difference in raises is an enticement, or retribution, for those not on Core Compensation to convert over.

Either way, I feel the difference in the raise is unfair; since every employee contributed to the FAA achieving 90 percent completion of our performance targets, not just those on Core Compensation. So why is there a one percent difference between the two groups? Would someone please explain this to me?

Rob Spahr
Aviation Safety Inspector, Flight Standards
Eastern Region

John Shamley from the Policy Management Division responds:

The OSI funding pool consists of the amount of the general increase for General Schedule (GS or FG) employees in other federal agencies, plus an additional one percent, which reflects a portion of the funds previously spent on within-grade increases. For this year, GS employees received a 1.5 percent general increase. This resulted in a total OSI pool of 2.5 percent (1.5 percent general increase plus one percent). Note, too, that the general increase is not an automatic increase for FAA Core Plan employees. The OSI for this year is 100 percent of the total pool, which resulted in a 2.5 percent increase. As you wrote, the OSI is one percent greater than the general increase, if 90 percent of the Flight Plan goals are achieved.

In answer to your comment regarding enticement or retribution, the answer is, “No, it is neither.” The OSI payout has to do with taking the same dollars that are available under the GS pay system and paying them out differently. One fundamental difference in the Core Plan is that the increases are not automatic or entitlement based. The increases are based on either organizational or individual performance. Since the inception of the Core Plan, the OSI has been less than the total pool three times — in 2004, 2005, and 2008. This was because the agency did not achieve at least 90 percent of Flight Plan goals. However, as it happened, the OSI was still greater than the general increase in those years.

Employees under the GS or FG system receive the general increase irrespective of the achievement of Flight Plan goals. GS/FG employees continue to receive within-grade increases, which core plan employees do not, albeit in the Core Plan, employees are eligible to receive Superior Contribution Increases (SCIs). But again, the SCIs are not automatic, but are based on individual performance and contributions.

We really appreciate your comments because it gives us the opportunity to compare and contrast the differences between the Core Plan and the GS pay system.

Encouraged

I was encouraged and excited to find Mr. Shamley from management addressing Mr. Spahr's issue regarding Core Comp, but please keep going and address them all. What about the restrictive SCI quotas making it not a true pay-for-performance system? What about Mr. Pellessier's remarks in last week's Your Two Cents? I am extremely happy to work for the FAA. I put forth my best effort every day and I don't take my good fortune lightly. That being said, to question the system doesn't necessarily imply dissension or discord. As Mr. Spahr remarked, I, too, want an explanation.

Catherine Huth
Management and Program Analyst, ATO En Route and Oceanic Operations
Great Lakes Region

Losing Ground

Mr. Shamley's response was correct and clear. However, he did not point out one advantage under the GS/FG system. The GS/FG pay table increases each year by the amount of the General Increase, so those at the top step — e.g. FG-11 step 10 — continue to have their complete salary covered in base pay. Under Core Compensation, once your base pay reaches the top of the band, amounts exceeding the band are paid in cash. In many years, the increase of the pay band is less than the OSI granted. So the Core Comp top of the pay band loses ground relative to Step 10 of the FG schedule.

Megan Pursell
Program Management Specialist, Flight Standards
Northwest Mountain Region

Quotas/Fairness

The unfortunate part of Core Compensation is that it begins with quotas that are disguised as goals or targets. Only approximately 45 percent of FAA workers in Core Comp get an SCI 1 (0.6 percent), and only approximately 25 percent of the work force get an SCI 2 (up to 1.8 percent). AFSCME proposed a new Headquarters pay plan during negotiations that was 1) cost neutral 2) did not use quotas (the employee would have been pitted against a set of individual goals linked to the Flight Plan instead of being pitted against each other) 3) fit the definition of real pay for performance. The FAA said no thanks. They'd rather have quotas instead of fairness.

Bill Chouinard
AFSCME Point of Contact
Headquarters

First Step

This is in response to Rob Spahr, who feels it is unfair that those of us under Core Comp are given a higher raise every year. We no longer receive the steps, as was explained, and I will give you my situation. We transitioned over to Core Comp when I was only a Step 1 in grade. If I had stayed GS, I would be making approximately $5,000 more per year. I will gladly change places, especially this year when after my medical insurance premiums skyrocketed again, I am netting an extra five dollars a week.

Pam Cartledge
Management and Program Analyst, Aircraft Certification, NYACO
Eastern Region

Just Fact

This is in response to Rob Spahr's question on Core Comp. I have been an FAA employee for many years. I love working for the FAA and I love the position I currently have. I do not love the Core Compensation System. Rob, feel very lucky that you are still under the general schedule and get your step increases. The Core Comp System changed the way we get raises and the way our pay is calculated for promotions. Because of this, I, and many like me, now earn thousands of dollars less than we would have under the old system. I am considered an outstanding employee, but I do not receive an SCI-1 every year, because there are "not enough to go around." Even though I am lucky and I usually do receive some type of SCI each year, I will never earn what people who came in at the top of the pay band earn. I will never earn what people in the GS schedule earn for my equivalent grade for the years I have been that grade. Lots of people complain. I am not complaining, I'm just stating fact. I still love my job and I still love working for the FAA. My hope is that someday the Core Compensation System goes away and we can all return to the old pay system. Or, a system that really is pay for performance.

Tammi Peters
Program Management Specialist–Budget
Northwest Mountain Region

2009 FAA Corporate Award Winners

At the Administrator's Corporate Awards ceremony, one of our own, David James Peters (a.k.a. Dj), Executive Secretary, NAGE Local R3-10 was presented with the Agency’s Assist Award for his outstanding work and contribution on the FAA’s Public Access Defibrillation Program Team. Congratulations Dj!

New Year Message

The New Year marks the end of one year and the beginning of the next year. On behalf of NAGE Local R3-10, we wish all of you a Very Happy New Year 2010. May the New Year bring peace, opportunities, prosperity, and good health.

Holiday Message

On behalf of NAGE Local R3-10, Happy Holiday Season, and may the New Year bring peace, prosperity and happiness to everyone.

The Night Before Christmas By Clement Clarke Moore

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;

The children were nestled all snug in their beds, While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads;
And mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap, Had just settled down for a long winter's nap,

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter, I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash, Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear, But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,

With a little old driver, so lively and quick, I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came, And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;

"Now, DASHER! now, DANCER! now, PRANCER and VIXEN! On, COMET! on CUPID! on, DONNER and BLITZEN!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall! Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!"

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky,
So up to the house-top the coursers they flew, With the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too.

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.
As I drew in my hand, and was turning around, Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot, And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;
A bundle of toys he had flung on his back, And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.

His eyes -- how they twinkled! his dimples how merry! His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow, And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth, And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath;
He had a broad face and a little round belly, That shook, when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly.

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf, And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself;
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head, Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk,
And laying his finger aside of his nose, And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle, And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,
"HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD-NIGHT!"

The Union Prevailed in ZAU Grievance

A few months ago, without notifying the President of NAGE Local R3-10, Chicago (ZAU) ARTCC conducted a work related study regarding the role of the Flight Data Unit at this facility. Article 61 of the NAGE/FAA CBA states that "the Employer shall advise the Union President, in writing, when a study is to be conducted regarding or involving bargaining unit employees."

The Union initially attempted to resolve this matter informally; however, Management’s position was that there was no violation of the CBA. The Union filed a Step One Grievance, which was denied, and upon elevation, the Union’s Step Two Grievance was sustained. The following is written in the Agency’s decision Memorandum:

"As noted in the Agency’s Step One denial, the Agency did in fact consult the NAGE leadership at the Center before the study was conducted, was given an opportunity to comment on them, and was provided a copy of the final report.

However, in reviewing the NAGE Agreement, I have determined that the Agency misapplied the term of that Agreement, particularly the role of the facility representative, who was consulted, and the Union President, who was not.

Accordingly, I am sustaining the grievance.

As for the remedies requested, I am granting those requested in Step Two Elevation."

The Executive board would like to salute James Clarke, ZAU NAGE FACREP, whose assistance in this matter was invaluable.