Runoff Election Declared in Race for NATCA President

Raydon · Posted: 08-01-2009, 01:19 AM

RUNOFF ELECTION DECLARED IN RACE FOR NATCA PRESIDENT

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION (NATCA)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 31, 2009

WASHINGTON ? A run-off election was declared between NATCA Presidential candidates Ruth Marlin and Paul Rinaldi. Running for the office were current NATCA President Patrick Forrey, former Executive Vice President Ruth Marlin and current Executive Vice President Paul Rinaldi.

Another runoff election was declared between Central Region Vice Presidential candidates Andy Heifner (controller and NATCA Facility Representative at St. Louis Terminal Radar Approach Control or TRACON) and Kevin Peterson (controller and NATCA Facility Representative at Kansas City International Airport).

In a runoff election, NATCA?s National Election Committee (charged with the
tally of all ballots in both the original and runoff election) will supervise the distribution of ballots ? which will be distributed no later than 16 days after the National Election Committee has ruled on any challenges or protests of the election or, if there are no challenges or protests, within 16 days after submission of the National Election Committee?s report.

Marked ballots will be distributed in accordance with NATCA?s ballot collection procedure ? charging the election committee with the collection and counting of all ballots. Ballots will be distributed to the membership and due back no later than 30 days after the date of distribution. Those officers winning runoff elections will take office 30 days after the results are finalized.

Elected as Executive Vice President, Patricia Gilbert has worked her entire 20-year career at Houston Center. A long-time union activist, Gilbert is currently serving as the Chair of NATCA?s National Legislative Committee.

In addition to electing a president and executive vice president, NATCA members in good standing vote for their respective regional vice presidents (RVP) as well. Those elected, including the Executive Vice President, on the National Executive Board serve three-year terms, which will begin on Sept. 1.

Those new candidates winning the offices of regional vice president were as follows:

# Alaskan Region: Larry Lescanec, controller and NATCA Facility Representative at Anchorage TRACON
# Northwest Mountain Region: Jim Ullman, controller and Facility Representative at Seattle Center

Running unopposed for the office of Southwest Regional Vice President was Tim Smith, a controller at Forth Worth Center who currently serves as one of two Alternate Regional Vice Presidents for the Southwest Region.

Winning re-election in contested RVP races were Region X (non-controller
bargaining units) Vice President Mike MacDonald, New England Regional Vice President Mike Robicheau and Southern Regional Vice President Victor Santore.

Running unopposed in their re-election campaigns were incumbent Eastern Regional Vice President Phil Barbarello, Great Lakes Regional Vice President Bryan Zilonis and Western Pacific Regional Vice President Hamid Ghaffari.

Mclaren99 · Posted: 08-01-2009, 08:01 AM

Hey,

Isn't the real reason we are losing the credit hours 98% of the controller workforce likes because of that stupid overtime lawsuit filed by Paul Rinaldi. Just food for thought if you like credit hours. Everyone I talk to, union and Non-union alike have said at their facilities the only way to get a couple hours off on the back end of a shift is if someone comes in and works credit time for them. Not anymore. And it's not like we had unlimited credit anymore...we have 24 hours....3 freakin' days. Thank you very much guys for having a real pulse on the operation when it comes to this.

Rant over.

ATCinWI · Posted: 08-01-2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mclaren99

Hey,

Isn't the real reason we are losing the credit hours 98% of the controller workforce likes because of that stupid overtime lawsuit filed by Paul Rinaldi. Just food for thought if you like credit hours. Everyone I talk to, union and Non-union alike have said at their facilities the only way to get a couple hours off on the back end of a shift is if someone comes in and works credit time for them. Not anymore. And it's not like we had unlimited credit anymore...we have 24 hours....3 freakin' days. Thank you very much guys for having a real pulse on the operation when it comes to this.

Rant over.

We're losing credit hours because they're illegal. Whether the current administration filed the lawsuit, or someone later on did, we were going to lose them eventually. Because of no more credit hours, our overtime is going to increase, so it's a bonus for us.

Zhaj · Posted: 08-01-2009, 09:19 AM

I like overtime.

Mclaren99 · Posted: 08-01-2009, 09:50 AM

The point I was trying to make is that every was fat and happy until that lawsuit brought everything to light. The FAA was happy to leave the 24 hours as is but thanks to the summary judgement by the court the FAA said...okay NATCA, we agree. For those that signed onto the lawsuit enjoy your $40 bucks...you earned it I guess. FYI....we won't be getting more overtime here. The FAA WILL run short rather then pay OT. Trust me, it is happening right now.

Anyone discussing against my point....you are in the minority.

BTW- the numbers for the election were Forrey 1600+, Rinaldi 2300+ and Marlin 2800+

DairyCreamer · Posted: 08-01-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATCinWI

We're losing credit hours because they're illegal. Whether the current administration filed the lawsuit, or someone later on did, we were going to lose them eventually. Because of no more credit hours, our overtime is going to increase, so it's a bonus for us.

You know, no, it's not just a bonus for us.

First, let me preface by saying that yes, OT credit hours should be "paid" at 1.5 CHE per hour worked to achieve the 1.5x statute (though I do understand that it's supposed to be PAY not hours of leave being paid for OT).

The ONLY way I have over 100 hours annual leave in the bank right now after my 3rd anniversary with the FAA is all the OT I worked for CHE insteard of $$$. I burned those hours when I took vacation instead of annual, and now my annual balance is much higher because of it. I mean, think about it, to earn 1 full day of leave in your first 3 years takes 4 weeks of normal work, or just one day of CHE earned. I could earn 4 days of CHE leave in that same time period (and only HAVE to burn 1 day before the end of that 2nd pay period under the crap IWRs). Getting a day off in 1 day vs 4 weeks is pretty sweet.

To me, money as leave (CHE, annual, or sick even) IS money in the bank. Now that I'm starting to earn 6 hours annual per pay period, I'm not going to worry about CHE so much, but, credit hours were invaluable as far as I'm concerned, far more than straight cash. If time is money, and certainly it is, then compensation via CHE or comp time or SOME system of earning leave as opposed to cash is JUST fine by me.

~Nate

ATCinWI · Posted: 08-01-2009, 01:53 PM

Guys, I'm not saying that I'm glad credit is going away. I used to earn enough credit to leave 4 hours early on my last work day every other week. What I am saying is don't blame NATCA for credit hours going away when they are illegal.

Credit is great when it's used in some ways, but I have personally seen someone not get overtime solely because another controller volunteered to cover the shift and earn credit. When it's abused like that, it damages the worth of our workforce, even if it's only on a small scale.

The bottom line is that it's illegal. Maybe NATCA should lobby congress to change the criteria for determining how many hours in a day/week/pay period are calculated so we can earn credit or work our 5/4/9 shifts or get some spot leave here and there.

Maybe this is just another case of people pissing on NATCA because they're in the middle of it, just like a few people blame NATCA for the dress code or pay scales. I'm sure there will be people that say "NATCA screwed us out of credit hours" just like they say "NATCA screwed me out of back pay".

ST1300_memory · Posted: 08-01-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATCinWI

We're losing credit hours because they're illegal. Whether the current administration filed the lawsuit, or someone later on did, we were going to lose them eventually. Because of no more credit hours, our overtime is going to increase, so it's a bonus for us.

Credit hours are not illegal. What was ruled illegal is the way that we earn them, bank them for future use, and use them. Credit hours are meant to be earned for a purpose to allow an employee (administrative hours) to apply that time towards another shift in which the employee cannot be at work. They are intended for administrative personnel, and still are used for them. We just tried to incorporate them into our job field and it was not intended for the type of shiftwork we do. Thus, illegal for the FAA to use credit hours in lieu of compensation time or overtime for anywork performed above and beyond 40 hours in a work week.

I doubt that OT will increase much as a result. Most CHE was for the benefit of the employee not the FAA and therefore there was never a NEED for the controller earning credit in the first place, therefore, there is a low likelihood that overtime will increase. CHE by one employee to allow another the day off is never going to be replaced by Overtime for that employee to have the day off. Instead, we will have less oppurtunities of spot leave as a result of this action.

JMHO.

mjh55404 · Posted: 08-03-2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DairyCreamer

You know, no, it's not just a bonus for us.

First, let me preface by saying that yes, OT credit hours should be "paid" at 1.5 CHE per hour worked to achieve the 1.5x statute (though I do understand that it's supposed to be PAY not hours of leave being paid for OT).

The ONLY way I have over 100 hours annual leave in the bank right now after my 3rd anniversary with the FAA is all the OT I worked for CHE insteard of $$$. I burned those hours when I took vacation instead of annual, and now my annual balance is much higher because of it. I mean, think about it, to earn 1 full day of leave in your first 3 years takes 4 weeks of normal work, or just one day of CHE earned. I could earn 4 days of CHE leave in that same time period (and only HAVE to burn 1 day before the end of that 2nd pay period under the crap IWRs). Getting a day off in 1 day vs 4 weeks is pretty sweet.

To me, money as leave (CHE, annual, or sick even) IS money in the bank. Now that I'm starting to earn 6 hours annual per pay period, I'm not going to worry about CHE so much, but, credit hours were invaluable as far as I'm concerned, far more than straight cash. If time is money, and certainly it is, then compensation via CHE or comp time or SOME system of earning leave as opposed to cash is JUST fine by me.

~Nate

I agree 100% and I am not on the payroll yet... however I currently work for King County WA. and our contract allows us to put all HOLIDAY PAY and OVERTIME in a COMP bank that to use. I took 140 hours of COMP so far this year.... PRICELESS. I also pay less taxes on my overtime by taking COMP instead. My uncle who currently works at Seattle TRACON also says that the loss of the old credit hour program hurt lots of people at his facility. When I worked for the airlines our contract provided for trades also.... anyone qualified and pick up and work another members hours at the regular rate. Labor Contracts supersede overtime laws... So it is not illegal if your union negotiates it.

Michael