NATCA response to overtime question

P_to_the_R · Posted: 01-09-2010, 01:36 PM

i'll bet a beer he joins the union when/if he gets hired.

GLF5 · Posted: 01-09-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by towerflower

GLF5,

I made the "newbie" assumption. I know what they say about assuming...my bad. I figured a "veteran" would not have posted on Ask NATCA part of this forum but on the union site directly.

Nah its cool, I actually just haven't gotten around to getting onto the site, so I went here. Just needed some extra views in case we were missing something here. Just another example why a good chunk of controllers aren't too fond of management.

jamie10584 · Posted: 01-09-2010, 03:00 PM

Wow. I can't believe how crazy you people get when someone mentions a possible hole in NATCA. This quote:

Quote:

I have won OT grievances locally even when I was not correct, I just did a good enough job convincing them I was right."

Is unethical. So if it came from Doug Church, or another NATCA rep, it doesn't matter. I'm not saying all NATCA is bad, but that certainly is.

RdRunnr12 · Posted: 01-09-2010, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielEtvs

i dont mean it LITERALLY that somoene would automaticlaly washout or anything, and i wouldnt want ANYBODY to have a harder time than they need to, the job is already difficult enough by itself and comes with enough stressors. Just remember though, the people training you, the people with all the knowledge and experience are the line controllers not management. There are not too many supervisors out there who are going to check you out withOUT a recommendation from your training team. You think someones whose been in the game 20+ years, through many contracts and ups in downs in working conditions, and trained countless people wants to hear some kid with 6 months experience (or whatever the case) give his anti-union opinions? pretty much as a developmental you shutup and color and put in your time and focus on checking out. from my experience it would be ill-advised to NOT join the union, at least initially. once fully checked out and with some actual knowledge and firsthand experiences to base it on, obviously you can then make a more informed decision. but if 98%+ of your facility are dues paying union members, human nature and common sense tells you just might NOT want to be THAT guy, eh? i have not seen any truly bad people who would outright attempt to wash you out for something like this, but you may have a bumpy road nonetheless. when in Rome....

thats all i meant.

I can pretty much guarantee that my involvement or lack of involvement with NATCA will not be something that is ever discussed at the facility. I wouldn't dream of talking anti-union where I work, nor would I talk for the union if I do deside to join. People like you, that threaten negative action for someone that doesn't join makes my current negative beliefs of unions even firmer. When I picture unions, I picture you...and let me tell you, that's an ugly picture!

ATC_MacGyver · Posted: 01-09-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielEtvs

i dont mean it LITERALLY that somoene would automaticlaly washout or anything, and i wouldnt want ANYBODY to have a harder time than they need to, the job is already difficult enough by itself and comes with enough stressors. Just remember though, the people training you, the people with all the knowledge and experience are the line controllers not management. There are not too many supervisors out there who are going to check you out withOUT a recommendation from your training team. You think someones whose been in the game 20+ years, through many contracts and ups in downs in working conditions, and trained countless people wants to hear some kid with 6 months experience (or whatever the case) give his anti-union opinions? pretty much as a developmental you shutup and color and put in your time and focus on checking out. from my experience it would be ill-advised to NOT join the union, at least initially. once fully checked out and with some actual knowledge and firsthand experiences to base it on, obviously you can then make a more informed decision. but if 98%+ of your facility are dues paying union members, human nature and common sense tells you just might NOT want to be THAT guy, eh? i have not seen any truly bad people who would outright attempt to wash you out for something like this, but you may have a bumpy road nonetheless. when in Rome....

thats all i meant.

i completely agree that a new employee should keep his mouth shut. but he should do that no matter if he is pro or anti-union. the first year is probationary. do you think one of these supes/managers is going to want to hear some probationary mouthing off about being pro-union? no. just like a ojti who is a dues paying member doesnt want to hear an anti-union guy mouthing off.

but even suggesting that a person would have a harder time training because he isnt a member completely throws out the whole "NATCA is a professional organization."

and you're not the first to post this. from almost everything i have read on here, that is the general attitude of the union. at least when hidden behind the internet.

NATCA is the first to cry foul for any unfair treatment. and that is one of the jobs of any union.

but almost every person who gets into a spat with a non-union employee/hopeful threatens that their training will pay. they will get washed out. they will get herpes. etc etc.

look, i'm not anti-union, and im most certainly not anti-natca. but to me, it just destroys the unions credibility when i read posts like that.

ATC_MacGyver · Posted: 01-09-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielEtvs

alrighhhhhhty then? the third grade called...

hahahahahahaha really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielEtvs View Post
perhaps someone will need to fwd this to the facrep at ZDV, then see how well training goes for you.

jamie10584 · Posted: 01-09-2010, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielEtvs

you have no frame of reference. you have no clue about how management runs at the facility in question, you are not in the FAA or NATCA, therefore your assertion has no credibility. worry about getting hired before bashing the union that has guarunteed the high salary you will get once you do.

Huh? Isn't my frame of reference the quote I posted? Yep. Yep it is. Who cares how management runs? That is not what the OP, or I was talking about! I really didn't want to post a side here, as I was hired, but have yet to go to the academy. I just can't believe that everyone can act civilly here, except when someone say something bad about NATCA. Then all the sudden we should verbally harass them, and threaten their career. In my response I was only referring to the actual quote made by a NATCA rep, nothing else. So my credibility is the source, not how long I have been in the FAA.

towerflower · Posted: 01-09-2010, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamie10584

Wow. I can't believe how crazy you people get when someone mentions a possible hole in NATCA. This quote: Is unethical. So if it came from Doug Church, or another NATCA rep, it doesn't matter. I'm not saying all NATCA is bad, but that certainly is.

The quote did not come from Doug it came from another person answering the question he reposted on the NATCA site.

Did you read my response earlier? I think that people are possibly reading too much into such a short statement. Have you ever sat in on a grievance procedure? There have been times when I have filed a grievance and the rep did not think I had a case until it came down to making the oral presentation. See when you file a grievance not all the facts have to be presented at that time in writing. When you have everyone sitting in the room discussing the merits or faults of a grievance it can take on a different light. Viewpoints or facts that may not have been known are now brought out. You have decided that this statement is unethical yet you, me or anyone else knows what the orginal case was about. We don't know what was said during the process but to decide that because this person made such a statement than it has to be unethical. I choose to take another route and not form an opinion as to whether or not it was ethical because I don't know the facts surrounding this person's statement.

Rosstafari · Posted: 01-09-2010, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielEtvs

perhaps someone will need to fwd this to the facrep at ZDV, then see how well training goes for you.

We have an important "Don't be a dick" rule here at StuckMic. Threatening to screw around with someone's career falls under that. If you have a beef with someone over their viewpoints on the union -- or anything else -- fine. But it stays on the board.

Consider this your warning.

atcguruaf · Posted: 01-10-2010, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC_MacGyver

i completely agree that a new employee should keep his mouth shut. but he should do that no matter if he is pro or anti-union. the first year is probationary. do you think one of these supes/managers is going to want to hear some probationary mouthing off about being pro-union? no. just like a ojti who is a dues paying member doesnt want to hear an anti-union guy mouthing off.

but even suggesting that a person would have a harder time training because he isnt a member completely throws out the whole "NATCA is a professional organization."

and you're not the first to post this. from almost everything i have read on here, that is the general attitude of the union. at least when hidden behind the internet.

NATCA is the first to cry foul for any unfair treatment. and that is one of the jobs of any union.

but almost every person who gets into a spat with a non-union employee/hopeful threatens that their training will pay. they will get washed out. they will get herpes. etc etc.

look, i'm not anti-union, and im most certainly not anti-natca. but to me, it just destroys the unions credibility when i read posts like that.

I don't think it takes away from the whole 'NATCA is a professional organization'. To me, it's simply a matter of "if you're not with us, then you must be against us" mentality. That may or may not be the case, but if and when you decline to pay dues, it says something. It says, rather indirectly, "I don't believe in what you're doing, and/or your cause, so I'm not going to support you".

I know, the counter part of that statement is "well, you should be donating to every charity organization, unless you're against their cause." etc.

All I feel is two things: if you don't believe in NATCA, and don't believe in dues, here is how you can earn my respect (which I know you can give a rats ass about, but it's for the tale)

1. The raise that was given in 2010, 2011, 2012 - At minimum, donate whatever your dues would be from the portion of your raise. I forget what it comes out to, but if you just donate the NATCA dues anyway, you're still getting a raise. (Do this to show that you really don't care for NATCA, nor what they have done, are doing, or will do. Do this to REALLY show you don't support them)

2. Pass on your seniority. If you really don't want to be a part of NATCA, decline to accept the benefit of seniority. (This includes bidding days off and leave bidding)

Again, I could care less. I pay my dues and I have my reasons for doing so. If you don't pay your dues, that's cool too (Really, I could care less). But you MUST bare in mind that the people that have put their time AND money in, may care. And yes, whether you like it or not, training may be affected.

My ONLY recommendation is to pay dues until you're qualified AND past probationary status. Just to CYA.

Okay, I'll stop rambling on. Time for a beer run!

NATCA response to overtime question

Stuck Mic - Air Traffic Control - ATC - Aviation