June 10, 2009
Currently NATCA is facing greater fiscal challenges than ever before as we enter a new era for our proud profession.
NATCA has an executive board made up of 10 Regional Vice Presidents along with the President and Executive Vice President. Originally, the RVPs aligned with their counterparts in the FAA. This setup has become archaic and is no longer valid or useful as the agency continually realigns their own hierarchy. The current make up is also unbalanced. As of January 22, 2009 our membership was represented as shown below. There are only 336 members in the Alaska Region while there are close to 4,000 in the Southern Region.
Eliminating an EVP position saves between $60,000.00 and $250,000.00 per year depending on the region in question. Note: Expenses are from the NEB minutes for Nov 13-17, 2006. The expenses are the cost of travel, rent, office supplies & equipment, office employees, stipend, etc. I will post a more accurate figure after some research.
Region-------BUE--------NATCA Member
AL--------------336--------------302----------- $ 59,000
CE--------------714--------------589----------- $ 76,000
EA-------------2286-------------2158------------$225,000
GL-------------3103-------------2670------------$220,000
NE--------------700---------------644------------$ 84,000
NM-------------1502-------------1123------------$133,000
SO-------------3799-------------2910------------$220,000
SW-------------2155-------------1632------------$200,00
WP-------------2185-------------1823------------$208,000
X---------------1946---------------770------------$177,000
______________________________________
TOTALS-----18,726------------14,621
- Do you or would you support a realignment of our National Executive Board? If not, why not? If you do support realignment, please elaborate.
Ruth Marlin-The NATCA Regional Vice Presidents continue to receive their salaries from the FAA, the only NATCA salary is a $1,000 per month stipend that is designed to compensate for lost differentials and premium pay. Only the President and Executive Vice President have their full salary paid by NATCA. Having said that, I am not locked into our current structure and I think NATCA should always be open to considering new structures that may allow us to provide better representation and services to our members. I do not believe that the FAA’s structure should dictate ours. We should look at NATCA and consider if our structure best meets the needs of our diverse membership. I do not believe that member numbers alone should dictate the structure either. For example, while Alaska is our smallest region in terms of numbers, the region has a variety of region specific issues that may not be adequately addressed if it were merged with another region. A few of these include, COLA instead of locality, remote to barely accessible locations, time zone, FSS NATCA, etc.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-I am definitely interested in curtailing unnecessary spending but I believe that we could make cuts that don’t involve losing regional support. I would not be willing to change just because the FAA/ATO did. As EVP, I will strive to organize so that we are more efficient and effective in our support of the members.
Trish Gilbert-I am not sure where you got the $200,000 to $350,000 cost savings by eliminating a RVP from the executive board. Elimination of a board member would save the Union the $1000 per month stipend paid to the RVP and the cost of their office set-up if they have one. Currently Alaska and Central work from their home. Other costs, associated with representing our membership, would still be there. A concern with eliminating a RVP is the loss of official time that comes with that position. We would need to retain that via negotiations before we give that back to the agency by eliminating that position. With all that said, I am not opposed to putting a team together to evaluate our structure and then present to the next convention for consideration by the membership. This actually was done by the neb approximately 6 years ago and they did not come up with a structure that they felt worked better and did not present to the Boston delegates. A lot has changed since then so maybe another evaluation of our make-up may be in order.
- Specifically would you support realignment of the NEB to 9 RVP members on the NEB, each representing a little over 2,000 bargaining unit employees?
Ruth Marlin-Any fundamental change to our organizational structure should be the result of a comprehensive analysis of the problems we seek to correct and consider the possible downside of any change. I do not support a model that bases our structure solely on distribution of members. There are many factors that should come into play in any evaluation. This is matter that should include as much opportunity for member input as possible. We have a diverse membership and should provide them with the opportunity to provide their ideas and concerns if changes to our organizational structure are to be proposed.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-I would not support this change. The issue to me does not seem to be too many regions/activists, it seems to be responsible spending. Fiscal accountability and responsibility will save this Union much more money than removal of regional reps.
A realignment to share the duties and members more equally may be possible but we would have to explore the idea before any change is proposed.
Trish Gilbert-I would not advocate any reworking of the NEB without a thorough look of the pros and cons of many different make-ups including the one we currently have in place.
Recruiting and retaining new members is going to be a key to our long term success and effectiveness.
- Do you have any new ideas on recruiting and retaining dues paying members?
Ruth Marlin-Yes, maintaining our strong membership numbers is critical to the long term success of our union. I believe that member education and involvement is the best recruiting tool. We have thousands of new members that have not yet seen their union succeed. At the same time, as I have been traveling around the country I have seen hundreds of our new members working hard for NATCA and more enthusiastically waiting for the opportunity to get more involved. I think our current communications network that relies on a hierarchical model of list serves and emails does not work to involve more members. By design, you have to be “in the loop” in order to access information. We need to do more to reach every member directly to encourage and engage them.
With high levels of activism, come high levels of membership. Rank and file members who see productive work at the local level are more likely to stay in the union than people who do not. Constant communications, including opportunities for two way discussions with rank and file members will be our most effective recruitment and retention tool. Interestingly enough, as things improve at work, the challenge of retaining and recruiting members becomes more difficult. Many of our new members made the decision to join, not because of anything NATCA did or said, but solely based on the poor treatment they received at the hands of the FAA.
NATCA leadership must always recognize that our membership is our greatest asset. Involving our members more in the day to day work of or union, building, developing and executing strategies has always paid off. It is well worth the investment of time and energy from our officers.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-NATCA is much more than an application form and paying dues. To recruit and retain our members, we must educate and include the membership. I have always included the newest members in NATCA. We have offsite meetings with NATCA reps. to help answer any questions that they may have. I regularly meet with the new guys to ask for input so that we are effectively representing their needs. Having 13 years in the Union, I feel that I can connect with the veterans and the new hires very effectively. We, at ZDC, had have 100% of our developmentals join NATCA.
Trish Gilbert -I chaired the National Organizing committee in the early 90s before it was dissolved and became part of the membership department. When that committee was dissolved we lost the peer to peer recruitment and focus that we had when the committee was in place and the department has moved to focusing only on recruitment of other bargaining units and not internal membership recruitment. The thought back then was that when reclass came to fruition that non-members should join and we didn’t need a structure in place any longer to recruit within. There was some truth to that back then but that is our past and we need to look towards the future. NATCA reloaded is a start but needs a lot of work, support and resources behind it to see it blossom into a truly viable mentorship program that both recruits and retain our members.
Members typically join a Union for one of the following reasons…
Their employer is unfair and/or oppressive.
To improve Compensation and Benefits.
To improve their working conditions.
A sense of wanting to belong to the Organization.
They see opportunities by being an active member in their Union in not only supporting the organization and its goals but also an avenue to receive personal improvements whether it is training or the ability to participate in interesting projects or programs.
They truly believe in the Union and its goals and have a real interest in seeing it strong, productive and successful.
We need continually educate our members on what NATCA is, has done and will do for them, their families and their profession. NATCA reloaded is but one program. I believe we should form an organizing committee again. I see them working closely with the reloaded activists.
- As a recruitment and retention tool, would you support a program that refunded all dues money paid by an employee that is terminated or resigns prior to the end of their probationary period?
Ruth Marlin-Yes, but I would go further and I have had discussions with others about this in the past. I would consider a program that sets the dues rate for probationary employees at 0. Since probationary employees have limited union rights, I think we should consider waiving the dues during this period. Members would still have to join within the time frame mandated in the constitution in order to avoid an initiation fee, but the dues would be 0 until the probationary period was over (and the members has access to full union rights) at which time the normal rate of dues would automatically apply.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-Probably not. I would be skeptical if many people would join only because of this idea. Some of the most essential help that NATCA can give to a member comes in their probationary period. Sure, the grievance procedure is not available, but we can help with training, personal issues, paperwork, advice, and even local information to help the transition to the area. NATCA is more than representation after the occurrence of an issue. We need to be a total support database to all of our members all the time.
Trish Gilbert-Yes I would support this concept.
- Do you support any changes to our current dues structure? If so, please give specifics.
Ruth Marlin-Yes, our current language refers to a system that no longer exists (base pay, step one). I had hoped the NEB would have proposed a change at Miami, and when they did not, I offered a resolution to allow the body to make a change. I believe we need a clearly defined dues structure that is not subject to interpretation. The NEB has had to make several interpretations over the years including how dues is treated when a facility went into save pay status as a result of consolidation based down grades. In addition, we have many different pay systems across our different bargaining units. I believe we should have a clear structure that is either based on a percentage of the membe’rs rate of pay, or a unit – for example equal to the hourly rate of pay. That type of system not only allows our members to know if the dues being collected is correct, it also eliminates the situation where are lowest paid members are paying a higher percentage of their pay than members who earn more.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-I liked the idea of 1 hour of salary per pay period. It would remove dues from the pay bands and attached it to the employee’s salary.
Trish Gilbert-I support our current process in addressing any change to our dues structure.
Much of NATCA’s monies are spent on the biannual convention, training and regional meetings. Some members believe a biannual convention is not necessary any longer. According to NATCA’s 2008 financial report our last convention cost over $1,300,000.00. - Would you support changing NATCA’s convention to every three years? Please elaborate.
Ruth Marlin-I believe a biennial convention provides benefits including building solidarity and excitement with our membership. I think NATCA can do more to control costs. We have gotten in a position where each host city appears to want to “top” the last convention and that has contributed to spiraling costs. The local party (which is a national expense) now exceeds $100,000.00. The parties are an important part of convention, but we do not need to spend more than $100.00 per person to throw a good party. So while I am not necessarily opposed to longer times between conventions, I think there are other things we can do to control costs.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-No, I do not support a three year convention plan. I believe that responsible spending practices should be employed before we go to a reduction in conventions. I have been to the last 3 conventions and I am always impressed by the business of our Union. It seems that many of your questions are related to the financial aspects of the Union. I echo many of your concerns but I feel that instead of wholesale changes that may affect the services and available support to the membership, I would first audit the system to ensure responsible spending.
Trish Gilbert-Yes, I believe as an organization that is almost 23 years old we do not need to meet every two years to change our constitution and/or by-laws. I believe we can accomplish what we need to do every three years. I believe we can use the cost savings to hold more training and conferences for our members. Similar to Communicating for Safety we can explore a Labor Relations, leadership, media and other types of conferences.
- If you support the three year plan, would you also support having our national elections to coincide with the convention?
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Tish Gilbert-No. The problem would be that our convention would be infiltrated with politics and I would be concerned that business of the Union would be overshadowed by the politics and we may come out of conventions not providing our membership with quality constitutional changes and by-laws.
- Specifically, do you believe conducting the election one month after the convention is a good idea?
Ruth Marlin-I do not support conducting our elections to coincide with the convention. Most unions hold their elections at convention and the delegates elect the officers, often electing entire slates (pre-selected executive boards). I support NATCA’s democratic process where each member has a vote for each office. Even if we kept a democratic process, conducting elections at the same time will detract from the opportunity to conduct other business. Every six years our elections occur in a convention year and the convention is generally held in April of that year. I think that model has worked well enough, giving candidates the chance to get their message out at convention, but without giving the incumbents too much of an advantage (as they control the convention agenda and events). I think tying the elections and convention slants the election to the incumbents unnecessarily. I think our members should have equal access to all candidates when making their decision.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Trish Gilbert-No
For a while we based our FACREP classes and other training classes in DC where access to our National Office and the personnel providing the training was centralized. We are now funding training in different parts of the nation and the costs to provide this training have gone up significantly as a result.
- Please detail your ideas on providing training to BUE as relates to our goals and fiscal responsibilities.
Ruth Marlin-We reduced the total training costs by 40% by moving it from LAS to DC. In addition, it required less of our national office staff time as travel was not needed. This not only allowed students in the class to have access to more people, as each director could talk to the class about what their department does and how they can support the reps, but also freed up the regular instructors for their other duties. In addition, it gave us more flexibility in scheduling classes.
I addition to Fac Rep training, I believe we should embrace the cadre instructor model for NATCA training. We have seen how well it works when our Cadre instructors take over FAA training, it reduces class time and costs, as well as providing a better product. I think we have become too reliant on paid staff to teach NATCA classes.
I believe we should provide basic fac rep training at NATCA HQ while at the same time use a network of Cadre instructors to offer shorter, issue specific, training classes in the field. I think there is tremendous value to face to face instruction that isn’t replaced by web based classes, however I do think we should use web based training to augment our face to face classes.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-I would never want to restrict training. In fact, I would like to expand it by training trainers. The smaller facilities are encumbered with debt whether the training is in D.C. or a satellite location. Many of our BUE’s do not want to use 4 or 5 days of annual leave and can’t leave their families for that long either. We could train additional trainers at locations around the country to have ‘onsite’ training at the facilities. This would eventually cut down on travel and lodging. The cost for the locals should be reduced and we could potentially train hundreds of new activists.
Trish Gilbert -I don’t believe the costs have gone up per attendee. Class sizes when held in different areas of the country have gotten larger because they are more accessible to the membership. Additionally, lodging and meals are significantly less expensive than they are in DC. in many parts of the country (delete the highlight right before here). The only added expense to moving the meetings in other areas of the country is a meeting room charge (if there is one) and bringing in National Office staff. Developing a nationwide cadre of instructors to supplement the national office staff could offset those costs and also provide us a better course. Member to member training adds the “been there done that and here are the lessons learned” aspect to the class that is invaluable. Some training does need to be in DC like legislative training because with it you can include a real Hill visit and a fundraiser. Other than that we need to continually work on a myriad of ways to train our members. I would also like to expand our training on things like Unionism and NATCA to family members specific to their interests and concerns.
I have always been a proponent of taking the training to our members whenever possible. It is enough of a hardship on them to take leave and/or travel across the country to learn. We have well trained activists across our membership and we should utilize them to do the training where they are. I was on the SW region training cadre when I was the facrep at Houston Center and we held classes in our region once a quarter and taught everything from grievance processing, mid-term bargaining, finances, elections, meetings w/mgmt, OWCP, OSHA, OE/OD rep to Drug/Alcohol testing.
Just as important, if not more so, is the Town Hall style meetings we have held across the country the last 2 ½ years relaying the importance of NATCA membership, activism and the PAC. This should continue and constantly evaluated for improvement. The OKC meet and greets should continue as they have been a good first step and introduction to those coming into the FAA.
We also need to develop a NATCA orientation type meeting/training for the bargaining units as they are organized by NATCA.
- What are your views on NATCA using monies to purchase alcohol? Do you support NATCA ceasing the use of dues money to buy alcoholic beverages, other than the convention?
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-Our local policy is to include one alcohol beverage per meal. This policy is enforced and has served us well. I do believe and support team building too. This include regularly scheduled meeting and published activities available to all of the ZDC members.
At the national level, the impromptu open bars tabs are the occurrences that I feel need to be addressed. These occur without much reason other than a few members happen to be at a location.
Trish Gilbert-The current national policy lists alcohol-only expenses and more than one drink per meal per person as an unauthorized expense. Exceptions to that policy must be preauthorized by the President, Executive Vice President or the Regional Vice Presidents for expenses charged against their respective budgets.
With that said, I believe there are some occasions when more than a drink per person is appropriate such as the Congressional reception. I do like the fact that the NEB can waive the one drink minimum when they feel it is appropriate. Another example may be a when the contract team has put in 16-18 hour days or other activists that give hours of leave and put in long days on behalf of the membership. I think asking them to pull money out of their pocket to cover a second drink could and should be waived at times by the Pres/EVP. As committee chair of the NLC, I do not have the authority to allow more than one drink per person per meal and rather than ask a member to pony up money for an extra drink or overage on per diem when they have just burned a week of leave and put in a 12 hour day I cover the expense out of my pocket and have in fact done that for years. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating the authority to allow exceptions to the policy to go outside the NEB but I think we should keep a policy in place that does allow exceptions. If there is abuse or a perception of abuse then NATCA members should convey their concern to their elected leaders either immediately or during the election via their vote.
- Do you support controlling the purchase of alcoholic beverages with dues money differently than the current status quo?
If so, how would you change it?
Ruth Marlin-This goes to both questions. I have frequently supported resolutions that restrict the use of union funds for alcohol. I think there are much better uses for our limited resources. I think there are several events where it is appropriate for NATCA to purchase alcohol. These include the congressional reception and scheduled convention events. I think that officers, employees and committee chairs picking up tabs has gotten out of control.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-Yes. I would support a drink ticket idea that would allow cost certainty and reduce the pouring of ‘free’ drinks down the drain. A large portion of our drink expense is from waste because it is a limitless supply at many of our events.
Trish Gilbert-Answered above
The current NEB implemented a new BBS policy and supported making it a part of our constitution which passed at the last convention. Later, the NEB added to the list of violations without the membership’s approval. There is concern that these actions have put NATCA at risk for a DFR (Duty of Fair Representation) complaint that NATCA will lose.
- Do you support the current BBS policy? If not, how would you change it?
Ruth Marlin-No. The current policy is too broad. Also, I believe it violates the legal rights of union members because there is no due process before rights are restricted.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
(2008 Miami Convenetion) -Patrick joined the NEB in reccomending adding the BBS policy, minus the Gilding vs NATCA language, as it is written now to NATCA's constitution.
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
(2008 Miami Convenetion) Paul joined the NEB in reccomending adding the BBS policy, minus the Gilding vs NATCA language, as it is written now to NATCA's constitution.
Rich Santa-No, I feel that is is too restrictive and the punishment is too severe without a proper avenue for recourse to the disciplined members.
Trish Gilbert-I would like to see the policy readdressed at the 2010 convention to something that works more effectively than the one we have in place now. I believe a team should be put together to evaluate the current policy, survey the users and present a policy to be considered by the delegates at the next convention.
- Specifically, do you support a life time ban of a BUE as is called for now?
Ruth Marlin-No. I do not support any provision that includes lifetime bans for our members. The BBS should be treated as a critical part of our communications infrastructure. Every member should be entitled to access. I also believe there are other ways to address problems or concerns that were not explored.
Patrick Forrey-No response
Paul Rinaldi-No comment
Rich Santa-A lifetime ban of a Union resource is uncalled for. A read-only account for a period of time might be a solution but I am not for censorship of any kind.
Trish Gilbert-See above answer above
- Do you agree that adding the posts on the Gilding vs. NATCA case to the list of possible BBS violations, effectively changing our constitution was legal? If you believe it was legal, do you believe it was proper? If you do not agree, how would you have handled it instead?
Ruth Marlin-No. I believe the debate at convention would have been very different if it was clear that the intent was to include topics in the categories of offenses. If our concern was that a post about the lawsuit would endanger our legal position, we could have instituted a policy that delayed postings until they were reviewed by the legal department. A warning that discussion of the case would subject your future posts to legal review could have been made. Our current and prior policy includes a disclaimer that the statements are those of the poster and not NATCA, so I fail to see how posting questions or commentary on a secure BBS compromises our legal position when the same individuals can post the same information on numerous public sites.
Patrick Forrey-No response
(NEB statements and minutes) Patrick joined the NEB in approving adding this language to the policy.
Raul Rinaldi-No comment
(NEB statements and minutes) Paul joined the NEB in approving adding this language to the policy.
Trish Gilbert-I believe it became necessary when NATCA was named to the lawsuit.
- Do you believe that our constitution is the proper home for the BBS policy and procedures? Please elaborate.
Ruth Marlin-Yes, it is a policy of the union and the convention is the supreme body with the power to set policy.
Patrick Forrey-No response (Yes)
Paul Rinaldi- No comment (Yes)
Rich Santa-Yes.
Trish Gilbert-Yes, I believe once it was decided that we needed a BBS policy, that it should be voted on and placed in our constitution as it was at the NATCA convention in 2008
- What role will the BBS and NATCA’s web site play if you are elected in communicating with and leading our union? How would you take advantage of this valuable asset in furthering NATCA’s goals?
Ruth Marlin-I think the BBS is a tremendous asset to our union and its members. I think every elected officer should be an active participate on the BBS. I am bothered when I read posts that say people should email our officers directly rather than address them on the BBS. If a question is answered publicly, it reaches more people and provides useful information to people that may not have otherwise thought to ask. I believe if the BBS is actively used by our officers it will become a more valuable tool for our members.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-I would embrace the usage of the BBS. It is the only form of communication that is available to 100% percent of the membership if they desire. It is a great tool for education and feedback. I will use it not only to answer the members questions but to gather and compile information. This exchange of communication is essential to accurate decision making from a NATCA leadership.
Trish Gilbert-I will continue to be an active participant on the BBS. NATCA’s website, as well as many of the committee websites needs to be redone. Yesterday during a facility visit, I looked at their local’s website and discussed with that member the idea of having subwebs/templates available to all locals and committees to use. This way they get the template and just add their own stuff.
More and more of our NATCAvists are leaving the work force now than at any time since 1981. They have a lot to share.
- What new ways would you take advantage of this resource?
Ruth Marlin-Our retired members have a great deal to offer the union and once retired they are freed from schedule restraints as well as the Hatch Act. It think we should make many opportunities available to retirees who wish to volunteer. These opportunities exist not only in the political arena, but could also serve as experts and instructors across the breadth of NATCA activities. We have retirees who are already experts on OWCP, OSHA, Finance, Political Action, etc. They should be given the opportunity to continue to contribute that expertise to our union.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-You are right about this. We need to embrace the knowledge and talents of our members before they retire so that the information is not lost forever. Once retired, a member can still provide a vast amount of information to new activists and I will encourage and facilitate this sharing of experience. All it really takes is a belief in the value of the retired members and asking them for help.
Trish Gilbert-As mentioned in a previous answer to a question, we need to get training to our members and our retired activists are perfect to be used in some of that training. The Boots on the Ground was a great program where we placed retired members but we can go much further.
- Do you support amending our constitution to allow retired members in good standing to run for National Office?
Ruth Marlin-I do not support an amendment to allow retired members to hold office. I think our members are well served by having officers from the rank and file, who are expected to return to the job when their service is finished. I think this keeps our union a grassroots one that leads to high membership numbers and strong participation. Once the officers are separated from the workforce, we start to get a disconnect between our members and it leaders. We risk creating “NATCA management”. I know there is value to me having returned to the field before running for President. I have first hand experience of not only working for the FAA under the IWRs, but also as a union member seeking information and communication from my union that affects my day to day work.
Patrick Forrey-No Response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Rich Santa-No.
Trish Gilbert-I do not.
