No Concessions, Just $$$$$$$!!!!!! |
As
contract negotiations are weighing heavily on all
members' minds, I am beginning to become concerned about
the overall picture. Not only is NavCanada
underestimating our worth as Air Traffic Controllers, but
apparently many of our members are underestimating this
worth as well. To attempt to clear up this picture, I
offer the following information combined with my
opinions. |
Figure 1 |
| Since the National
Average Wage of a country is a measurement, to a degree,
of the economy within that country, it is an excellent
way of comparing standards of living. The occupation of
Air Traffic Control should hold the right to a certain
economic lifestyle. If other countries are making 2.5-2.7
times their national average wage, then those controllers
are able to maintain a better standard of living within
their own country than we have within Canada at 1.7
times. Since I believe that 3% for those lost years is unacceptable considering the magnitude of the job we do, it becomes clear to me that we require a raise of at least 50% in this contract. And this must be before any concessions whatsoever. We are only trying to make up for lost time and climb up off the bottom rung of the world ladder. Concessions, Why? Considering our rocky past with Transport Canada including seven years of legislated wage freeze, and also considering our rocky beginnings with NavCanada, I see no reason to give up any concessions in order to achieve our 50% raise. I believe that we have given up too many concessions already: NavCanada and its managers tell me that if I were to misapply standard procedures then I may find myself in an "indefensible position." Mr. Pierre Proulx writes a letter that says any controller found to be not adhering to the rules for "wrong-way" altitudes will be dealt with "quickly and decisively". NavCanada claims that Safety is its number one priority, yet CATCA must take them to arbitration in order to have a second controller present on midnights. In lieu of a second controller, Winnipeg ACC Management would have a controller who is not qualified monitor the sector in question. Is this safe? We all have to come into work everyday with the added stress of the threat of unit closures. We are forced to put our lives on hold until we know if and when we have to uproot them altogether. The controllers of Moncton High Level Airspace and Calgary TCU have already had to deal with the pain and anxiety of their units closing and being forced to move to another city when they are unwilling. And all of this when our MOU's with NavCanada supposedly guaranteed no change in working conditions until a new CBA was signed. NavCanada says they want an increase in efficiencies and productivity. Winnipeg ACC, and I assume most of the other units in Canada, has experienced an increase in traffic of over 30% in the last four years. (See Figure 2.) This increase in traffic has been handled with little or no increase in staff to coincide. Each controller has been expected to just give a little more each summer as traffic increases and available staff seems to decrease. Controllers in Canada work an average of 3592 movement per controller. This is 1.13 times what Australia moves, 1.6 times the U.S., 3.6 times Germany, and 3.9 times the U.K. How much more productivity does NavCanada want? (These figures are from 1994 and published in a recent article by NATCA on controller workload.) See Figure 3. |
Figure
2 |
Figure
3 |
| NavCanada wants
an increase in Hours of Work/Week NavCanada's initial proposal was for a 40-hour workweek. I don't believe that we should consider any increase in workweek whatsoever. CATCA member's of the past fought long and hard to attain the 34 hour work week and had to give up other concessions such as lost percentages of raise in order to achieve it. The 34 hour workweek is a benefit that we "paid" for in the past, so why remortage it? To sell it out now would be a travesty and a major injustice to the efforts of the past. Consider that all hours above 34/week are paid at double time now. By working 6 hours a week of overtime right now, a max. AI-05 would earn $24,725 in a year. Add that to the max. salary of $70,061 to receive $94,786 a year right now without any changes. This overtime is basically optional allowing a controller to reduce to 34 hours/week when he or she wishes. This option would be lost if we were to agree to an increase in hours. Also consider that an increase to a 40-hour workweek would be an increase in hours of 17.65%. (Thanks again to DX for the calculations.) Both sick leave and leave credits would require a significant increase in order to remain consistent with what we are used to. Airlines have very strict restrictions on how many hours that their pilots can work. Those restrictions are generally a low number of hours for reasons of safety. NavCanada says that safety is their number one priority but yet they want to increase our hours. In the interest of safety, we should be working less. I have heard many members say that they would consider an increase in workweek. Regardless if they are serious, or playing the "devil's advocate", I am concerned by this. Some arguments have been: "I am already working it anyway, what's the difference?" - As I mentioned above, right now you work the extra time on overtime. It is basically optional. Many members in the country don't work any overtime. Is it fair to force them into working those extra hours when they don't already work them? If we keep the 34 hour workweek, overtime will be available in Winnipeg ACC for a long time to come. Keep it optional. If you don't know what it feels like to have fours days off in a row, I'd ask you to try it a couple of times. I think you'll like it. "Other countries work more hours/week then we do." - This is true. But in most countries, they our envious of our workweek and constantly use us as a benchmark in their negotiations. Also, often the countries that work more hours/week than we do are better staffed meaning that even though they are at work for more hours they are actually in the position for less hours than we are now. Also remember that any increase in hours of work represents a decrease in staff required and therefore a decrease in ATC positions and possibly layoffs. While Winnipeg ACC remains chronically short staffed, don't forget that there are full staffed towers out their that will suffer by an increase in hours. Depending on the layoff strategy and your own seniority, you might be affected by a decrease in positions in other units. Also, less positions in the country means less members of CATCA and thereby diminishes the future power of our union. I really think it would be a mistake to sell our hours of work. It is one of the main things that NavCanada wants and needs to bring our staffing levels up. If we give it away now, we will have one less "carrot" to dangle in future contract negotiations. I would rather take less of a raise and keep the 34 hour workweek because having never received the bigger raise, I won't miss it as much, but I know what a 34 hour week is like and I know that I would miss it. Income Protection Program NavCanada has proposed a completely new income protection and loss of license (sick leave and R&R) program. While most of the program remains just ideas with no concrete criteria it is still worth commenting on. The company's initial proposal contained only 3 "casual" sick days. After that, the first two days of illness are without pay. This is completely ridiculous. I don't believe that CATCA, or any member, can support a program that encourages an individual to come into work when he is ill because this is completely unsafe. We all work in a profession where we are expected to be operating at 110% all of the time in order to ensure the safety of the flying public. Any small illness, such as a cold or headache, can take away from our performance. Maybe an office clerk or manager can work with such illnesses without worry for consequence of error but controllers cannot. It is imperative that we not only retain, but hopefully increase our current casual entitlements. NavCanada also proposes to freeze current sick leave banks and issue IOU's to be paid out upon retirement. Their initial proposal was for the payout of amassed sick leave at 25%. Again, this is ridiculous. Our members have worked hard for this company and Transport Canada and any sick leave built up has only saved both companies money to date. NavCanada paid less for this company because of the liability of our current sick leave. All sick leave usage to date has been paid at 100% and any less than this for a payout is unacceptable. As for the rest of the proposed program, I am concerned about undertaking such massive changes. If we begin to break such completely new ground then we are in danger of throwing away all past precedence and grievance rulings and forced to chart new waters as to what is acceptable practice. Its not that I am opposed to change necessarily, we just need to ensure that a new agreement will be as watertight as possible and that both sides are of the same understanding as to what the agreement contains. In closing, we have the chance and power to attain the goals that we have set out at CATCA'97 in St. Johns. I call upon all members to analyze every little detail of an offer that is given to us to vote on. Calculate all of the numbers very thoroughly and ask questions if required. Do not vote until you understand exactly what all aspects of the offer entail. Consider how every article will affect all members across the country in all units. Ensure that you vote for what is fair and beneficial to everyone. I believe that our current benefits are pretty good and I'm looking for a substantial raise for all controllers with no concessions. There is a World standard for what an Air Traffic Controller is worth. We must achieve this. If we are united and ready to answer the call when it comes, then we can achieve this. It may be a very long war, but I believe that together we can win. |
