Saturday, October 01, 2005
Rude Awakening
Lockheed Martin has distributed a National Offloading Contingency Plan to all Flight Service stations. What it contains is illuminating. Not because of any surprise to the controllers (on the contrary, it’s quite old news of the kind we’ve talked about in this blog), but what it reveals about Lockheed’s knowledge of the service it will soon inherit. The root of the problem can be found in the plan’s introduction:
We dearly hope (and that it can be subsequently proven) the FAA promised or otherwise implied to Lockheed that they would deliver the workforce needed to fulfill the contract. Here’s why:
We’ve mentioned 3350.2c, the FAA directive that sets the ground rules for a Reduction in Force (RIF) caused by a contracting-out such as that now experienced by the Flight Service controllers. Let’s take a look at a very relevant section:
Upshot: If it can be shown that the FAA told Lockheed Martin that they would deliver an in-place workforce, or the FAA otherwise did not follow directive 3350.2c, the law has been broken. We’ve said before that a lawsuit in this matter is anticipated. The Lockheed statement in their contingency plan is another bit of evidence in support of such a suit. The desired outcome of a favorable ruling could range from enhanced or required employment opportunities for controllers shepherded to Lockheed, up to and including monetary damages to make up for lost benefits.
Oh…one other detail…since “staffing has been decimated,” what does this mean for AOPA President Phil Boyer’s vision of seamless continuity? We’ll cover that delicious topic in short order.
“…[AFSS] staffing has been decimated by the FAA as a result of their desire to allow as [sic] many Flight Service specialists to “bid out”, transfer, IPP [internal placement program], retire or simply quit.”Gee…the FAA did “allow” controllers to “retire or simply quit.” Exactly what did Lockheed expect? Recalcitrant workers chained to their positions, forbidden to leave? Pardon our sarcasm, but the above statement not only stretches credulity, but shows an total lack of preparation (even denial or naiveté) on personnel issues for the 10/4 takeover. What did the FAA say that led Lockheed to believe that they would inherit a passel of stations staffed to the gills with willing workers just waiting to be fired or have their retirement benefits yanked out from under them? Hasn’t anyone from Lockheed read the NAATS legal pleadings or web site (or even this blog)? Time after time over the summer it was explained to Lockheed representatives visiting the stations that hundreds of controllers were doing everything they could to find other work in the federal government.
We dearly hope (and that it can be subsequently proven) the FAA promised or otherwise implied to Lockheed that they would deliver the workforce needed to fulfill the contract. Here’s why:
We’ve mentioned 3350.2c, the FAA directive that sets the ground rules for a Reduction in Force (RIF) caused by a contracting-out such as that now experienced by the Flight Service controllers. Let’s take a look at a very relevant section:
7. GUIDELINES.The meaning is so simple we wonder how Lockheed missed it: The FAA’s first responsibility is not to keep the workforce in place for the contractor, but to do everything reasonable (up to and including a "hiring freeze") to make sure the workforce is not dislocated from the FAA. Not only must the FAA “…allow…specialists to ‘bid out’, transfer, IPP…”, the FAA is required by law to make sure these things happen. Truth be told, the opposite has actually occurred and Lockheed is getting a bigger workforce than they should, but that’s another topic for another day.
a. When the number of employees in any organization or occupation must be reduced, management shall make every reasonable effort to place surplus employees in other jobs or regions of the agency with the least possible interruption to their careers and personal lives.
b. Separation of employees by RIF shall take place only after all reasonable alternative actions have failed to solve the surplus problem. The RIF procedure shall be conducted in a fair and equitable manner without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, political affiliation, physical handicap, participation or non-participation in a labor organization, personal favoritism, or sexual orientation. When conducting a RIF, the provisions of this order shall be used, in conjunction with, FPM Supplement 351-1, Reduction in Force, Departmental guidance, and union agreements, if applicable.
c. Some of the alternatives to conducting a RIF are: attrition, hiring freeze, promotion freeze, separation of employees on time-limited appointments and other noncompeting employees; reimbursable details, encouragement of voluntary LWOP or change from full-time to part-time work schedule, or furlough rather than separation (only if it is likely that the employee can be recalled to work within a year).
Upshot: If it can be shown that the FAA told Lockheed Martin that they would deliver an in-place workforce, or the FAA otherwise did not follow directive 3350.2c, the law has been broken. We’ve said before that a lawsuit in this matter is anticipated. The Lockheed statement in their contingency plan is another bit of evidence in support of such a suit. The desired outcome of a favorable ruling could range from enhanced or required employment opportunities for controllers shepherded to Lockheed, up to and including monetary damages to make up for lost benefits.
Oh…one other detail…since “staffing has been decimated,” what does this mean for AOPA President Phil Boyer’s vision of seamless continuity? We’ll cover that delicious topic in short order.
# posted by Skywise @ 7:33 AM 
