Flight Service Sigmet

…and he is us.”

Or so goes the famous line from the comic strip Pogo. There have been isolated moments over the past couple of years when Flight Service controllers must think they have stumbled into a circular firing squad. The most recent example involved the Yahoo newsgroup for members of the Flight Service (AFSS) Controllers union, NAATS (National Association of Air Traffic Specialists). First set up in 2002 (if we recall correctly), union members could subscribe to the group by sending an e-mail to the moderator/owner who would confirm their membership status and let them in.

The moderator for the newsgroup is one Dan Hart. He set up the newsgroup of his own initiative. It is not adjunct to the union, nor is it connected in any way with any of its officers (some of them were subscribers to the newsgroup just as any union member could be). It was an excellent resource, acting as a clearinghouse for ideas, calls to action, and the exchange of information during the contract negotiation and contracting out (A-76) process. Only dues-paying members were allowed to subscribe since 1) the intent was to improve communication within the union membership, and 2) the messages could contain statements and information that may have proven useful to FAA management. We always found this ‘security’ angle dubious and it is of little import now. But it was quite reasonable under the circumstances to limit the subscription to those who were paying for every controller’s future, dues paying member or not, even those who refused to lift a finger, write a letter to Congress, or send a dime to help out in the effort (and there were more than a few).

Times, however, have changed. NAATS failed to win a single round when it counted. The organization is now recognized as a bargaining unit only in the state of Alaska, where AFSS controllers are still FAA employees. In the other 49 states, NAATS is in limbo. They have petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for ‘successorship’ recognition as the sole representative of the controllers who now work for Lockheed Martin (while there is substantial legal precedence for this, we’re not going to present the supporting arguments here). But for now it means that NAATS can only have members and collect dues via payroll deduction from the controllers in Alaska. For those in the ‘lower 49’ who want to continue funding NAATS, a payment method has been set up to collect the ‘dues’, but since this amounts to more of a contribution to a cause rather than actual membership, response has been meager to say the least.

There are many possible reasons for this lack of enthusiasm among the (now) Lockheed controllers for paying ‘dues’ to a union that can’t actually represent them; dissatisfaction with NAATS performance in dealing with the FAA’s A-76 process or contract negotiations, the failure to get Congressional action on same, mismanagement on the part of the Board of Directors, an on-going rewrite of the NAATS constitution, just to name a few. We do not argue the validity of these or any other reasons, but we must acknowledge that they do indeed exist and that some have more than just a little merit.

So…what happens to that most useful tool, the newsgroup? Specifically, how should Mr. Hart respond to those former members of NAATS who were faithfully, but are no longer, paying dues to an organization that has no legal standing to represent them?

There are two modes of thought. One is to continue allowing subscriptions only to those who pay union dues (or the equivalent) to NAATS. The other is to keep the newsgroup open to all interested parties who have participated up to this point.

Mr. Hart has taken the former option, as is his right. We find this an unfortunate, short-sighted, and very Scrooge-like choice. It is bad enough that the FAA has treated Flight Service controllers with such incredible disrespect. Must Mr. Hart as well? Apparently so. The given reason for his action is that only dues-paying members should have access to the information that is conveyed through the newsgroup. But that information is no longer limited to union business; a majority of messages now involve information about changes made by Lockheed Martin, possible changes in their status vis-à-vis the FAA, or other remedies that will help them attain some relief for the tremendous losses they have suffered this year. Why would Mr. Hart take from controllers the best existing forum from which to learn their options or the best actions to take?

The decision disserves NAATS as well, as those willing to continue the fight will be split, marginalized, and far less effective. Before the Lockheed take-over of October 4th, the union had a representative in each facility who could act as an ‘information conduit’ up and down the line. Each facility had a bulletin board on which the latest news could be posted. Those are now gone, and any future success depends on using the best possible, most open communication vehicle. Presently, the only such vehicle is Mr. Hart’s newsgroup. Many controllers now denied access to the newsgroup were among the most active during the past two years in trying to forestall the contracting-out of Flight Service. NAATS will no longer have their initiative and ideas. If anyone wanted to see a microcosm of the thinking that led to NAATS’ failures, this would be one.

In a way this is a tempest in a teapot since there is a very simple solution, but we wanted to illustrate the act of cutting ones nose off to spite ones face. We hope that Mr. Hart will see the light and reverse his ill-considered action.

As for the simple solution, someone, anyone, should set up an alternative newsgroup open to all current and former Flight Service Controllers who were affected by the Lockheed contract. Such a thing is very easy to do, and we very much hope to see it done. There is little doubt which newsgroup would best serve those that NAATS sought to represent.