Monday, July 10, 2006
The Envelope Please…
The Air Traffic Controllers at the nation’s Fight Service Stations have cast their ballots and the results are in. To the question of continuing NAATS as their bargaining unit representative, 1056 ballots were cast; 431 voted ‘yes’ and 598 voted ‘no.’ America’s AFSSs are now officially union-free.
We’ve refrained from electoral comment for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that this blog is meant to contain observation, not campaigns. Still, a post mortem yields some interesting thoughts and conclusions as it relates to the path we’ve trod over the last few years and to the future we might be able to anticipate.
Our first conclusion is that NAATS was trounced in this vote because of their own ineptitude. President Kate Breen has stated that “I will never understand the no vote.” Perhaps we can help. We noted before, during the contracting-out of AFSS, that NAATS seemed incapable of disseminating its side of the story. That was the case here as well. Interested parties at the facility level had trouble getting answers to their questions, and it’s not good enough to say ‘Well, they could have e-mailed through the web site!’ It is still unclear to many, for example, if all controllers would be forced to join the union and pay dues. Top-down organization was needed to present the Controllers the reasons to vote for NAATS, and that effort did not seem to materialize (or even be conceived). Kate Breen, God bless her, is hard working and dedicated to the cause, but her talents do not extend to this kind of battle.
Corollary to this was our critique of Dan Hart’s restriction of the NAATS newsgroup, further constricting the flow of information (“We have met the enemy…” 12/30/05). We’re in no position to say that an ‘open’ policy by Mr. Hart would have guaranteed an 84 vote swing in the result (and a win for NAATS), but that’s less than 7% of the eligible vote, a small enough margin to sway with a couple good choices. Freezing out NAATS members who were active in the cause, but chose to stay on the sidelines until NAATS made its case was, without question, a bad choice. Rather than see the ‘big picture,' Mr. Hart tried to create some sense of ‘benefit’ for paying ‘dues’ to NAATS. But in the end, this attempt was a stunt that accomplished worse than nothing.
We’ve refrained from electoral comment for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that this blog is meant to contain observation, not campaigns. Still, a post mortem yields some interesting thoughts and conclusions as it relates to the path we’ve trod over the last few years and to the future we might be able to anticipate.
Our first conclusion is that NAATS was trounced in this vote because of their own ineptitude. President Kate Breen has stated that “I will never understand the no vote.” Perhaps we can help. We noted before, during the contracting-out of AFSS, that NAATS seemed incapable of disseminating its side of the story. That was the case here as well. Interested parties at the facility level had trouble getting answers to their questions, and it’s not good enough to say ‘Well, they could have e-mailed through the web site!’ It is still unclear to many, for example, if all controllers would be forced to join the union and pay dues. Top-down organization was needed to present the Controllers the reasons to vote for NAATS, and that effort did not seem to materialize (or even be conceived). Kate Breen, God bless her, is hard working and dedicated to the cause, but her talents do not extend to this kind of battle.
Corollary to this was our critique of Dan Hart’s restriction of the NAATS newsgroup, further constricting the flow of information (“We have met the enemy…” 12/30/05). We’re in no position to say that an ‘open’ policy by Mr. Hart would have guaranteed an 84 vote swing in the result (and a win for NAATS), but that’s less than 7% of the eligible vote, a small enough margin to sway with a couple good choices. Freezing out NAATS members who were active in the cause, but chose to stay on the sidelines until NAATS made its case was, without question, a bad choice. Rather than see the ‘big picture,' Mr. Hart tried to create some sense of ‘benefit’ for paying ‘dues’ to NAATS. But in the end, this attempt was a stunt that accomplished worse than nothing.
# posted by Skywise @ 11:11 PM 
