GovernmentExecutive.com

Negotiations between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association ended in a formal impasse Wednesday, leaving Congress 60 calendar days to intervene with legislation before the agency's last offer becomes official.

The contract talks broke off Wednesday afternoon after the union and agency could not bridge a $600 million gap between the two sides' final offers.

"We have simply concluded that the gap between us is too large to continue these negotiations," said Marion Blakey, the FAA's administrator. "We have worked very hard over the course of nine months ... to reach a voluntary agreement."

But NATCA President John Carr said the FAA never intended to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement and that Blakey "does not respect her workforce."

The agency's last offer included nearly $2 billion in savings from current labor costs over the five years of the contract, while the union's final offer included $1.4 billion in savings.

NATCA and the FAA have been stuck in combative negotiations over benefits and wages since July 2005. The FAA is an unusual government agency because its labor unions are able to negotiate pay, and its controllers are among the highest compensated federal government workers.

Legislation designed to put pressure on the FAA to complete the negotiations is gaining bipartisan support, and as of early Wednesday evening, included 151 House members as co-sponsors. The Senate version has 27 supporters, all Democrats.

The legislation, introduced in the Senate in January by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and in the House in February by Rep. Sue Kelly, R-N.Y., would amend the law and prohibit the FAA from implementing a new contract without authorizing legislation from Congress. In the absence of such a bill, the contract would become binding in 60 days.

Neither the union nor the agency expect a strike to occur.

COMMENTS

• Controllers just flat get paid too much. There are periods of time when traffic levels are so low they combine sectors and go in the back and play cards. GovExec.com reader Posted April 7, 2006 8:48 PM
• This story ends with the statement "Neither the union nor the agency expect a strike to occur." I also saw this in the Washington Post too. If such a statement is added to your story, it would provide for a more complete and accurate story to point out that striking by any federal employee and his/her union is against the law. Without saying this, the story is suggesting that a strike is allowed but just not expected. If you recall, the one and only strike by federal employees involved air traffic controllers at the FAA. This strike resulted in the controllers being fired and their union being decertified as a labor union because they broke the law! GovExec.com reader Posted April 5, 2006 8:58 PM
• The administrator’s words are hollow. No employees in the field trust this management. Since it has taken power at FAA, not a single bargaining unit has been able to negotiate a single voluntary contract. It's been slash and burn your employees, with no respect for fair good faith bargaining. Just look at the 11 NATCA bargaining units where they imposed illegal work rules involuntarily -- four units of PASS without any movement toward a settlement in over four years. PASS' fifth bargaining unit tried for two sessions to bargain in good faith, and when the union said fine, we'll take your offer of a seven-year contract with no alternate work schedules, and dozens of deletions from the current contract to let the membership vote, the FAA negotiators were so shocked that they filed a unfair labor practices complaint. God help America from this administration. Disgusted Posted April 5, 2006 9:53 PM