GovernmentExecutive.com

The White House issued a formal veto threat Tuesday against legislation that would require the Federal Aviation Administration to reconvene labor negotiations with the union representing its air traffic controllers.

The House is expected to vote on the bill (H.R. 5449) Wednesday. It would require FAA to reopen negotiations with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association two days after the agency started implementing its final proposal, which includes $1.9 billion in wage and benefits savings.

Debate on the measure, sponsored by Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, was scheduled to begin Tuesday night. The bill will be taken up under a suspension of the House rules, which requires passage by two-thirds of members, or 290 votes in its favor.

On Monday, FAA announced it would begin implementing its final contract proposal as the clock had run out on a legally mandated 60-day waiting period after the agency ended formal negotiations by declaring an impasse.

The final proposal from the union, which represents more than 15,000 air traffic controllers, offered $1.4 billion in pay and benefits savings for the agency.

In a statement, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said that the new contract will be phased in, and old work and pay rules will remain in effect during the transition.

The two sides have been stuck in combative and contentious labor negotiations over benefits and salaries since July 2005. The FAA's labor unions legally are allowed to negotiate pay, a unique situation in the federal government, and its controllers are among the highest compensated federal employees.

The Bush veto threat was contained in a statement of administration policy from the Office of Management and Budget, which argued that the legislation changing the "ground rules" raises "serious legal questions."

Legislative action could result in a boost in air traffic controllers' pay, increasing pressure on the deficit and taking funds away from an air traffic control system modernization project, the statement said.

The administration also expressed concern that the bill would result in future FAA wage disputes being sent to binding arbitration with the Federal Service Impasses Panel.

The legislation the House will consider Wednesday would not require the agency to go into arbitration, however. Rather, it would send the two sides back to the negotiating table by blocking FAA from implementing its final contract offer.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Republican leaders on the Appropriations Committee oppose the bill. They argue that controllers have received a 75 percent increase in salary and benefits since 1998, and the 14,575 controllers are now averaging $173,000 a year in pay and benefits. At least 1,300 controllers last year earned more in wages and benefits than any member of Congress, according to the committee.

Union officials argue that under FAA's proposal, new controllers would receive less pay and veterans at the upper end of the pay scale would not receive another raise before mandatory retirement at age 56. New controllers would make up to $127,000 a year in salaries and benefits in the first five years, according to FAA.

Ruth Marlin, executive vice president of the union, countered that the average salary for new controllers could be as high as $92,166 but probably would be between $64,000 and $69,000 by the fifth year.

The union Tuesday said the Transportation Department and FAA are stifling congressional debate on the legislation and have "resorted to using taxpayer money to distribute misleading letters on behalf of nongovernmental advocacy groups."

According to the union, the Transportation Department circulated letters from Americans for Tax Reform and the American Conservative Union containing misleading statements regarding the contract and the negotiations.

FAA spokesman Geoff Basye denied that the agency was working with the advocacy groups.

"I think these groups have examined the issue and are speaking out for their membership," Basye said. "They've chosen to get involved and give their opinion on the issue."

Darren Goode of CongressDaily contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

• Several GOP senators including Arlen Specter have written Blakey letters encouraging her to go back to the table. They know what she's doing is unfair, but yet they set back and do nothing. It is time for a change in Washington D.C. Labor (public and private) in this country has really gotten a raw deal under the current GOP leadership. If you want to read a good press release on the state of the FAA go to Senator Patty Murray's web site (http://murray.senate.gov) read the release dated Thursday, May 4, 2006. Make no mistake the labor in the FAA is under attack. There's currently 2,000 Core Comp employees that have filed an age discrimination lawsuit, all the union contracts are either at impasse or will be. The current PASS contract proposal doesn't even include OSI bonuses for capped out people. There is a shortage of Technical Operations Personnel, Controllers, and Flight inspectors. The non controller pay bands have only seen a 2.1 percent increase since 2002, while the GS pay charts have risen 10 percent over the same period. The FAA has used a market based survey for the pay bands since 1998, in 2001 the pay bands rose 3.6 percent, in 2002 the pay bands rose 3.9 percent, but in 2003 using the same survey Blakey froze the pay bands, even though the Federal Wage Board surveys has federal employees still making 14 percent to 19 percent less than the private sector. What use to be a GS-12 in the FAA is now an H level and a capped H makes $1,765 less than a GS-12 step 10. The gap gets bigger from one locality to the next. When you get into management a GS-15 step 10 makes $118,957 and the FAA L band tops out at $149,300. The FAA claims that controllers are the highest paid government employees, but if you look at the pay scales FAA management is the highest paid management in the government especially when you get to the AT operations. They top out at the maximum allowed by law at $165,200 and that doesn't include benefits or like Blakey likes to say, compensation package. GovExec.com reader Posted June 8, 2006 5:08 AM
• Let's face the facts here. This is the administration's veiled attempt at instituting union busting Wal-Mart style. The GOP controlled Congress can allow for continued corruption and provide tax cuts for the top 1 percent of Americans, but does not want to pay what I believe is a well deserved compensation package. Ask yourself this question, how many lives are at risk when Congress is in session? Now ask yourself this question, how many live are at risk when air traffic controllers are on the job? The House leader wants to make the statement that controllers make more than congressional members. Well how many controllers are millionaires? How many controllers have medical/dental benefits for life? For once I wish that this GOP controlled Congress would tell the truth or is that to much to ask? I am not saying that the Democrats are perfect, but I have never seen a Congress so distant from working class people. Kevin D. McGee Posted June 6, 2006 7:24 PM
• $1.9 billion in wage and benefit savings? Should that not read - $1.9 billion in wage and benefit cuts???? If the FAA and the administration are so sure they are legal and in the right, why are they so frightened of the idea of wage disputes being sent to binding arbitration with the Federal Service Impasses Panel??? Larry R. Doane Posted June 7, 2006 8:13 AM