GovernmentExecutive.com

The Professional Airways Systems Specialists union has filed a grievance against the Federal Aviation Administration, charging that the agency is unfairly subjecting maintenance jobs to private sector competition.

The union filed the grievance last week after learning the FAA will include maintenance jobs in a study of the nation's Automated Flight Service Stations conducted under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, said PASS President Tom Brantley. About 450 PASS members perform maintenance tasks at 61 flight service stations across the country.

Brantley said the FAA originally told the union the maintenance jobs would not be included in the study. However, PASS officials learned in a Dec. 8 briefing that the FAA now plans to turn maintenance jobs over to the private sector if a contractor wins the public-private competition. Brantley claimed the FAA is violating a contract provision by not giving the union a chance to compete.

"If they are going to contract out work that our members perform, we deserve an opportunity to compete for that work," Brantley said.

FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the union was notified in August 2002 that the A-76 study would be done and could affect "a small number" of PASS members. He said the study should begin this month and conclude during the first quarter of fiscal 2005.

Martin emphasized that the FAA does not anticipate that any PASS members will lose their jobs. Although a private company might start doing the maintenance jobs, the 450 PASS members will still perform other work or will be offered other positions within the FAA, he said.

"We're talking about 450 FAA employees that regardless of the outcome of the A-76 study will remain FAA employees in one shape or form," he said. "They may not be performing work at automated flight service stations, but they're not going to lose their jobs."

Brantley isn't so sure.

"The way they talk about it is that it [deals with] job functions, which sounds good, but if you contract out somebody's work, how long are you going to keep them around?" Brantley asked. "Anytime you contract out the work that people are performing, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that you intend to keep them around."

The union and the FAA plan to enter arbitration in an effort to resolve the grievance. But Brantley said he's also hoping for congressional support in stopping the FAA from privatizing the maintenance jobs.

Brantley noted that both Democratic and Republican lawmakers fought against the privatization of air traffic control operations in passing the FAA reauthorization bill this fall. The bill was finally passed after the Bush administration agreed not to privatize air traffic control operations during the current fiscal year.

"We are going to continue to push it in Congress and see if we can find some Republicans who are willing to stand up to the administration," he said. "We hope that as the administration continues to push their agenda they will decide they are going to do it in an open and honest way rather than just trying to roll over anyone who doesn't agree with them."

COMMENTS

• Most federal employees belong to an HMO for healthcare. From the small private companies that I have seen contract for public sector work not many, if any, offer health benefits. The lack of any health benefits limits the applicants to retired military or other retired persons who already have health coverage. This creates an aged workforce that must be able to pack up and move every 2 years when contracts are renegotiated to the next lowest bidder. Bread winners cannot afford to accept jobs without healthcare benefits and therefore the private contractor workforce will be unstable and inexperienced every time the contract is won by another contractor. GovExec.com reader Posted February 23, 2004 7:11 PM
• The move to privatize the maintenance and operational functions of these inherently governmental jobs is more accuratly described as "profitization" rather than "privatization." This raises the question of how a for profit firm could ever have the best intentions for flight safety. Especially in light of past events where contractors were found to take short cuts in their efforts to make work more profitable. The Alaska Airlines and Value Jet crashes in California and Florida are prime examples of companies placing profit before safety. The sad part in all this is that people will probably get hurt, before our senior managers come to their senses or are mandated by Congress to get it straight. Richard Neff Posted December 30, 2003 2:38 AM
• First flight service, then FAA maintenance. Who is next? NATCA? GovExec.com reader Posted December 30, 2003 11:32 AM