Criticism is fine. Let’s talk about facts.
Well yesterday was interesting.
I’ll start by acknowledging that when you put your name behind your words - rather than hiding behind aliases like u/BarExotic2861 or u/UnitedCEO - you open yourself up to criticism. That’s part of the deal, and I’m perfectly fine with it.
What I can’t help but notice is that the same people who claim to be “pro-union” and routinely criticize the “negative voices” have no problem disparaging entire groups of BUEs when it suits them. In this case, TMU. Just an observation.
Parsing through this person’s crash out from last night, the only “lie” I’m supposedly guilty of telling concerns the Executive Orders. So let’s address that directly:
I have consistently stated from the beginning that I did not support the last extension. More importantly, the vast majority of members polled did not support it either. My point all along has been that a contract extension is essentially a new contract, and that membership should have the right to vote on it. I am pursuing every possible avenue to secure that right, including constitutional challenges and amendments.
While I have my own beliefs on how this union should operate, I don’t claim to have all the answers. In fact, I have repeatedly sought input from as many members as possible, as it is the job of any leader to act on the will of people they claim to represent. I do not have the luxury to travel the country on NATCA’s dime, and Reddit - along with our website - has provided a good avenue to collect that input.
Our problems go far beyond the most recent extension. Our economic condition has degraded to the point where our pay now sits just 6.9% above White Book bands. Housing prices have increased 72% since the Slate Book was signed. Childcare costs, healthcare costs, everything has exploded.
Meanwhile, status quo leadership extended the Slate Book twice without a membership vote. They made a series of decisions that contributed directly to where we find ourselves today, then tell members there’s no value in discussing the past. The problem with that argument is that the past is exactly how we got here.
Status quo leadership does not fight. They don’t negotiate. They collaborate and capitulate, to the detriment of our workforce.
When told we had to send 5-point emails every week in apparent violation of our CBA, NATCA capitulated. They even sent us templates.
When $10,000 bonuses were handed out to 300 controllers - a clear union busting tactic, at a time when the rest of the workforce was working 6-day workweeks without pay - NATCA offered no meaningful public opposition.
When the agency wanted to implement MOUs that gave money to AGs and those eligible to retire, leaving the overwhelming majority of the workforce out to dry, NATCA couldn’t wait to sign. As a dues-paying member, I expressed my contention to that decision.
And that is really what this comes down to.
You don’t have to agree with every position I take. You don’t have to vote for me. You don’t even have to like me. But the answer to legitimate disagreement cannot be to dismiss, mock, or silence the members raising concerns.
The reality is that many of the issues being discussed today are the same issues controllers have been talking about for years: Declining purchasing power, endless contract extensions, lack of accountability, and a growing disconnect between leadership and the membership.
If pointing those things out makes some people uncomfortable, so be it.
I am not running to defend the status quo. I am running because I believe NATCA can be stronger than it is today. A union should not fear debate, and it should not ask members to blindly trust leadership.
And a union should never forget that its power comes from the membership.