FSS to VFR overstaffing offers

[floatyghosthat]

Hello Everyone,

So, a few weeks back when the FSS got that survey, one of the questions was in regard to our intentions with our careers. The options were a) stay at my site b) switch sites or c) other. Under the other, one of the options was "cross-train to VFR or IFR". I chose this one.

A couple days ago, I received an e-mail stating that I would be contacted soon from a member of HR in regards to the survey and my interest in cross-training. The following day, I received a call and was offered a position to train at a handful of centres across the country, for a variety of positions. I told them that I would prefer VFR over IFR, and was offered a spot on a course starting in March.

This seems like a dream come true for me, as I have been counting down the days until I'm eligible for the EOCO program (just under 2 years to go!). HOWEVER. The one caveat is.... I wave all return rights. Not just to my site, but to my position in NavCanada. My employment will be terminated.

I can see their point of view on it. They're desperately trying to cut positions, and this way they get rid of me regardless, but it's kind of overwhelming.

If it is purely based on merit and skill, then I have no worries. I am confident in my abilities, and even if by some chance I don't make it, I know I am entirely to blame, and I'm okay with that.

What I'm afraid of is being that these are the first courses coming out of the centres, there may be all sorts of risks associated with it. I don't want to lose my career just because the course is improperly planned out, or they can't find enough teachers.

I have yet to make a decision on it, but they want a choice soon. All of the other FSS I've spoken with who have been given the same offer have turned it down.

I'd love to get your insight into this. It's a fantastic offer, but the risk might not be worth it....


P.S.

Sorry for the improper grammar and incoherence. I've been working a lot and can't remember the last time I had a decent night sleep...

[NJ]

While I don't wish you any ill will, our CBA states in article 32.28 that "In the case of vacancies for ACC positions, NAV CANADA shall endeavor to provide fifty percent (50%) of the training opportunities to eligible employees on the seniority list."

I have not seen the ACC's do one iota of endeavoring. There are people (to be selfish, people like me) who want those training opportunities and feel they should stay within our bargaining unit. So as long as they keep to article 32.28, then I have no problem with it.

Of the EOCO members I know that haven't made it, they are still employed by the company as FSS, albeit at different units than their original ones. If you're from a unit that isn't a seniority bid sight, they would probably return you there as it's cheaper than hiring someone new.

[grimey]

Of the EOCO members I know that haven't made it, they are still employed by the company as FSS, albeit at different units than their original ones. If you're from a unit that isn't a seniority bid sight, they would probably return you there as it's cheaper than hiring someone new.

Except that they're offering training as it's potentially cheaper than paying severance to the FSS AND hiring someone off the street for ATC. FSS positions are being eliminated, anyone sent EOCO wouldn't be replaced.

I really should have stuck around for another year. Oh well.

[dutch]

I too chose the cross training option on the survey and I received a call last week from HR as well. However I was told that I would have to take and pass the online and the written test before I was placed in course, for either VRF or IFR. I'm just curious if you have to write the tests as well because it said in your post that you are already in a course in March if you decide to cross train.


I know of 6 people that are taking the training option with no return rights but they all have 3 years or less with the company.
For me the risk is worth it as this is what i want for a career and what i have heard so far is that all EOCO from now on will not have return rights anyway so I am going to take my chances with this offer.

[floatyghosthat]

yes, I also have to take the same tests. The offer was pending successful completion of the testing which I was told may take place as soon as this week.

It was made VERY clear that there are no return rights, as the company is trying to get rid of as many FSS as possible. This way they get rid of them and it's significantly cheaper than severance pay....

[GilletteNorth]

According to Article 36.01 on Severance Pay - 36.01 (a) two (2) weeks' pay for the first complete year of continuous employment... and one (1) weeks' pay for each additional year of complete employment.

It was made VERY clear that there are no return rights, as the company is trying to get rid of as many FSS as possible. This way they get rid of them and it's significantly cheaper than severance pay....

So a 'low time' FSS with 3 years service who faces layoff gets one month's worth of severance pay, which equals about what? About $4400 at FSS-3 third increment?

Nav Canada is following Article 42.03 Opportunities for Employees to be considered for Other Employment Vacancies Within the Company. Rather than trying to 'get rid of' our members, it is providing the opportunity for potentially laid-off members to retrain. To complete the retraining period it will probably cost the company more than what the cost would be if the the member left the company with the severance payout.

You are facing possible layoff and are being bumped from waiting for eligibility for the EOCO program. How is that bad?

My question is... did the company send you a formal notice of your 'vulnerable status' and options before offering you a bump on the EOCO program according to article 42.03? In other words, are you actually vulnerable, are you being offered a chance to train and move to another position, or (as you say) is Nav Canada trying to get rid of as many FSS as possible?

I discussed the EOCO program with some of the people at my site and the consensus was that the program was offered after recommendation of the manager. In other words, only people the manager thought would be successful in completing it would be recommended. So far I've only heard of members possibly facing lay-off being called with potential offers. Unfortunately it's doubtful that every recent hire has the experience or aptitude to successfully complete the program. Has it been offered only to those who might be affected or to anyone who responded positively to cross-training on the survey? If NavCanada is using the program to try and reduce the number of FSS, shouldn't they be offering it to any member who indicated a willingness to cross-train? Anyone placed in the EOCO program means one less person filling a FSS position and the chance for a low-time member to stay in as a FSS. That would reduce the problem farther down the line when people retire and NavCanada will have a huge number to replace because of all the potential lay-offs now. You need continuity in employing new people so you don't have a huge gap later.

Beyond that, has the EOCO program become the Human Resources 'dumping ground' for problems with staffing? I hope not, because that would degrade the objective of the program which is to provide a way for suitable individuals to 'move up' within the company. I know of a situation where one FSS was offered it when a station closed. The person was eligible for EOCO time-wise but needed the recommendation of the manager which he was finding difficult to obtain. When faced with closure and with Human Resources looking to find another postion within the company, getting a recommendation was no longer a problem. A similar situation seems to be occuring now with many low time FSS facing 'potential' lay-off being offered EOCO. Are managers being told to recommend as many people as they can for EOCO? Is this only being driven by Human Resources?

[thatdaveguy]

According to Article 36.01 on Severance Pay - 36.01 (a) two (2) weeks' pay for the first complete year of continuous employment... and one (1) weeks' pay for each additional year of complete employment.

It was made VERY clear that there are no return rights, as the company is trying to get rid of as many FSS as possible. This way they get rid of them and it's significantly cheaper than severance pay....

So a 'low time' FSS with 3 years service who faces layoff gets one month's worth of severance pay, which equals about what? About $4400 at FSS-3 third increment?

Nav Canada is following Article 42.03 Opportunities for Employees to be considered for Other Employment Vacancies Within the Company. Rather than trying to 'get rid of' our members, it is providing the opportunity for potentially laid-off members to retrain. To complete the retraining period it will probably cost the company more than what the cost would be if the the member left the company with the severance payout.

You are facing possible layoff and are being bumped from waiting for eligibility for the EOCO program. How is that bad?

My question is... did the company send you a formal notice of your 'vulnerable status' and options before offering you a bump on the EOCO program according to article 42.03? In other words, are you actually vulnerable, are you being offered a chance to train and move to another position, or (as you say) is Nav Canada trying to get rid of as many FSS as possible?

I discussed the EOCO program with some of the people at my site and the consensus was that the program was offered after recommendation of the manager. In other words, only people the manager thought would be successful in completing it would be recommended. So far I've only heard of members possibly facing lay-off being called with potential offers. Unfortunately it's doubtful that every recent hire has the experience or aptitude to successfully complete the program. Has it been offered only to those who might be affected or to anyone who responded positively to cross-training on the survey? If NavCanada is using the program to try and reduce the number of FSS, shouldn't they be offering it to any member who indicated a willingness to cross-train? Anyone placed in the EOCO program means one less person filling a FSS position and the chance for a low-time member to stay in as a FSS. That would reduce the problem farther down the line when people retire and NavCanada will have a huge number to replace because of all the potential lay-offs now. You need continuity in employing new people so you don't have a huge gap later.

Beyond that, has the EOCO program become the Human Resources 'dumping ground' for problems with staffing? I hope not, because that would degrade the objective of the program which is to provide a way for suitable individuals to 'move up' within the company. I know of a situation where one FSS was offered it when a station closed. The person was eligible for EOCO time-wise but needed the recommendation of the manager which he was finding difficult to obtain. When faced with closure and with Human Resources looking to find another postion within the company, getting a recommendation was no longer a problem. A similar situation seems to be occuring now with many low time FSS facing 'potential' lay-off being offered EOCO. Are managers being told to recommend as many people as they can for EOCO? Is this only being driven by Human Resources?

By severance I believe he was referring to the $35k buyout that's being offered to all FSS, Gillette.

This cross training offer is available to ALL FSS, not just affected employees. Same with the $35k. I know of one guy right off the top of my head that just got approved for cross training and he's not an affected site.

This is a total victory for the company--save the $35k, trim down on FSS, fire bad apples who normally wouldn't make VFR/IFR, and get more controllers. Superwin.

I don't believe this cross training opportunity even requires manager recommendation as far as this push is concerned.

[GilletteNorth]

ok, I missed a $35k buyout offer somewhere

I responded to the survey that 'if' I was faced with lay-off I would cross-train as well. Now, I have enough seniority I doubt they'll be offering it to me especially since I haven't recieved a phone call anyway

You said you knew of a guy not at an affected site who has been offered cross training. Is he a low time FSS? What I'm trying to find out is if they are subverting the EOCO program within the company. Get people to agree to go into it then dump them because they knew from the start they were unlikely to pass. That seemed to be the gist of the concern with what I read from the first post

What I'm afraid of is being that these are the first courses coming out of the centres, there may be all sorts of risks associated with it.

Thanks for the info Dave

[thatdaveguy]

He has about 2.5 years in now. I think it's treated as separate from EOCO for all intents and purposes, ie you don't really have to qualify outside of the exams. But I could be wrong, I'm just piecing together the grapevine.

[canpilot]

If I am understanding this correctly..

It seems like Nav Can. is trying to close FSS entirely or severely downsize FSS to the point where the service * an essential service I might add* will be useless? If that is the case why hasn't this been moved to one of the applicable pilot's forums.. you would most likely cause an uproar.

FSS is essential period.. the knowledge you guys/ gals provide is amazing and when personnel are located onsite so to speak the knowledge from my experience is above standard. Especially for us low timers .. my met. knowledge is what it is because of the service FSS provides.
this is just my opinion and only that..

can something be done..to stop this B.S.

[lilfssister]

If I am understanding this correctly..

It seems like Nav Can. is trying to close FSS entirely or severely downsize FSS to the point where the service * an essential service I might add* will be useless? If that is the case why hasn't this been moved to one of the applicable pilot's forums.. you would most likely cause an uproar.

viewtopic.php?f=68&t=48358

[floatyghosthat]

Yes, I was referring to the cost of paying the 35K buyout over the cost of training...

My manager was completely unaware of the offer. I made sure to talk it over with him before making any decisions.

I am under the assumption that everyone who indicated an interest in cross training was given this offer. However, it would seem foolish to take this offer if the EOCO program was availible to you, unless you were having difficulty getting in.

I personally am still a couple years short of eligibility, and see this as an ideal situation for me. I have accepted the offer (under certain conditions) and am awaiting my testing date.

[Hooj]

so i have read this forum and i'm FSS who will be affected by this. ie. my site has very little chance to remaining open. i'm eligible for EOCO this year but i was told there will be no more EOCO. i have all the recomendation from my manager so if there is a EOCO next year i would much rather go that route. some of you have indicated that you have been given a training course, have you received anything that you had to sign? or have you been given a course starting date? untill you do i don't think anything is there. i was told there are 30 training seats available this year, but HR was not sure how many for IFR and how many VFR. The reason i ask this is because i want VFR and i've heard there are NO VFR courses and there is none planned for a while. Basically i'm trying to find out if anyone really has any idea whats going down here.

[Mohun]

If you cross-train under this current offer by the company, you are not entitled to the provisions of the EOCO program. If you are not successful, your employment with NAV CANADA will be terminated. Anyone currently on the list and approved for EOCO will still be honoured under the EOCO provisions.

This is mostly for IFR.

I have heard that approximately 50 people have signed up so far for the 35K or terminal moves.

[W0XOF]

The cross training is available to any FSS who indicates interest on a National basis, just as anyone can take the 35k. The previous post is correct, this is outside of EOCO. It bypasses managers recommendation etc.

Kind of risky if you ask me. No return rights, as this is a head count cutting initiative. However, if you are an ATSAC member with 1 year or less, probably a good move. A higher probability of getting laid off.

Look out though if you have made waves with management in the past. I'm not talking about the day watchman at the site level neither.

[Hooj]

So basically no one really knows anything whats really going on.

[thatdaveguy]

So basically no one really knows anything whats really going on.

is that unusual?

[coked-up werewolf]

I'm not at an affected site but I have also received a call from hr about this. The woman just wanted my confirmation that cross training would be my "first choice". I'm pretty skeptical about this business but I said "sure" anyways just to keep my name in the hat. I'll decide what to do when they have a piece of paper in my face looking for a signature to waive my return rights.

One thing that haunts me is all of the stories I've heard of acc elitism and cliqu'ish behaviour whereby fss don't check out based on politics rather than merit. On the other hand I know a lot of fss who can't take any criticism and kinda go off the deep end with the self-pity.

Everyone I talk to seems to be pretty weary of it as well. If I were an unscrupulous bean-counter I'd figure this would be a great way to get rid of people. Do not pass go, do not collect $35k, head directly back to your parents basement.

[tesox2]

One thing that haunts me is all of the stories I've heard of acc elitism and cliqu'ish behaviour whereby fss don't check out based on politics rather than merit. On the other hand I know a lot of fss who can't take any criticism and kinda go off the deep end with the self-pity.

Just buy a nice skidoo and cabin, you'll be fine

[kevenv]

One thing that haunts me is all of the stories I've heard of acc elitism and cliqu'ish behaviour whereby fss don't check out based on politics rather than merit. On the other hand I know a lot of fss who can't take any criticism and kinda go off the deep end with the self-pity

All this time I thought I was qualifying or not qualifying people based on their ability to do the job. But now I find out that I am really just a member of an an elitist clique with a political agenda up my sleeve. How come no one told me?

[sigmet77]

Now you know Kevenv, now you know. I hear that if you show up with a case of scotch you're in, wait, no it was if you can play hockey, no that wasn't it, related to the GMFIR? I'm sure one or anyone of those will suffice most people:)

[coked-up werewolf]

hey hey, calm down. I didn't say I subscribed to this view I'm just saying it's prevalent among many fss.

[Braun]

It is true that there are still quite a few people with this mentality, it doesn't bother me much. Just do your thing, lay low and you'll be fine! As for the cliquish behavior, it is kind of interesting to be part of a small group of people worldwide that do a little known job and often the only people you can relate too are work friends. I think that is why the "elitist" thing happens. But I think we should be proud, without being arrogant, to do what we do and something it may come off the wrong way to someone else!

[floatyghosthat]

Well, it's been a few weeks since my phone call, and still nothing. I've already heard of a few people requesting and accepting cross-training for IFR. One of them is at the Center right now for interivews. All expenses paid trip, plus 1.5 time. Must be nice :p. I specified VFR, as I've grown fond of being in a tower and actually seeing the planes. Plus, I don't want to risk my future on IFR training. Too many risks and pitfalls for me.

So, I'm curious, has anyone else gotten anywhere with the cross-training offers? It sounds like a lot of people have taken them. Maybe they've got their quota, which would suck as I was really looking foreward to this....

[Braun]

Well I wish you good luck on your training! But just because you go to a VFR spot doesn't mean you'll get a license!