FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
Isn't a policy that reduces staffing, and then authorizes mandatory
overtime (with its federally mandated time-and-a-half pay rate) just a
bit irrational?


I'll bet is cheaper to pay two guys for 60 hours each than 3 for 40.




Me too, when everything beyond the hourly cash pay rate is honestly
accounted for.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 14:38:29 -0400, B A R R Y
wrote in :

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
Isn't a policy that reduces staffing, and then authorizes mandatory
overtime (with its federally mandated time-and-a-half pay rate) just a
bit irrational?


I'll bet is cheaper to pay two guys for 60 hours each than 3 for 40.




Me too, when everything beyond the hourly cash pay rate is honestly
accounted for.


What items would you include in "everything beyond the hourly cash pay
rate" that you would expect to be less costly using overtime pay in
lieu of standard pay rate?

What items would you include in "everything beyond the hourly cash pay
rate" that you would expect to be less costly using overtime pay in
lieu of standard pay rate?

Things like health benefits, which are per person and not per unit time,
and something like overhead (I forget what they call it) which doesn't
go up with overtime.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:14:19 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

What items would you include in "everything beyond the hourly cash pay
rate" that you would expect to be less costly using overtime pay in
lieu of standard pay rate?

Things like health benefits, which are per person and not per unit time,
and something like overhead (I forget what they call it) which doesn't
go up with overtime.


Perhaps. But you'll have to admit that the hourly cost of overtime
labor is more, and overtime has the potential to impact safety.
Without quantifying the data, any savings it's going to be difficult
to ascertain.

So some small-minded bean-counter figured out that the savings in
reduced benefits can be quantified, but the increased hazard to air
safety doesn't impact the FAA's bottom line? Despicable!

But you'll have to admit that the hourly cost of overtime
labor is more

Yes, though the hourly cost isn't the full cost. Take on a new employee
and you have a new liability (another person you can't let go when you
need to, for example, and another health plan that goes from here to
infinity).

and overtime has the potential to impact safety.

No argument there.

Without quantifying the data, any savings it's going to be difficult
to ascertain.

True. Some ballpark estimates could be made by those who know what
typical figures are likely to be.

So some small-minded bean-counter figured out that the savings in
reduced benefits can be quantified, but the increased hazard to air
safety doesn't impact the FAA's bottom line? Despicable!

The tradeoff of money vs safety is made all the time, even by pilots.

It is a common tactic to shift costs from where they can be measured
("see what we're saving!") to where they can't ("free money!"). The
myth of trying to get businesses to move into a town and assume some of
the tax burden is another example (nobody can quantify the monetary cost
of more traffic, more pollution, more water usage, but everyone can see
free money coming in).

I don't know whether in this case it is better to hire more controllers
(less overtime, more safety), or to encourage overtime (fewer employees,
less wasted overhead in the future when we no longer need as big a
staff, more money available for other safety enhancements rather than
paying now unneeded staff). I see your point, but there are other
considerations, and I don't know how they figure in.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Assume that our workers are making $35/hr in base pay, time and a half
in overtime, and $15k per year in benefits.

If you have 3 people working full time, the cost at 2000 hrs per yer
is $255k.

That's not the cost, that's what the employee gets. It costs the
employer more. A factor of two more is what I've heard in the past.

Overhead is the same no matter how many employee hours you have. It
doesn't go up with overtime, but it doesn't go down with reduced heads
either. The air conditioning, for example.

Depends if you need more facilities. But support staff should be
included too, that goes up with number of heads. In any case at this
point I'm more or less guessing, since I don't work at ATC and don't
know what their actual situation is. And perhaps "overhead" (as in
office space and electricity) may not be what I'm trying to refer to.

It is POSSIBLE to save money by having people work OT instead of
hiring new heads. Of course it's done for short term bubbles of
demand, but it's very rare and difficult to do as a normal way of
doing business.

Maybe that's what they're doing.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera wrote:


What items would you include in "everything beyond the hourly cash pay
rate" that you would expect to be less costly using overtime pay in
lieu of standard pay rate?


Simple.

If you have less employees, you pay fewer sets of medical benefits,
vacation, retirement pension contributions, savings plan matches, sick
days (used or accumulated), etc...