FAA's Answer to ATC Retirement Bubble Staffing Shortfall

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 17:51:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:



What other goals would make sense, reducing air safety?


Do you really think that makes sense?


I think it's reasonable to expect a tired employee to be less
competent than a rested one.

If you disagree, please state your reasons.

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!

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...

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:02:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

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.


Let's use $10/hour as a labor rate just to keep the math simple.


2 personnel X 60 hours X $10/hour = $1,200
2 personnel X 40 hours X $5/hour overtime premium = $400
Total = $1,600



3 personnel X 40 hours X $10/hour = 1,200
Total = $1,200



$1,600
-$1,200
-------
$400 Savings


How do you figure it?

So, you think that is all it costs to have an employee?

Think, Health insurance just as a single example of additional costs. I'm
sure you are smart enough to think of others.

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.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
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.

You bet correctly.

When you consider the benefits, such as vacation, health insurance, and
retirement, and that by not hiring another person that will have to get all
of those benefits, you can afford to pay a lot of overtime.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
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.

You bet correctly.

When you consider the benefits, such as vacation, health insurance,
and retirement, and that by not hiring another person that will have
to get all of those benefits, you can afford to pay a lot of overtime.

Also overlooked is the cost of training. There is a large up-front cost to
add an additional controller that doesn't exist if you merely extend the
hours of already trained controllers - even if those extra hours are more
costly.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Morgans" wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
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.

You bet correctly.

When you consider the benefits, such as vacation, health insurance,
and retirement, and that by not hiring another person that will have
to get all of those benefits, you can afford to pay a lot of overtime.

Also overlooked is the cost of training. There is a large up-front cost to
add an additional controller that doesn't exist if you merely extend the
hours of already trained controllers - even if those extra hours are more
costly.

Many NA car companies (Delphi, etc) have huge ongoing costs from benefits
due to employees that have not worked for years. IIRC it amounts to ~$1400.
/current car produced. I suspect that a similar situation will apply to the
soon to retire ATC employee benefits.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:51:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

True.

Presumably the goal was to reduce costs.


It still is. But first you have to drive out the high-priced controllers.


So you're saying that ATC controllers who have been on the job for a
long time are more expensive than new-hires, and understaffing ATC
facilities will drive out the old hands?