Originally Posted by
Professor
Denny,
Tried to turn this around as soon as I saw it.
So, first off there is not now nor is there any release of you medical records. Ever. That release is so that the doctor can communicate with DHS.
So, for example let us say that you pulled your back out on tuesday.
You have a trip on Thursday.
You are hitting day 15 on Thursday to call in sick.
Your doctor sends a verification to DHS that says, "back pain".
DHS asks for more information, specifics.
Preceding days come into play because you went to see your doctor on Tuesday. Your sick count starts Thursday.
DHS gets another note from your doctor that says,"Denny came to me for a back strain, I prescribed him pills that prohibit him for flying for a few days, expected return on Saturday."
That is the extent of the verification.
And that return date is not a binding date. Its just an idea of your return to work only.
Hope that helps.
Professor,
Thanks for putting forth ALPA's information and your opinion. But I do have a suggestion and something I think all of us deserve. Can you please make note of when you are sharing ALPA opinion based on how they view a scenario playing out versus ALPA opinion based on how the TA actually reads and thus the less "hopey" scenario? I'm not putting this on you, but if you go back to find out what ALPA's negotiators say I think they owe it to you and the rest of us to back it up with facts (based on the TA) rather than their best guess. I'd respect a more honest "We're not really sure." answer than conjecture. Because that's what it really is if the TA doesn't spell it out, right? Baring some MOA.
Also, have you asked ALPA if they speak for MD, because he said in yesterday's letter to the pilots that he would "not sell" this TA to us; that he would just give us facts. Yet, the information sent out today about sick leave was definitely being sold. It wasn't a heavy sales job, but ALPA was definitely selling.
Can you ask them (and provide their answer or non-answer) if they are going to just give us facts instead of facts with propaganda? Seriously, I'd like to know. Why can't they do that? Facts would be the pros and cons. We know there are cons, but that never comes across in a straight manner. It's always like the car salesman's, "Yeah, she's got a couple hundred thousand miles on her, but she's a classic--a dependable classic!"
Thanks,
GG