Originally Posted by
Doug Madsen
OK - let's take them one at a time.
Sick Leave - what did you lose here? The ability to call in sick (a lot) when you're not sick? You didn't lose any sick leave credit hours. You didn't lose the value of pay for using any sick leave. You simply may be required to provide some proof that you're actually eligible to use this benefit. Is that so unreasonable? And what about the improvements in this area? FAA leave, disability bank, improvements to psychiatric benefits. Isn't it quite possible that those improvements exceeded any perceived concession of the sick leave language?
JV language - what about the improvements in scope? Increased fragmentation protection, improved affiliate language, DCI fleet reduction, block hour ratio? Isn't it quite possible that those improvements exceeded the perceived value of the JV language change?
LC/FO and other productivity increases - what about all of the improvements in work rules? Reroute, end of month carryover improvements, vacation pay, CQ pay, reserve short call credit, etc. Isn't it quite possible that those improvements exceeded the value of the LC/FO change?
And back to the core issue - so, it doesn't bother you that a local council, despite being briefed extensively on all of the exact costing of the various issues, makes a claim that is no where near reality? While simultaneously ignoring the offsetting improvements in each of these areas?
Next?
DM,
Sick Leave - The change in the sick leave policy was designed to alter every pilots sick leave usage, not just the abusers. It would have caused a lot of pilots to come to work sick, or hurt, when they otherwise would not have.
Pilots don't like approaching limits, pilots don't like filling out forms, and above all else, pilots don't like having to go to their doctors and signing releases to allow their medical records to be reviewed, as if we were common thieves.
I doubt that the improvements you mention add up to the trips pilots would have flown that otherwise they should not have.
JV Language -- I'll let Check E's post speak for me on this one.
LC/FO & other productivity concessions -- The LC/FO concession and other areas of the TA were designed to substantially increase our productivity, which would have resulted in less premium flying for the guys I'm flying with. It's highly unlikely your improvements would offset the amount of greenslips flying out every day.
And back to the core issue -- No, their claim doesn't bother me. In fact, I think the 4% estimation is probably a little low. If anything, I felt and still feel mislead by those who were pushing for the TA.
Even now, look at you and the things you list as positives without telling the whole story. Vacation pay (but not credit). Reserve short call credit (against the guarantee.) Disability bank (40 hours for every 80, then when you use it, 50% of the product of 80 hours multiplied by the pay rate).
Look at the other things you list as positives, that as a result of the TA, will almost never will be applied. Remember C2012? I still look at the OPEN RESERVE DAYS link in ICrew and laugh.
So, to sum it up, what bothered me was the way the TA was half presented by the MEC. At least the dissenters presented PRO/CON papers. You side only presented PRO. And even though the vast majority of pilots indicated they say plenty of con's, you are still doing it.
Next?