Originally Posted by
zippinbye
You view sick leave as a benefit, as do I, along the vast majority of our colleagues. However, management views it as a liability that needs to be contained. The entire philosophy of what sick leave amounts to is viewed from diametrically opposing vantage points. I'm no accountant or businessman at heart, but I think sick leave belongs on the same side of the balance sheet as pay. But the financial gurus that lead this company incorrectly see sick leave in an asset column. Each time it's exercised, a loss is tallied in their minds. That's not likely to change. Which is the primary reason to hold a firm line in order to retain management's "ask" from C2012. They demanded it, they got it. Tough luck that the results do not meet their expectations. I compare sick leave to a ratchet. Each time it "tightens," it's a one-way street. Allow a few notches of constraint in exchange for a bit of pay, and it will never move back in pilots' favor. That may not bother some people ever, and others not until the day they need the benefit. Which is what sick leave is, as you stated. A benefit that has consumed significant negotiating capital over the years. Of course, some people will need more than others. Not unlike life insurance, car insurance and other risk management tools. But it's there when you need it. That is, until you trade it away.
Well said. In my opinion, our contract costs the company $X Billion a year. If they can reduce that liability within the framework of our current CBA, they save money.
In other words, even though the language hasn't changed in over three years, if they can encourage (intimidate) us into using less sick leave with charts in their weekly updates and always keeping an awareness of sick leave abuse in our minds, they save money. They don't even need new language if sick leave usage has gone down over the last year. They are probably winning already.