Voluntary sick verification
03-24-2017 | 05:49 PM
#51
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,248
Likes: 705
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
The ability to use it with no additional cost of a doctor visit, probably $130 a year. Time and hassle to complete.
03-24-2017 | 05:54 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 2,960
Likes: 0
From: Power top
Karnak, are you in the current administration? Serious question. For years you have sought always to defend and justify the most ridiculous, concessionary, and harmful contractual language by painting anyone who disagrees with it as a lying and/or cheating scumbag.
Were you in contract admin and communications? What is your current position?
Being forced to go to a doctor much more frequently is most certainly an erosion of a benefit for professionals and grown-ups.
Were you in contract admin and communications? What is your current position?
Being forced to go to a doctor much more frequently is most certainly an erosion of a benefit for professionals and grown-ups.
03-24-2017 | 06:40 PM
#53
Banned
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
From: systems analyst
Ok, I'm going to push the rope again. This literally almost made me quit this forum with how much shot I got from the entrenched mafia here. But here goes
How much are we willing to give up for pay rates
Every contract they want more
When do we draw the line?
It will always seem like small potatoes but when we look back over 3 contract cycles we are going to be like holeee fook imho
How much are we willing to give up for pay rates
Every contract they want more
When do we draw the line?
It will always seem like small potatoes but when we look back over 3 contract cycles we are going to be like holeee fook imho
03-25-2017 | 04:10 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 100
From: Road construction signholder
I see NO erosion of the sick leave benefit. I never verified before, voluntarily or otherwise, and have no intention of doing so now.
If I have a bad sick year and end up having to verify, I'll shake my head at the silliness of it all and waste an hour of my day.
Even if this had been our sick policy forever, not once in 20 years would I have had to verify. Undoubtedly there will be a time when I will have to, and then I'll do it,needless hassle though it might be.
What's with all the angst? I can remember as a new hire getting ZERO sick leave my first six months, calling in sick because I had a nasty case of the flu that laid me out for a week... and just losing the money! Sorry, don't want those "good ol days."
If I have a bad sick year and end up having to verify, I'll shake my head at the silliness of it all and waste an hour of my day.
Even if this had been our sick policy forever, not once in 20 years would I have had to verify. Undoubtedly there will be a time when I will have to, and then I'll do it,needless hassle though it might be.
What's with all the angst? I can remember as a new hire getting ZERO sick leave my first six months, calling in sick because I had a nasty case of the flu that laid me out for a week... and just losing the money! Sorry, don't want those "good ol days."
03-25-2017 | 05:24 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
I don't see verification requirements as an erosion of the benefit. As I've posted on this thread, I think it's an attempt to make that process a pain in the butt for some. I don't think it'll work.
That's my perspective. Your's might be different. That's a good thing. The ad hominem stuff in your post is not a good thing. Ironic that you cited "grown-ups" in your post, eh?
03-25-2017 | 05:39 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
I concede the convenience of the full package is somewhat decreased by the verification terms, but the value of the benefit has not decreased. I believe it's important to keep the facts straight because I think the company will make this an issue in our next section 6.
The company touts statistics about usage. Even if they're accurate, I don't see the new verification requirements having much impact. They couldn't reduce their liability (our accruals and access), so they sought to change the hassle factor. We don't demand the company move us from a great hotel just because every 10th time we've stayed there our room key didn't work.
03-25-2017 | 05:47 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
If we're making assumptions or estimates, what percentage of pilots will experience a triggering event...and what percentage of those do you think will not involve a visit to a QHCP without direction from the CPO?
Concur on the "time and hassle".
03-25-2017 | 03:06 PM
#59
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,248
Likes: 705
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
Assuming the triggering event didn't involve a visit to a QHCP on its own?
If we're making assumptions or estimates, what percentage of pilots will experience a triggering event...and what percentage of those do you think will not involve a visit to a QHCP without direction from the CPO?
Concur on the "time and hassle".
If we're making assumptions or estimates, what percentage of pilots will experience a triggering event...and what percentage of those do you think will not involve a visit to a QHCP without direction from the CPO?
Concur on the "time and hassle".
Record profits and we gave concessions. (small ones in your opinion, I get that) And in return we have the industry leading contract?
(not when evaluated by QOL or retirement, that's my opinion) Pay is not even industry leading. 
Last edited by notEnuf; 03-25-2017 at 03:32 PM.
03-25-2017 | 07:06 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 169
From: window seat
Are we 100% sure there's nothing they can do about that? If so, where is it written, and/or where are the test case/precedents to prove it?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
