MOU 25-05
#341
Maybe they will reevaluate that equation during this period where no verification hours accumulate. Maybe even more so as we near the end of the sick year, and there is virtually no disincentive on a borderline call to not call in sick. But again, it's not that hard to get a legitimate note.
#343
I hope the company takes advantage of this easier coverage tool and skips the GS step more often. When CS skips GS by hitting the QS easy button more than they already do with IA it expands the 23M7 financial burden going into negotiations. We have given the entry level CSers an easy button that generates millions of additional pilot value out of the PWA. Every additional QS usage over IA because of the convenience of automation gives us more leverage. If this indeed becomes more widespread than IA it's a huge win for pilots.
#344
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,363
Likes: 904
#345
#346
Some folks weren't here for past contracts, and may not understand the special place Pilot Sick has in the heart of the company. They HATE it. With a passion. (At least in part, because we have pilots who abuse it. To what degree is beyond the point). IMO, the company over-reacts to that 'abuse', but the point is the company has an absolute burr up their backside over sick.
It was one of their major gatekeeper issues in C15. At the time, we had voluntary verification of sick (but foolishly gave that back in C19 because somehow self-reporting/documenting was too onerous on their admin folks). C15 required a MD note after 160 hours, but also had a provision where the company could always mandate an MD note. We are the only major carrier (I am aware of) who has GFB in their contract, much less an over-30-day medical records disclosure clause. C15 also tightened up the language on mandating a "bonafide relationship", where your spouse/parent/cousin could no longer write your sick note. It also had exclusion from lookback for 'major bone' or a hospital stay, but not a knee replacement. It was silly. I mean, what valid reason can one give to say that a PA or NP couldn't verify your sickness in some instances? How cynical do you have to be to say, "No, you MUST go to an MD!? C19 did slightly expand the threshold for 'lookback' from 100 hours to 120 hours. All that said, we do have a much larger annual allocation than other companies. We have all these little nuance rules and exclusions, all because the company hates sick and wants to create disincentives to using it.
My point is that for the company to transition from disputing whether MiCrew 'worked' for sick reporting, to now agreeing to waive sick verification is a BIG deal. That's like Seinfeld's Soup Nazi suddenly not caring how you ordered the soup. Or, like the pilot group suddenly saying "we'll waive PB days for the next couple of months". That in and of itself tells me we had some serious leverage/proof hanging over them, and giving that up should not be dismissed as a small thing - not because of how it's good for us, but for how important it was to the company.
It was one of their major gatekeeper issues in C15. At the time, we had voluntary verification of sick (but foolishly gave that back in C19 because somehow self-reporting/documenting was too onerous on their admin folks). C15 required a MD note after 160 hours, but also had a provision where the company could always mandate an MD note. We are the only major carrier (I am aware of) who has GFB in their contract, much less an over-30-day medical records disclosure clause. C15 also tightened up the language on mandating a "bonafide relationship", where your spouse/parent/cousin could no longer write your sick note. It also had exclusion from lookback for 'major bone' or a hospital stay, but not a knee replacement. It was silly. I mean, what valid reason can one give to say that a PA or NP couldn't verify your sickness in some instances? How cynical do you have to be to say, "No, you MUST go to an MD!? C19 did slightly expand the threshold for 'lookback' from 100 hours to 120 hours. All that said, we do have a much larger annual allocation than other companies. We have all these little nuance rules and exclusions, all because the company hates sick and wants to create disincentives to using it.
My point is that for the company to transition from disputing whether MiCrew 'worked' for sick reporting, to now agreeing to waive sick verification is a BIG deal. That's like Seinfeld's Soup Nazi suddenly not caring how you ordered the soup. Or, like the pilot group suddenly saying "we'll waive PB days for the next couple of months". That in and of itself tells me we had some serious leverage/proof hanging over them, and giving that up should not be dismissed as a small thing - not because of how it's good for us, but for how important it was to the company.
THIS is how you mentor your broccoli haired juniors
#347
#348
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,545
Likes: 285
Sick leave has been a battle since I’ve been here. When I was hired, we didn’t have verification lookback. You went to 75 percent sick leave pay. Then we got the 100 hours of unverified per sick leave year and you could verify whatever you wanted to. Then we voted down something horrible and settled on the 100 hours unverified in previous 12 months with no option to verify. Turned into 120 hours last contract. My point is it is always a battle.
#349
Some folks weren't here for past contracts, and may not understand the special place Pilot Sick has in the heart of the company. They HATE it. With a passion. (At least in part, because we have pilots who abuse it. To what degree is beyond the point). IMO, the company over-reacts to that 'abuse', but the point is the company has an absolute burr up their backside over sick.
It was one of their major gatekeeper issues in C15. At the time, we had voluntary verification of sick (but foolishly gave that back in C19 because somehow self-reporting/documenting was too onerous on their admin folks). C15 required a MD note after 160 hours, but also had a provision where the company could always mandate an MD note. We are the only major carrier (I am aware of) who has GFB in their contract, much less an over-30-day medical records disclosure clause. C15 also tightened up the language on mandating a "bonafide relationship", where your spouse/parent/cousin could no longer write your sick note. It also had exclusion from lookback for 'major bone' or a hospital stay, but not a knee replacement. It was silly. I mean, what valid reason can one give to say that a PA or NP couldn't verify your sickness in some instances? How cynical do you have to be to say, "No, you MUST go to an MD!? C19 did slightly expand the threshold for 'lookback' from 100 hours to 120 hours. All that said, we do have a much larger annual allocation than other companies. We have all these little nuance rules and exclusions, all because the company hates sick and wants to create disincentives to using it.
My point is that for the company to transition from disputing whether MiCrew 'worked' for sick reporting, to now agreeing to waive sick verification is a BIG deal. That's like Seinfeld's Soup Nazi suddenly not caring how you ordered the soup. Or, like the pilot group suddenly saying "we'll waive PB days for the next couple of months". That in and of itself tells me we had some serious leverage/proof hanging over them, and giving that up should not be dismissed as a small thing - not because of how it's good for us, but for how important it was to the company.
It was one of their major gatekeeper issues in C15. At the time, we had voluntary verification of sick (but foolishly gave that back in C19 because somehow self-reporting/documenting was too onerous on their admin folks). C15 required a MD note after 160 hours, but also had a provision where the company could always mandate an MD note. We are the only major carrier (I am aware of) who has GFB in their contract, much less an over-30-day medical records disclosure clause. C15 also tightened up the language on mandating a "bonafide relationship", where your spouse/parent/cousin could no longer write your sick note. It also had exclusion from lookback for 'major bone' or a hospital stay, but not a knee replacement. It was silly. I mean, what valid reason can one give to say that a PA or NP couldn't verify your sickness in some instances? How cynical do you have to be to say, "No, you MUST go to an MD!? C19 did slightly expand the threshold for 'lookback' from 100 hours to 120 hours. All that said, we do have a much larger annual allocation than other companies. We have all these little nuance rules and exclusions, all because the company hates sick and wants to create disincentives to using it.
My point is that for the company to transition from disputing whether MiCrew 'worked' for sick reporting, to now agreeing to waive sick verification is a BIG deal. That's like Seinfeld's Soup Nazi suddenly not caring how you ordered the soup. Or, like the pilot group suddenly saying "we'll waive PB days for the next couple of months". That in and of itself tells me we had some serious leverage/proof hanging over them, and giving that up should not be dismissed as a small thing - not because of how it's good for us, but for how important it was to the company.
#350
Honest question, is the note thing really that big of a deal? The one I've had to provide in over a decade was easy enough and only becuase of a GFB call. If that rate keeps up, having to provide 2 or 3 notes in a 3.5 decade career is a small pain to keep an amazing sick benefit. I wasn't a fan of it initially, but I really don't understand the gnashing of teeth over this. The fact that there was a question about switching to an accumulation model is concerning.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




