Well I guess I'll have to boot you as my official data collector. It's obvious I can't trust you.

 

I concur. I feel like I was not diligent enough and was duped. I have now been fooled ONCE. Just my feeling. I like my local reps, they are great. I think it was the higher levels.

 

Haha, best come back of the month. Touche.

 

Purple,

You are correct that Johnson is pretty upbeat, but so what? Many others are negative. Its kind of nice to see differing views, some very skeptical, and some very optimistic. It helps one keep an open mind.

Scoop

 

Johnso29,

This sick leave verification issue isn't a burning issue with me, but I sure dislike one ALPA member telling another ALPA member to "go find another job." As our founder stated, "when one member has a problem, we all have a problem."

It appears that management may be reaching beyond what has been agreed to in our contract and I believe ALPA is working to address the issue (based on posts by another web board where this discussion is taking place). There are also outside factors which will regulate and normalize this issue over time. No one wants to be involved in "pilot pushing." It just takes some time for the definition of "good faith" to be understood by all involved. Further, when the Company sees a financial impact resulting from their requests for Doctor's notes someone will have the bright idea of mitigating that expense too. For now pilots should consider being proactive, not only with verification, but also in asking the Chief Pilot's Office, "what is your good faith basis for this inquiry?" If the reply involves historical data, then there might need to be some non confrontational training that takes place. The Company has a lot of resources at their finger tips and being thorough (as we pilots tend to be) it is difficult to deliberately not access available data.

This will work out. I would not tell another member to "find another job." In our union the proper answer is "how can I help you brother."

JMHO.

 

Exactly. I voted no for C2012. However, there was a lot of that contract I really liked and appreciate now. It was a difficult deal to evaluate on it's merits because of the capacity changes we are seeing now. I think the jury is still out until Spring 2014 to verify the changes in Section 1 really worked as intended. Very good arguments can be made on both sides.

For now, it is what it is. We will have some serious JV issues to debate soon.

 

Do you think it's OK for the company to use historical data such as someone calling in sick the past 6 Chanukkah's to now call and verify a sick call? Where do you draw the line and how do you define good faith? IMO, it's a very slippery slope.

 

Completely agreed which is why many scratched their heads over the massive push to vote yes with reminders that there would be negative consequences for voting no.

 

yes they are, so far so good. I'm ready to be past this myself.

 

A "good faith" celebrates the first miracle of our risen Savior and allows the consumption of beer.

Any faith that does not allow the consumption of beer is a "not so good faith."

Can I get an "AMEN!"

JMHO