Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1907285)

Back off on the personal attacks, guys. I'm looking at you, SayAlt, Carl, and Purple Drank particularly.

I will start slapping wrists if this continues.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1907295)

Clamp, I just laid out a whole conversation where Professor/Shiznit lied to us here regarding sick leave. He laid out something as fact, when in reality, it was his thoughts on how the language will be interpreted and/or enforced. That needs to be highlighted. P2P guys who are being paid to post here shouldn't be excused for lying...

Don't you think?



Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1907295)

Clamp, I just laid out a whole conversation where Professor/Shiznit lied to us here regarding sick leave. He laid out something as fact, when in reality, it was his thoughts on how the language will be interpreted and/or enforced. That needs to be highlighted. P2P guys who are being paid to post here shouldn't be excused for lying...
Don't you think?

Carl

Originally Posted by jdborg (Post 1907247)

I see a strategy emerging. The union guys are baiting you into petty, silly arguments so the pages get filled up with garbage. If you fall for it people WILL lose interest. We need to keep them reading so they can get the negatives somewhere. We "NO" they won't get any negatives from the union!

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907300)

Actually Carl. I gave you something that I asked a direct question about and gave you the answer I got.
And it was Denny's question.

To my knowledge and the person I asked, that is the way it is.

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907300)

Once again I ask you, will you accept my wager?
My profit sharing. If I'm lying about being shiznit. Against.
You leaving.

You have accused me of being two people. I have asked you to prove it. And I have asked you to wager on my telling the truth.

I have answered you. And everyone as directly and as honestly as I can. My job here is to help people get info. You are becoming a very large speedbump on the road the that goal.

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907311)

80.

It's just not.
When I person asks me a question I go back and ask the people that wrote the language and have been living with it.

That is the truth. And I am answering question as a conduit. I am not judging the TA or its language only helping to interpret. Seriously.

You should see how I vote. But that isn't the point.

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907213)

Denny,

Tried to turn this around as soon as I saw it.

So, first off there is not now nor is there any release of you medical records. Ever. That release is so that the doctor can communicate with DHS.

Thats not how I read it. "Medical Information" says to me anything the DHS requires relating to my sick absence. THAT opens up a whole can of worms in my estimation. Here is the language:

A medical release will be limited to a written authorization for release of medical 16 information (release), provided the release is limited toto the DHS for: 1a. the specific sickness for which the pilot claimed sick leave, and 2b. the day(s) on which the pilot claimed sick leave and the consecutive day(s) off immediately preceding and succeeding the day(s) on which a pilot claimed sick leave.

This information can be required if verification has been required OR sought.

So, for example let us say that you pulled your back out on tuesday.

You have a trip on Thursday.

You are hitting day 15 on Thursday to call in sick.

Your doctor sends a verification to DHS that says, "back pain".

DHS asks for more information, specifics.

Preceding days come into play because you went to see your doctor on Tuesday. Your sick count starts Thursday.

DHS gets another note from your doctor that says,"Denny came to me for a back strain, I prescribed him pills that prohibit him for flying for a few days, expected return on Saturday."

That is the extent of the verification.
And that return date is not a binding date. Its just an idea of your return to work only.

Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1907314)

If it's an interpretation, call it that, not "facts." Quit with the facade.