See bolded. It was a direct answer with not necessarily complete information. That has unfortunately been the behavior of the NC/MEC during this entire process.

"There will be no sales job."

And then the NC concludes every NN urging you to vote yes. Absolutely unacceptable behavior.

 

You don't need to ask anyone. Everything you need to know is in the TA language. The medical information release requirements and third party vendors are new and real. It's in the language.

Carl

 

I agree there is an appearance like that at times. I'm here to help allay those fears.

 

All of your efforts are being undone by the actions of the MEC chair and the NC. My reps have asked the NC to stop signing each NN with that phrase, yet they refuse to do so. Why?

Actions speak far louder than words, wouldn't you say?

 

Good catch!!

A slip of the tounge, I'm sure.

Interesting how so many of the "yes" folks are being paid vs. absolutely none of the "no" folks.

.

.

 

We can only do what we can in our own corners of the Universe my friend.
And I'm trying my hardest.

 

Professor, this is an important question that I would like answered as well.

Using all the language, sections/subsections in the new contract (not just cherry picking the section you decide to site), is there any scenario where Delta or their third party provider (or anybody else that is not me or the doctor I use) will ask me to provide my medical records? Site this language from the TA.

Along with this answer please provide:

1. All scenarios where this can happen.

2. How far back they can go.

3. The likely and potential consequences for me not turning over my medical records?

Be specific. We will be revisiting this answer in the future should this invasive, overreaching new language become our new contract.

You have stated you are here to answer questions honestly to educate those trying to decide on this TA. You have stated you are getting paid by DALPA to answer these questions. I expect detailed and all encompassing answers. Please do not use lawyerly/Clinetonesque definitions. Deliver a complete answer. If you do not know, don't "guess" or say "I think". Go to those who purportedly know this language cold and who agreed to put it into the TA. Deliver it and let's not lose anything in translation. Thank You.

PS- I want my answer here and not at a roadshow where they dump a bunch of garbage info into the equation to confuse things....similar to what you have done here earlier.

 

On another subject, Tom Gilbeck started a thread about our scope changes. He's the committee chairman of scope compliance (or something). He laid out a case of considerable half truths and falsehoods about the TA language regarding scope. I responded in detail to each claim in his first paragraph. There was no response from him and now the entire thread was deleted.

Anybody know what's up with that?

Carl

 

Professor or SinkR8-
I have a question about the TA.

1. ALPA's Negotiator Notepad for today contains this statement:

"The Company expects to be ready to fully implement the new sick leave items by the end of the year. In the interim, the look back periods for both the verification and medical release thresholds will look back no further than the beginning of the current sick leave year, June 1, 2015."

However, unless I missed it, that is not what the contract says. There is nothing in there about limiting the look back to June 1, 2015. How can ALPA make that statement? Is there a Side Letter or MOU or something that we have not been shown?

The way the new contract is written, the look back language will put a large number of pilots over the "Medical Release Threshold" on the day we sign this thing. Those pilots will IMMEDIATELY have to start verifying every sick day and release their medical records to Delta's DHS doctor and the Senior VP of Flight Operations.

 

I'm sure you are trying your hardest, but the indefensible is just that...