Prof,
I think your sentence isn't complete. It should say "We asked the company and the answer is DHS. Not a third party...until the ink is dry on the contract...suckers."

Now I know that sounds smarta$$, but, personally I think that is the whole answer.

Talk to your crewmembers, remind the Captains how much money they have already lost since 2004, remind them the don't have a great DB plan any more, and then point out how little this TA returns to them, at a cost of more concessions in JV Scope, Sick Leave Verification, and lost Profit Sharing.

The math for me is pretty simple. This TA is only 'Historic' in that it is an epic FAIL in these times of $ 6 Billion in stock buybacks and dividends.:rolleyes:

We might as well be writing checks to Richard every month to help fund those buybacks, because that's who is paying for that, only now it's simply done through 'payroll deduction'. WE are PAYING for THEIR GAINS, not OURS!

The problem here, though, is that none of this is in writing, Professor. The Director Health Services or his designee will be able to review your records at any time, not just at the verification threshold, due to the TA language which states 'any time verification has been sought'. The Director Health Services could be anyone the company chooses, and his designee could be anyone he chooses. So considering how important this distinction is, I'm not willing to go on "The Company Told Us". Please get that in writing or else it doesn't exist. I mean really, are we supposed to buy that?

Scambo I hope you know i agree that a contract is a contract. The designee part was so that admin types in DHS can do verifications.

Now it doesn't explicitly say (or a third party) either, so there is that.

I'm asking about it as well, but I honestly am not worried about it as a functioning part of the contract. I would be more concerned whether it is more than you are willing to give up for the vote.

DHS is dr. F. His designer would be a delta person. No third party.

Again. I'm asking the question again and again. I keep getting the same answer though.

I understand and I appreciate it, I really do. Please understand my skepticism.

I agree with you, The new sick provisions are not a part of the functioning contract...the new provisions make sick out as if we had no contract at all.

Absolutely false scambo. With respect.

The hyperbole doesn't help. There are no Mac truck sized holes. Seriously. It's just a change in verification process and times.

Everest,

Your answers.

1) Yes. When you're in the medical release window (24 days in 365, 56 in 3 years)

2). The medical release itself is unchanged from the current contract. It is limited to the specific sick occurrence, and not a general release of your medical records

3)you won't get paid for the sick call

In C2012 the company wanted the verification and is now seeing the results...

Now we are asked to once again change something they came up with. At least in C2015 we are getting something to show for our help. :rolleyes:

In my opinion, with these sick leave changes, the company is thinking ahead for C2018. I wouldn't be surprised if we will find ourselves in a quid pro quo situation in C2018 to fix the the sick leave provisions of C2015 if this passes.

Cheers
George