Details on Delta TA
06-17-2015 | 07:04 AM
#9491
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
I told you I would ask. As well as Everest.
Release specifically covers the sick incident itself. It is not a general release of you medical records.
We asked the company and the answer is DHS. Not a third party.
Hope this helps.
Everest, I'm still waiting to hear about your questions.
Release specifically covers the sick incident itself. It is not a general release of you medical records.
We asked the company and the answer is DHS. Not a third party.
Hope this helps.
Everest, I'm still waiting to hear about your questions.
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.
06-17-2015 | 07:07 AM
#9492
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
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.
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!
06-17-2015 | 07:08 AM
#9493
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
From: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
I told you I would ask. As well as Everest.
Release specifically covers the sick incident itself. It is not a general release of you medical records.
We asked the company and the answer is DHS. Not a third party.
Hope this helps.
Everest, I'm still waiting to hear about your questions.
Release specifically covers the sick incident itself. It is not a general release of you medical records.
We asked the company and the answer is DHS. Not a third party.
Hope this helps.
Everest, I'm still waiting to hear about your questions.
06-17-2015 | 07:08 AM
#9494
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
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.
06-17-2015 | 07:09 AM
#9495
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
The problem here, though, is that none of this is in writing, Professor. The Director Health Services [I]or his designee[I] 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?
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.
06-17-2015 | 07:11 AM
#9496
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
From: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
06-17-2015 | 07:11 AM
#9497
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
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.
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.
06-17-2015 | 07:13 AM
#9498
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
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.
06-17-2015 | 07:14 AM
#9499
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
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
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
06-17-2015 | 07:22 AM
#9500
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
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.
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
