|
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1907748)
Look. You guys can conspiracy away all you want.
You don't like the answer I'm giving you. Fine. That is your prerogative. Completely. You encouraged us to get the "facts" about the TA. The FACT is, there is NOTHING in the TA that specifically prohibits a third party administrator. The TA languate makes it much, much easier for a thrid party to administer the program by permitting some large loopholes regarding the release of our medical records.. You telling us "we don't think they'll do that" is NOT A FACT. It's not a "conspiracy" to question squishy language and brainstorm worst-case scenarios; on the contrary, it's exactly what needs to happen to fully vet this POS. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1907762)
whoa, whoa, whoa.
You encouraged us to get the "facts" about the TA. The FACT is, there is NOTHING in the TA that specifically prohibits a third party administrator. You telling us "we don't think they'll do that" is NOT A FACT. It's not a "conspiracy" to question squishy language and brainstorm worst-case scenarios; on the contrary, it's exactly what needs to happen to fully vet this POS. Drank always a pleasure. I was asked a question. I asked up the chain to people who know. That's the answer. Take it or leave it. There is also nothing that allows a third party vendor. At all. Delusional rhetoric is not the order of the day. If there is a question you have, I'll get it answered. |
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1907764)
Drank always a pleasure.
I was asked a question. I asked up the chain to people who know. That's the answer. Take it or leave it. There is also nothing that allows a third party vendor. At all. Delusional rhetoric is not the order of the day. If there is a question you have, I'll get it answered. |
Please ask contract admin as well but I'm asking once more.
I'll be back. |
Thanks Professor...........I see you're hot and heavy on the other thread (now that I've caught up)
|
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1907767)
Is there anything that would prohibit a 3rd party vendor?
I think we're thinking along the same lines:eek::cool: |
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1907764)
Drank always a pleasure.
I was asked a question. I asked up the chain to people who know. That's the answer. Take it or leave it. There is also nothing that allows a third party vendor. At all. Delusional rhetoric is not the order of the day. If there is a question you have, I'll get it answered. http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.Mqq...9&rs=0&p=0&r=0 |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1907726)
Then it should be easy for DALPA to get that in writing.
Just something simple that says "Delta Air Lines will never use a third party sick leave adminstrator." Until then, "we don't think they'll do that" is totally inadequate--it's nothing more than the professor's opinion. Exactly. Professor you've been assigned one demerit. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
We have a similar system at ExpressJet to track absences. It uses FMLA criteria to determine whether an absence is excused. There is almost absolute disapproval, not because the absence doesn't qualify but because t's and i's haven't been dotted and crossed. You normally have to follow up and appeal to get an absence approved.
They also used to out-source the function to an "objective" third party; F and H solutions. We are all familiar with them. Do not allow them to enact this abysmal policy on you. |
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1907764)
Drank always a pleasure.
I was asked a question. I asked up the chain to people who know. That's the answer. Take it or leave it. There is also nothing that allows a third party vendor. At all. Delusional rhetoric is not the order of the day. If there is a question you have, I'll get it answered. Professor, Do you think Delta Health Services (DHS) and Delta Air Lines are the same company? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:57 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands