Sick leave interpretation?
07-08-2015, 05:41 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Originally Posted by BobZ
Bender.....Ive already learned my lesson about sick leave. I hope you will not also have to find out the hard way.
You ought to stop and check yourself before you declare what is, and what is NOT, the problem.
Is it sick leave abuse we are talking about....or is it 'paid' sick leave abuse that is the problem?
Because they are two entirely different issues.
You ought to stop and check yourself before you declare what is, and what is NOT, the problem.
Is it sick leave abuse we are talking about....or is it 'paid' sick leave abuse that is the problem?
Because they are two entirely different issues.
07-08-2015, 06:15 PM
#62
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
So have I son. I have been around the block a couple of times. The problem is quite obvious.
Pathetic.
Carl
07-08-2015, 07:20 PM
#63
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Lurking
Most states have what is called the four corners doctrine the agreement must be within the four corners of the agreement or it can not be considered by the Court. So if Delta put in an official memo they will not contract this out then they do you would not have a breech of contract complaint or a violation for the NMB you might have a fraudulent inducement complaint but not a strong one unless you can get the voting results by name and then have enough people who voted yes say this alone would have caused them to vote no but they relied on the company's memo saying they would not do this which is a seemingly insurmountable burden the same would stand if you wanted to complain to the NMB that the Company interfered with the vote.
Ok I will crawl back in my little hole now.
Ok I will crawl back in my little hole now.
07-08-2015, 07:37 PM
#64
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 48
ATL Roadshow again...most of the speakers complained about the sick leave in this TA. Obviously, the most common issue for the folks who showed up.
DALPA (I almost typed "the company", no kidding) put up slides and talked about how sick leave is up 30-40% since C2012. Their main point is the spike in March to May because folks have their unverified 100 hours to use. Regardless, most of the DALPA folks are convinced there is this undefined abuse of using the 100 hours of unverified sick leave.
I spoke my piece which was mainly that we should vote this down and reengage with the company. If we get another chance, here's my take on fixing sick leave (assuming we have to address it to get a deal):
Ditch TA language and keep C2012 sick hours and verification/medical release thresholds as is.
Add Enhanced Disability Account as in TA with these modifications:
1. Total unused sick hours up to 100 minus unverified sick leave taken goes into EDA at 1:1 (Example: 240 hours sick available, 150 verified hours used, 50 unverified used, 50 hours added to EDA at end of year)
2. EDA pays out after LTD expires and before DPMA
3. EDA pays out 1:1
The rationale with the EDA is that the company should want to pay sick leave for any verified sickness, whether it's during the bid month or 10 years later. The TA EDA is a complete joke with EDA worth 1/4 of sick leave, and it punishes you for any sick leave used. The dishonest will not stop using sick leave under C2012, the TA or my proposal. However, allowing a 1:1 into and out of the EDA and paying it out prior to DPMA removes the financial temptation for the average honest pilot.
I also like the idea of GS during bid period with sick leave pays back double in sick bank until paid back and then double.
DALPA (I almost typed "the company", no kidding) put up slides and talked about how sick leave is up 30-40% since C2012. Their main point is the spike in March to May because folks have their unverified 100 hours to use. Regardless, most of the DALPA folks are convinced there is this undefined abuse of using the 100 hours of unverified sick leave.
I spoke my piece which was mainly that we should vote this down and reengage with the company. If we get another chance, here's my take on fixing sick leave (assuming we have to address it to get a deal):
Ditch TA language and keep C2012 sick hours and verification/medical release thresholds as is.
Add Enhanced Disability Account as in TA with these modifications:
1. Total unused sick hours up to 100 minus unverified sick leave taken goes into EDA at 1:1 (Example: 240 hours sick available, 150 verified hours used, 50 unverified used, 50 hours added to EDA at end of year)
2. EDA pays out after LTD expires and before DPMA
3. EDA pays out 1:1
The rationale with the EDA is that the company should want to pay sick leave for any verified sickness, whether it's during the bid month or 10 years later. The TA EDA is a complete joke with EDA worth 1/4 of sick leave, and it punishes you for any sick leave used. The dishonest will not stop using sick leave under C2012, the TA or my proposal. However, allowing a 1:1 into and out of the EDA and paying it out prior to DPMA removes the financial temptation for the average honest pilot.
I also like the idea of GS during bid period with sick leave pays back double in sick bank until paid back and then double.
07-09-2015, 02:40 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Well....thats it guys. We have sufficiently closed benders book so he can now comfortably vote yes. Its taken to the very end...but we managed to pull it off.
Whats funny bender is you allege to 'know' the problem...when it was none other than the atl cpo who advised me..'hey, if you had just called in sick, we wouldnt be having this conversation'....
Whats funny bender is you allege to 'know' the problem...when it was none other than the atl cpo who advised me..'hey, if you had just called in sick, we wouldnt be having this conversation'....
07-09-2015, 03:01 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Complete BS tsquare. There isn't a shred of evidence regarding sick leave abuse. None. Yet you parrot it like gospel because that's what management tells you at the LCA meetings. I guess you'll do anything to keep that LCA lanyard.
Pathetic.
Carl
Pathetic.
Carl
07-09-2015, 03:14 AM
#67
Wind the clock beoch
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by sailingfun
You have basically stated why I am leaning to a no vote.
Wait, you did mean voting no as opposed to not voting, right? Either one is acceptable, but voting no is preferable.
07-09-2015, 03:18 AM
#68
Wind the clock beoch
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
It is shocking the number of "newbies" on here that are ready to burn the place down.
It is more shocking the number of risk averse, pull up the ladder, go along get along guys like you that fall for the same old BS every time.
07-09-2015, 03:45 AM
#69
Straight QOL, homie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by PigeonF16
At the ATL Roadshow today, I was told by two members of the Negotiating Committee that the OE trip pull language is in a letter of agreement with Scheduling, and it's "good."
More red flag bromides:
"Oh, that will get fixed in implementation."
"That only applies to [not you]."
"If they do that, ALPA will grieve it (but hopefully you're not the test case, har har.)"
And the latest version: "The MOU [that you can't see now] is 'good.' Trust me. I negotiated it."
Last edited by Purple Drank; 07-09-2015 at 04:26 AM.
07-09-2015, 05:46 AM
#70
Running the House
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 119
From FB obviously no way to verify but someone put it under their real name over there.
So, I hate it when people state opposing opinions back and forth when there may be some sort of authoritative answer available. That seemed to me to be the case regarding the obligation of the DHS if he is an AME and finds something questionable in the medical records obtained through a release you sign.
So I decided to call up the office of the Manager, Aerospace Medical Certification Division, FAA, Oklahoma City. I wrote down the following question and read it verbatim:
“...Our pilot group is considering an agreement with our company which would have us sign a release of our medical records to a company-designated AME, but who may not be - and likely is not - the AME the pilot goes to for his flight physical. If that AME sees something in those records which makes him question that pilot’s fitness for duty, does he have an obligation to report it to the FAA?”
The agent I was speaking to wanted more information in order to be comfortable with providing an answer, so I came up with the following scenario: Suppose I have a sick occurrence due to bronchitis and it’s my third occurrence of bronchitis in the past 6 months. In reviewing the records pertaining to these occurrences, the DHS comes to believe that I may have a more significant issue, such as asthma. He calls me and tells me that he thinks I should stop flying and get evaluated. I tell him that I have it under control and am comfortable exercising my medical certificate. If he is not satisfied with that answer and feels I may be flying with a potentially disqualifying condition, can he let it go, or does he have an obligation to report me to the FAA?
The woman who I was speaking with was very nice and very interested. She wanted to get the answer right, so she asked if she could put me on hold and ask others for a definitive answer. She did not tell me who, exactly, she was going to for the answer. When she came back, she told me, “The short answer is: If he or she is a certified AME and you have not satisfied their concerns, he or she would have an obligation to report it.”
I don't know if this is the definitive answer to the debate, but I could not think of someone more authoritative to call than the office of the FAA's Aeromedical Certification Division.
So I decided to call up the office of the Manager, Aerospace Medical Certification Division, FAA, Oklahoma City. I wrote down the following question and read it verbatim:
“...Our pilot group is considering an agreement with our company which would have us sign a release of our medical records to a company-designated AME, but who may not be - and likely is not - the AME the pilot goes to for his flight physical. If that AME sees something in those records which makes him question that pilot’s fitness for duty, does he have an obligation to report it to the FAA?”
The agent I was speaking to wanted more information in order to be comfortable with providing an answer, so I came up with the following scenario: Suppose I have a sick occurrence due to bronchitis and it’s my third occurrence of bronchitis in the past 6 months. In reviewing the records pertaining to these occurrences, the DHS comes to believe that I may have a more significant issue, such as asthma. He calls me and tells me that he thinks I should stop flying and get evaluated. I tell him that I have it under control and am comfortable exercising my medical certificate. If he is not satisfied with that answer and feels I may be flying with a potentially disqualifying condition, can he let it go, or does he have an obligation to report me to the FAA?
The woman who I was speaking with was very nice and very interested. She wanted to get the answer right, so she asked if she could put me on hold and ask others for a definitive answer. She did not tell me who, exactly, she was going to for the answer. When she came back, she told me, “The short answer is: If he or she is a certified AME and you have not satisfied their concerns, he or she would have an obligation to report it.”
I don't know if this is the definitive answer to the debate, but I could not think of someone more authoritative to call than the office of the FAA's Aeromedical Certification Division.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
