buzzpat

I don't know him. But as a former USAF commander, he sounds like a tool.

Big E 757

Ok, I've read what you posted and I agree with you. I don't want this guy.

duece12345

I guess I should rephrase... I have worked for some OUTSTANDING commanders (who are here at mother D). The good commanders/leaders earn respect and back their subordinates. They don't have to remind everyone how important they were/are.

Flamer

By the power of greyskull this guy sounds like he sucks. Somebody email him Curly's address so all the crazies can gather for cocktails this evening.

Vincent Chase

As a former leader (I will not use the title) I had the pleasure of hearing a "senior NCO" remind me that they were a "senior NCO." My reply was simple and straightforward...I have worked with hundreds of senior NCOs. The difference between you and them is you tell me...they just showed me.

Anyone who has to remind us they were colonels in the past life yells volumes.

And this idea that sick leave abuse was the ONLY thing that kept this TA from passing is ludicrous. It was MUCH more than that.

Vince

Dynamohum

Here is the thing about this "sick leave abuse" boogeyman that the company has created. The company does not need to address this through our CBA. There are labor law cases, as well as disability cases, that show companies firing individuals over abuse. As long as the company presents evidence of abuse there is not an arbitrator or court which will prevent termination of said abuser. Gathering this "evidence" takes man power, which the company is too lazy to provide. So get us to fix it. And they get the bone us of creating a nightmare for all of us and many will simply fly sick. Brilliant!

But that is the catch. The company simply wants us to fix this problem. And they want to do so with onerous plans that affect all of us negatively. So since they have the ability to bring this evidence forward and terminate the abusers, you have to ask why they want to fix this so called abuse.

In my opinion it is not really about the few abusers. The company wants to create more efficiencies in their favor. This is but one more item to give them greater pilot utilization.

And what do our Moakist union boys do? Jump right on it for the company. Sheep.

DALMD88FO

This is my opinion only about sick time abuse/use at this company and the spike they now see. If you remember the company wanted the current sick time policy back in 2012. There were two consequences that they didn't foresee. 1. People actually verifying illnesses before they reached 100 hours, so they continually roll the 100 hours of unverified and 2. now this is total speculation, people that used to be afraid to call in sick if they had the sniffles, meaning they didn't intend on going to see a doctor, now call in sick because they don't worry about a CPO call.

Now they should have been calling in sick all along but they didn't want the harassment or potential for harassment so they just sucked it up and came to work with a runny nose or cough. Now they actually call in sick. Again this is opinion only.

Flamer

Bingo. The negotiators need to remember a few things this go round.

1. The sick leave in the CBA is what the Co wanted and is not broken.
2. We don't purchase airplanes with our pay.
3. We don't staff the airline.
4. We are done giving up scope.
5. Bankruptcy is over.

thinkstraight

No one has ever shown me one case of sick leave abuse, the company, ALPA and Joe all claim that there is abuse going on. Since Joe is so great at numbers please break down all the sick leave and give me the exact number of abuse.

My bet it's less than 2% of all sick leave. I certainly do not want a flight attendant style sick leave policy based on that.

Barca

I read his letter and he is clear. He wants to protect those of us who, when sick, properly use sick leave. If you abuse sick leave ( lie, commit fraud, etc. ) it's time to change your ways. Who could have a problem with that?