Word is that there is an AIP on the sick leave.

The details:
-rolling 365 lookback for sick usage
-no self verification (for the first 100 hrs)

Why this is bad:
-this policy would make sick leave more restrictive. Under this policy, if you were to have one large event (100hrs or close) you will have to get a doctors note for any sick usage for the NEXT YEAR. How many of you go to the doctor for a head cold or allergies? How about an ankle sprain? Clogged sinuses? Ever go to a doctor to diagnose a headache? That may be the requirement with no self verification.

Why self verification needs to stay:
-It is easy to meet 100 hrs with one event. How many pilots have you met that have back pain? Kidney stones? other large events? It could easily happen to anyone. If you were to have one of these with the supposed AIP, you will be revisiting the doctor for the next year no matter how small of an ailment you may have.

Sick leave is already restrictive enough
-Alaska pays out a percentage of banked sick time upon retirement. They also allow sick usage for life events with CPO approval.
-American has a "sick if needed" feature for reserves. Basically reserves are dinged on their sick bank if they weren't going to be assigned a trip.
-SWA doesn't have to verify at all!
-UPS/FedEx have paternity/maternity/adoption policies where you can use your sick bank!
-UPS also does a annual payout on excess banked time
-there is more out there (feel free to add to the thread)

Company viewpoint (of that I disagree with)
-The company has looked at how much sick time usage has paid out. It basically comes down to the bean counters trying to eliminate or reduce the cost.

What I'd like to see ALPA do:
-ALPA position should be showing them the cost savings we give them by not using all of our sick time. We do not need any additional concessions. In fact, I'd love to see sick usage more user friendly. We can pick up trips via iCrew, we should be able to call in sick via iCrew. There is no need to sit on hold and waste scheduling's time to call in sick. Its a win for both sides.

 

Agreed, the current sick leave scheme is unsat. Rather than engaging in junior high-level verification, I'm a firm believer that some sort of sick leave residual value would be a mutual win. For instance, keep zero to 100 hours more or less as it is. Then the balance (140 or 170) is tracked for eventual settlement. Say at 50% value. Perhaps to pay retiree health care premiums. Knowing about $2000 per month in assistance would be there in retirement might cause pilots to carefully consider sick leave uses into the depths of the annual limits. Then Delta could put it on the books as what it is, a liability that will become due and payable. NO surprises, but with a potential long-term cost reduction.

Anyhow, the talk of an AIP doesn't mean much to me. If I see it in a TA I will believe it, and vote accordingly. Any sick policy resembling TA 2015 or the rumored AIP gets an "auto-no" from me.

 

This has been filed under "Concession #1".....

 

It's not a concession according to ALPA. It's the "key to unlocking other gains."

 

How about a whole new system whereby we get a smaller sick bank (say 100 hours a year with no verification requirement that is replenshed on one's hire date, as an example) but we are provided a much better short-term disability coverage policy (100% pay without the DPMA assist)?

You can bang-in sick for the occasional headache or the 24 hour cold with no worry and you are covered for the 100 hour event by a 100% short term disability policy which would require documentation anyway.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing something like that myself, but it'll never happen. Personally I believe that anything that makes utilizing sick leave easier to use, to be met by opposition from the company. See last year's TA for details.

 

I've heard the same thing from multiple sources and it's an automatic no vote for me. The company is trying to squeeze blood from a stone and I cannot accept it.

 

It would be bad enough if this was the only concession. But I have heard from multiple, credible sources that is only one of many concessions. Including scope, and another LCA trip pull restriction. Line value relief too. IOW, working more.

Any one of those is an auto "no" for me, regardless of pay. More money AND more time off.

 

 

It infuriates me that the first topic with any real details being discussed in negotiations is a concession. Why in these times of record profits can't the first information I hear of negotiations be something positive that I actually want to hear.

No to this proposal, no to concessions of any kind. Perhaps a United like negotiation is the way to go for these talks. Big raise extend the current contract a couple years. While I'm not a fan of not attaining huge gains in many areas of the contract it appears we are not heading in that direction.

I have a sinking feeling were going to have a shiny repeat of TA15. I could probably support a short enough deal that puts me at the top of the industry on pay. Then we can try canning the union leadership, again.