DLax85

As we all know, Flight Mgmt has now started asking for a "doctors/physicians note" when their "objective scoring system" flags certain sick calls

For the moment, the Association is recommending compliance with this new CBA interpretation; however, it's clear that asking pilots to go to a physician for minor ailments, which can easily and quickly be remedied with rest, proper hydration and, perhaps, over the counter medications --- e.g. common cold/blocked sinuses, irritable stomach/bowels, slight fever/nausea, sprained ankle etc ---- is merely a tactic to increase the burden of calling in sick.

As all flight managers know ---- one does not always go immediately to a doctor when confronted with minor, day-to-day illnesses and injuries, which may render them “unfit” to fly.

Making an appointment to merely request a doctors note adds value to no one (…except the doctor) and raises healthcare costs for both the company and the pilot.

However, there is a cost-effective solution already outlined in our company provided Pilot Benefits Book

The company's own Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical insurance encourages the use of their “24/7 Nurse Line” BEFORE seeing a physician.

It provides “free, confidential health information to assist in making informed health care decisions”. 1-866-406-0982

I’m sure they give out top quality advice --- because this service is already endorsed by FDX.

The Nurse Line was setup specifically for minor ailments and injuries of employees, and their dependents, with the hope that its use can reduce the company’s healthcare costs, by avoiding unnecessary trips to the doctor’s office or an urgent care clinic.

(Note: my physician charges $105 for an office visit --- of which, I make a $20 co-pay, BC/BS pays $80 and my physician writes-off $5)

A pilot with a minor ailment or injury could call the Nurse Line, gain more information regarding his specific situation, and then make a final decision on whether seeing a physician is medically necessary.

The pilot could get “time & initials” from the On-Call Nurse, and then provide this information to Flight Mgmt, should their “objective scoring system” generate a request for a “doctor’s note”.

If Flight Mgmt felt is was useful, they could verify the pilot called into the Nurse Line --- but of course the pilot’s specific health information would remain confidential and not be compromised.

Using my physician’s rate, combined the Chief Pilots latest data of requesting approximately 200 “sick notes” in the last 3 months, it would appear the company could potentially save $16,000 per quarter in healthcare costs --- or roughly $64,000 per year.

Discuss.

AFW_MD11

I think the company is looking at a different cost:

example - 25yr widebody Captain

assume $200/hr pay rate (conservative)

drop one 6CH trip for DSA = $1200.00 - cost to company

(which the "offending" Captain would lose if he is intimidated into not using his DSA bank before retirement)

plus $1200.00 paid to a different widebody Captain that must actually operate the trip in the sick Captain's absence.

total cost to company is 2 x $1200.00 = $2400.00

vs. your $100.00 doctor (intimidation factor) fee

which do you think they would rather pay?

$2400.00 could pay for the intimidation of 24 widebody Captains (at $100/sick note request) - if they can intimidate more than 2 to not use DSA again - they are money ahead.

& this example is just on a 6CH trip. Consider the savings to the company for intimidating a Captain to not call in sick for a week-long 777 international trip.

DLax85

I agree with your math and the associated cost/benefit analysis

Do you think the Chief Pilot would admit these new requirements are for intimidation and quote the same saving #s publicly?

In his latest communication he states...

"As our experience with the system builds over time, we will adjust it as necessary so we are identifying as many truly questionable situations as possible while at the same time minimizing the hassle for the vast majority of pilots who are using sick leave appropriately (i.e., in accordance with the CBA)."

I am suggesting this as a "cost effective adjustment" to their new policy --- it would clearly reduce the hassle for the vast majority of the pilots who are using sick leave appropriately.

It saves time and $$ for all involved.

What would be his publicly stated motivation to disallow it?

tennesseeflyboy

With a Union policy of FLY FIRST, GRIEVE LATER ................. this crewforce can expect any number of CBA interpretations ................... You guys are all correct in figuring the numbers, the Company already knows these figures, they have enough bean counters sitting around to jam these figures .................. Just think, trying to boost the stock price falls in line with increased PRODUCTIVITY

busdriver12

"I am suggesting this as a "cost effective adjustment" to their new policy --- it would clearly reduce the hassle for the vast majority of the pilots who are using sick leave appropriately.

It saves time and $$ for all involved.

What would be his publicly stated motivation to disallow it?"

This is a great, cost effective solution, it makes plenty of sense. Yet it seems probable that the goal is to intimidate people into not using their sick bank, and if they can do that to some level, the company gets a far greater $$ return.

I don't think there would be any public discussion of something like this at all. Even in the stated interest of greater transparency and ethics. This suggestion, sadly, would be ignored.

TonyC

While I admire your ingenuity, I have a fundamental problem with participating in their scheme in any way. The new sick note "policy" does not need to be adjusted -- it needs to be abandoned. If Management wants a new sick policy, they need to negotiate in good faith a CBA which can be ratified by the membership. Until such time as the CBA is amended, the only policy is that which resides there today. Remember, Management agreed to this policy when they themselves affixed signatures to the CBA.

Creating a scheme like this would effectively endorse the new policy. Just say no.

Focus.






.

DLax85

Note, my suggestion wouldn't only apply to their requests under their new interpretation....it would apply on all the holidays the CBA specifically addresses

My main point is that the FDX approved medical insurance provider, BC/BS, fully recognizes (and even encourages) the use of their 24/7 Nurse Line when faced with minor illnesses and injuries

Using the Nurse Line should be acceptable --- it's lower cost, and meets their intent that you sought out appropriate health care

I'm sure the Nurse will recommend you see a physician if the condition warrants

MaydayMark

It usually takes 10 days to get an appointment with my doctor, many doctors are booked a month in advance. I'll be glad to use 10 days of SCK leave (and another day to commute to work?) if that's really what Management wants? ... That's what they asked for?

The last time Management sent me to a doctor I was on RMG pay (removed by management!) for 4 months!

I suggest we play their game until they ask (beg? negotiate?) us to stop.

MM

TonyC

Which paragraph of the CBA is that?






.

AerisArmis

Uh....'cept that Captain is making RLG and has already been paid.