Proposed Sick Leave Rules
06-04-2012, 09:19 AM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
Proposed Sick Leave Rules
This has been discussed in other threads, but I think it deserves its own. The potential sick leave revision is a massive concession.
Here's my scenario: Some years ago, I sprained my ankle and called in sick for a long international trip. I was not able to to WS/GS after I called in well due to trip construction issues.
A couple of months later, my wife and little son were completely laid out with the flu. We had to take him to the hospital. I called in sick again because I was worried about him, and not fit to fly.
As I understand it, my second sick call would, under the proposed TA provisions, be subject to the company's demand for a doctor's note (I broke the magic "100 hours" harassment threshold on my 2nd sick call.
Some thoughts:
-Seems to me this harassment policy is geared to lowering sick time use by bullying guys who might not need to see a doctor themselves, but have family issues, etc. which render them unfit for duty (i.e., SICK).
- Can I provide a doctor's note saying I was "mentally unfit" to fly?
- What if I can't or don't get a doctor's note? No pay? Subject to termination? Company-forced medical examination? All of the above? Sure would be nice to know.
- Why on earth would DALPA allow this????
Although my situation is probably not too common, it doesn't seem like a stretch for someone to be in a similar situation.
This policy is a huge concession. It's #4 on my "hell no" list. I'm fine keeping the current version.
Here's my scenario: Some years ago, I sprained my ankle and called in sick for a long international trip. I was not able to to WS/GS after I called in well due to trip construction issues.
A couple of months later, my wife and little son were completely laid out with the flu. We had to take him to the hospital. I called in sick again because I was worried about him, and not fit to fly.
As I understand it, my second sick call would, under the proposed TA provisions, be subject to the company's demand for a doctor's note (I broke the magic "100 hours" harassment threshold on my 2nd sick call.
Some thoughts:
-Seems to me this harassment policy is geared to lowering sick time use by bullying guys who might not need to see a doctor themselves, but have family issues, etc. which render them unfit for duty (i.e., SICK).
- Can I provide a doctor's note saying I was "mentally unfit" to fly?
- What if I can't or don't get a doctor's note? No pay? Subject to termination? Company-forced medical examination? All of the above? Sure would be nice to know.
- Why on earth would DALPA allow this????
Although my situation is probably not too common, it doesn't seem like a stretch for someone to be in a similar situation.
This policy is a huge concession. It's #4 on my "hell no" list. I'm fine keeping the current version.
Last edited by More Bacon; 06-04-2012 at 09:32 AM.
06-04-2012, 09:46 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by More Bacon
This has been discussed in other threads, but I think it deserves its own. The potential sick leave revision is a massive concession.
Here's my scenario: Some years ago, I sprained my ankle and called in sick for a long international trip. I was not able to to WS/GS after I called in well due to trip construction issues.
A couple of months later, my wife and little son were completely laid out with the flu. We had to take him to the hospital. I called in sick again because I was worried about him, and not fit to fly.
As I understand it, my second sick call would, under the proposed TA provisions, be subject to the company's demand for a doctor's note (I broke the magic "100 hours" harassment threshold on my 2nd sick call.
Here's my scenario: Some years ago, I sprained my ankle and called in sick for a long international trip. I was not able to to WS/GS after I called in well due to trip construction issues.
A couple of months later, my wife and little son were completely laid out with the flu. We had to take him to the hospital. I called in sick again because I was worried about him, and not fit to fly.
As I understand it, my second sick call would, under the proposed TA provisions, be subject to the company's demand for a doctor's note (I broke the magic "100 hours" harassment threshold on my 2nd sick call.
3.
Verification of sickness under Section 14 F. 2. is required when:
a.
a pilot has used more than 100 hours of unverified sick leave in a sick leave year, or a pilot has been absent on a single sick occurrence for 15 or more consecutive days.
06-04-2012, 09:47 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: SLC ERB
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by More Bacon
This has been discussed in other threads, but I think it deserves its own. The potential sick leave revision is a massive concession.
Here's my scenario: Some years ago, I sprained my ankle and called in sick for a long international trip. I was not able to to WS/GS after I called in well due to trip construction issues.
A couple of months later, my wife and little son were completely laid out with the flu. We had to take him to the hospital. I called in sick again because I was worried about him, and not fit to fly.
As I understand it, my second sick call would, under the proposed TA provisions, be subject to the company's demand for a doctor's note (I broke the magic "100 hours" harassment threshold on my 2nd sick call.
Some thoughts:
-Seems to me this harassment policy is geared to lowering sick time use by bullying guys who might not need to see a doctor themselves, but have family issues, etc. which render them unfit for duty (i.e., SICK).
- Can I provide a doctor's note saying I was "mentally unfit" to fly?
- What if I can't or don't get a doctor's note? No pay? Subject to termination? Company-forced medical examination? All of the above? Sure would be nice to know.
- Why on earth would DALPA allow this????
Although my situation is probably not too common, it doesn't seem like a stretch for someone to be in a similar situation.
This policy is a huge concession. It's #4 on my "hell no" list. I'm fine keeping the current version.
Here's my scenario: Some years ago, I sprained my ankle and called in sick for a long international trip. I was not able to to WS/GS after I called in well due to trip construction issues.
A couple of months later, my wife and little son were completely laid out with the flu. We had to take him to the hospital. I called in sick again because I was worried about him, and not fit to fly.
As I understand it, my second sick call would, under the proposed TA provisions, be subject to the company's demand for a doctor's note (I broke the magic "100 hours" harassment threshold on my 2nd sick call.
Some thoughts:
-Seems to me this harassment policy is geared to lowering sick time use by bullying guys who might not need to see a doctor themselves, but have family issues, etc. which render them unfit for duty (i.e., SICK).
- Can I provide a doctor's note saying I was "mentally unfit" to fly?
- What if I can't or don't get a doctor's note? No pay? Subject to termination? Company-forced medical examination? All of the above? Sure would be nice to know.
- Why on earth would DALPA allow this????
Although my situation is probably not too common, it doesn't seem like a stretch for someone to be in a similar situation.
This policy is a huge concession. It's #4 on my "hell no" list. I'm fine keeping the current version.
Not saying the proposed policy is good or bad, I'm just saying.....
06-04-2012, 09:52 AM
#4
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
ok, got it.
But I wouldn't need a doctor's note at all under the current contract. And if the company wants one, they have to pay for the doc. Under the proposed policy, I interpret that whenever they want a doctor's note, it's out of our pockets.
Also--what exactly did we get in return for conceding this policy?
But I wouldn't need a doctor's note at all under the current contract. And if the company wants one, they have to pay for the doc. Under the proposed policy, I interpret that whenever they want a doctor's note, it's out of our pockets.
Also--what exactly did we get in return for conceding this policy?
06-04-2012, 09:57 AM
#5
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by More Bacon
ok, got it.
But I wouldn't need a doctor's note at all under the current contract. And if the company wants one, they have to pay for the doc. Under the proposed policy, I interpret that whenever they want a doctor's note, it's out of our pockets.
Also--what exactly did we get in return for conceding this policy?
But I wouldn't need a doctor's note at all under the current contract. And if the company wants one, they have to pay for the doc. Under the proposed policy, I interpret that whenever they want a doctor's note, it's out of our pockets.
Also--what exactly did we get in return for conceding this policy?
06-04-2012, 10:11 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Decoupled
Posts: 922
It's a pretty easy fix. Get rid of the "verification" program. Use the old standard that has been grieved an is understood by both sides. Presto, problem solved. All it requires is the removal of one line in the agreement. Move on to next problem area in the TA.
Won't happen unless you ask.
Won't happen unless you ask.
06-04-2012, 10:15 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by More Bacon
ok, got it.
But I wouldn't need a doctor's note at all under the current contract. And if the company wants one, they have to pay for the doc. Under the proposed policy, I interpret that whenever they want a doctor's note, it's out of our pockets.
Also--what exactly did we get in return for conceding this policy?
But I wouldn't need a doctor's note at all under the current contract. And if the company wants one, they have to pay for the doc. Under the proposed policy, I interpret that whenever they want a doctor's note, it's out of our pockets.
Also--what exactly did we get in return for conceding this policy?
06-04-2012, 10:17 AM
#8
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by More Bacon
ok, got it.
But I wouldn't need a doctor's note at all under the current contract. And if the company wants one, they have to pay for the doc. Under the proposed policy, I interpret that whenever they want a doctor's note, it's out of our pockets.
Also--what exactly did we get in return for conceding this policy?
But I wouldn't need a doctor's note at all under the current contract. And if the company wants one, they have to pay for the doc. Under the proposed policy, I interpret that whenever they want a doctor's note, it's out of our pockets.
Also--what exactly did we get in return for conceding this policy?
06-04-2012, 10:40 AM
#9
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
No dog in this fight but I'd want to know:
If a doctors verification of injury/illness is required, is the expense to obtain such verification expendable?
And
Is a phrase similar to "did not meet standards under FAR part 67 on this day" acceptable on the medical verification?
My logic behind this is two fold. First, flight managers lack the credential to agree or disagree with the reason for taking sick leave, that is, they aren't doctors. Do pilots need a manger second guessing the reason for sick leave when Part 67 is very clear about "it's the pilots responsibility" to make that decision. Second, what is the chain of custody within the company for such a form, who has access, and what internal regulations cover the handling of the verification forms? HIPAA may or may not apply, but it's still a huge breach of my privacy to have to disclose a medical condition to my employer. That info is between me and my doctor.
My $.02
If a doctors verification of injury/illness is required, is the expense to obtain such verification expendable?
And
Is a phrase similar to "did not meet standards under FAR part 67 on this day" acceptable on the medical verification?
My logic behind this is two fold. First, flight managers lack the credential to agree or disagree with the reason for taking sick leave, that is, they aren't doctors. Do pilots need a manger second guessing the reason for sick leave when Part 67 is very clear about "it's the pilots responsibility" to make that decision. Second, what is the chain of custody within the company for such a form, who has access, and what internal regulations cover the handling of the verification forms? HIPAA may or may not apply, but it's still a huge breach of my privacy to have to disclose a medical condition to my employer. That info is between me and my doctor.
My $.02
06-04-2012, 10:51 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by HSLD
No dog in this fight but I'd want to know:
If a doctors verification of injury/illness is required, is the expense to obtain such verification expendable?
If a doctors verification of injury/illness is required, is the expense to obtain such verification expendable?
Originally Posted by HSLD
Is a phrase similar to "did not meet standards under FAR part 67 on this day" acceptable on the medical verification?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
