Delta TA

Seggy said:
As a professional, who is entrusted with probably close to a billion dollars worth of liability, it is a punch in the face that we can't call in sick for a few weeks, get treatment and just come back without getting a 'verification'. You can blow out an eardrum and be out for a month...easy. Why does the company need to know about that and verify it? Do they not trust you to make the right decision about your health? Sounds like they don't!

Delta management has blown a lot of smoke your way on how 'great' the relationship is between pilots and management. If it really is that great than a policy like this would not be needed. There may be a few folks taking advantage of the system. Once again, if that is the case, you don't make a policy for a whole group based upon the gamesmanship of a few. See what happens when you do @PhilosopherPilot ? You have the Deltoids in revolt! :)
Click to expand...

Again, and for the last time. You cannot punish someone for something that there isn't a policy for. So if you have NO sick policy at all, you cannot punish anyone for abuse, no matter how egregious. Several on here keep saying, punish those who abuse the system, and leave the rest alone. I'm fine with that. But if there is literally not a policy to abuse, no one can be punished, even if they call out sick for every single trip on their schedule for the entire year. That's a problem, and that's why sick policies exist. We had that problem at JetBlue, and now we have a policy due to a few idiots who called in sick like 3 times a month. That's no exaggeration.

So before you can punish the abusers, you have to define what abuse is. That's all a sick policy is or should be, in my opinion. It should only define what abuse of the system is, and leave the rest alone. You don't need occurrences, or stupid doctor's notes. Just define in broad terms what abuse is, and leave the rest alone. I'm still not sure why that is controversial. It seems fairly straightforward to me. We all agree that the rules are created for the minority, but that's the case for most rules in life anyway.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Again, and for the last time. You cannot punish someone for something that there isn't a policy for. So if you have NO sick policy at all, you cannot punish anyone for abuse, no matter how egregious. Several on here keep saying, punish those who abuse the system, and leave the rest alone. I'm fine with that. But if there is literally not a policy to abuse, no one can be punished, even if they call out sick for every single trip on their schedule for the entire year. That's a problem, and that's why sick policies exist. We had that problem at JetBlue, and now we have a policy due to a few idiots who called in sick like 3 times a month. That's no exaggeration.

So before you can punish the abusers, you have to define what abuse is. That's all a sick policy is or should be, in my opinion. It should only define what abuse of the system is, and leave the rest alone. You don't need occurrences, or stupid doctor's notes. Just define in broad terms what abuse is, and leave the rest alone. I'm still not sure why that is controversial. It seems fairly straightforward to me. We all agree that the rules are created for the minority, but that's the case for most rules in life anyway.
Click to expand...

There's no rule that says I have to close the door in the lav when I do the walk of shame mid flight.

If I didn't do that, I'd fully expect to get in trouble. Though to your point, I would fully expect a new FOM bulletin.
 
Seggy said:
You don't need a policy if people are being unethical towards a benefit. Not sure why that is so hard to see.
Click to expand...

You can't fire someone for being unethical. You need them to break a policy and document it. Good luck winning the "but it was unethical" argument in court.

"What policy did they break that caused their termination."

"Well, they didn't outright break a policy, but can't you see how wrong it was?"

"...crickets..."
 
Seggy said:
Not true at all.

Some Continental Scabs were afraid they were going to lose their lump sum retirement pension a few years ago. There was a loop hole in the law that if divorced, your spouse can collect that lump sum as a settlement of the divorce. So what did they do? They divorced their wives, the wives got paid the lump sum, and then they (not all though, some wives took the money and ran) shortly remarried afterwards.

They all got fired. No policy was in place concerning this, but the courts saw fit that they were fired.
Click to expand...

That happened industry wide. It was callign something like "The Summer of Dissolution" or something like that.

Quite a few guys at SouthernJets did the same thing, but only a select handful were actually brought to task on it. Which was heavily, HEAVILY selective and political.
 
How was it selective and political? Did they get their jobs back? Was there a defined policy in place that prevented them by doing it?

What I am saying is abuse of sick leave is most likely covered already somewhere in the Delta FOM that management can work to resolve. It is mind boggling that the Delta MEC Negotiating Committee agreed to put a 'sick verification' in the contract instead of having it a policy. Mind boggling.
 
Derg said:
I don't think any employer has any business digging into your medical records to verify anything as it's a conflict of interest as the cynic in me says that whomever is looking is going to find exactly what they want to find regardless of the situation. We can't always assume a benevolent management team and the language must reflect that truth.

I have no idea if the group they would have looking at those records to confirm that you're actually ill knows the difference between "cubicle sick" and "cockpit sick" and I don't think the people that said "Welp, good enough" on our side really had enough cynicism in their blood to understand that this is a business, we are a cost-of-goods-sold and works like "may" mean "will" and if it saves a $1.00 they're going to stretch that language to the high hill, shrug and say "grieve it" and years later there may be some resolution.
Click to expand...
That would start a slippery slope that would affect other work groups. "Hey the pilots are okay with it, we should enact the same policy on the rest of the employees." A letter from personal physician or AME should suffice for any inquisitions by management.
 
H46Bubba said:
That would start a slippery slope that would affect other work groups. "Hey the pilots are okay with it, we should enact the same policy on the rest of the employees." A letter from personal physician or AME should suffice for any inquisitions by management.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing. If the union and management have a good working relationship, like they claim they do at Delta, a Chief Pilot should call the LEC Rep and say, 'Hey, Jimbo has called in sick the trip before his vacation week the last 5 times. I really don't want to deal with this, can you talk to him to see if he is ok?' Any union rep worth anything will then go to Jimbo and see what is up. 99.9% of the time that should resolve the situation. No policy needed.
 
Seggy said:
Here is the thing. If the union and management have a good working relationship, like they claim they do at Delta, a Chief Pilot should call the LEC Rep and say, 'Hey, Jimbo has called in sick the trip before his vacation week the last 5 times. I really don't want to deal with this, can you talk to him to see if he is ok?' Any union rep worth anything will then go to Jimbo and see what is up. 99.9% of the time that should resolve the situation. No policy needed.
Click to expand...
Exactly! That is how it should be. Any issues or instances of possible abuse; "hey we need a letter from you doc or AME".
 
BTW, @PhilosopherPilot , pretty sure EVERY airline has the right to ask for a fitness for duty examination per the law. That can include mental and physical ailments. Once again, no policy needed.
 
Seggy said:
Here is the thing. If the union and management have a good working relationship, like they claim they do at Delta, a Chief Pilot should call the LEC Rep and say, 'Hey, Jimbo has called in sick the trip before his vacation week the last 5 times. I really don't want to deal with this, can you talk to him to see if he is ok?' Any union rep worth anything will then go to Jimbo and see what is up. 99.9% of the time that should resolve the situation. No policy needed.
Click to expand...

"Hey Bob, go eff yourself. There's no sick policy. Tell the Chief he can pound sand."

Policy needed for the 1%.

Sorry. That's corporate life. If you want to make it easier to fire people who haven't broken a policy, then sure, get rid of sick policies and leave it up to vague company discretion. But that has abuse of power written all over it.

Policies protect the good employees as much as they go after the bad ones. If a guy is on a chief's crap list, he can't be fired for calling in sick twice in a month just because that chief has it out for him.

I do not understand why you are so against defining what abuse is.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
"Hey Bob, go eff yourself. There's no sick policy. Tell the Chief he can pound sand."

Policy needed for the 1%.

Sorry. That's corporate life. If you want to make it easier to fire people who haven't broken a policy, then sure, get rid of sick policies and leave it up to vague company discretion. But that has abuse of power written all over it.

Policies protect the good employees as much as they go after the bad ones. If a guy is on a chief's crap list, he can't be fired for calling in sick twice in a month just because that chief has it out for him.

I do not understand why you are so against defining what abuse is.
Click to expand...

Then the company, per law, can send them for a fitness for duty examination.

I am against defining what abuse is because if the company trusts you to do the right thing at work whereas they entrust you with a billion dollars + in liabilities, they should trust folks to do the right thing when it comes to sick calls.
 
Seggy said:
BTW, @PhilosopherPilot , pretty sure EVERY airline has the right to ask for a fitness for duty examination per the law. That can include mental and physical ailments. Once again, no policy needed.
Click to expand...

Wow. I'd rather have a little chat with the chiefs about my attendance rather than get sent to an AME. Just. Wow. A union banger suggesting it's better to get referred to an AME than define sick abuse. Good grief.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Wow. I'd rather have a little chat with the chiefs about my attendance rather than get sent to an AME. Just. Wow. A union banger suggesting it's better to get referred to an AME than define sick abuse. Good grief.
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No.

I am just repeating what a companies right is by law. It blows your point up that 'they need a policy to do something'.

Also, no need to talk derogatory about union volunteers.
 
Seggy said:
Then the company, per law, can send them for a fitness for duty examination.

I am against defining what abuse is because if the company trusts you to do the right thing at work whereas they entrust you with a billion dollars + in liabilities, they should trust folks to do the right thing when it comes to sick calls.
Click to expand...

Trust, but verify. And also, define the limits. Just like with my kiddo, I can't get very angry if she runs too far down the street if I never told her where the limit is.
 
Seggy said:
Did I say that? No.

I am just repeating what a companies right is by law. It blows your point up that 'they need a policy to do something'.

Also, you may want to control your emotions in your response. No need to talk derogatory towards union volunteers.
Click to expand...

You said you didn't want to define the limit. And you said the company can refer someone to an AME at any time. That is exactly what you said.

So if chief pilot A thinks you're a jerk, he can say, "You've called out sick so many times I think we need a fitness exam." And off you go after 5 sick calls. It's at his discretion because you won't let him create a policy. Chief pilot B likes Jimbo, and never sends him for an exam because "Jimbo's a good ole boy" even though he has called out sick 50 times this year.

Policies define limits and protect everyone.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Trust, but verify. And also, define the limits. Just like with my kiddo, I can't get very angry if she runs too far down the street if I never told her where the limit is.
Click to expand...

Pilots aren't children. We are adults entrusted with a billion dollars + worth of liabilities. 99% know it is not right to call in sick just because you don't feel like showing up to work or flying a certain trip to watch your favorite football team or watch The Masters on Sunday.
 
Seggy said:
Did I say that? No.

I am just repeating what a companies right is by law. It blows your point up that 'they need a policy to do something'.

Also, no need to talk derogatory about union volunteers.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything derogatory. I said you're a union banger, which is true, and union bangers typically wouldn't want someone referred to an AME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top