BillLumbergh
Veteran
I, too found that interesting. Now, where's my Little Red Book.
Airline Targets Sick-pay Abuse
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
I, too found that interesting. Now, where's my Little Red Book.
Maybe someone can help me here. I worked at another airline that went chapter 7. From what I remember, the bankruptcy judge determined that our sick and injury leave hours that were built up, was an EARNED income, and we were paid it, in a check some months after the company shut down.
When a company and union agree to a contract, sick and injury leave is figured in to cost, just as hourly wage and vacation is. With that being said sick leave is earned, not given.
Now I am NOT saying that you should take sick leave just because you have the hours built up and I can understand the company wanting to have a control over its abuse, but using sick leave is not stealing. You cannot steal what you own. If the company wants to remove sick leave, ok so be it, but your paycheck should reflect the increase in pay as you would now be given the pay directly, insted of banking that pay in sick and injury leave accounts.
I would be interested if any union types who have been in negotiations could jump in and tell me if my perception is correct.
When a company and union agree to a contract, sick and injury leave is figured in to cost, just as hourly wage and vacation is. With that being said sick leave is earned, not given.
Now I am NOT saying that you should take sick leave just because you have the hours built up and I can understand the company wanting to have a control over its abuse, but using sick leave is not stealing. You cannot steal what you own. If the company wants to remove sick leave, ok so be it, but your paycheck should reflect the increase in pay as you would now be given the pay directly, insted of banking that pay in sick and injury leave accounts.
I would be interested if any union types who have been in negotiations could jump in and tell me if my perception is correct.
Actually, there is, and has been a plan.mweiss said:
For agents, 4 occurrences, for whatever reason, documented by an MD or not, in a 12 month period results in an initial discussion. Next occurrence step I. Step IV is termination.
The terminations stick.
On the other hand, I've also seen managment fail to document occurences or have the initial discussion in a timely manner. Later, management wants to 'reach back' and document this behavior - and that's a no-no.
For instance. An agent has 5 occurrences in a 12 month period, but the boss fails to have an initial discussion at occurrence 4. When the 5th occurrence happens, the boss wants to skip the initial discussion, and place the agent on step I. That's out of bounds, and a grieveance requesting the discipline be reduced to an initial discussion is winnable.
This happens a lot more often than you would think, yet I have NEVER seen the company hold the manager responsible for his failure to act. Why is that?
I have also seen fair-haired children have 8 or 9 occurrences with NO discipline, and the stepchildren get reeled in at occurrence 4. When a union can document this kind of a deal, they grieve those too.
It seems the whole plan is for the employees to subsidize management's shortcomings.
Dilligas
Veteran
Ahah!
That I understand... I've heard that a time or two. Thanks for the clarification.
That I understand... I've heard that a time or two. Thanks for the clarification.
PITbull
Veteran
Use You Head,
for a change...
I'm talking about illness; NOT sick abuse. BIG DIFFERENCE. Just because folks are labeled ill, YOU automatically call it sick abuse.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM DISCUSSING, BUT FOLKS LIKE YOU AND THE OTHER ACCUSATORY MINDS ON HERE, THINK ON THAT LEVEL.
Knock it OFF!!!!
for a change...
I'm talking about illness; NOT sick abuse. BIG DIFFERENCE. Just because folks are labeled ill, YOU automatically call it sick abuse.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM DISCUSSING, BUT FOLKS LIKE YOU AND THE OTHER ACCUSATORY MINDS ON HERE, THINK ON THAT LEVEL.
Knock it OFF!!!!
PITbull
Veteran
Again, I will correct you. YOU ARE WRONG!
I am not talking about being elevated for different infractions associated with sick,
I AM TALKING ABOUT ONLY SICK. That alone will pull you on the DCP program.
I am not talking about being elevated for different infractions associated with sick,
I AM TALKING ABOUT ONLY SICK. That alone will pull you on the DCP program.
PITbull
Veteran
Geezus,ITRADE said:
They already know your health history. When you are sick they DEMAND a dr. note and you must furnish if you want to continue your employment.
So, if I understand you correctly, nobody abuses the sick leave, right?PITbull said:
This isn't about accusation. What we're talking about is how difficult it is to separate the abusers from the genuinely sick.
I'm all for a program that is non-invasive and allows for people who are genuinely sick to stay home. And I'll bet there isn't a single person here who would disagree with that goal (if there is, I'd love to hear it).
Nobody here has even come close to suggesting that someone who is genuinely ill and stays at home is abusing their sick leave. You are manufacturing that in your own mind. If you have evidence to the contrary, please quote it here. I'd love to see it.
Yep the same guy who told the Pilots vote for these concessions and you won't lose your pension.usfliboi said:
The same guy who told the mechanics vote for these concessions to save your airbus work.
The same guy who told all furloughed employees you will have a job at MidAtlantic.
We all know those statements were ALL LIES from DAVE!
You might believe what Dave says, I and numerous other employees DON'T!
We see him for what he is, a pernicious liar!
cavalier
Veteran
700 Wrote: "We see him for what he is, a common liar!"700UW said:
Replace "common" with "pernicious" to make is clearly accurate.
usfliboi
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
Now when you have a fact you disgard the source huh? Youre the one who asked him I supplied. Now what? Could you give us a "definition" of what source you need to hear from to believe? I mean it sounds as if now in a nother post if iam talks rather open contracts, their on your "anti" list. Who to you isnt a "lier"? What "God" do you believe in? Would you believe your God if he said take a cut and gave you his facts? I doubt it!700UW said:
You have one man's statement on a phone message, that is not a fact, that is a man making a statement.
A man who has lied to his employees time after time after time.
Maybe learn the difference between a statement and a fact.
Fact: 1 : a thing done: as a : obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c : archaic : ACTION
2 : archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth
Statement: 1 : something stated: as a : a single declaration or remark :
2 : the act or process of stating or presenting orally or on paper
A man who has lied to his employees time after time after time.
Maybe learn the difference between a statement and a fact.
Fact: 1 : a thing done: as a : obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c : archaic : ACTION
2 : archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth
Statement: 1 : something stated: as a : a single declaration or remark :
2 : the act or process of stating or presenting orally or on paper
