New Attendance program

[NCFL]

That's great! Were you rewarded for such upstanding attendance? Probably not, right?

Yes, I was rewarded. I was promoted six times, received merit-based pay increases when they were made available (there were years when upper management decided none would be given to any salaried worker) and avoided being "separated" from the company four times in spite of the fact that others with more seniority lost their jobs - all because my performance (including attendance & reliability) was better than that of others in my department.

Layoffs for salaried employees are called "separated" because they are, in essence, "fired." They have no recall rights.

And, when I had a legitimate need for using my sick time (a longer term issue), the time was there for me to use with impunity because I'd saved it and managed it wisely. Nobody batted an eye when I said "I'll need to be out for X weeks."

 

[orioleman]

NOW THATS FUNNY!!! The only thing the iam is doing at the district convention is eating brats and drinking beer.

REALLY, You must be thinking of conventions past . I didn't see a brat all week and the only drunks

I saw were a few of the EX Officers sulking in there beer and making Arses of themselves.

The District 141 President is up to speed with this horse S*it and is trying to get it resolved ASAP

 

[bagchucker]

Yes, I was rewarded. I was promoted six times, received merit-based pay increases when they were made available (there were years when upper management decided none would be given to any salaried worker) and avoided being "separated" from the company four times in spite of the fact that others with more seniority lost their jobs - all because my performance (including attendance & reliability) was better than that of others in my department.

Layoffs for salaried employees are called "separated" because they are, in essence, "fired." They have no recall rights.

And, when I had a legitimate need for using my sick time (a longer term issue), the time was there for me to use with impunity because I'd saved it and managed it wisely. Nobody batted an eye when I said "I'll need to be out for X weeks."

Oh... OK. I get it. You are now at a level where this attendance policy won't impact you anyway, what, with 6 promotions! You must be up that corporate ladder far enough by now. My comments were, and are, more for the "rank and file" folk who ARE impacted by this sub-standard attendance policy going into affect. Congrats on your achievements! Keep up the good work.

 

[JoeDirt]

Yes, I was rewarded. I was promoted six times, received merit-based pay increases when they were made available (there were years when upper management decided none would be given to any salaried worker) and avoided being "separated" from the company four times in spite of the fact that others with more seniority lost their jobs - all because my performance (including attendance & reliability) was better than that of others in my department.

Layoffs for salaried employees are called "separated" because they are, in essence, "fired." They have no recall rights.

And, when I had a legitimate need for using my sick time (a longer term issue), the time was there for me to use with impunity because I'd saved it and managed it wisely. Nobody batted an eye when I said "I'll need to be out for X weeks."

Apparently you do not work for US because you would know that this is not the way they operate. You get no reward for doing the right thing. No bonus for not using the sick time and saving them money. Then under the new system one bad year and you are out the door.

 

[NCFL]

Apparently you do not work for US.

Not any longer, thank God. And when I did, it wasn't for this bunch of prepubescent clowns.
The point is, though, go to work like you're supposed to and you will avoid getting into trouble with the attendance police.

If you don't like the policy, blame the people who call in sick willy-nilly. They're the ones who created this mess in the first place.

 

[libertybell]

I could only imagine how fast this BS company policy would be scrapped if every sick viral cold feeling like death warmed over employee went to work marched into managments office and proceeded to spread there illness around to them by touching coughing and sneezing and perhaps a nice heav on there bossess desk? :huh: :unsure:

 

[freedom]

If you don't like the policy, blame the people who call in sick willy-nilly. They're the ones who created this mess in the first place.

i just want to point out that during the AWA days if you didn't use all of your sick days then you lost them at the end of the year ...

 

[necigrad]

If you don't like the policy, blame the people who call in sick willy-nilly. They're the ones who created this mess in the first place.

You're probably right in thinking that this new system wouldn't exist if there was no sick time abuse. And I'll agree with you, for the first few "bad boys". But the Company failed to address the problem, let it grow to monumental porportions, and now they want us to give up for their failures. Had management taken care of the issue in a timely fashion this would not be an issue at all. The Company is at fault, and thus they should pay for it. As an alternative they have a perfectly good system in place right now. If they would do their jobs and use the mechanisms in place properly there would be no need for a new policy.

 

[JoeDirt]

Agreed Necigrad..............Another thought that was brought up was this..."Do all stations have a time clock?"

 

[The Bagfather]

It has always irked me that attendence policy has been linked to sick days policy.
I suppose in order to avoid legal hastles the company cannot question whether or
not sombody is really sick. For this reason I have never heard any Company Rep
question an employee as to whether or not they were really sick.

So they have to make up other insidious ways of determining it. If a pattern
such as calling in sick on holidays occurs they assume that someone wasn't sick.

This new policy takes this a step further. Now they are saying that it doesn't
matter if your sick or not....they're going to dock you anyway. Then they wieght
this equally with other attendence issue. The point system does not discriminate.

Obviously some people are going to get sick more that others. Parents of
school aged kids get more colds.

Instead of ducking this issue I would like to see the company come right out and
say what they really mean. Basically they are accusing people of calling in sick
when they aren't when they should be ginving guidlines as to what they think is
valid sick call. The only time a sick day should be counted against you is
when you are directly responsible for your problem such as drinking too much
or staying up too late.

Teachers in CA have sick days plus personel days, And most would say that
they use them liberally. Substitute teaching has become a veritible industry.
These were policy's which were won by hard fought negotiations.

Clearly this is an attempt by the company to bypass the negotiation process and
weaken a policy allready made weak by dare I mention his name once more?

Thanks BF

 

[usa1]

The Clinton democrats gave us FMLA. At the time of passage they advised corporate America to plan on 5% of the work force being out all the time, taking care of family needs etc. Did they staff accordingly.... NOPE.

With both spouses being forced to work (due to low wages) to maintain middle class status families need FMLA. Getting both spouses to work for the price of one is a bargain for corporate America. So the least they could do is lighten up on the issues being discussed in this thread.

The Democrats are about to take over the Presidency and the Congress ..... I don't think corporate America is going to like whats coming .... IM not sure I do either, but it's coming.

 

[crushed]

Agreed Necigrad..............Another thought that was brought up was this..."Do all stations have a time clock?"

Right now if you forget to clock in/out it's an occurrence same as if you didn't come in at all.
Will that continue under the new policy?

 

[NCFL]

You're probably right in thinking that this new system wouldn't exist if there was no sick time abuse. And I'll agree with you, for the first few "bad boys". But the Company failed to address the problem, let it grow to monumental porportions, and now they want us to give up for their failures. Had management taken care of the issue in a timely fashion this would not be an issue at all.

I completely agree with you on part two. I worked with fellow supervisors and managers who were too lazy/scared/apathetic/inconsistent/incompetent (pick your word...they all apply) to manage attendance abuse in its early stages.

I suppose in order to avoid legal hastles the company cannot question whether or not sombody is really sick. For this reason I have never heard any Company Rep question an employee as to whether or not they were really sick.

So they have to make up other insidious ways of determining it. If a pattern such as calling in sick on holidays occurs they assume that someone wasn't sick.

I don't think it's "insidious" to jump from no disciplinary attendance level to final attendance warning - one step from being fired - when the person has been habitually cavalier about his reliability, calls in sick the Monday before the July 4 holiday (Tuesday) when the vacation request he made just two days ago was denied because of seniority, the area code on caller ID from which the sick call is being placed is for MYR, and the time off request for that day was specifically made to join his family vacation at the beach.

I was not one of those lazy/scared/apathetic/inconsistent/incompetent bosses. (some might argue incompetent).

p.s. He also got a thorough ass-chewing as his written notice of imminent termination was delivered.

The only time a sick day should be counted against you is when you are directly responsible for your problem such as drinking too much or staying up too late.

Alcohol dependence (AKA alcoholism), when diagnosed by a physician, is considered a disease and therefore covered under FMLA. I should know, I am a recovering alcoholic, although I never exercised my right to get an FMLA accommodation for that. That's different from Joe Sixpack who ties one on watching Monday Night Football.

[quote post='648012' date='Oct 27 2008, 04:14 AM']The Clinton democrats gave us FMLA. At the time of passage they advised corporate America to plan on 5% of the work force being out all the time...[/quote]

In some stations and departments, it's been more like 30%.

 

[tech2101]

I am not in favor of this new sick policy. There are several downfalls. I, for one, am not one to use many of my sick days, but those that do will land on mgmt's "radar" quickly. We all know stuff happens and there are times when you need to take a sick day. With this new policy, you are going to have folks who are really ill coming to work getting every else sick because they don't want to get that next point that puts them into the disciplinary Level 1 or higher. Not only that, but the Fleet side of this doesn't even pay a sick call until the second day. So... if you are gonna take a sick day, might as well take two if you are getting the point anyway.

This policy stinks. You will see a lot of sick co-workers coming to work and some good folks getting Level 1's and higher, weeding themselves out, just because of being sick.

Look at this article concerning "presenteeism"

 

[The Bagfather]

I don't think it's "insidious" to jump from no disciplinary attendance level to final attendance warning - one step from being fired - when the person has been habitually cavalier about his reliability, calls in sick the Monday before the July 4 holiday (Tuesday) when the vacation request he made just two days ago was denied because of seniority, the area code on caller ID from which the sick call is being placed is for MYR, and the time off request for that day was specifically made to join his family vacation at the beach.
[/quote]
One of the big problems here from my perspective was during the start of the transition
when the Company lost contdrol of a lot of things including hiring proctices and disciplin.
One new hire here did not consider it nessesary to work any Sunday. Eventually he
was fired. Another person did pretty much the same thing you describe andgot away
with it because it was not just ignored at the time of the ocurrence. Even RLs were
constanlty late or no shows due to other obligations. The Company appears to me to
have allowed this tso happen because they didn't feal they had a choice. I don't
think it was because they were afraid of the union.

Now with the capacity reduction and a more stable envirionment they announce that things
are "gonna change". I don't have any problem with that, I would consider that a return
to the previous policy. But IMO this numbers policy represent a change in policy which
can only be delt with in joint negotiations. Some have said that these may have already
occured with complient union leadership.

At our staion we were told that we would lost trade privileges if we did not complete our
" I Learning". In order to do this you had to check the box which states that you
"undestood this policy". You could not complete this obligation without claiming that
you understood it. I undertand it allright ....as a clear violation of our contract.

Thanks BF