My frustration is I had a medical problem that required a outpatient procedure. First we tried physical therapy, then when that didn't work the procedure. Now that I burned through more than 100 hours, every time I get sick from something one of my kids brings home from elementary school, I have to verify it until enough time drops off the Lookback.

I wish we could verify the big things that are serious, so that minor problems like sinus problems or whatever don't have to be verified if you're under some threshold. I thought the C2012 verification system was a good mix of the two.

I think 'unable to get medical' would be a reasonable thing to add to pre-verification. In my case, I had to get a new Special Issuance and got hung up in the FAA shutdown.

While I was waiting on the FAA, and working on my house, thumb issue. Went to ER, follow up with a hand surgeon, anyone who saw it while it was still healing but I was cleared to go back to work had the universal WTF reaction because my thumb looked like it had been amputated and stitched back on Frankenstien style.

I had a similar issue a few years back. I couldn’t give a doctors note when I cut my finger almost all the way off. This is a big deal to me.

I had a similar issue with a finger earlier this year. I burned through 100 hours but never needed a sick note. Now I need to verify everything for a year after the "accident"

I think sick verification should change to allow us to verify under 100 hours and delay the doctor's note requirement by the value of the verified sick time.

What a waste of negotiating capital. Give it away in the last contract to ask for it back in the current contract. I agree it’s an unnecessary PITA but we made our bed. There are waaaay more important things.

I’m with notEnuf on this one.

I'm not. After scope, fixing the sick lookback issue is one of my top priorities. Sick verification, in any form, needs to go. We're all adults here. If the company thinks someone is abusing the system, take it up with that individual. No need to make everyone out to be criminals.

No one wants sick verification, but do you really want the flip side of what we have? An un-specified, case-by-case, good ol boy network of sick abuse verification enforcement? At least in its present form, the rules are all laid out. The carve outs for bone breaks, 50-hr/2yr unlimited nonverification, QHCP under 160, and LTD resets are fairly generous too. What percentage of pilots are routinely going over 100+ hours year after year after year anyway?

I get the old way where we pick-and-choose was more generous (and ripe for abuse). But I still think this issue is low on my totem.

Eh I’m torn on this one. What you say makes sense and I’ve never personally had to verify anything, but the policy as laid out definitely grinds my gears.

We’re professionals and treated as such in almost every way, why not this? Why should I be doubted when I have a head cold and say as much? I could easily envision myself in a scenario like many on here have iterated (one big event and then being on the hook for every little issue the whole year) and it would be insulting and aggravating to have to jump through rings to have a doctor sign my note like a schoolboy on detention. Whether that’s the proper use of negotiating capital is another matter however. Full disclosure: I voted yes on TA2 so I suppose I did it to myself :rolleyes:

Have you seen the graph of "sick leave usage" that was presented during the 2015 contract negotiation? Maybe someone can post it here. Kinda hard to argue "treat me like a professional" when the company has data to support their claim of abuse. It has been suggested here to just renew sick leave on the pilots anniversary month....unfortunately that doesn't solve the abuse....it merely masks it. And that's why we can't have nice things!

Additionally, rational people on both sides of the negotiations understand it is almost impossible to "prove " sick leave abuse......therefore, we now have the system that is place

This is the same sort of low level thinking that brought us TA1. When do you think people would do voluntary procedures? Perhaps when your leave was about to expire?

I would like to see a change we’re if your last 5 years on a rolling average were under 50 hours per year no verification would be required.

Since you seem intent on insulting me...maybe you can explain in detail my low level thinking. Specifically what do you disagree with?. Sorry, I really have no idea what you are saying, can you flesh it out a bit more?

I’m not sure how I could be more explicitly clear.

Simply going back to voluntary verification would fix most of the idiocy.

Why 50, it's 100 now. But the costing gets pretty murky because the data is disputed so spending any capital on this is a loosing game. Go to the target minute clinic, in and out in 15 minutes with a prescription for a decongestant. The decongestant alone means you can't fly. $99 or use insurance. If its a good faith inquiry Delta pays.

What part was not clear? The 2015 “abuse” data was simplistic and not analyzed beyond what the company said it was. Behold unprecedented failure brought to the pilot group. Yet you’re still holding onto that??

It’s 50 hours now for each of the last two years for no verification in the next year. You could be 0 and 51 for the previous two years and you will be required to verify over 100 hours. Someone else could be 49 and 49 which gives them 270 hours with no verification.

Quick question. If there is a retirement "plan" as part of the new contract, would it necessarily only be for active pilots? Let's say it's an annuity or monthly benefit that would "payout" at retirement. Wouldn't it need to be for pilots who have already retired and who lost the DB during BK? A messy issue I'm sure but how can it not be for a pilot who has retired very recently as opposed to a guy who may only have a few months, or days to go. Not to mention the guy who retired 10 years ago, and everybody in between.....

Are you talking about above the 100 threshold? Then start the negotiation at 150. But... this is all moot, but fun to theorize! I'm happy with no change. BTW Mom says put your coat on it's cold outside (1NOV) and I have to go in when the streetlights come on. Some things just aren't worth fighting with mom about.

Edit: Found your reference, I was only under 50 for 1 year. I don't think this exemption will ever apply to me (60-80 per year) I think I'm average or typical or mean or median or whatever. I doubt this applies to many pilots. I also suspect those pilots are not calling in when they should.

You’re still incentivizing not calling sick and fly sick.

I say, nail the abusers and let us use 75% of the available sick time without verification.

He’s referring to the often overlooked 14.F.6.

A pilot that has used 50 or fewer of his available sick leave hours in each of the previous two sick leave years will be exempt from ALL verification requirements.

Let's not kid around. There are pilots who abuse the sick leave system.

The problem with sick leave abuse is that it exists. The company tries to do all it can to reduce or eliminate it via means of verification and good faith calls. The Association, aware of the same abuse but required to deny it, attempts to reduce the restrictions desired by the company. All this is not news.

Ideally, the individuals (fully known by the company and Association) should have been/should be punished and the pilot group not be made to suffer as a whole but that's not how it works. The Association is bound by law to defend it's members, and does so with great vigor. That's one of the reasons we pay dues. The company. frustrated by the inability to prosecute the abusers, demands stronger sick leave restrictions for the group as a whole. The Association, via negotiation, agrees or denies these restrictions. This is not news either.

I'm not defending the company, and I'm not blaming the Association. It's business. We've all been told that Delta will fire you immediately for 3 things - lying, stealing, or lying about stealing. Delta feels (and I agree) that sick leave abuse is lying and stealing. They don't like it and are doing all they can to reduce or eliminate it. I don't blame them. Who I blame are the guys who abuse the system, sometimes in a comically inept way, and expect the Association to save their jobs when the evidence against them is conclusive, decisive, and indefensible. These are the guys who should be made to suffer. But that's not how it works. And we get verification, good faith basis calls and other methods to reduce sick leave abuse.

I've heard these methods referred to as 'intimidation'. I'm not intimidated. If I'm sick, I call in sick. If I don't feel I'm able to perform my job to the level required by my employer, I call in sick. If I'm too tired to continue, I tell them I'm fatigued. Haven't ever been questioned about it.

This is not news.

“Nail the abusers” doesn’t mean much if the union will aggressively defend the abusers. See also: the guys sitting short call 1500 miles from base

The problem is without some process to verify if someone is sick how do you nail the abusers?

Lol. Hyperbole much? I think it sucks and can be pretty onerous in certain situations, but come on......

Not all. The company can (and does) still use 14.F.4 to require a doctor's note, no matter how much or little sick leave you have used in any measurement period.

The problem is the system, previously or now is not catching the abusers. It is catching those out for surgury or some other legitimate large chunck of sick leave use. I was out for 3 surgeries in 2018, all outpatient requiring rest at home. This year I had the pleasure of verifying a head cold. It is what it is. The effort to change it is to great IMHO.

Thanks Beernut...good overall synopsis

So, anybody got that graph of sick leave usage by month going into C2015.....which resulted in the current sick leave policy of TA2....you know the one that shows May sick leave almost double of other months?

Not really... I was very aggressively told to look at the spike when the leave was about to expire and “that’s clear abuse!” by the TA1 salespeople. They were told that by the company and didn’t go any further because they wanted a deal ASAP.

A contract had never failed ratification at Delta, therefore it was unprecedented. Leading up to this by the same cast of characters was the 117 LOA that had to be quickly redone due to the insertion of CDO’s as a concession that supposedly “we” wanted.

This is exactly the lack of critical thinking that I’m talking about. That graph! Well... is it just abuse? Or?

Truth... I call in sick when I’m sick, but that has only resulted in me using typically no more than 20 hours per year. If I had a real issue arise, it’s just stupid that I can’t pre-verify so I don’t have to then verify for a cold that my minime’s bring home. The system that resulted does absolutely nothing to cage in the “abusers.”

True that it wouldn't "stop the abuse" whatever that means. But in leveling it out it would instantly and completely eliminate the alleged May staffing crisis they were alluding to. Two issues, one may not change but the other would be completely eliminated. They said no. Interesting.

BTW Top Men are rumoring they want to lower the threshold to 80 or less.

This is a very relevant question....but do not expect any answer nor consensus. A simpler question is what about retro? Who gets it if we go past the amendable date? I raised this question 4 years ago and nothing was ever codified in the PWA so that all pilots "know" what are reasonable expectations and the company can cost it out.

The answer on the web boards ran from "of course every pilot would get retro with PS and DC applied to their W-2 whether retired/deceased /or active".......to "eff no"...contracts are for people on the active seniority list.

Maybe this time , since we have a top notch negotiating team, they will include language so that pilots know where they stand regarding issues like these. SWA did it in 2015, we can too(if it is desired)

What are we willing to give up for that?

I'd say there's a zero point zero percent chance (divided by negative zero) that with all that's going on in a contract we would spend to get retirement benefits to those already retired. That's a pipe dream while surfing on gravity waves through the DTW underground tunnel listening to Enya.

If someone steals $10 a day out of my checking account I probably wouldn't notice....if they stole $3650 in one day I would. Net/net isn't the result the same over a year? The company had data that was pretty irrefutable to the most casual observer on the abuse issue.

The company wanted to stem the abuse(increase productivity), not homogenize it into all months to obfuscate it.....thereby using the issue again this contract cycle in an attempt to increase productivity

What if anything did recently retired pilots get after the last contract was signed with retro? I would think as long as they were on the list on the first day after the previous contract "expired" they would get retro, if any, prorated from the days they worked while in negotiations until the day they retired. So if someone retired 8 months after the amendable date but the contract took 2 years and we all got the full 2 years retro in the new contract, then that pilot would get 8 month's of retro. Right?

If we didn't get any retro, obviously neither would a retired pilot. And in no case would a pilot who retired under the current contract before the end of it would either. That's just common sense.

The reason the 'pre-verification' was eliminated was because of abuse. Guys would pre-verify the 100 hours all year, leaving the 100 hours sacrosanct until about November 15th or so, then go out for that 100 hours, ensuring the holidays off and no verification requirement.

Never underestimate the ability of folks to game the system, and the inevitability of the rest of us to pay for it.

As to the situation that occurs (like notEnuf's) it's rotten. We all get caught in the same net that's designed to reduce abuse. It's where we're at, and improvement needs to be made. Unfortunately, every time the sick leave policy is changed guys figure out ways to abuse it, and the wheel goes round again.

It's equally hard to take the company serious when they appeal to state governments saying they are somehow above state sick leave laws...