Any "Latest & Greatest about Delta?" Part 2
04-01-2024, 08:13 AM
#4981
Moderator
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,987
Not to interrupt sick leave discussion, but small Deltanet rant...
This morning I see there is a '5 second' poll on your wishes for links to open in a new window or not. Cool, I'll take that. 'Click'
Wrong.
DLnet proceeds to do it's usual cumbersome process of parsing multiple urls then wants a PingID sign in for this '5 second' poll. Get bent.
This morning I see there is a '5 second' poll on your wishes for links to open in a new window or not. Cool, I'll take that. 'Click'
Wrong.
DLnet proceeds to do it's usual cumbersome process of parsing multiple urls then wants a PingID sign in for this '5 second' poll. Get bent.
04-01-2024, 08:19 AM
#4982
Roll’n Thunder
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Pilot
Posts: 3,894
Not to interrupt sick leave discussion, but small Deltanet rant...
This morning I see there is a '5 second' poll on your wishes for links to open in a new window or not. Cool, I'll take that. 'Click'
Wrong.
DLnet proceeds to do it's usual cumbersome process of parsing multiple urls then wants a PingID sign in for this '5 second' poll. Get bent.
This morning I see there is a '5 second' poll on your wishes for links to open in a new window or not. Cool, I'll take that. 'Click'
Wrong.
DLnet proceeds to do it's usual cumbersome process of parsing multiple urls then wants a PingID sign in for this '5 second' poll. Get bent.
04-01-2024, 08:23 AM
#4983
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 829
Well, who else is going to contractually define it? Because the PWA gives them the unlimited ability to define it however they want.
What is my definition of "abuse?" The only party "abusing" anything is the company, and in this case, it's because we let them. Several folks here have bought in hook, line, and sinker into the unquestioned necessity of "good faith basis," a premise which is rotten to the core.
Allowing a contractual provision that permits company managers to question us and treat us like third graders is one of the crucial failings of our PWA. And pilots turning on themselves with unproven and vague accuations of "abuse" is repugnant. Like Tennisguru alluded to, are pilots flying sick so they aren't at risk of debasing themselves asking for a note? If so, mission accomplished for managment.
We have a provision in the PWA that requires a note, in broad terms, for exceeding 120 hours of sick leave in a rolling 12 bid period timeframe (and let's not forget the rolling 12 bid period concession was also a win for the company and a failure by us). That is perfectly adequate. "GFB" is abhorrent and needs to be negotiated out.
I'm not even going to ask the guys here trying to trap me into admitting there is pilot "abuse," what their own definitions are. I'm sure some of them would point to a "spreadsheet" or some other clown metric produced by mgmt at one point or other with neither context nor methodology. Maybe they heard about a guy who called in sick for every trip. But they'll never talk about the guys who are trying to do the right thing by calling in sick who get caught up in managment's GFB behavioral engineering fly trap.
The question is not how to define pilot sick leave "abuse." The questions are, "why did we give managment the unlimited opportunity to abuse GFB," and "how do we get rid of GFB and stop getting treated like toddlers?" We transport hundreds of people on complex machines, requiring substantial responsibility and professionalism. The flying public put their lives in our hands. Allowing ourselves to get treated in this manner shows a complete lack of self worth and--again--a total lack of unionist philosophy.
What is my definition of "abuse?" The only party "abusing" anything is the company, and in this case, it's because we let them. Several folks here have bought in hook, line, and sinker into the unquestioned necessity of "good faith basis," a premise which is rotten to the core.
Allowing a contractual provision that permits company managers to question us and treat us like third graders is one of the crucial failings of our PWA. And pilots turning on themselves with unproven and vague accuations of "abuse" is repugnant. Like Tennisguru alluded to, are pilots flying sick so they aren't at risk of debasing themselves asking for a note? If so, mission accomplished for managment.
We have a provision in the PWA that requires a note, in broad terms, for exceeding 120 hours of sick leave in a rolling 12 bid period timeframe (and let's not forget the rolling 12 bid period concession was also a win for the company and a failure by us). That is perfectly adequate. "GFB" is abhorrent and needs to be negotiated out.
I'm not even going to ask the guys here trying to trap me into admitting there is pilot "abuse," what their own definitions are. I'm sure some of them would point to a "spreadsheet" or some other clown metric produced by mgmt at one point or other with neither context nor methodology. Maybe they heard about a guy who called in sick for every trip. But they'll never talk about the guys who are trying to do the right thing by calling in sick who get caught up in managment's GFB behavioral engineering fly trap.
The question is not how to define pilot sick leave "abuse." The questions are, "why did we give managment the unlimited opportunity to abuse GFB," and "how do we get rid of GFB and stop getting treated like toddlers?" We transport hundreds of people on complex machines, requiring substantial responsibility and professionalism. The flying public put their lives in our hands. Allowing ourselves to get treated in this manner shows a complete lack of self worth and--again--a total lack of unionist philosophy.
04-01-2024, 08:28 AM
#4986
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 745
Well, who else is going to contractually define it? Because the PWA gives them the unlimited ability to define it however they want.
What is my definition of "abuse?" The only party "abusing" anything here is the company, and in this case, it's because we let them. Several folks here have bought in hook, line, and sinker into the unquestioned necessity of "good faith basis," a premise which is rotten to the core.
Allowing a contractual provision that permits company managers to question us and treat us like third graders is one of the crucial failings of our PWA. And pilots turning on themselves with unproven and vague accuations of "abuse" is repugnant. Like Tennisguru alluded to, are pilots flying sick so they aren't at risk of debasing themselves asking for a note? If so, mission accomplished for managment.
We have a provision in the PWA that requires a note, in broad terms, for exceeding 120 hours of sick leave in a rolling 12 bid period timeframe (and the rolling 12 bid period concession was also a win for the company and a failure by us). That is perfectly adequate. "GFB" is abhorrent and needs to be negotiated out.
I'm not even going to ask the guys here trying to trap me into admitting there is pilot "abuse" what their own definitions are. I'm sure some of them would point to a "spreadsheet" or some other clown metric produced by mgmt at one point or another without neither context nor methodology. Maybe they heard about a guy who called in sick for every trip. But they'll never talk about the guys who are trying to do the right thing by calling in sick get caught up in managment's GFB behavioral engineering fly trap.
The question should not be how to define pilot sick leave "abuse." The questions should be, "why did we give managment the unlimited opportunity to abuse GFB," and "how do we get rid of GFB and stop getting treated like toddlers?" We fly hundreds of people on huge, complex machines. The flying public put their lives in our hands. Allowing ourselves to get treated in this manner shows a complete lack of self-respect and--again--a total lack of unionist philospophy.
What is my definition of "abuse?" The only party "abusing" anything here is the company, and in this case, it's because we let them. Several folks here have bought in hook, line, and sinker into the unquestioned necessity of "good faith basis," a premise which is rotten to the core.
Allowing a contractual provision that permits company managers to question us and treat us like third graders is one of the crucial failings of our PWA. And pilots turning on themselves with unproven and vague accuations of "abuse" is repugnant. Like Tennisguru alluded to, are pilots flying sick so they aren't at risk of debasing themselves asking for a note? If so, mission accomplished for managment.
We have a provision in the PWA that requires a note, in broad terms, for exceeding 120 hours of sick leave in a rolling 12 bid period timeframe (and the rolling 12 bid period concession was also a win for the company and a failure by us). That is perfectly adequate. "GFB" is abhorrent and needs to be negotiated out.
I'm not even going to ask the guys here trying to trap me into admitting there is pilot "abuse" what their own definitions are. I'm sure some of them would point to a "spreadsheet" or some other clown metric produced by mgmt at one point or another without neither context nor methodology. Maybe they heard about a guy who called in sick for every trip. But they'll never talk about the guys who are trying to do the right thing by calling in sick get caught up in managment's GFB behavioral engineering fly trap.
The question should not be how to define pilot sick leave "abuse." The questions should be, "why did we give managment the unlimited opportunity to abuse GFB," and "how do we get rid of GFB and stop getting treated like toddlers?" We fly hundreds of people on huge, complex machines. The flying public put their lives in our hands. Allowing ourselves to get treated in this manner shows a complete lack of self-respect and--again--a total lack of unionist philospophy.
1) a few people call in sick while healthy, because they don’t want to work.
2) GFB is bull**** and needs to be removed from the PWA.
It’s not that hard.
04-01-2024, 08:39 AM
#4987
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,258
GFB calls are tied directly to the massive 250 hrs/year of sick leave.(comparably speaking)
The GFB calls could go away if Delta went to 6 hrs month accural system like UAL or 5 hrs/month like AA.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say 250 hrs/year with no constraints is unachievable.
Call me a management shill...or pragmatist ....not gonna hurt my feelz.
BTW I never had a GFB call and I abused sick leave....depending on what the definition of "abuse" is
The GFB calls could go away if Delta went to 6 hrs month accural system like UAL or 5 hrs/month like AA.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say 250 hrs/year with no constraints is unachievable.
Call me a management shill...or pragmatist ....not gonna hurt my feelz.
BTW I never had a GFB call and I abused sick leave....depending on what the definition of "abuse" is
04-01-2024, 08:44 AM
#4988
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 867
Exactly this.... if you can't even admit that a certain number of pilots routinely call in sick while healthy, then their argument lacks credibility.
04-01-2024, 09:38 AM
#4989
Moderator
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,987
04-01-2024, 12:34 PM
#4990
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 343
I’d call the abusers the pilots who constantly use 270 hours per year 4 days at a time without any major illness knocking them out for a month. They do this every single year. That’s my opinion. The true abusers are turning in doctor’s note for every sick call anyway so the GFB calls and verification does absolutely nothing to curb true abusers. It just annoys the rest of us honest people.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
