Columbia

I was being facetious about the "it sounds like a pattern" as you mentioned might be a reason for a call by the CP. The negotiators emphatically stated that there would be no "historical patterns" used by the company in calling people to verify or confirm. That's all I was getting at.

Raging white

I did. However I can't share the results because I don't want mgt to see my hand at this poker table. Trust me. That's why they voted.

johnso29

I think they said that call wouldn't be made based solely on usage. Or did they release literature stating otherwise?(Serious question BTW because I don't remember) Usage isn't a pattern. If you call in sick every Christmas for 6 years straight, would you expect a call?

iceman49

RW,

Its always "buyer beware," its up to us individual voters to read whats available, consult with others and than make a decision. I don't want to believe that people would vote yes, based solely on the premise that hiring would take place. Every voter has to decide for themselves if the contract meets the expectations that they have, than we have to live with the results.

johnso29

Well I guess I'll have to boot you as my official data collector. It's obvious I can't trust you.

Raging white

I concur. I feel like I was not diligent enough and was duped. I have now been fooled ONCE. Just my feeling. I like my local reps, they are great. I think it was the higher levels.

Jack Bauer

Haha, best come back of the month. Touche.

Scoop

Purple,

You are correct that Johnson is pretty upbeat, but so what? Many others are negative. Its kind of nice to see differing views, some very skeptical, and some very optimistic. It helps one keep an open mind.

Scoop

Bucking Bar

Johnso29,

This sick leave verification issue isn't a burning issue with me, but I sure dislike one ALPA member telling another ALPA member to "go find another job." As our founder stated, "when one member has a problem, we all have a problem."

It appears that management may be reaching beyond what has been agreed to in our contract and I believe ALPA is working to address the issue (based on posts by another web board where this discussion is taking place). There are also outside factors which will regulate and normalize this issue over time. No one wants to be involved in "pilot pushing." It just takes some time for the definition of "good faith" to be understood by all involved. Further, when the Company sees a financial impact resulting from their requests for Doctor's notes someone will have the bright idea of mitigating that expense too. For now pilots should consider being proactive, not only with verification, but also in asking the Chief Pilot's Office, "what is your good faith basis for this inquiry?" If the reply involves historical data, then there might need to be some non confrontational training that takes place. The Company has a lot of resources at their finger tips and being thorough (as we pilots tend to be) it is difficult to deliberately not access available data.

This will work out. I would not tell another member to "find another job." In our union the proper answer is "how can I help you brother."

JMHO.

Bucking Bar

Exactly. I voted no for C2012. However, there was a lot of that contract I really liked and appreciate now. It was a difficult deal to evaluate on it's merits because of the capacity changes we are seeing now. I think the jury is still out until Spring 2014 to verify the changes in Section 1 really worked as intended. Very good arguments can be made on both sides.

For now, it is what it is. We will have some serious JV issues to debate soon.