Search

Notices

Details on Delta TA

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-17-2015, 07:07 AM
  #9491  
Runs with scissors
 
Timbo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
Default

Originally Posted by Big E 757
Thanks Tim, I think the senior Captains are going to be the deciding demographic on this one. After reading your comments I think we might have a chance in making history and sending this anything but historic contract back.

I can only hope.
Talk to your crewmembers, remind the Captains how much money they have already lost since 2004, remind them the don't have a great DB plan any more, and then point out how little this TA returns to them, at a cost of more concessions in JV Scope, Sick Leave Verification, and lost Profit Sharing.

The math for me is pretty simple. This TA is only 'Historic' in that it is an epic FAIL in these times of $ 6 Billion in stock buybacks and dividends.

We might as well be writing checks to Richard every month to help fund those buybacks, because that's who is paying for that, only now it's simply done through 'payroll deduction'. WE are PAYING for THEIR GAINS, not OURS!
Timbo is offline  
Old 06-17-2015, 07:08 AM
  #9492  
Gets Weekends Off
 
flyallnite's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
Default

Originally Posted by Professor
I told you I would ask. As well as Everest.

Release specifically covers the sick incident itself. It is not a general release of you medical records.

We asked the company and the answer is DHS. Not a third party.

Hope this helps.

Everest, I'm still waiting to hear about your questions.
The problem here, though, is that none of this is in writing, Professor. The Director Health Services or his designee will be able to review your records at any time, not just at the verification threshold, due to the TA language which states 'any time verification has been sought'. The Director Health Services could be anyone the company chooses, and his designee could be anyone he chooses. So considering how important this distinction is, I'm not willing to go on "The Company Told Us". Please get that in writing or else it doesn't exist. I mean really, are we supposed to buy that?
flyallnite is offline  
Old 06-17-2015, 07:08 AM
  #9493  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
Prof,

I think your sentence isn't complete. It should say "We asked the company and the answer is DHS. Not a third party...until the ink is dry on the contract...suckers."



Now I know that sounds smarta$$, but, personally I think that is the whole answer.

Scambo I hope you know i agree that a contract is a contract. The designee part was so that admin types in DHS can do verifications.

Now it doesn't explicitly say (or a third party) either, so there is that.

I'm asking about it as well, but I honestly am not worried about it as a functioning part of the contract. I would be more concerned whether it is more than you are willing to give up for the vote.
Professor is offline  
Old 06-17-2015, 07:09 AM
  #9494  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Default

Originally Posted by flyallnite
The problem here, though, is that none of this is in writing, Professor. The Director Health Services [I]or his designee[I] will be able to review your records at any time, not just at the verification threshold, due to the TA language which states 'any time verification has been sought'. The Director Health Services could be anyone the company chooses, and his designee could be anyone he chooses. So considering how important this distinction is, I'm not willing to go on "The Company Told Us". Please get that in writing or else it doesn't exist. I mean really, are we supposed to buy that?

DHS is dr. F. His designer would be a delta person. No third party.

Again. I'm asking the question again and again. I keep getting the same answer though.
Professor is offline  
Old 06-17-2015, 07:11 AM
  #9495  
Gets Weekends Off
 
flyallnite's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
Default

Originally Posted by Professor
DHS is dr. F. His designer would be a delta person. No third party.

Again. I'm asking the question again and again. I keep getting the same answer though.
I understand and I appreciate it, I really do. Please understand my skepticism.
flyallnite is offline  
Old 06-17-2015, 07:11 AM
  #9496  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Originally Posted by Professor
Scambo I hope you know i agree that a contract is a contract. The designee part was so that admin types in DHS can do verifications.

Now it doesn't explicitly say (or a third party) either, so there is that.

I'm asking about it as well, but I honestly am not worried about it as a functioning part of the contract. I would be more concerned whether it is more than you are willing to give up for the vote.
I agree with you, The new sick provisions are not a part of the functioning contract...the new provisions make sick out as if we had no contract at all.
scambo1 is offline  
Old 06-17-2015, 07:13 AM
  #9497  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
I agree with you, The new sick provisions are not a part of the functioning contract...the new provisions make sick out as if we had no contract at all.

Absolutely false scambo. With respect.

The hyperbole doesn't help. There are no Mac truck sized holes. Seriously. It's just a change in verification process and times.
Professor is offline  
Old 06-17-2015, 07:14 AM
  #9498  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Default

Everest,

Your answers.

1) Yes. When you're in the medical release window (24 days in 365, 56 in 3 years)

2). The medical release itself is unchanged from the current contract. It is limited to the specific sick occurrence, and not a general release of your medical records

3)you won't get paid for the sick call
Professor is offline  
Old 06-17-2015, 07:22 AM
  #9499  
Gets Weekends Off
 
georgetg's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Default

Originally Posted by Timbo
I'll tell you what happened, the 2012 contract pizzed of some guys so much that they decided to enhance their pay and/or time off through use of sick leave. That is why there are so many restrictions on sick leave in this new TA.
In C2012 the company wanted the verification and is now seeing the results...

Now we are asked to once again change something they came up with. At least in C2015 we are getting something to show for our help.

In my opinion, with these sick leave changes, the company is thinking ahead for C2018. I wouldn't be surprised if we will find ourselves in a quid pro quo situation in C2018 to fix the the sick leave provisions of C2015 if this passes.

Cheers
George
georgetg is offline  
Old 06-17-2015, 07:28 AM
  #9500  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Default

Originally Posted by Professor
3)you won't get paid for the sick call
What does that mean? I don't know what his question was.
BenderRodriguez is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kilroy
ExpressJet
10671
01-11-2016 06:49 AM
FastDEW
Major
201
09-03-2011 06:42 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
ksatflyer
Hangar Talk
10
08-20-2008 09:14 PM
INAV8OR
Mergers and Acquisitions
66
05-15-2008 04:37 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices