Airline Targets Sick-pay Abuse
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
UseYourHead
Veteran
- Apr 1, 2003
- 720
- 0
Morning PitBull,PITbull said:
I agree that people who are really sick deserve to be treated like adults, not misbehaving school children.
I will again close by saying that there is no defense, and should be no support for those that advocate “earn em & em burn†mantra and the like; in fact those kind of folks should be dealt with as they drive to a degree management crusades attacking sick leave, and unques-tionably provide a shield for management to hide behind when over reaching in this arena.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Use Your Head,
Good morning to you too....
The only thing that drives management to change policies is to drive cost out of every single benefit, rgardless if you have legitimate sick or not...
They are not in the benefits business to protect their employees, after all, they don't look at employees as any kind of "investment", and they will never adopt anywhere near that type of thinking.
This is where the "polarized" belief system comes in. Employees are an investment, and treated well and with respect as such, it becomes inherent that they will make their business and product the best!!!
Good morning to you too....
The only thing that drives management to change policies is to drive cost out of every single benefit, rgardless if you have legitimate sick or not...
They are not in the benefits business to protect their employees, after all, they don't look at employees as any kind of "investment", and they will never adopt anywhere near that type of thinking.
This is where the "polarized" belief system comes in. Employees are an investment, and treated well and with respect as such, it becomes inherent that they will make their business and product the best!!!
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Mweiss,
This topic is just about Jerry Glass's noise. He makes excuses for these policies, cause he knows we are coming at him with the picket, protest and leafleting!
That is NOT my discussion. YOU and a few posters on here made it a sick-abuse topic just because the word "sick" and employees is in the same sentence. The topic is just about sick occurences.
Do I believe their are sick abuse occurences that occur? What the hell kind of question is that? SICK ABUSE CAN BE FOUND IN EVERY COMPANY IN AMERICA, WITH ALL EMPLOYEES, UNION AND NON UNION, MANAGMENT AND NON MANAGEMENT! That is not what the "sick issue" is about at U. WE employees know very well what this is about. They stripped us of everything knowing full well this type of work environment would make us mentally and physicially ill, and they are making sure we will not be a liability. They THINK they can show us the door...I have quite alot up my sleeve.
Does that answer your question more clearly on my position??????????????????
The "sick" issue at U is all about policies in place that are age/ disability discrinatory. Watch how this is going to pan out, my friend.
This topic is just about Jerry Glass's noise. He makes excuses for these policies, cause he knows we are coming at him with the picket, protest and leafleting!
That is NOT my discussion. YOU and a few posters on here made it a sick-abuse topic just because the word "sick" and employees is in the same sentence. The topic is just about sick occurences.
Do I believe their are sick abuse occurences that occur? What the hell kind of question is that? SICK ABUSE CAN BE FOUND IN EVERY COMPANY IN AMERICA, WITH ALL EMPLOYEES, UNION AND NON UNION, MANAGMENT AND NON MANAGEMENT! That is not what the "sick issue" is about at U. WE employees know very well what this is about. They stripped us of everything knowing full well this type of work environment would make us mentally and physicially ill, and they are making sure we will not be a liability. They THINK they can show us the door...I have quite alot up my sleeve.
Does that answer your question more clearly on my position??????????????????
The "sick" issue at U is all about policies in place that are age/ disability discrinatory. Watch how this is going to pan out, my friend.
Yup. That smacks of conspiracy theory. I mean, you may well be right that they'd just as soon people with the most seniority would leave because they cost the most. Nonetheless, your theory is so complex and fraught with unpredictable results that I'd fire anyone who came to me with such a proposal, even leaving aside the ethical considerations.PITbull said:
firstamendment
Veteran
- Apr 1, 2003
- 1,348
- 0
PineyBob
I am conflicted on this one (after 12 pages) . For myself, yes, I would think nothing of calling in sick when I felt. I still hear people say... cough, I'm feeling I'll be sick for that trip. Now that's abuse. But everyone must come to the point of personal understanding where this is concerned. I am not a fan of the new sick policy, however for me it has allowed me to look at my behavior. Was I abusing the sick policy? Yes. Why was I doing that? Well, I was unhappy with work and with life in general. Work became the driving force behind my unhappiness. I have made changes in my life that are providing me a happier life. It is good to make these changes because now I feel I am a better employee and I respect my sick accruel.
In defense of Pitbull, it's her duty to protect the interest of the f/a's. Yes, there are those who abuse, but management has put out the wolves with supervisors and schedulers. i.e schedulers are taking it on their own to lecture f/as who call in sick. It isn't their job to do that. I'm glad she is defending the f/a's.
My feeling? You can't MAKE people understand things. We must do it on our on.
I am conflicted on this one (after 12 pages) . For myself, yes, I would think nothing of calling in sick when I felt. I still hear people say... cough, I'm feeling I'll be sick for that trip. Now that's abuse. But everyone must come to the point of personal understanding where this is concerned. I am not a fan of the new sick policy, however for me it has allowed me to look at my behavior. Was I abusing the sick policy? Yes. Why was I doing that? Well, I was unhappy with work and with life in general. Work became the driving force behind my unhappiness. I have made changes in my life that are providing me a happier life. It is good to make these changes because now I feel I am a better employee and I respect my sick accruel.
In defense of Pitbull, it's her duty to protect the interest of the f/a's. Yes, there are those who abuse, but management has put out the wolves with supervisors and schedulers. i.e schedulers are taking it on their own to lecture f/as who call in sick. It isn't their job to do that. I'm glad she is defending the f/a's.
My feeling? You can't MAKE people understand things. We must do it on our on.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
First,
I defend the f/as not because of some sense of duty or the "right thing to do". Its because I am intimately involved with these issues and these policies that literally "abuse" our workers.
That IS the issue.
I can't speak for the reasons you gave for your own personal view of sick calls. I can only present on these boards what I know to be factual and why I believe the company is going after our older population of workers deliberately by enacting these harsh, punitive policies.
They need to address the "core" problems at U. Morale being paramount in all aspects. Folks are getting mentally and physically ill with all this uncertainty, concessional sacrificing that is now permeating into the employees personal home life. It is taking its toll on our employees, and "sick calls" are a manifestation of these types of illnesses.
Management needs to work with us; not against us.
The NIOSH report on the left is an excellent resource that cites the following:
*
40% of workers reported their job was very or extremely stressful;
*
25% view their jobs as the number one stressor in their lives;
*
Three fourths of employees believe that workers have more on-the-job stress than a generation ago;
*
29% of workers felt quite a bit or extremely stressed at work;
*
26 percent of workers said they were "often or very often burned out or stressed by their work";
*
Job stress is more strongly associated with health complaints than financial or family problems.
This information was obtained in the 1990's in large surveys by Northwestern National Life Insurance Co, Princeton Survey Research Associates, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Yale University and The Families and Work Institute.
And I can sure say that the above survey poll was NOT USAirways employees. Now that would be a survey to conduct.
I defend the f/as not because of some sense of duty or the "right thing to do". Its because I am intimately involved with these issues and these policies that literally "abuse" our workers.
That IS the issue.
I can't speak for the reasons you gave for your own personal view of sick calls. I can only present on these boards what I know to be factual and why I believe the company is going after our older population of workers deliberately by enacting these harsh, punitive policies.
They need to address the "core" problems at U. Morale being paramount in all aspects. Folks are getting mentally and physically ill with all this uncertainty, concessional sacrificing that is now permeating into the employees personal home life. It is taking its toll on our employees, and "sick calls" are a manifestation of these types of illnesses.
Management needs to work with us; not against us.
The NIOSH report on the left is an excellent resource that cites the following:
*
40% of workers reported their job was very or extremely stressful;
*
25% view their jobs as the number one stressor in their lives;
*
Three fourths of employees believe that workers have more on-the-job stress than a generation ago;
*
29% of workers felt quite a bit or extremely stressed at work;
*
26 percent of workers said they were "often or very often burned out or stressed by their work";
*
Job stress is more strongly associated with health complaints than financial or family problems.
This information was obtained in the 1990's in large surveys by Northwestern National Life Insurance Co, Princeton Survey Research Associates, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Yale University and The Families and Work Institute.
And I can sure say that the above survey poll was NOT USAirways employees. Now that would be a survey to conduct.
Methinks you had difficulty understanding what I meant. I didn't mean that I'd fire PITbull. Rather, if someone decided to come to me with "this is how we can save the company...let's establish a system whereby we make the employees' lives so miserable that they'll get sick. Then we can set up a bunch of rules so if they get sick we can fire them! MUAHAHAHAHAH," I'd show them the door.UAL_TECH said:
Besides being unethical, it would take so long to implement, even if it could work, that it would be worthless.
Sounds to me like you had a bit of a hair-trigger there.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
mweiss,mweiss said:Methinks you had difficulty understanding what I meant. I didn't mean that I'd fire PITbull. Rather, if someone decided to come to me with "this is how we can save the company...let's establish a system whereby we make the employees' lives so miserable that they'll get sick. Then we can set up a bunch of rules so if they get sick we can fire them! MUAHAHAHAHAH," I'd show them the door.UAL_TECH said:
Besides being unethical, it would take so long to implement, even if it could work, that it would be worthless.
Sounds to me like you had a bit of a hair-trigger there.
Maybe if you would not use the 'scatter gun' approach in your theology, one could discern a specific issue in your posts and reply appropriately.
Your generalistic postings have many implications and you are not clear as to what your implications are.
But, I'm sure that is your intention.
At least you know what 'ethics' are even if you do not understand nor adhere to them.
Given the context of the post as presented, your hypothesis was clear and my response was exact.
Thanks for your feeble attempt in regaining your composure by transference, but 'I'm not buying'!
UT
