Airline Targets Sick-pay Abuse
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
The rules of the board are abundantly clear. Defend your ideas all you want, but without personal attacks.AOG-N-IT said:
Oy! Someone says to tone it down, and suddenly they're Stalin or Mao or Hitler? Give it a rest.
Sounds to me like you may have defended something you don't even understand.
I don't believe you can tell me the first word of the First Amendment. If you could, you'd understand why it doesn't apply to Bill.
airlineorphan
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 380
- 0
mweiss wrote, and others paraphrased:
Well, here's the big $212 million question:
Is the rate of absenteeism, particularly absenteeism that is not related to being sick and various short and longer term medical leaves, etc., actually out of line with that of other companies? Particularly ones with workforces that are a bit older, who are constantly exposed to passengers carrying bugs from all over the place? Particularly workforces where managerial abuse has led to rampant and often seriously dangerous depression amongst some members of that workforce?
As I noted earlier, if 1/2 of the $212 million figure that management has provided is actually sick time directly paid out, then that means that 5-6% are out sick at any given time. Perhaps others have official stats on national averages, but it doesn't seem that far out of line with what I have observed in a variety of workplaces. If anything, it may actually be a low number.
Everyone has made this logical leap: Management has made a public pronouncement. Therefore it is true.
Given the track record of this management team, anything they say should be regarded as suspect and quite likely distorted in a self-serving manner.
-Airlineorphan (who has never touched any sicktime at US Airways)
Well, here's the big $212 million question:
Is the rate of absenteeism, particularly absenteeism that is not related to being sick and various short and longer term medical leaves, etc., actually out of line with that of other companies? Particularly ones with workforces that are a bit older, who are constantly exposed to passengers carrying bugs from all over the place? Particularly workforces where managerial abuse has led to rampant and often seriously dangerous depression amongst some members of that workforce?
As I noted earlier, if 1/2 of the $212 million figure that management has provided is actually sick time directly paid out, then that means that 5-6% are out sick at any given time. Perhaps others have official stats on national averages, but it doesn't seem that far out of line with what I have observed in a variety of workplaces. If anything, it may actually be a low number.
Everyone has made this logical leap: Management has made a public pronouncement. Therefore it is true.
Given the track record of this management team, anything they say should be regarded as suspect and quite likely distorted in a self-serving manner.
-Airlineorphan (who has never touched any sicktime at US Airways)
I must not be included in "everyone," then. I don't really care if it's $210M or $210. Abuse of sick leave is stealing from your fellow line employees. It is selfish, reprehensible behavior. You can come up with all of the jsutifications you want, but it doesn't change that fact.airlineorphan said:
I'd like to add a couple of points to this discussion. Yes, I have chosen not to attend work some days before (very few), but my job was very different. It didn't matter whether I showed up or not, my work had to be done by me, and my deadlines had to be met.
If I didn't show up for work, nobody else had to be called in to do my job. If I didn't show up for work and that made me late in getting my work to whom I had to deliver it? That showed up on my reviews, and impacted my income.
Sure, there were days when I didn't show up. But the only person who had to make up for it was me.
I know of someone who had about 40 occurances in a year (sick, late, etc) before he was finally dismissed. Set a bad precedent now for getting rid of anyone else. Management was trying to help the guy, which I applaud, but how long can you carry someone abusing the system that much? There are currently systems in place and if they are abused, then they need to be taken care of. For an agent to be put on so many levels they're fired takes a load of sick time, missed shifts, tardies, etc. Once someones to that point, they need to go.mweiss said:
TheLarkAscending
Veteran
Michael - you've taken my thoughts and my quote and used it out of context. And, by the way, it is not my contract, I am self-employed.mweiss said:
If you read the last sentence in my post, I did state, and will reiterate here, that I do not agree with sick time abuses on any level, anywhere.
Play fair, sweetums.
UseYourHead
Veteran
- Apr 1, 2003
- 720
- 0
PITBull,PITbull said:
There is NO defense for sick abuse; it is stealing, period. I fly the line and debate with people all the time about this. You are just flat out wrong to even attempt to defend it, in fact, AFA gets a back eye for supporting something like this.
I am not talking about people who are sick, they deserve sick time...it is the "earn em & burn em" attitude that leaves us painted as abusers. That is not fair to the majority of honest people here....
airlineorphan
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 380
- 0
mweiss protests:
But the thing that you and others seem to be accepting is management's assertion that absenteeism is somehow rampant. I look at the stats and suggest that they could easily be understood to mean that absenteeism is in line with other companies or even perhaps a little low.
Crackdowns are rarely particularly effective in reducing absenteeism though. The "beatings will continue until morale improves" approach of US Airways management has a predictable effect. It creates a workplace atmosphere that leaves some people choosing to call in sick when they aren't sick. Whether you like it or not.
The other problem with the line of argument mweiss and others have been raising is that it seems to assume that this is one of the central problems that need to be addressed at US Airways without knowing whether absenteeism is really all that high.
There are bigger fish to fry: Does the company have a plan other than sucking employees dry? Does the company have a plan other than selling assets to competitors who would then increase the steady peck peck peck at market share? Does the company have a plan to market itself other than press interviews and releases declaring that the end is near and a few a/c with the website on it?
So many much bigger questions to be answered and yet so much time is wasted on clucking and tut-tut'ing at a problem that is at best only established by a few anecdotes ("I know a guy....") and suspect numbers from management press releases.
-Airlineorphan
in response to to:
But the thing that you and others seem to be accepting is management's assertion that absenteeism is somehow rampant. I look at the stats and suggest that they could easily be understood to mean that absenteeism is in line with other companies or even perhaps a little low.
Crackdowns are rarely particularly effective in reducing absenteeism though. The "beatings will continue until morale improves" approach of US Airways management has a predictable effect. It creates a workplace atmosphere that leaves some people choosing to call in sick when they aren't sick. Whether you like it or not.
The other problem with the line of argument mweiss and others have been raising is that it seems to assume that this is one of the central problems that need to be addressed at US Airways without knowing whether absenteeism is really all that high.
There are bigger fish to fry: Does the company have a plan other than sucking employees dry? Does the company have a plan other than selling assets to competitors who would then increase the steady peck peck peck at market share? Does the company have a plan to market itself other than press interviews and releases declaring that the end is near and a few a/c with the website on it?
So many much bigger questions to be answered and yet so much time is wasted on clucking and tut-tut'ing at a problem that is at best only established by a few anecdotes ("I know a guy....") and suspect numbers from management press releases.
-Airlineorphan
Sick time at US ( many companies) is often as much as available and can be taken. its human nature in many ways and right in line with the use'm or loose'm mentality or that its a perk I earned. If US offered more, more would be taken. Its that simple. If 6 calls in 12 months gets you in trouble, hundreds of employees hover around the 5 level. If 9 calls gets you in trouble, hundreds hover around the 8 level. Illness doesn't know days of the week. Yet every weekend and every holiday call offs spike. Magnify that by thousands of employees "getting theirs in" so to speak. Its a cost of doing business, or rather its the cost of the parameters that allow this to happen.
