Calling In Sick?

[Bear96]

That sure made sense when all the employer saw was the loss of some mail. Lose a few hundred customers at a time and the other potential customers stop coming around for your services.

Certainly a dramatic crash gets management's attention and provides corporate incentive to avoid the headlines. But there is a level of safety underneath that, not quite as dramatic, where people who are only concerned with the bottom line will be tempted to pressure others to cut corners. Those of us who deal with these things on a daily basis where legitimate safety concerns regularly pop up are glad to have a system and climate in place where we can bring those concerns forward before they combine with other factors or before the situation degenerates further and you get one of those dramatic crashes. That system and climate exists in large part solely due to the work of unions in this industry over the decades.

I am sure someone who has never actually worked in a pilot / F/A / mechanic or other safety-sensitive position at an airline can never fully appreciate this. But it is naive to think airline management at all levels is enlightened enough about day-to-day operational safety procedures and issues to never push the envelope in the name of not cancelling a flight or ensuring an on-time departure, etc. ("Our numbers are down 5% this month! USAToday ran a story! We gotta DO SOMETHING!") Unions definitely serve as a useful counterweight to this pressure, which has probably saved thousands of lives over the years.

 

[PITbull]

Interestingly, Travelocity was voted one of the top places to work in Pennsylvania for 2003 http://www.bestplacestoworkinpa.com/bestplaces.asp
Hawk, was US Airways there? Hell no! Give me a break!

Eye,

Thanks for posting that.

My sister was on the front page of an article that came out about 6 months ago citing that Travelocity was one of the best places to work in PA.

 

[PITbull]

Yup, I knew that was coming. The irony is that they're unionizing to fight against insurance companies that were formed as a result of medical insurance benefits brought about by...according to PITbull...unions! Ahh, that circle of life!

Nurses are organizing rapidly as well. Expecially in Pittsburgh and Hershy, PA

 

[TheLarkAscending]

Healthcare costs have long been on the rise because people didn't have to pay for their healthcare. When it's free or heavily subsidized, people don't use it wisely.

Healthcare costs have been on the rise not because people didn't use it wisely. These costs have been steadily rising, historically, because of malpractice suits and the continual rise in costs of malpractice insurance coverage needed to protect physicians, surgeons and hospitals. These costs are then collectively passed back onto the consumers (larger institutions or the individual concerns) in order to cover the awarded amounts, legal fees, etc., in the form of larger premiums. In fact, there are several states where it has become impossible for physicians to practice medicine and make a liveable wage. Hence, their desire for union protection. The costs keep getting passed down and everyone's costs keep going up. There are those that speculate that had the medical profession policed itself and addressed the need to oust those that were legitimately practicing poor medicine, that perhaps this may never have been a necessary evil at all. It appears to be the -closing the barn door- cliche'.

Costs of prescriptions -- now there is completely different kettle of fish. The pharmaceutical companies claim that it has a lot to do with R&D, years of testing, FDA approvals, and yes, lawsuits. Yet, why can the same drugs be obtained in Canada for 1/2 to 1/3 the costs? That has nothing, whatsoever, to do with unions.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Great points Bob and if I may add one point it would be that companies that provide health insurance do not do a good job of informing the true costs of those plans to the employees. Some break out the costs and tell them how much each is paid per employee for the healthcare coverage but most do not. There are a lot of people out there that do not use their healthcare coverage wisely because they only have to pay the co-pay and nothing more. It's almost like they think there is an insurance ferry out there that does nothing but pay the rest of the bill. I bet a great deal of cost could be taken out of the sector if employers did a better job of educating their employees about what the true costs are.
UAIR's coverage and costs are actually better than a lot of companies. Take Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse for instance. Everyone knows how well they are doing yet their cost of health insurance for their employees for family coverage is significantly above those comparable people at UAIR. Even a lot of the banking industry has pricier policies for comparable coverage for their employees than UAIR does.

 

[cavalier]

Great points Bob

My sister owns a business and told me that her healthcare insurance went up 28% and will do the same thing for the next three years according to her broker. She was told it all stems from 9/11 and the fact European insurance companies will no longer underwrite corporate America’s woes. Her employees are paying BEFORE hikes $214 monthly per family, so add 28 percent to that figure. And of course co-pays. This entire thing is crazy and getting crazier.

 

[MrAeroMan]

My sister owns a business and told me that her healthcare insurance went up 28% and will do the same thing for the next three years according to her broker. She was told it all stems from 9/11 and the fact European insurance companies will no longer underwrite corporate America’s woes. Her employees are paying BEFORE hikes $214 monthly per family, so add 28 percent to that figure. And of course co-pays. This entire thing is crazy and getting crazier.

Not only is that crazy it is unsustainable and it's not going to be much longer before it all comes crashing down around all of us. Just my opinion.

 

[jimntx]

Another drain on the system is Medicaid and it's complete lack of common sense. Many intercity poor use the incredibly expensive ER as their primary Physican. WHY? Because medicaid says it's OK. Why is it permissible for those who contribute little to society be allowed to recieve BETTER medical care than those of us who produce and add value? I totally understand that not everyone can be rich. But what is so wrong to tell someone who recieves FREE medical care EXACTLY where they have to go to recieve it? Why is that horrible? After all we as a society agree that no one should be denied medical care, but does the common cold have to be diagnosed in the ER because the recipient is unable to visit the clinic during regular hours?

Bob, I almost always agree with your common sense posts; however, the poor using the ER as their primary physician is NOT the result of Medicaid saying OK. It is the result of private physicians refusing to see Medicaid patients. And, government cutbacks in funding for Public Health have resulted in the closing of many of the public clinics that used to provide primary care.

And, if you think that using the ER is better medical care than what you receive then I invite you to come to Dallas the next time you are ill, sign-in at the Emergency department at Parkland Hospital, then wait up to 18 hours to be seen by a medical student or first year resident. Yes, if it is a true emergency--car wreck, heart attack, etc--you get the best care available at most big-city ERs, but if the ER is your only access to "regular" health care, be prepared to get shortchanged.

My source of information: my late wife who worked for the state welfare department for many years, as well as friends in the medical field here in Dallas.

We are ALL guilty of "misusing" the system. You and I pay for our health insurance, as opposed to the Medicaid patient. 20 years ago if you or I had gone to the Dr. and received a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, we would have left the office with a cane and a "prescription" for ibuprophen because that was all the Dr could do for us. Today, we want, and get, the total hip replacement that makes continued skiing and tennis possible. Yes, the technology is there and should be used, but it also has to be paid for.

 

[mweiss]

But there is a level of safety underneath that, not quite as dramatic, where people who are only concerned with the bottom line will be tempted to pressure others to cut corners.

This is precisely what happened at AS in the late 90s. Many articles were published in the Seattle Times about this issue at the time.

The issue is real; I won't deny it. In fact, many of the air tragedies of the past couple of decades have been a result (either directly or indirectly) of these pressures.

Nonetheless, unions are not the only solution to the problem, nor are they necessarily the best.

 

[mweiss]

The real answer is to simple and painful to ever be enacted.

Eliminate ALL non retirement related "Fringe Benefits" If you as an individual have to pay the whole enchilada from your pocket the shenanigan would damn soon cease or the system would collapse.

It's a solution, but hardly the only or even necessarily the best solution.

 

[PITbull]

Just to add to the dicussion,
It takes roughly 10 years and 200 million dollars to bring a drug to market with no real gaurantee of success. Consequently those same drug companies seek to recover that R & D money in the country that is the most able to pay (in general) and that is the Good Old US of A. You & Me!

The Unions were instrumental in getting prescriptions plans for there workers and it spread throughout corporate america. Because there are no "direct" payors in this case, NO ONE has a vested interest in what is charged. Big insurance companies have huge buying power and keep the drug prices to where they & the drug companies can both make a little money, leaving the uninsured and undersured to foot the bill for R & D recovery. This is politely called "Cost Shifting"

PITbull with her more up to date first hand knowledge could probably shed even more light on this and hopefully she will. But like the airline industry in the US, the government has one foot in regulating the market and another foot in the free market creating caos at all levels. The difference is that unlike airlines the chickens are just starting to come home to roost in health care. That's why we see doctors forming unions as a way to re-gain economic leverage.

IMO when you have virtually the entire user population of health care with no direct responsibiliy to pay then you create a system that as anyone can see is out of control. Blaming Unions, or Malpractice to me is painting over the real problems. Canada isn't the answer either as healthcare is severely rationed and not always top quality. We have the greatest system in the world the best of everything. We just have to figure out how to keep as much individual freedom as possible while finding a more efficient way to pay for it. If you look at what's happening now it should be clear that allowing the government to have more involvement is NOT the answer.

I agree with some of the points Bob presents and all of what Lark Ascending has posted.

Malpractice is the main reason why Health care costs are so very high. The physicians have no choice when a pt. comes in with symptoms to order as many tests as possible to rule out certain life threatening Diagnosises. If they miss anything, a lawyer is always in the wings to bring suit against the physician and their malpractice insurance company...they make a business just for settling a case and not even taking it to trial.

There is where there needs to be proactive legislation written to "cap" these suits. Otherwise, health care costs will escalate to oblivion.

Many reasons why the health care professionals are now UNIONIZING is to ensure they have fair compensation for the risks they take. Physicians are now "capped" by HMO companies on what they pay their physicians when they are "attending" in a hospital. Because many physicians to not get paid (other than their monthy $8 visit) from HMOs for doing runs at the hospitals, the physicians sends an "intern" or a "resident" whose "on call" now, and does not see the patient in the hospitals. This is where dx get missed or pts. get discharged and go home when they are not fully recovered and have not been given enough time to absorb teachng information on their dx or medication administration by the nurses on staff. (Not enough of them to properly instruct pts and their families).

Nurses are forced into mandatory overtime, non compeetitive wages, low benefits, high risks by understaffing in spite of the acuity of the patients on the floor. They risk their license being revoked for missing documentation and medication that is not put in nurses notes, and when folks sue, they sue EVERYBODY ON THE CHART.

ps:U is unique in that they are "self insured". They set the premium and devise the "summary description plan".

The Insurance company U has is only the "Administrators" of the Plan (Summary Description Plan). U sets the premiums every year. Not the Insurance company

 

[Bear96]

This is precisely what happened at AS in the late 90s. Many articles were published in the Seattle Times about this issue at the time.

The issue is real; I won't deny it. In fact, many of the air tragedies of the past couple of decades have been a result (either directly or indirectly) of these pressures.

Nonetheless, unions are not the only solution to the problem, nor are they necessarily the best.

I never said they were.

My only point is that perhaps-- just perhaps-- the unfettered free market economy cannot solve all of our problems.

 

[mweiss]

My only point is that perhaps-- just perhaps-- the unfettered free market economy cannot solve all of our problems.

Well, now, if that's your only point, then we are in violent agreement.

 

[TDR1502C]

This is precisely what happened at AS in the late 90s. Many articles were published in the Seattle Times about this issue at the time.

The issue is real; I won't deny it. In fact, many of the air tragedies of the past couple of decades have been a result (either directly or indirectly) of these pressures.

Nonetheless, unions are not the only solution to the problem, nor are they necessarily the best.

How would you address the safety issue, considering what John Liotine of AS went through and even low level FAA inspectors where complaining of operational irregularities, as detailed in the Seattle Times. The union safety process was used, the government process was started, the press covered it, and no change was affected.

Maybe healthcare will be different, since more people are touched by it.

 

[mweiss]

I don't know what to do there. Clearly someone was mucking around at the FAA, since they replaced the thorough inspector with one who was perfectly willing to look the other way. And this was even with a Democrat running the executive branch. Imagine how it would be with a Republican doing that. Oh, wait, we don't have to imagine, do we?