Chess!

[NCFL]

People who have situations like cancer or a chronically ill family member in their lives are protected. I'm talking about blue flu, Monday Morning-osis, hangovers and the rest of the bogus reasons for which some (not all) people call in sick.

How many of the people for which PitBull is rooting have extraordinary circumstances and how many of them are just angry their lousy work ethic bit them in the behind?

I'd be interested to know.

 

[diogenes]

I was never on an attendance level during my career. I was on time, worked more than my share of OT, and gave the company far better than they deserved.

Yet I know how easy it is for a good employee to get in a jam, NCFL. Do you? Would the company show any compassion?

And you are wrong with the claim everyone is protected in a chronic situation. FMLA does NOT extend to everyone at U.

If there are not 50 f/t employees within a 75 mile radius, you are SOL.

 

[NCFL]

If there are not 50 f/t employees within a 75 mile radius, you are SOL.

[post="248932"][/post]​

Point taken, Diogenes. It (FMLA) also doesn't apply to people who work less than 1,250 hours per year.

But if we go back to the genesis of this thread, it's a flight attendant arguing this point for fellow flight attendants. They are all based in places that have FAR more than 50 employees within the prescribed radius, right? CLT. PHL. PIT. Even the smaller bases.

I'll drop the bone now. It's impossible to make a pro-company point on this board.

 

[PITbull]

People who have situations like cancer or a chronically ill family member in their lives are protected. I'm talking about blue flu, Monday Morning-osis, hangovers and the rest of the bogus reasons for which some (not all) people call in sick.

How many of the people for which PitBull is rooting have extraordinary circumstances and how many of them are just angry their lousy work ethic bit them in the behind?

I'd be interested to know.

[post="248880"][/post]​

NCFL,

Your argument would hold water if the policies were liberal and then the sick calls were excessive...I could agree with abuse. Not only are we an older population of workers, but our company insisted as part of the 30% pay penalty for sick calls (all of them) the sick calls allotment must come down from 5 to 4 in a rolling calendar year.

My position with this issue is how can anyone make an assumption that all or most sick calls are abuse? Just to make a point: If a company goes from 5 sick calls to 1 before it is considered excessive, and this leads to 80% of the work force being on dependability, would you still consider the work force abusing sick? Would you perhaps look at the policy and investigate why you have a workforce that by majority is on "dependability"? Could it be the policy?

Its like this: Almost 25% of our group is currently on "Dependability" or about to go on it by the end of this month. This is not just sick calls but other infractions. We went from 6 sick calls before the year 2000 contract, to 5 sick calls, and now to 4 sick calls 12 month rolling calendar. If a f/a calls in sick 4 times they get a warning that the 5 sick call in a 12 month rolling calendar is "excessive" and they are placed on "first level" even if it is the ONLY infraction. If you have 3 more sick calls after that, you are terminated. There is no more "mitigating circumstance consideration", and once your are on a "level", ANY other infraction, not just sick calls, can get you terminated. (keep in mind this, it takes 1 year to pass before one sick call falls off in a rolling calendar year from the occurence, and it takes again 1 year to go off a "level" of Dependability (DCP) (regardless of a sick call falling off). As the levels go up, the year count starts over. See the harshness here, or not?

This year we experienced very senior people finding themselves terminated over excessive sick. Not every f/a qualifies for PCL/FMLA. For PCL, you have to have a chronic medical condition that gets approved by the IMMS Dept in Corporate headquarters, which is one huge Harassment Center Dept., and often times the f/a gets approved for PCL only AFTER they are on DCP. The IMMS Dept who oversees FMLA is now dictating to our group how much FMLA they will approve for your particular condition....IS THIS AGAINST THE LAW OR WHAT?

Someone is making up these policies and someone else is approving them.

That is why the unions are now very focused on this issue. With our group, giving the company 4 sick calls for the "amnesty side letter" was the exchange. Giving a chance for everyone to get off DCP and for others, to reduce their sick call slate, should be considered. I don't know this for sure, but I would venture to say that by majority, every f/a has a sick call on their record. There are the very few that choose to come to work sick because of the "pay penalties" they just can not afford to endure.

I understand that the company had to reduce the workforce, and everyone works more hours, harder, for less pay. However, with that comes exhaustion, burn out, and illness. And when some folks choose to come to work ill because of pay penalties in place, they infect everyone.

The way I see it, the company is abusive with these policies.

Its one thing to give major concession to a company for it to survive, its another issue to constantly have to look over your shoulder fearful of getting terminated.

This just has to stop.

In my opinion, what killed our group in the morale arena, is the In-flight Dept managment culture, the LTO Reserve system and the abusive sick policies.

Literally has destroyed our group and has made them sick emotionally and physically. If this is too extreme for your liking, just hit "ignore", and go back into your corner and pretend it just isn't true.