Flight Attendant Sick Calls

[Garfield1966]

[quote name='Nor'Easta' post='574620' date='Feb 21 2008, 12:30 AM']Did you ask if they were? Some people don't know they need 504 paid productive hours to qualify. If I was turned down for it, that would be the first thing I would check. This is the biggest reason f/a's get turned down for FMLA.[/quote]

If you read flys response, he was denied because a domestic partner does not qualify under FMLA guidelines. His hours or lack there of are secondary. He was never approved for the FMLA in the first place. If fly failed to mention part of the rejection I do not know.

 

[AC AA LA FA]

Alot of people are comparing AA to Eastern....sounds like they know what they are talking about.

yes..in SFO we work for..

Amereastern

 

[Bob Owens]

When we got to LGA I was advised I could ground the airplane myself and cancel the flight as they did not have a replacement. I argued with the maintenance supervisor for about 10 minutes and told him to ground the airplane....them I saw his face. I completely understood. This guys job was on the line, he is not given sufficient equipment or manpower or supplies, but he is expected to get the plane out at the risk of his livlihood. I just looked at him and said, "I see your face, I understand, but I don't agree." It is sad that AA places their employees and their passengers in such situations. Alot of people are comparing AA to Eastern....sounds like they know what they are talking about.

His job wasnt "on the line".

LGA pulls few planes out of service and the only way to have such things corrected-such as not keeping spares on hand- is for either mechanics to refuse to sign it off or crews to refuse to take it. Nobody gets fired for adhering to the standards that the company sets, instead they try to find something else to fire you for.

I personally never argue with any crewmember, I tell them what the situation is, if I can fix it I do, time permiting. If the crew demands that a deferrable item be repaired then I inform them that they will be charged for the delay. I've had crews that threaten that if I dont fix something that cant be fixed right away they wont take it, I dont argue, I tell them thats no concern of mine, my primary concern is making sure that anything with my name on it is done right. Why should I pressure a crew to take a broken airplane? Broken airplanes put more money in my pocket! One OT call is worth more than a year of AIP.

 

[Bob Owens]

I just wanted to clear up any confusion regarding this matter. Furthermore, we still have a looong way to go before we attain equality. On the federal level, we are still taxed on our partners' insurance, pass riding, etc. We have no legal recourse for immigration or social security benefits, etc. For example, my aunt lost her partner of 40 years to a stroke and she receives nothing from her partner's social security or pension. Whether one agrees with same-sex unions or not, this country is ultimately going to recognize them. If Spain, France and Canada can do it, so can we. We simply have to shed a bit of our puritanical mindset if we truly wish to accord equality to all of our citizens.

Peace.
Art in Miami

One way around the medical coverage ineqity is for universal health care like they have in Spain, France and Canada.

I've experienced treatment in both private(USA type) treatment and socialized treatment. Socialized was 100% better and when you recovered you werent billed to death.

The biggest problem we would have with implementing it is finding people to run it who truly want it to succeed. We would have to recruit someone from those countries to set it up otherwise it would be set up to fail by the powers at be.

By the way those with "puritanical mindsets" arent usually concerned about providing equality. While the puritans sought religious freedom for themselves they werent shy about oppressing others.

 

[Garfield1966]

As much as I like the idea of universal health care, as someone pointed out in the water cooler, given the proficiency in which the government runs it's other ventures, do we really want them running out health care?

 

[jimntx]

As much as I like the idea of universal health care, as someone pointed out in the water cooler, given the proficiency in which the government runs it's other ventures, do we really want them running out health care?

Universal health care does not have to mean that the health care system is "run" by the government. What it may also mean is a single-payer system. It doesn't mean government health clinics. You would still go to your same doctor and the same hospitals you have always used. The difference--and savings--come from the doctor and the hospital not having to maintain a huge bookkeeping/accounting staff to keep track of bills submitted to a gadzillion different insurance companies with different payment rates and different coverages. The best primary care physician I ever had left the practice of medicine at the age of 42 (10years out residency) because he said that he spent over 50% of his time doing battle with the government or with insurance companies, and that was not what he went to medical school to do.

It doesn't even necessarily mean that the government would be the payer. As set up it may mean that one or more insurance companies would bid for the right to administer the program. You would just eliminate the confusion and expense encumbered upon health care providers today by one insurance company paying $4.95 for removal on an ingrown toenail and another company paying $15.95, but you have to bill them 3 times before they cough up the dough.

What Universal health care means is just that...EVERYONE would be covered. I do not know how my fellow (alleged) Christians sleep at night with the knowledge that the church just spent a ton of money on a new tv station and sanctuary for the local mega-church (with a new limo for the pastor) while 45 million Americans have no health coverage at all.

 

[Nor'Easta]

You too are another one of those who love to discriminate...i sure hope your loved one isnt lying on their deathbed ,and u get terminated from your job while trying to care for them...Again you show your true colors!

Bitter party of one, your table is now ready!

FMLA does not cover Domestic Partners...period! You can try to file a lawsuit but, it will go nowhere. Try here if you don't believe any of us: Legal Aid

 

[FWAAA]

FMLA does not mandate coverage of domestic partnerships, but couldn't AA go further than the federal legislation and extend its FML to cover domestic partnerships?

 

[AAStew]

His job wasnt "on the line".

LGA pulls few planes out of service and the only way to have such things corrected-such as not keeping spares on hand- is for either mechanics to refuse to sign it off or crews to refuse to take it. Nobody gets fired for adhering to the standards that the company sets, instead they try to find something else to fire you for.

I personally never argue with any crewmember, I tell them what the situation is, if I can fix it I do, time permiting. If the crew demands that a deferrable item be repaired then I inform them that they will be charged for the delay. I've had crews that threaten that if I dont fix something that cant be fixed right away they wont take it, I dont argue, I tell them thats no concern of mine, my primary concern is making sure that anything with my name on it is done right. Why should I pressure a crew to take a broken airplane? Broken airplanes put more money in my pocket! One OT call is worth more than a year of AIP.

Bob, I agree it should be deferred if it is an item which can be. This was not a company standard but an FAA standard. There cannot be anything on the aircraft which would hinder a safe evacuation if necessary prior to departure from the gate. This was a soaked carpet and as gross as our carpets are, it was like walking on sheet of ice. I actually slipped four times inflight. Can you imagine if there had been a fire on the aircraft and people started slipping as they tried to evacuate out that door? The captain knew it was a no go item but he did not have cojones to back me up, the FO did but of course he had to defer to the captain.
As for being charged for a delay...it would not stick. This would definately be charged to maintenance for not keeping adequate supplies and workforce on hand. Yes, they had to work with what they are given, but everytime we bend the rules for the company, they find other ways around them and you have to make do with less and less.
By the way, this thread has gone all over the place, but it is certainly interesting!

 

[jimntx]

The REAL problem is that if an FAA inspector had walked onboard and discovered the problem, you would have been left twisting slowly, slowly in the wind. Everyone else would have denied any knowledge of the problem. It probably was never entered in the log.

 

[Garfield1966]

FMLA does not mandate coverage of domestic partnerships, but couldn't AA go further than the federal legislation and extend its FML to cover domestic partnerships?

FWAAA,

My guess is this. Since there is no legal definition on the Federal level as to what defines a domestic partner, how would AMR or any other company differentiate between a domestic partnership verses two people (of any sexual combination you can think of) who are shacking up? The only legal document so far is a marriage license.

Sure AMR could say we will cover domestic partners but then we go back to what I mentioned earlier that people are not honest. They will screw it up for the rest. Anyone who is living with someone else and not married can claim domestic partner and there you go…… one big cluster phuck.

Like I said, the only way to fix this is to b1tch slap the fundamentalist nut jobs who have a strangle hold on the government. Get them out of office and put in people that will respect a persons right to control their own body and that will not tell someone who they may or may not share their life with. This election has to do with far more than the Iraq war and the economy (as important as they are). The election is also about the future of the federal bench.

 

[AAStew]

The REAL problem is that if an FAA inspector had walked onboard and discovered the problem, you would have been left twisting slowly, slowly in the wind. Everyone else would have denied any knowledge of the problem. It probably was never entered in the log.

No, it wasn't, but I am only a dim witted flight attendant so I should just smile and make nice....

 

[Flyboy4u]

FWAAA,

My guess is this. Since there is no legal definition on the Federal level as to what defines a domestic partner, how would AMR or any other company differentiate between a domestic partnership verses two people (of any sexual combination you can think of) who are shacking up? The only legal document so far is a marriage license.

Sure AMR could say we will cover domestic partners but then we go back to what I mentioned earlier that people are not honest. They will screw it up for the rest. Anyone who is living with someone else and not married can claim domestic partner and there you go…… one big cluster phuck.

Like I said, the only way to fix this is to b1tch slap the fundamentalist nut jobs who have a strangle hold on the government. Get them out of office and put in people that will respect a persons right to control their own body and that will not tell someone who they may or may not share their life with. This election has to do with far more than the Iraq war and the economy (as important as they are). The election is also about the future of the federal bench.

FWAA....You are correct hence my exact point..AA "Chooses" to accept FMLA guidelines for thier attendance policy which, as Garfield so pointly and correctly points out, the Federal Government doesn't recognize a domestic partnership, thus the reason for the FMLA denial. It has nothing to do with the hours ...However, AA does "Choose" to offer Domestic Partnership benefits including healthcare for one's domestic partner. Also, the FMLA form AA uses for it's actual attendance policy includes a space to check if this form is to be used for one's domestic partner. Which,as I have just found out , isn't recognized by the company...This is the sole reason for litigation..Why does AA iallow benefits for domestic partners, including a space on the FMLA form for domestic partners, if they "choose" to follow the law of the land, and not recognize the relationship.

Also Garfield,

AA has a gone as far to actually define a "domestic partnersip" in its guidelines to qualify for these benefits...AA also requires proof of this realtionship including documents etc...before the company will grant such benefits to one's domestic partner...Gay, straight etc...doesnt matter....If you meet the criteria AA has defined, these benefits will be granted...Apparently now the only exception will be for FMLA approval...Doesn't anyone on here see the argument? If you grant benefits to a domestic partner then why don't you also grant a FMLA for domestic partners ?..It's double standard It doesn't have to be a governmental issue at all...It's AA's "Choice" creating the situation that will not hold up in court

 

[Garfield1966]

Then by all means file a law suit. If it is as simple as you claim, then you will have no problem wining the case. As nice as it is to think that AA is run by a bunch of dolts, I have a hard time believing that AMR legal does not have this one covered.

Good luck.

PS. You might want to leave that chip at home before you go tilting at wind mills. It will make you a more sympathetic victim.

 

[Bear96]

FWAA....You are correct hence my exact point..AA "Chooses" to accept FMLA guidelines for thier attendance policy which, as Garfield so pointly and correctly points out, the Federal Government doesn't recognize a domestic partnership, thus the reason for the FMLA denial. It has nothing to do with the hours ...However, AA does "Choose" to offer Domestic Partnership benefits including healthcare for one's domestic partner. Also, the FMLA form AA uses for it's actual attendance policy includes a space to check if this form is to be used for one's domestic partner. Which,as I have just found out , isn't recognized by the company...This is the sole reason for litigation..Why does AA iallow benefits for domestic partners, including a space on the FMLA form for domestic partners, if they "choose" to follow the law of the land, and not recognize the relationship.

Also Garfield,

AA has a gone as far to actually define a "domestic partnersip" in its guidelines to qualify for these benefits...AA also requires proof of this realtionship including documents etc...before the company will grant such benefits to one's domestic partner...Gay, straight etc...doesnt matter....If you meet the criteria AA has defined, these benefits will be granted...Apparently now the only exception will be for FMLA approval...Doesn't anyone on here see the argument? If you grant benefits to a domestic partner then why don't you also grant a FMLA for domestic partners ?..It's double standard It doesn't have to be a governmental issue at all...It's AA's "Choice" creating the situation that will not hold up in court

It sounds like you may have a claim for a grievance, but not a legal claim that can be pursued through litigation.

As others have pointed out, there is no requirement on the federal level for AA to offer FMLA leave to domestic partners. That they choose to recognize domestic partners for some benefits won't mean diddly in this situation.

What state are you based in? Perhaps that state has a family leave law which may require family leave to care for DPs (NJ, CA and much of New England come to mind), but you would have to first show you are covered by that law. This can be difficult for F/As (if that is what you are) because most family leave laws require the employee to work a minimum number of hours per year to be covered, and many F/As and pilots don't work enough to qualify. But that would be your only legal option.

Ultimately you are claiming AA is not following its own internal policies, not that it is not following the law (unless, as mentioned, there is an applicable state law). If anything, that is grounds for a grievance, not a lawsuit.