CitationAir Terminates Pilots on Disability

[gunfyter]

I am not sure what we had before the 2005 contract. It seems people were allowed to work office jobs back in the we are family mom and pop operation days. But I am not sure what we had in the 1998 contract was officially any different that this Citation Air policy.

I like it better when the company pays for or provides certain protections for me, but in the absence of this ... NJASAP negotiated disability insurance that many of us have purchased. I am sure they would share whatever information needed with the CA pilots group if you guys were interested.

 

[G4dude]

i can understand you being an idiot, but what you said about the guys fired on disability goes beyond all that. Why dont you just tell them you hope their kids get sick while your at it?

I was just asking a question: how long should a company pay someone who does not produce? I didn't say I wanted the company to throw him on the streets, or for him to die of the Plague, or anything like that. I just asked a question. You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[brokeflyer]

we all knew what you meant. Like I said, you should just not post anything anymore.

 

[CA1900]

I was just asking a question: how long should a company pay someone who does not produce?

It's not an issue of pay while not producing. It's an issue of still having a job when you get better! Do you really think it's reasonable to lose everything and have to start all over somewhere else if you get sick and can't work for six months?

 

[realityman]

It's not an issue of pay while not producing. It's an issue of still having a job when you get better! Do you really think it's reasonable to lose everything and have to start all over somewhere else if you get sick and can't work for six months?

BINGO!!!

If a company will only pay you for, say, two months while you're out on disability, then so be it. But FIRING someone because they had an unplanned medical issue?! And ESPECIALLY if it's a medical problem, even if the company isn't paying your salary anymore, they are probably still providing health insurance. But if you're fired, you have no job to come back to, and no medical insurance.

I suppose it's the right of any company to engage in this behaviour (unless restricted in a contract), but they should quit acting surprised when the employees aren't terribly interested in going the extra mile for the company. Everything is a two-way street. Show the employees no loyalty, then don't expect any back from the employees. Conversely, show the employees a little love (such as not firing someone while on disabiliy even though it may cost a little bit in health premiums) and the employees will be more willing to do things, such as work that extra day when asked, even though it means it costs the employee a little more time away from his/her family. (and the company can always make the money back, whereas the employee will NEVER get those specific missed moments with the family back)

Why is it that companies feel the need to go down this path? Treat your employees well, and they would NEVER have to worry about a union on property. Seems the new business norm is strictly about the bean counters. The human element is gone. Very sad. Especially considering how a good human element (Southwest Airlines) can lead to incredible success. Two sides working together will ALWAYS produce better results than butting heads all the time. But, company culture comes from the top, not from the employees. It's really up to management to lead the way.

 

[G4dude]

BINGO!!!

If a company will only pay you for, say, two months while you're out on disability, then so be it. But FIRING someone because they had an unplanned medical issue?! And ESPECIALLY if it's a medical problem, even if the company isn't paying your salary anymore, they are probably still providing health insurance. But if you're fired, you have no job to come back to, and no medical insurance.

I suppose it's the right of any company to engage in this behaviour (unless restricted in a contract), but they should quit acting surprised when the employees aren't terribly interested in going the extra mile for the company. Everything is a two-way street. Show the employees no loyalty, then don't expect any back from the employees. Conversely, show the employees a little love (such as not firing someone while on disabiliy even though it may cost a little bit in health premiums) and the employees will be more willing to do things, such as work that extra day when asked, even though it means it costs the employee a little more time away from his/her family. (and the company can always make the money back, whereas the employee will NEVER get those specific missed moments with the family back)

Why is it that companies feel the need to go down this path? Treat your employees well, and they would NEVER have to worry about a union on property. Seems the new business norm is strictly about the bean counters. The human element is gone. Very sad. Especially considering how a good human element (Southwest Airlines) can lead to incredible success. Two sides working together will ALWAYS produce better results than butting heads all the time. But, company culture comes from the top, not from the employees. It's really up to management to lead the way.

This response is what I was looking for. Thanks. Interesting thoughts.

 

[The Dude Abides]

I was just asking a question: how long should a company pay someone who does not produce? I didn't say I wanted the company to throw him on the streets, or for him to die of the Plague, or anything like that. I just asked a question.

You didn't just ask a question. You clearly insinuated something else when you wrote this . . .

How easy it is, it seems to me, to be compassionate with other people's money.

These GD guys who have a medical condition and are waiting for the feds are the problem? Is that what you're saying? Here's hoping it won't/hasn't happen(ed) to you!

Please allow me to quote back to you one of your more brilliant quotes.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[G4dude]

You didn't just ask a question. You clearly insinuated something else when you wrote this . . .These GD guys who have a medical condition and are waiting for the feds are the problem? Is that what you're saying? Here's hoping it won't/hasn't happen(ed) to you!

Please allow me to quote back to you one of your more brilliant quotes.

I was just asking the question, seeking answers. However, I was and still am curious. How long should a company keep paying somebody who does not produce? And don't most people carry disability insurance? And have savings for a rainy day? And have family to help? And have the ability, in many cases, to do other things for income while recovering from many ailments? Are we to be adopted by our employer? How about individual responsibility?

 

[G4dude]

It's not an issue of pay while not producing. It's an issue of still having a job when you get better! Do you really think it's reasonable to lose everything and have to start all over somewhere else if you get sick and can't work for six months?

Here is another question. If I am out of work for a period of time, someone else is hired to replace me. How long should the company let this other guy fly in my place, then fire him when I am well again?

 

[rajflyboy]

This is a tough situation for this pilot, but I have a question. How long should a company pay someone who no longer produces for the company? How easy it is, it seems to me, to be compassionate with other people's money.

What if Pilot was injured at work and because of work (while he was trying to make x company money) ??

Does you comprehende this?

 

[rajflyboy]

Here is another question. If I am out of work for a period of time, someone else is hired to replace me. How long should the company let this other guy fly in my place, then fire him when I am well again?

There are laws against this

 

[rajflyboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6yO8eS-w0k

G4

I found this video just for you on youtube. Enjoy.

 

[CA1900]

Here is another question. If I am out of work for a period of time, someone else is hired to replace me. How long should the company let this other guy fly in my place, then fire him when I am well again?

Three years seems reasonable to me. Perhaps shorter for smaller companies, and longer for larger ones. At Netjets, an extra pilot adds 0.04% to the payroll, meaning the costs of keeping his job open until the next hiring wave is negligible.

FMLA only requires 12 weeks. Better than the 0 weeks it replaced, but still inadequate in my opinion.

Employees make an investment to join a company, too, often leaving a good job to do so. They should not bear all the risk for that.

 

[fischman]

This is a tough situation for this pilot, but I have a question. How long should a company pay someone who no longer produces for the company? How easy it is, it seems to me, to be compassionate with other people's money.

What if the employee in question wasn't injured, and held the title of CEO?

 

[G4dude]

Three years seems reasonable to me. Perhaps shorter for smaller companies, and longer for larger ones. At Netjets, an extra pilot adds 0.04% to the payroll, meaning the costs of keeping his job open until the next hiring wave is negligible.

FMLA only requires 12 weeks. Better than the 0 weeks it replaced, but still inadequate in my opinion.

Employees make an investment to join a company, too, often leaving a good job to do so. They should not bear all the risk for that.

Hmmm. Thanks! Interesting, especially the part about holding the replacement pilot. Question: why should the employee not bear the risk? What "investment" does the employee make? He/she is paid for the work done, it seems to me, so what investment?