NATCA Going Down in Flames

"bdl" wrote in message
ps.com...

You didn't answer the second part. What does constitute sick?


Did I really need to? You don't understand the word "sick"?



Yes it is.


No it isn't. An answer would be the reason for the new policy.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Did I really need to? You don't understand the word "sick"?

Yes, you do, since you said that incapacitation do to drowsiness was
not an acceptable excuse for sick leave.


Yes it is.


No it isn't. An answer would be the reason for the new policy.

They provided it. They felt that controllers could be groggy coming
out of their nap onto their shift.

It doesn't matter what their reason is though. They set the rules.
Why are you so anti-authority?

"bdl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Yes, you do, since you said that incapacitation do to drowsiness was
not an acceptable excuse for sick leave.


I didn't say that. I said the policy does not permit use of sick leave for
drowsiness.



They provided it. They felt that controllers could be groggy coming
out of their nap onto their shift.


They did? Cite please.



It doesn't matter what their reason is though.


Shouldn't any change in policy be justified?



They set the rules.
Why are you so anti-authority?


I'm not. Why are you so imperceptive?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I didn't say that. I said the policy does not permit use of sick leave for
drowsiness.

Even drowsiness to the extent of incapacitation? If they are so drowsy
they are not at 100% for work they shouldnt' be there.

They provided it. They felt that controllers could be groggy coming
out of their nap onto their shift.


They did? Cite please.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive.../717-full.html

quote
Among the FAA's new work rules imposed on air traffic controllers last
week was a ban on napping during breaks and, predictably perhaps, the
agency and the controllers union differ on the impact of such a rule.
"Even though they're on break, they can be called back to work at any
time," FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown told The Associated Press. "If they
had to be called back to work traffic and they had been sleeping, they
would be groggy."
/qoute


Shouldn't any change in policy be justified?

It was justified.

Even drowsiness to the extent of incapacitation?

I'm drowsy to incapacitation every night. That doesn't make me sick
every night.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Even drowsiness to the extent of incapacitation?

I'm drowsy to incapacitation every night. That doesn't make me sick
every night.

Ok fine, whatever.

"bdl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Even drowsiness to the extent of incapacitation?


Yes. The new "contract" says sick leave cannot be granted for rest.



If they are so drowsy they are not at 100% for work they shouldnt' be
there.


FAA management disagrees with you.



http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive.../717-full.html

quote
Among the FAA's new work rules imposed on air traffic controllers last
week was a ban on napping during breaks and, predictably perhaps, the
agency and the controllers union differ on the impact of such a rule.
"Even though they're on break, they can be called back to work at any
time," FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown told The Associated Press. "If they
had to be called back to work traffic and they had been sleeping, they
would be groggy."
/qoute


That's simply fascinating. "Groggy" means "dazed and weakened, as from lack
of sleep". So FAA management cannot permit controllers to sleep while
they're on a break because if they had to be called back to work traffic and
they had been sleeping, they would be suffering from a lack of sleep.



It was justified.


What was the justification?