Change in Status to those on Excused Absence (Proposal)?

Robertb

Forum Sage
Messages
739
Up until recently I figured I'd be headed back when the trainees head back. Sounds like this is not a management function but a flight surgeon function though? I can't imagine there will be no pressure on flight surgeons by management to send at-risk employees back though.
I picture the logic being- if it's safe enough for non-essentials, it's safe enough for at-risk.

Anyway, expecting I'll be going back to work as late as a couple more months or as early as RIGHT NOW GET YOUR ASS BACK IMMEDIATELY OMG!!!
I can tell you it is already happening and the FSS is attempting to send higher risk employees back to work.
 

Kyle

Active Member
Messages
36
I can tell you it is already happening and the FSS is attempting to send higher risk employees back to work.
Some flight surgeons are proactively reaching out to higher risk employees and telling them they’re required to go back now? Is it a request or an instruction?
 

Robertb

Forum Sage
Messages
739
Some flight surgeons are proactively reaching out to higher risk employees and telling them they’re required to go back now? Is it a request or an instruction?
Some FSS are overruling diagnosis, by the actual treating physicians, and instructing facilities that some employees don’t meet/no longer meet the underlying risk factors because their conditions are “...well controlled...” That is a completely bastardized statement and intent of actually what the CDC is giving for guidance. The CDC says that people with underlying medical conditions are at a higher risk particularly those that are not well controlled. It doesn’t say that if it is well controlled you should return back to work. It states it could be worse if it isn’t well controlled.

Example: Sam has diabetes. Sam is required to take insulin. According to the CDC, he and others with conditions such as moderate or greater asthma, heart disease, etc., is/are at a higher risk for COVID-19. FSS says it is “well controlled” because of the insulin and says Sam is medically cleared to return to work.
 

Attachments

  • F7808FFE-5587-4716-AE90-5EAF3AB4A9EA.jpeg
    F7808FFE-5587-4716-AE90-5EAF3AB4A9EA.jpeg
    264.7 KB · Views: 34

Kyle

Active Member
Messages
36
Some FSS are overruling diagnosis, by the actual treating physicians, and instructing facilities that some employees don’t meet/no longer meet the underlying risk factors because their conditions are “...well controlled...” That is a completely bastardized statement and intent of actually what the CDC is giving for guidance. The CDC says that people with underlying medical conditions are at a higher risk particularly those that are not well controlled. It doesn’t say that if it is well controlled you should return back to work. It states it could be worse if it isn’t well controlled.

Example: Sam has diabetes. Sam is required to take insulin. According to the CDC, he and others with conditions such as moderate or greater asthma, heart disease, etc., is/are at a higher risk for COVID-19. FSS says it is “well controlled” because of the insulin and says Sam is medically cleared to return to work.
Wow. Yeah that’s some very selective and narrow interpreting of the CDC guidelines. Also crazy that each region’s flight surgeon seems to be making their own rules with this with little national guidance. I’m surprised the agency is willing to risk any potential liability issues by sending high risk back to work earlier than CDC recommends. Guess they’re going for loopholes and narrow legal interpretation.
 

Mike Kilo

Legendary Member
Messages
1,454
You guys are thinking it’s the law that the “at risk” people be home. The CDC crap are guidelines, no federal agency or business must adhere to them. If people are feeling they need to be home longer use sick leave. We are lucky to have gotten the time we have so far IMO. I expected two weeks at most before MOU staffing was forced on us again.
 

Kyle

Active Member
Messages
36
You guys are thinking it’s the law that the “at risk” people be home. The CDC crap are guidelines, no federal agency or business must adhere to them. If people are feeling they need to be home longer use sick leave. We are lucky to have gotten the time we have so far IMO. I expected two weeks at most before MOU staffing was forced on us again.

Nah. No complaining here. I’d go back today if they asked me to and will probably volunteer to go back on my own accord anyway. That doesn’t negate that flight surgeons should be following some uniform process nationwide for getting us back to work. But that’s how they’ve always worked...each flight surgeon doing their own thing. So, not surprising
 

GulfBravoPapa

Forum Sage
Messages
1,151
FSS = Flight Service Station
FS = Flight Surgeon

Which are we talking about here? Flight surgeons? Or are people in Alaska being sent back to work?
 

ATCJoe85

Trusted Contributor
Messages
266
Some FSS are overruling diagnosis, by the actual treating physicians, and instructing facilities that some employees don’t meet/no longer meet the underlying risk factors because their conditions are “...well controlled...” That is a completely bastardized statement and intent of actually what the CDC is giving for guidance. The CDC says that people with underlying medical conditions are at a higher risk particularly those that are not well controlled. It doesn’t say that if it is well controlled you should return back to work. It states it could be worse if it isn’t well controlled.

Example: Sam has diabetes. Sam is required to take insulin. According to the CDC, he and others with conditions such as moderate or greater asthma, heart disease, etc., is/are at a higher risk for COVID-19. FSS says it is “well controlled” because of the insulin and says Sam is medically cleared to return to work.

I mean... is the FSS overruling, or is the flight surgeon overruling? I know a few people with similar (but not exact) condition as mine within the same region, who were not approved as "at-risk" from the get-go. Can't say for certain, but I believe my condition is less "well-controlled" than theirs. It does surprise me that this would change down the line though. If the initial assertion was they were at risk even with condition well controlled, what exactly has changed?

Wow. Yeah that’s some very selective and narrow interpreting of the CDC guidelines. Also crazy that each region’s flight surgeon seems to be making their own rules with this with little national guidance. I’m surprised the agency is willing to risk any potential liability issues by sending high risk back to work earlier than CDC recommends. Guess they’re going for loopholes and narrow legal interpretation.

The tough part of this is that CDC guidelines re: at risk aren't likely to change in the near future. I am all but 100% certain we'll be called back before that happens.

You guys are thinking it’s the law that the “at risk” people be home. The CDC crap are guidelines, no federal agency or business must adhere to them. If people are feeling they need to be home longer use sick leave. We are lucky to have gotten the time we have so far IMO. I expected two weeks at most before MOU staffing was forced on us again.

Who said anything about it being like law? Your words, not ours.
And while personally I feel lucky with the time I have had, because personally I am not feeling extra threatened by my condition (though I am not spared all anxiety), I certainly wouldn't say everyone else should feel "lucky" so much as relieved that the agency is taking measures to protect at-risk employees.
 

FightingIrish2012

Forum Sage
Messages
860
Some FSS are overruling diagnosis, by the actual treating physicians, and instructing facilities that some employees don’t meet/no longer meet the underlying risk factors because their conditions are “...well controlled...” That is a completely bastardized statement and intent of actually what the CDC is giving for guidance. The CDC says that people with underlying medical conditions are at a higher risk particularly those that are not well controlled. It doesn’t say that if it is well controlled you should return back to work. It states it could be worse if it isn’t well controlled.

Example: Sam has diabetes. Sam is required to take insulin. According to the CDC, he and others with conditions such as moderate or greater asthma, heart disease, etc., is/are at a higher risk for COVID-19. FSS says it is “well controlled” because of the insulin and says Sam is medically cleared to return to work.
Why should they go back to work, there were few cases up there and Flight Service has always been referred to the weakest of the three air traffic options (in the break room we call it “Fredo Service Stations”)? JK, JK, lol.
 

Mike Kilo

Legendary Member
Messages
1,454
I mean... is the FSS overruling, or is the flight surgeon overruling? I know a few people with similar (but not exact) condition as mine within the same region, who were not approved as "at-risk" from the get-go. Can't say for certain, but I believe my condition is less "well-controlled" than theirs. It does surprise me that this would change down the line though. If the initial assertion was they were at risk even with condition well controlled, what exactly has changed?



The tough part of this is that CDC guidelines re: at risk aren't likely to change in the near future. I am all but 100% certain we'll be called back before that happens.



Who said anything about it being like law? Your words, not ours.
And while personally I feel lucky with the time I have had, because personally I am not feeling extra threatened by my condition (though I am not spared all anxiety), I certainly wouldn't say everyone else should feel "lucky" so much as relieved that the agency is taking measures to protect at-risk employees.

I guess I was mostly referring to Kyle’s “I’m surprised the agency is willing to risk any potential liability issues by sending high risk back to work earlier than CDC recommends.”

As if the FAA would be liable for your health if brought back because they didn’t follow some guidelines.
 

Kyle

Active Member
Messages
36
I guess I was mostly referring to Kyle’s “I’m surprised the agency is willing to risk any potential liability issues by sending high risk back to work earlier than CDC recommends.”

As if the FAA would be liable for your health if brought back because they didn’t follow some guidelines.
You pay a lawyer enough, they will argue whatever you need them to. This is a litigious country. We’ve also come a long way since March when those guidelines were first released and the agency first took action, and “high risk” covers a wide swath of conditions from cancer to skin conditions and everything in between.
And it’s possible to be both surprised by how the agency has handled stuff and also be grateful for how they’ve handled it. The preachy/judge attitude about how we should be lucky for this, lucky for that whenever someone dares to criticize something is tiresome. Of course I’m lucky and grateful.
 

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
FAA
Messages
1,007
Facility
BNA Nashville Tower
I guess I was mostly referring to Kyle’s “I’m surprised the agency is willing to risk any potential liability issues by sending high risk back to work earlier than CDC recommends.”

As if the FAA would be liable for your health if brought back because they didn’t follow some guidelines.
Hence why they give me a letter ordering me to return to duty. About 2 weeks ago my OM called me telling me that I could "volunteer" to return to work... Nope. My luck in this world sucks and as "high risk" individual I want to cover my aspects for the future.
 

Nhstadt

Forum Sage
FAA
Messages
480
Facility
OKC Oklahoma City Tower
Hence why they give me a letter ordering me to return to duty. About 2 weeks ago my OM called me telling me that I could "volunteer" to return to work... Nope. My luck in this world sucks and as "high risk" individual I want to cover my aspects for the future.
Hold out for that med retirement!
 

Robertb

Forum Sage
Messages
739
Sorry for the FSS and FS confusion. I meant Flight Surgeon not Flight Service Station (FSS) or Flight Standards (FS). So what the hell acronym is Flight Surgeon?!?
 

Stinger

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
1,387
Nah. No complaining here. I’d go back today if they asked me to and will probably volunteer to go back on my own accord anyway. That doesn’t negate that flight surgeons should be following some uniform process nationwide for getting us back to work. But that’s how they’ve always worked, so...not surprising.
You can volunteer to go back. Just tell your ATM that you want to go back, they'll coordinate with the Regional Flight Surgeon, and you'll be back within two days probably.
 

Type1atc

Active Member
Messages
70
I was given an update by my OM the other day, they still don’t have any concrete plans of course but they have discussed bringing back high risk employees.

The current trigger for that would be staffing. I was told that when we go back to MOU staffing based on the traffic levels, I would be recalled before Overtime gets scheduled.

They seem to think this could be holiday time frame at our facility, or perhaps not until next year when there is a vaccine. Hope everyone is staying safe and healthy!
 

32andBelow

Legendary Member
Messages
3,235
I was given an update by my OM the other day, they still don’t have any concrete plans of course but they have discussed bringing back high risk employees.

The current trigger for that would be staffing. I was told that when we go back to MOU staffing based on the traffic levels, I would be recalled before Overtime gets scheduled.

They seem to think this could be holiday time frame at our facility, or perhaps not until next year when there is a vaccine. Hope everyone is staying safe and healthy!
400 jets were taken out of storage in the last month.
 
Top Bottom