Re: MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

October 1, 2005

and others,

I agree that 97% is probably not the right number....but lets look at a

24 hour system. How many shifts should you be allowed to call off for

because of everyday sickness (not serious medical issues)....

24-48 hour shifts work 122 shifts a year...so 97% would mean you could

be sick for 3.66 shifts a year...90% would be 12.2 shifts...80% would

be 24 shifts....where should that line be drawn...or should excessive

absenteeism be left up solely to supervisor descretion?

Remember, calling off sick in an EMS only system (and many fire

departments) puts undue hardship on co-workers...through either

mandatory overtime, working to fill shifts, or keeping that ambulance

out of service for the shift....someone else has to cover that

hole...other people are affected when these callouts occur..

So, as a supervisor or manager, how do we balance the needs of the

employee who calls off sick (because we know folks only do that when

they are sick) versus the needs of the co-workers who have to suck up

the extra work when it occurs?

Dudley

Re: MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

Marisa,

Your computation of the sick time policy does not work out

mathematically.

Crews working a 12 hour shift on a 48 hour week are scheduled for 624

hours in a

3 month (13 week) period. I use 3 months because that is the time

frame the

policy calls for. There are 4 - 3 month cycles in a year. If a person

works

624 hours in a 3 month period and is expected to be present 97% of the

time,

that means he or she must be present 605.28 hours. This is a

difference of

18.72 (3% of 624) hours. That is just over 1.5 shifts in a 3 month

period, not

each month. This policy allows a person to be sick 6.24 shifts per

year.

Approximately half of what you quoted.

This sounds like a lot of time, until you compute in sick time for

children, a

spouse, etc. I stand by my assertion that this policy SUCKS and the

real

problem of employee morale, and / or other problems need to be

addressed instead

of building a gallows in from of MedStar Headquarters. It is the

employees

benefit time, allow them to use it as they deem necessary. Correct

staffing

issues by bringing the number of units up to an acceptable and

necessary level

would be a good start.

Tater

Marisa stroup wrote:

The gentleman that wrote that article, to my understanding, was in

attendance of

one of our " meetings " . Unfortunately he left out all the good and made

the

entire article about the absenteeism. Yes, absenteeism is a habitual

problem

with some, but not all employees. There are also a lot of other

issues, that

were left out. In Jack Eades defense, he at no time blamed the

compliance issue

on the crews solely. Yes, there are days where we have been down a few

shifts,

and at times that would contribute, but there are other factors as

well. Thanks

to a gentleman that came in from another busy system (which shall

remain

nameless), we have a new posting plan as well. This posting plan has

at times

helped, but in the most part, has not helped so much. However, we have

been

hiring more medics, which will allow us to add more units to the

schedule and

more units to this posting plan. Once the new units and hours are

added, this

plan may work in this growing system.

From a crew stand point, this new absentee policy that is being put

into place

is not rubbing us well. First of all, most of us only hear dof this

policy

through reading that article. We work a minimum of 48 hours a week.

Four days

on, three days off, 12 hour shifts. With those hours in mind,

according to this

new plan, we would be able to take one day off a month without being

excessive.

97% attendance is about 12 days off a year. Granted there are those

that just

take days off to take days off in our system, you find them anywhere,

but it

really wasnt fair to group us as a whole.

There were good points that were brought up as well. Crews that are

going over

and beyond, employees that are not excessive. Employees that are

making times.

The paper does not note the good points, and instead made a full page

article

about something bad, as though attempting to create controversy. We

all work

long hours, get held over our shifts for late calls, and bust our rumps

to make

compliance in this system, unfortunately there are issues that remain

that keep

us from doing this and it is not because of habitual persons that call

off sick.

That is a group of maybe 10-15 employees. I beleive this guy wrote

this article

strictly to make people look bad and that was in no way Mr. Eades

position. It

was just one of many of his concerns.

" E. Tate " wrote:

This is just another example of an unreasonable demand by impersonal

administrators. So now when I'm sick, I have to take your no-paying

insurance

to the expensive as heck doctor for a note saying I was running a fever

and

can't work. I'll submit that note along with a reimbursement voucher?

Tater

james davis wrote:i worked somewhere once

where to

take sick time they

" required " that you bring a receipt from the doctors'

office with a dx code on it. we called the union. they

said no. a small amount of hell was raised and they

changed their minds.

jim

--- " E. Tate " wrote:

>

> I think MedStar is being a bit unreasonable here. I

> agree that employee absenteeism can become a

> problem. Instead of creating (again another classic

> American knee-jerk reaction) a blanket policy that

> creates more work and oversight, why not determine

> the reason for the (alleged) excessive absence? If

> absenteeism is a problem there is an underlying

> cause.

>

> According the article the employees must be at work

> 97% of their scheduled time. Given a 24 / 48 shift

> (I have no clue what MedStar works) that's 22.32

> hours they can miss in a 3 month period. If the

> shift is a rotating 12 that's 16.38 hours off. So,

> either way it's 1 shift +/- in a 3 month period.

> Since their policy is 4 shifts per year, this seems

> somewhat reasonable. If " The worst of it is a few " ,

> they need to concentrate on the few.

>

> Personally, I don't believe in calling in sick

> unless necessary. However, I do believe it's my

> right to call in sick if I need a " mental health "

> day. If I am not 100% mentally prepared for work,

> do you want me doing the things we do? I don't

> expect anyone to call in sick, and then be seen out

> gallivanting around town. If you're too sick to

> work, keep your sick @$$ at home and rest.

>

> I'm a firm believer that " benefit time " is just

> that, a benefit of the job. I also believe an

> employee should be allowed to use that time as they

> see fit for both their physical and mental health.

>

> Personally, this all sounds like an excuse for some

> other failure in the system. You can't convince me

> that they are shutting down trucks because of

> absenteeism. If they aren't shutting down trucks,

> why are they falling below standards? Must be that

> computer system they are replacing and the SSM

> software they're using. Maybe once they get the new

> one up and running it'll be better at predicting the

> next call and their call times will decrease. (I'm

> only kidding about SSM helping.......)

>

> Tater

>

> Will M wrote:

> Posted on Wed, Sep. 28, 2005

>

> MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

>

> By BILL TEETER

> Star-Telegram Staff Writer

>

> FORT WORTH -- MedStar isn't meeting response-time

> goals because too many employees are taking

> unnecessary sick time, MedStar Executive Director

> Jack

> Eades said Wednesday.

> From Sept. 1 through Sept. 22, ambulances made it on

> time to scenes on " priority 1 " calls 86 percent of

> the

> time, Eades told the agency's board of directors at

> their regular monthly meeting.

>

> MedStar, also known as the Area Metropolitan

> Ambulance

> Authority, requires its ambulances to make priority

> 1

> calls in nine minutes or less on at least 90 percent

> of their calls.

>

> In April, Rural/Metro, a private ambulance firm,

> withdrew from its contract with MedStar because of

> poor response times. Since then, MedStar has been

> operating as the ambulance provider for the region.

>

> Although MedStar is at nearly full staff after an

> aggressive hiring campaign in the wake of

> Rural/Metro's departure, some ambulance workers are

> taking sick time when they may not really need it,

> which creates staff shortages, Eades said.

>

> Employees are allowed four sick days a year but can

> accrue up to 13 weeks of unused sick time, Eades

> said.

> There is a misconception among some employees that

> they are entitled to take sick days when they are

> not

> really ill, he said.

>

> " We are going to have to adopt a new attendance

> policy, " Eades said. " It's going to have to be a lot

> tougher than the one used by the contractor. "

>

> To fix the situation, Eades said MedStar is adopting

> a

> policy in which ambulance crew members must be at

> work

> at least 97 percent of their scheduled time. The

> time-off percentage will be measured from the most

> recent three months of their employment when an

> employee calls in sick or takes off other than for

> approved vacation or certain other leaves, such as

> those covered by the federal Family Medical Leave

> Act,

> Eades said.

>

> The policy is tough but needed, said board President

> McMahan.

>

> " They're not unreasonable, " he said.

>

> City Councilwoman Becky Haskin, who sits on the

> board,

> asked Eades how widespread the problem is.

>

> " The worst of it is a few, " Eades said.

>

> MedStar serves Fort Worth and 13 other cities. From

> May through July, response times for the system had

> met their mark, although some locations continued to

> have problems.

>

> The agency's August performance report showed

> MedStar

> made more than 90 percent of its calls on time

> except

> for its less-serious priority 3 calls, which were at

> an on-time rate of 89.9 percent.

>

> The board also approved a budget for the next fiscal

> year beginning Oct. 1 allowing $18,274,626 in

> expenditures, an increase of about $896,000 from the

> previous year.

>

> The budget includes $1.5 million in capital outlays

> for vehicles and new computer systems that should

> help

> response times in the future, he said.

>

> ONLINE: www.medstar911.com.

>

> Bill Teeter.

>

______________________________________________________

>

> Yahoo! for Good

> Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

> http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

>

October 1, 2005

> I kinda like the idea of a specific point as a definition of excessive

> absenteeism...(don't know if 97% is the mark or not) too often

> " excessive " is defined by a supervisor secondary to other factors [...]

Hmm... seems to me that excessive sick time would be using anything

beyond what I've earned. Otherwise, I'm with - it's a benefit

to be used as needed.

Wasn't there a fifth circuit case a few years ago that essentially

said the same thing - that employers can't require doctor's notes to

" prove up " an illness - because sick time is an accrued benefit for

use at the will of the employee?

Mike

October 1, 2005

I love a good argument as much as the next person. But, I really

see this topic turning more towards the new policy and away from the

actual issue. That Exec. Mgt has little to no faith in it's field

employees. MedStar is a private EMS service. We don't benifit from

government funding, pensions plans, or good insurance for that

matter.

Even when only 1-2 shifts are put down on our night shifts; we still

have (at times) only 6-7 trucks TOTAL for a 450sq mile service

area. I don't need to tell you that this sucks. Everyone knows SSM

is a bad way to run a system because you honestly have no idea when

and where a call will drop. If there were more trucks available to

begin with you wouldn't have to worry as much about call off's. You

can deal with the " worse is a few " in a non-public manner. Don't

sit there and promise your employees something and then accuse them

of being selfish by taking sick days when they " don't need it " . Now

the uneducated public feels as if they can't depend on MedStar to

deliver pt care in a timely manner.

Nick

October 1, 2005

I agree that there has to be some line in the sand on absenteeism. I am not

sure where that line is either, but I feel 97% may be a little harsh.

A large company here in Tyler has taken a different approach on absenteeism.

They give bonuses based on attendance. They do not count scheduled vacation,

jury duty, or cases where short term or long term disability are applied.

Employees are paid a bonus of $100 for the 1st quarter, $200 the 2nd, $300 the

3rd and $400 the 4th. This adds up to a $1000 bonus throughout the year. If an

employee misses a day ever, they are ineligible for the remainder of the

calendar year.

There is some talk of changing the policy to allow employees that are perfect in

other quarters to receive the bonus. My understanding of the proposal is: If an

employee received the bonus in the 1st quarter and had a sick day in the 2nd

(therefore did not get the bonus) and was perfect in the 3rd they receive $100

and $200 for the 4th. So, basically they start over at the 1st bonus level

following an absence.

I am a firm believer in creating and maintaining happy employees. I am also a

firm believer in making sure the feeling of the employees about management is

not antagonistic. Happy employees are healthier, healthier employees are more

productive; more productive employees mean an increase in the bottom line.

Instead of finding ways to punish employees we should be finding ways to

encourage them and reward them for hard, efficient work.

Tater

THEDUDMAN@... wrote:Gene,

I too need to add one comment:

>>>Something here does not compute. The whole story has not been told.

This

is a forum for discussion of important issues in EMS, and it would be

very

nice if the managers of MedStar would use this forum to explain their

positions,

and the employees would use this forum to voice their concerns.

Unfortunately, managers don't often post on here, although they

monitor this

list, I am sure.

If MedStar management would like to talk about the problems they face,

this

would be a great place to do it. MedStar is a public entity. There is

no

reason for secrecy and political posturing. Let's hear from Mr. Eades,

and

let's hear from the troops.

Maybe we'll all learn something.>>>>

Instead of using this " forum " to get blasted for whatever ideas they

may have outside of the box...they would probably be much better served

to spend their time and energy on restoring and improving communication

between the administrative and field staff. Honestly, what is going on

inside of MedStar is none of our issue unless we work there or pay

taxes that support the MedStar system.

I kinda like the idea of a specific point as a definition of excessive

absenteeism...(don't know if 97% is the mark or not) too often

" excessive " is defined by a supervisor secondary to other factors such

as difficulty in filling the hole, personal feelings towards the

employee, and recent history with the employee....specific definitions

with appropriate outs for long-term issues (FMLA stuff) could go a long

way to alleviating this perceived injustice of " discipline for

excessive absenteeism " .

Dudley

Re: MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

Oh, my. I have to jump in here and make a few comments. Please read

down.

Gene G.

> The gentleman that wrote that article, to my understanding, was in

> attendance of one of our " meetings " . Unfortunately he left out all

the good

and made

> the entire article about the absenteeism. Yes, absenteeism is a

habitual

> problem with some, but not all employees. There are also a lot of

other

> issues, that were left out.

>

What did you expect from a reporter? Reporters look for issues that

make

good headlines. BTW, what issues were left out? It would be nice to

know

what they are.

> In Jack Eades defense, he at no time blamed the compliance issue on

the

> crews solely. Yes, there are days where we have been down a few

shifts, and

at

> times that would contribute, but there are other factors as well.

>

What other factors? If you want to defend Jack, why not post those

issues.

Right now, the prevailing impression is that Jack Eades is some sort

of

monster who wants to penalize folks for being sick and make them work

when they

ought to be home. If you really respect your management, tell the

whole story.

Few things are black and white. Let's hear all sides, and that

includes

an invitation to Mr. Eades to set forth his positions here.

> Thanks to a gentleman that came in from another busy system (which

shall

> remain nameless), we have a new posting plan as well. This posting

plan has

> at times helped, but in the most part, has not helped so much.

However, we

> have been hiring more medics, which will allow us to add more units

to the

> schedule and more units to this posting plan. Once the new units and

hours

are

> added, this plan may work in this growing system.

>

> Lemme see here. You've got folks who are at the top of their game

managing

the system, and they bring in an anonymous person to formulate a new

posting

plan, but it hasn't helped? What the hell is going on? What are you

saying

about the deployment plan? That's a very big issue, and it deserves

some

discussion. The public has an interest in deployment plans, though

most

members of the public wouldn't know a deployment plan from a dog

catching plan.

Everybody knows that MedStar has major problems with its operations,

so if you

have opinions or insights about what's causing the problems, why not

tell us?

Are you afraid to talk about system problems for fear of retaliation

from

management? If so, that's very, very sad.

> From a crew stand point, this new absentee policy that is being put

into

> place is not rubbing us well.

>

Well, yes. I can't imagine it rubbing anybody well no matter where

they

worked.

> First of all, most of us only hear dof this policy through reading

that

> article.

>

An excellent example of superb management in action. Don't talk to

your

employees, just make some comments to a news reporter and blast your

employees

for being lazy and malingering. A perfect way to instill confidence in

management. Seems like a major gaffe. I'm sorry.

> We work a minimum of 48 hours a week. Four days on, three days off,

12

> hour shifts. With those hours in mind, according to this new plan,

we would

be

> able to take one day off a month without being excessive. 97%

attendance is

> about 12 days off a year. Granted there are those that just take

days off

> to take days off in our system, you find them anywhere, but it

really wasn't

> fair to group us as a whole.

>

Then why did Mr. Eades formulate this policy? He's a total doofus? He

didn't articulate his plan well? He doesn't really know why folks are

taking

sick days? He's trying to cover his ass and the service's poor

responses by

blaming the troops? What? Has anybody looked into the reasons that

employees

take sick days? Ohhhhhh, that would be entirely too difficult.

Something here does not compute. The whole story has not been told.

This

is a forum for discussion of important issues in EMS, and it would be

very

nice if the managers of MedStar would use this forum to explain their

positions,

and the employees would use this forum to voice their concerns.

Unfortunately, managers don't often post on here, although they

monitor this

list, I am sure.

If MedStar management would like to talk about the problems they face,

this

would be a great place to do it. MedStar is a public entity. There is

no

reason for secrecy and political posturing. Let's hear from Mr. Eades,

and

let's hear from the troops.

Maybe we'll all learn something.

Gene G.

> There were good points that were brought up as well. Crews that are

going

> over and beyond, employees that are not excessive. Employees that

are making

> times. The paper does not note the good points, and instead made a

full page

> article about something bad, as though attempting to create

controversy.

>

There is no news value in reporting that " Today Aunt Martha Made a

Really

Wonderful Cheesecake. " News outlets look for bad things to say about

people.

The management fell into the trap by allowing the reporter to focus on

a

negative factor, and he left the impression that he is an uncaring,

inflexible

Scrooge, which he is not.

Lesson. If you're in management, get yourself a public information

officer

who knows the territory and never give an interview without that

person being

present and setting the rules. I learned this the hard way. The press

is

unforgiving. You can't win with them unless you understand them

completely

and know how to play them. Most managers haven't a clue about that.

> We all work long hours, get held over our shifts for late calls, and

bust

> our rumps to make compliance in this system, unfortunately there are

issues

> that remain that keep us from doing this and it is not because of

habitual

> persons that call off sick. That is a group of maybe 10-15

employees. I

believe

> this guy wrote this article strictly to make people look bad and

that was in

> no way Mr. Eades position. It was just one of many of his concerns.

>

Which proves my point. The press took something that was a minor

consideration, turned it around and made it a cause celebe` and made

the

administrator

look like Simon Legree.

> " E. Tate " wrote:

>

> This is just another example of an unreasonable demand by impersonal

> administrators. So now when I'm sick, I have to take your no-paying

insurance

to

> the expensive as heck doctor for a note saying I was running a fever

and can't

> work. I'll submit that note along with a reimbursement voucher?

>

> Tater

>

> james davis wrote:i worked somewhere once

where

> to take sick time they

> " required " that you bring a receipt from the doctors'

> office with a dx code on it. we called the union. they

> said no. a small amount of hell was raised and they

> changed their minds.

>

> jim

>

> --- " E. Tate " wrote:

>

> >

> > I think MedStar is being a bit unreasonable here. I

> > agree that employee absenteeism can become a

> > problem. Instead of creating (again another classic

> > American knee-jerk reaction) a blanket policy that

> > creates more work and oversight, why not determine

> > the reason for the (alleged) excessive absence? If

> > absenteeism is a problem there is an underlying

> > cause.

> >

> > According the article the employees must be at work

> > 97% of their scheduled time. Given a 24 / 48 shift

> > (I have no clue what MedStar works) that's 22.32

> > hours they can miss in a 3 month period. If the

> > shift is a rotating 12 that's 16.38 hours off. So,

> > either way it's 1 shift +/- in a 3 month period.

> > Since their policy is 4 shifts per year, this seems

> > somewhat reasonable. If " The worst of it is a few " ,

> > they need to concentrate on the few.

> >

> > Personally, I don't believe in calling in sick

> > unless necessary. However, I do believe it's my

> > right to call in sick if I need a " mental health "

> > day. If I am not 100% mentally prepared for work,

> > do you want me doing the things we do? I don't

> > expect anyone to call in sick, and then be seen out

> > gallivanting around town. If you're too sick to

> > work, keep your sick @$$ at home and rest.

> >

> > I'm a firm believer that " benefit time " is just

> > that, a benefit of the job. I also believe an

> > employee should be allowed to use that time as they

> > see fit for both their physical and mental health.

> >

> > Personally, this all sounds like an excuse for some

> > other failure in the system. You can't convince me

> > that they are shutting down trucks because of

> > absenteeism. If they aren't shutting down trucks,

> > why are they falling below standards? Must be that

> > computer system they are replacing and the SSM

> > software they're using. Maybe once they get the new

> > one up and running it'll be better at predicting the

> > next call and their call times will decrease. (I'm

> > only kidding about SSM helping.......)

> >

> > Tater

> >

> > Will M wrote:

> > Posted on Wed, Sep. 28, 2005

> >

> > MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

> >

> > By BILL TEETER

> > Star-Telegram Staff Writer

> >

> > FORT WORTH -- MedStar isn't meeting response-time

> > goals because too many employees are taking

> > unnecessary sick time, MedStar Executive Director

> > Jack

> > Eades said Wednesday.

> > From Sept. 1 through Sept. 22, ambulances made it on

> > time to scenes on " priority 1 " calls 86 percent of

> > the

> > time, Eades told the agency's board of directors at

> > their regular monthly meeting.

> >

> > MedStar, also known as the Area Metropolitan

> > Ambulance

> > Authority, requires its ambulances to make priority

> > 1

> > calls in nine minutes or less on at least 90 percent

> > of their calls.

> >

> > In April, Rural/Metro, a private ambulance firm,

> > withdrew from its contract with MedStar because of

> > poor response times. Since then, MedStar has been

> > operating as the ambulance provider for the region.

> >

> > Although MedStar is at nearly full staff after an

> > aggressive hiring campaign in the wake of

> > Rural/Metro's departure, some ambulance workers are

> > taking sick time when they may not really need it,

> > which creates staff shortages, Eades said.

> >

> > Employees are allowed four sick days a year but can

> > accrue up to 13 weeks of unused sick time, Eades

> > said.

> > There is a misconception among some employees that

> > they are entitled to take sick days when they are

> > not

> > really ill, he said.

> >

> > " We are going to have to adopt a new attendance

> > policy, " Eades said. " It's going to have to be a lot

> > tougher than the one used by the contractor. "

> >

> > To fix the situation, Eades said MedStar is adopting

> > a

> > policy in which ambulance crew members must be at

> > work

> > at least 97 percent of their scheduled time. The

> > time-off percentage will be measured from the most

> > recent three months of their employment when an

> > employee calls in sick or takes off other than for

> > approved vacation or certain other leaves, such as

> > those covered by the federal Family Medical Leave

> > Act,

> > Eades said.

> >

> > The policy is tough but needed, said board President

> > McMahan.

> >

> > " They're not unreasonable, " he said.

> >

> > City Councilwoman Becky Haskin, who sits on the

> > board,

> > asked Eades how widespread the problem is.

> >

> > " The worst of it is a few, " Eades said.

> >

> > MedStar serves Fort Worth and 13 other cities. From

> > May through July, response times for the system had

> > met their mark, although some locations continued to

> > have problems.

> >

> > The agency's August performance report showed

> > MedStar

> > made more than 90 percent of its calls on time

> > except

> > for its less-serious priority 3 calls, which were at

> > an on-time rate of 89.9 percent.

> >

> > The board also approved a budget for the next fiscal

> > year beginning Oct. 1 allowing $18,274,626 in

> > expenditures, an increase of about $896,000 from the

> > previous year.

> >

> > The budget includes $1.5 million in capital outlays

> > for vehicles and new computer systems that should

> > help

> > response times in the future, he said.

> >

> > ONLINE: www.medstar911.com.

> >

> > Bill Teeter.

> >

> ______________________________________________________

> >

> > Yahoo! for Good

> > Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

> > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

> >

October 1, 2005

Mike,

Most organizations (non-EMS as well as EMS) do not provide Sick Time as

an accrued benefit. It is not like vacation. When you leave you

cannot take it with you. It is merely insurance that says when you are

sick, you will at least receive your regular expected amount of money

for that day, week, pay period. Therefore, it is not intended to be

used as fast as you accrue it and most organizations you would not last

if you took up sick every time you earned a day.

I really don't think we want to start providing incentives to

government organizations and private companies that Sick Time is an

accrued benefit that belongs to the employee...or else we will see a

drastic decrease in the amount of time given as Sick Days.

BTW, this was one of the selling points of Paid Time Off (PTO) where

you just got X amount of days per year to use as you the employee saw

fit....they all belonged to you and in most plans you can use them all,

keep some, and many times even sell some back for money. Kept

employees from having to lie to get a day off....and helped keep this

unaccrued liability of " Sick Time " from growing so large it was

unmanageable.

Again...what is excessive absenteeism?

Dudley

Re: MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

> I kinda like the idea of a specific point as a definition of

excessive

> absenteeism...(don't know if 97% is the mark or not) too often

> " excessive " is defined by a supervisor secondary to other factors

[...]

Hmm... seems to me that excessive sick time would be using anything

beyond what I've earned. Otherwise, I'm with - it's a benefit

to be used as needed.

Wasn't there a fifth circuit case a few years ago that essentially

said the same thing - that employers can't require doctor's notes to

" prove up " an illness - because sick time is an accrued benefit for

use at the will of the employee?

Mike

October 1, 2005

Dudley you strike on a very important distinction. BENEFIT, is at the will

of the employer. It's above and beyond compensation and not a right.

Re: MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

> I kinda like the idea of a specific point as a definition of

excessive

> absenteeism...(don't know if 97% is the mark or not) too often

> " excessive " is defined by a supervisor secondary to other factors

[...]

Hmm... seems to me that excessive sick time would be using anything

beyond what I've earned. Otherwise, I'm with - it's a benefit

to be used as needed.

Wasn't there a fifth circuit case a few years ago that essentially

said the same thing - that employers can't require doctor's notes to

" prove up " an illness - because sick time is an accrued benefit for

use at the will of the employee?

Mike

October 1, 2005

Here here....great info and I like that bonus plan too...but it has

come up in similar situations (the airlines used to give new cars to

flight attendants and pilots that had perfect attendance every year

because of the money they saved) of are you then encouraging people to

come to work sick?

My frustration is how do you balance the real sickness (which you don't

want in the workplace) with the need for a day off every now and then,

with the need to control people who take advantage of the system?

The bonus system works but is weak in #1, the % basis works (at the

right %) but is bad on #2, and doing nothing is bad on #3.

What other ideas are out there? This seems like a serious EMS

issue...although it won't allow us to bash a specific EMS agency we may

be harboring ill will against...what other ideas have you seen in or

out of EMS?

Dudley

Re: MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

Oh, my. I have to jump in here and make a few comments. Please read

down.

Gene G.

> The gentleman that wrote that article, to my understanding, was in

> attendance of one of our " meetings " . Unfortunately he left out all

the good

and made

> the entire article about the absenteeism. Yes, absenteeism is a

habitual

> problem with some, but not all employees. There are also a lot of

other

> issues, that were left out.

>

What did you expect from a reporter? Reporters look for issues that

make

good headlines. BTW, what issues were left out? It would be nice to

know

what they are.

> In Jack Eades defense, he at no time blamed the compliance issue on

the

> crews solely. Yes, there are days where we have been down a few

shifts, and

at

> times that would contribute, but there are other factors as well.

>

What other factors? If you want to defend Jack, why not post those

issues.

Right now, the prevailing impression is that Jack Eades is some sort

of

monster who wants to penalize folks for being sick and make them work

when they

ought to be home. If you really respect your management, tell the

whole story.

Few things are black and white. Let's hear all sides, and that

includes

an invitation to Mr. Eades to set forth his positions here.

> Thanks to a gentleman that came in from another busy system (which

shall

> remain nameless), we have a new posting plan as well. This posting

plan has

> at times helped, but in the most part, has not helped so much.

However, we

> have been hiring more medics, which will allow us to add more units

to the

> schedule and more units to this posting plan. Once the new units

and

hours

are

> added, this plan may work in this growing system.

>

> Lemme see here. You've got folks who are at the top of their game

managing

the system, and they bring in an anonymous person to formulate a new

posting

plan, but it hasn't helped? What the hell is going on? What are you

saying

about the deployment plan? That's a very big issue, and it deserves

some

discussion. The public has an interest in deployment plans, though

most

members of the public wouldn't know a deployment plan from a dog

catching plan.

Everybody knows that MedStar has major problems with its operations,

so if you

have opinions or insights about what's causing the problems, why not

tell us?

Are you afraid to talk about system problems for fear of retaliation

from

management? If so, that's very, very sad.

> From a crew stand point, this new absentee policy that is being put

into

> place is not rubbing us well.

>

Well, yes. I can't imagine it rubbing anybody well no matter where

they

worked.

> First of all, most of us only hear dof this policy through reading

that

> article.

>

An excellent example of superb management in action. Don't talk to

your

employees, just make some comments to a news reporter and blast your

employees

for being lazy and malingering. A perfect way to instill confidence in

management. Seems like a major gaffe. I'm sorry.

> We work a minimum of 48 hours a week. Four days on, three days off,

12

> hour shifts. With those hours in mind, according to this new plan,

we would

be

> able to take one day off a month without being excessive. 97%

attendance is

> about 12 days off a year. Granted there are those that just take

days off

> to take days off in our system, you find them anywhere, but it

really wasn't

> fair to group us as a whole.

>

Then why did Mr. Eades formulate this policy? He's a total doofus? He

didn't articulate his plan well? He doesn't really know why folks are

taking

sick days? He's trying to cover his ass and the service's poor

responses by

blaming the troops? What? Has anybody looked into the reasons that

employees

take sick days? Ohhhhhh, that would be entirely too difficult.

Something here does not compute. The whole story has not been told.

This

is a forum for discussion of important issues in EMS, and it would be

very

nice if the managers of MedStar would use this forum to explain their

positions,

and the employees would use this forum to voice their concerns.

Unfortunately, managers don't often post on here, although they

monitor this

list, I am sure.

If MedStar management would like to talk about the problems they

face,

this

would be a great place to do it. MedStar is a public entity. There is

no

reason for secrecy and political posturing. Let's hear from Mr.

Eades,

and

let's hear from the troops.

Maybe we'll all learn something.

Gene G.

> There were good points that were brought up as well. Crews that are

going

> over and beyond, employees that are not excessive. Employees that

are making

> times. The paper does not note the good points, and instead made a

full page

> article about something bad, as though attempting to create

controversy.

>

There is no news value in reporting that " Today Aunt Martha Made a

Really

Wonderful Cheesecake. " News outlets look for bad things to say about

people.

The management fell into the trap by allowing the reporter to focus

on

a

negative factor, and he left the impression that he is an uncaring,

inflexible

Scrooge, which he is not.

Lesson. If you're in management, get yourself a public information

officer

who knows the territory and never give an interview without that

person being

present and setting the rules. I learned this the hard way. The press

is

unforgiving. You can't win with them unless you understand them

completely

and know how to play them. Most managers haven't a clue about that.

> We all work long hours, get held over our shifts for late calls,

and

bust

> our rumps to make compliance in this system, unfortunately there

are

issues

> that remain that keep us from doing this and it is not because of

habitual

> persons that call off sick. That is a group of maybe 10-15

employees. I

believe

> this guy wrote this article strictly to make people look bad and

that was in

> no way Mr. Eades position. It was just one of many of his concerns.

>

Which proves my point. The press took something that was a minor

consideration, turned it around and made it a cause celebe` and made

the

administrator

look like Simon Legree.

> " E. Tate " wrote:

>

> This is just another example of an unreasonable demand by impersonal

> administrators. So now when I'm sick, I have to take your no-paying

insurance

to

> the expensive as heck doctor for a note saying I was running a

fever

and can't

> work. I'll submit that note along with a reimbursement voucher?

>

> Tater

>

> james davis wrote:i worked somewhere

once

where

> to take sick time they

> " required " that you bring a receipt from the doctors'

> office with a dx code on it. we called the union. they

> said no. a small amount of hell was raised and they

> changed their minds.

>

> jim

>

> --- " E. Tate " wrote:

>

> >

> > I think MedStar is being a bit unreasonable here. I

> > agree that employee absenteeism can become a

> > problem. Instead of creating (again another classic

> > American knee-jerk reaction) a blanket policy that

> > creates more work and oversight, why not determine

> > the reason for the (alleged) excessive absence? If

> > absenteeism is a problem there is an underlying

> > cause.

> >

> > According the article the employees must be at work

> > 97% of their scheduled time. Given a 24 / 48 shift

> > (I have no clue what MedStar works) that's 22.32

> > hours they can miss in a 3 month period. If the

> > shift is a rotating 12 that's 16.38 hours off. So,

> > either way it's 1 shift +/- in a 3 month period.

> > Since their policy is 4 shifts per year, this seems

> > somewhat reasonable. If " The worst of it is a few " ,

> > they need to concentrate on the few.

> >

> > Personally, I don't believe in calling in sick

> > unless necessary. However, I do believe it's my

> > right to call in sick if I need a " mental health "

> > day. If I am not 100% mentally prepared for work,

> > do you want me doing the things we do? I don't

> > expect anyone to call in sick, and then be seen out

> > gallivanting around town. If you're too sick to

> > work, keep your sick @$$ at home and rest.

> >

> > I'm a firm believer that " benefit time " is just

> > that, a benefit of the job. I also believe an

> > employee should be allowed to use that time as they

> > see fit for both their physical and mental health.

> >

> > Personally, this all sounds like an excuse for some

> > other failure in the system. You can't convince me

> > that they are shutting down trucks because of

> > absenteeism. If they aren't shutting down trucks,

> > why are they falling below standards? Must be that

> > computer system they are replacing and the SSM

> > software they're using. Maybe once they get the new

> > one up and running it'll be better at predicting the

> > next call and their call times will decrease. (I'm

> > only kidding about SSM helping.......)

> >

> > Tater

> >

> > Will M wrote:

> > Posted on Wed, Sep. 28, 2005

> >

> > MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

> >

> > By BILL TEETER

> > Star-Telegram Staff Writer

> >

> > FORT WORTH -- MedStar isn't meeting response-time

> > goals because too many employees are taking

> > unnecessary sick time, MedStar Executive Director

> > Jack

> > Eades said Wednesday.

> > From Sept. 1 through Sept. 22, ambulances made it on

> > time to scenes on " priority 1 " calls 86 percent of

> > the

> > time, Eades told the agency's board of directors at

> > their regular monthly meeting.

> >

> > MedStar, also known as the Area Metropolitan

> > Ambulance

> > Authority, requires its ambulances to make priority

> > 1

> > calls in nine minutes or less on at least 90 percent

> > of their calls.

> >

> > In April, Rural/Metro, a private ambulance firm,

> > withdrew from its contract with MedStar because of

> > poor response times. Since then, MedStar has been

> > operating as the ambulance provider for the region.

> >

> > Although MedStar is at nearly full staff after an

> > aggressive hiring campaign in the wake of

> > Rural/Metro's departure, some ambulance workers are

> > taking sick time when they may not really need it,

> > which creates staff shortages, Eades said.

> >

> > Employees are allowed four sick days a year but can

> > accrue up to 13 weeks of unused sick time, Eades

> > said.

> > There is a misconception among some employees that

> > they are entitled to take sick days when they are

> > not

> > really ill, he said.

> >

> > " We are going to have to adopt a new attendance

> > policy, " Eades said. " It's going to have to be a lot

> > tougher than the one used by the contractor. "

> >

> > To fix the situation, Eades said MedStar is adopting

> > a

> > policy in which ambulance crew members must be at

> > work

> > at least 97 percent of their scheduled time. The

> > time-off percentage will be measured from the most

> > recent three months of their employment when an

> > employee calls in sick or takes off other than for

> > approved vacation or certain other leaves, such as

> > those covered by the federal Family Medical Leave

> > Act,

> > Eades said.

> >

> > The policy is tough but needed, said board President

> > McMahan.

> >

> > " They're not unreasonable, " he said.

> >

> > City Councilwoman Becky Haskin, who sits on the

> > board,

> > asked Eades how widespread the problem is.

> >

> > " The worst of it is a few, " Eades said.

> >

> > MedStar serves Fort Worth and 13 other cities. From

> > May through July, response times for the system had

> > met their mark, although some locations continued to

> > have problems.

> >

> > The agency's August performance report showed

> > MedStar

> > made more than 90 percent of its calls on time

> > except

> > for its less-serious priority 3 calls, which were at

> > an on-time rate of 89.9 percent.

> >

> > The board also approved a budget for the next fiscal

> > year beginning Oct. 1 allowing $18,274,626 in

> > expenditures, an increase of about $896,000 from the

> > previous year.

> >

> > The budget includes $1.5 million in capital outlays

> > for vehicles and new computer systems that should

> > help

> > response times in the future, he said.

> >

> > ONLINE: www.medstar911.com.

> >

> > Bill Teeter.

> >

> ______________________________________________________

> >

> > Yahoo! for Good

> > Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

> > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

> >

October 1, 2005

Kenny, you and the dudman are about 4 standard deviations from the

mean--each on opposite sides, But, that is what makes the world an

interesting place.

BEB

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Kenny Navarro

Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 12:41 PM

To:

Subject: Re: MedStar answer times suffer due to sick time

Dudley,

I just wanted to let you know that I am constantly impressed by your

ability to think outside the box. There are many on this list who

react without facts or condemn an entire system based on the musings

of a single individual. Those same people also seem very rigid in

their ideas and are not willing to consider alternative and innovative

options.

It is this kind of forward thinking that will move the industry into

the 21st century (of course, it will go kicking and screaming, but you

can't stop progress.)

Keep up the good work ...(until you disagree with something I consider

dogma, then be quiet! - kidding)

Kenny Navarro

October 1, 2005

I am a employee at Medstar. What frustrates me is the fact that he

is more concerned with the bottom line than with patient care! The

employees at Medstar are overworked, underpaid, under appreciated,

simply put they are exhausted. And then for all of us to be publicly

humiliated by our own Exec. Director.

To me having an ambulance where the crew is mentally, emotionally,

and phsycally exhausted and is more inclined to make mistakes

regarding pt care and poor bedside mannor, is it better to be down

one truck or have that truck in service. This is where pt care comes

in to play.

Another thing that gets me, these people here bust their butts

because of their love for the job (HELPING PEOPLE) not for the money

(BELIEVE ME NOT FOR THE MONEY)! If there was a problem, which agreed

you will have problem children in every company, it should have been

dealt with professionally and internally, at the very least we

deserve that.

For this person to think that PUBLICLY DEGRADING your employees will

make them work any harder is asinine! I for one do not take sick

time unless I am in fact sick, I work hard and deserve to take that

time off! Which most if not all of my fellow employees would agree.

Simply put this is nothing more than a slap in the face for people

who work hard for their company and invest their time to take care of

people in need!

October 2, 2005

MedStar is subsidized by each of the " member cities " and thus receives

" government funding " . A significant part of reimbursement is Medicare and

Medicaid--both government programs--and thus " government funding " .

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Nick

Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 3:18 PM