As we all know, or maybe we don't, under the new contract if you are ill the day before a holiday or the day after the holiday, you no longer get the holiday paid for.  If you continue to be ill for 8 calendar days, then they will go back and code the time as IB and make a payroll adjustment.  So they say.  Now inquiring minds want to know, why is it that if you were to call in sick the day before or the day after the holiday as ill, why couldn't the holiday be coded as an ill day as well rather than a holiday?  There is a consequence when it comes to the attendance policy for having that additional day of absence, but to be denied pay because you are ill on what would have been a paid day had it been any other day than a holiday is discriminatory.  Are those non-paid holidays now going to count against you when figuring your attendance for the year?  Can we talk about this at the district level (Reed) to try to mitigate the punitive financial harm that is being suffered by our members when they can least afford it?  Is there a 1st line manager that would be willing to code time as 'I' instead of HOL when their employee truly is ill?  Like I said, inquiring minds would like to know.