On 7/25/2003 2:38:26 PM PITbull wrote:
On 7/25/2003 1
33 PM TomBascom wrote:
I can understand not wanting management to be used as a regular "relief" for chronic short-handedness. But they won't want to do that either -- especially not Dave, Dave, Ben and those folks. Every dose of reality, no matter how diffuse, that they get is precious. Don't waste a drop.
Maybe the next time they come looking for concessions or whatever you guys ought to get them to agree to spend some time in the trenches working just like regular joes... Anyone VP or higher has to spend one week per quarter taking tickets, washing lavs, loading bags, handling complaint calls or whatever. Oh, and they should have to commute somewhere for half of those assignments -- not just go to good old DCA. They should show up in places as diverse as PHL, SFO, IND, MHT & FWA once in a while too.
Its all about jobs, creating jobs, and keeping jobs. Don't think it would be good negotiation practice if in our negotiations we have mangement fill in for shortages. Rather they offer overtime to the workers OR ADD more workers.
This logic is good for our economy and GREAT for Amierica. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
I'm not suggesting that management make a regular practice of filling in for shortages -- we're talking about 30 or so suits here... If they all did as I suggest and worked one week a quarter you're looking at about 2 FTEs.
One more thing to add to my thought -- they also ought to get a paycheck for that week that reflects what a real person in that job would see. That check could be on top of their regular pay so long as it is a distinct piece of paper -- the point is that they should see it in all of its glory and reflect on what it would mean to them to live on such a check. The money is hardly going to break the bank.
The understanding and insight into what it really takes to get the job done that you would gain from such a program should easily counter-balance that. People here post a lot about how understaffed certain areas are -- if Dave and the boys experienced that first hand and were convinced by just one
of those experiences to increase staff then you more than make up for anything that you might imagine you're losing.
Or maybe they would see there is a disconnect between what they've said needs to be done from the ivory tower and what has actually happened out there in the real world. And hold some people in the middle accountable. Or otherwise correct problems.
I suppose though that they might stumble across some featherbedding or some other bad thing somewhere too. But presumably you don't actually object to that being fixed if it exists? Because jobs, jobs, jobs isn't good for the economy or anything else if they're empty and meaningless drains on productivity.
I don't see how having management walk in their shoes for a bit can be anything but a good thing for workers. If you deny that then you may as well say that workers can never contribute a good idea to management.