CEO for a day
- Thread starter LD3
- Start date
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Permiting raises for execs BEFORE settling contracts and providing the entire increases changed the face of U and its employees going forward.
The execs still do not recognize the employees as assets.
If I were CEO and showing profits of over $300 million in one quarter, specifically since the senior execs received millions in stock selling just 2 months ago, I would provide all the employees of the cmpany across the board increases.
The reason why you don't see any increases for labor is because the execs are not finished cashing in their stock and receiving more millions to stuff in their pockets. :angry:
The execs received stock rather than cash to encourage them to make the company profitable. Unprofitable company = low stock price; profits = high stock price. This is pretty basic public company stuff. If the stock tanks, they lose. Meanhile, the employees get paychecks denominated in US dollars every time.
Would the employees prefer to be paid in stock? I doubt it.
That being said, if I were CEO, I would implement a profit-sharing plan. It's one of the reasons Southwest employees do such a bang-up job. They know that if they do a half-assed job, they get a paycheck, but if they do a good job and make happy customers, they get both a paycheck and a profit-sharing check.
On the other hand, I would want to avoid another UAL ESOP disaster.
I think I'll keep my current job!
While it obviously couldn't be done in one day: Simplify the fleet,
A318/319/320/321s + A-330/340s. Dump all contracted carriers and fold wholly-owned into mainline. Reduce range of fares to 4 choices. Bring all maintenance and reservations back in-house. In a nutshell: SIMPLIFY.
A318/319/320/321s + A-330/340s. Dump all contracted carriers and fold wholly-owned into mainline. Reduce range of fares to 4 choices. Bring all maintenance and reservations back in-house. In a nutshell: SIMPLIFY.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Actually, they get both cash and stock - remember that Parker made over $5 million last year without exercising a single stock option.
Even the sharing of success is extremely lopsided. The senior execs can double or triple their salary if the company does well, while the average employee might get the equivalent of one or two days extra pay per year from profit sharing.
Jim
Piedmont is going to fly the A320?
If you dump the contract carriers, how are you going to carry passengers to OGS, LEB, etc.? From what I've read, the contract carriers do a fair job of bringing in the bucks for US. It is possible to take simplification too far.
The jobs are totally different. If the execs were paid $50,000 a year and got two extra days worth of salary from profit sharing, the quality of management would be that of a lemonade stand run by a six year old.
Should pilots be paid the same as a ramp rat? Fair's fair after all.
Is $5 million cash salary too much? Possibly. Apparently the stockholders disagree, and it's their money that's on the table. By some stock and vote for whomever you wish on the board of directors.
EricLv2Fish
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,171
- Reaction score
- 5
Third quarter results will be out soon and should show a larger increase in profitability than the second quarter. Good faith has to be shown towards the employees. The cost neutral line (some are actually taking cuts in benefits or pay...or both) has to be softened otherwise more good employees will find other opportunities (quite frankly this may actually be the underlying strategy...get employees to leave without having a layoff). I still haven't gotten over choosing to leave even though my situation is much better. I wish good faith would have been shown. I'm very disappointed in the whole merger situation from a former employee perspective.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
No argument that the jobs are different, or that the execs will almost always be rewarded handsomely. You just need to decide what your point is:
Should execs be paid a large salary, as you indicated in the quote above, or should a large part of their compensation be risk-based as you indicated in this quote:
Shifting positions so that you'll always be "right" isn't the gentlemanly way to play the game....
Jim
dc3fanatic
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 361
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you guys ever think of the low level salary people in a different light from the Senior execs?
the lower level people don't get stock options, big bonus pay, etc . . .
just curious. (you know, when you're not calling us boot-lickin' cool-aid drinkin' scum.)
Oh, and with respect to the topic at hand. I believe there should be variable pay based on profitability and performance (incl ontime, pawob, etc . . .) to all employees. It's a shame the union negotiators didn't get more of that in the revised contracts.
flyingcat
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 0
Kiss that 300 million goodbye.
1. We don't have a large enough widebody fleet which would make moving all mx inhouse a very expensive proposition for such a small fleet, heavy mx is usually only done in the off season.
2. Despite what every body sys about our "broken" pricing system we had the heaviest loads in history this past summer. You can kiss the yield numbers goodbye. It is the pricing system that made that $300 million. Otherwise all the sacrifices that everyone made would have been for nothing, and no one could even fathom getting a raise.
300 milion is a drop in the bucket when you are making capital decisions.
how much should we use? all of it? 25%?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Silly me - here I was thinking that all the airplanes required heavy maintenance. Now that I know only the wide-bodies do, it's all starting to make sense.
Let's see - highest increase in unit revenue and largest decrease in capacity year over year yet lowest load factor of the legacies. Could there be a relationship there.....
Jim
This likely won't be popular, but if I were CEO for a day, I'd 1st of all not give a single Exec a raise or bonus until all workers got a fair share (that's not the unpopular part).
Then, the unpopular part, I'd change the "system" so that new employees got a living wage (thus attracting talent), then were rewarded, promoted, compensated, demoted, etc. based solely on job performance. There's no reason a fossil who routinely has FMLA excuse after FMLA excuse, barely shuffles through his/her job and treats the customer like crap should make $X just because he/she has been here Y number of years. Increase the pay of the person who has just a few years' time, but is nice to customers, does his/her job correctly, and shows up for work every day, on-time. Cut the pay of the shuffling slob, seniority be damned, or better yet, take him/her off of the payroll completely.
Same goes for middle managers. If you're not cutting it, bye bye. If you're not requiring those under you to do their jobs correctly, then it's been nice knowing you. On the other hand, if you are doing your job well, then you will be rewarded accordingly.
The socialist seniority system is broken.
Flame away!
Then, the unpopular part, I'd change the "system" so that new employees got a living wage (thus attracting talent), then were rewarded, promoted, compensated, demoted, etc. based solely on job performance. There's no reason a fossil who routinely has FMLA excuse after FMLA excuse, barely shuffles through his/her job and treats the customer like crap should make $X just because he/she has been here Y number of years. Increase the pay of the person who has just a few years' time, but is nice to customers, does his/her job correctly, and shows up for work every day, on-time. Cut the pay of the shuffling slob, seniority be damned, or better yet, take him/her off of the payroll completely.
Same goes for middle managers. If you're not cutting it, bye bye. If you're not requiring those under you to do their jobs correctly, then it's been nice knowing you. On the other hand, if you are doing your job well, then you will be rewarded accordingly.
The socialist seniority system is broken.
Flame away!
autofixer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,804
- Reaction score
- 241
You cannot be CEO for a day! You would have to be socially and politcally connected. You would have to be a greedy scumbag. You would have to be able to look at your employees as ants, if they are where they should not be, squash 'em. You have to have no heart and no soul. You would have had to have sold your soul to El Diablo a long time ago. You cannot be CEO for a day!
