Give It Back

[kcabpilot]

Even though my career with UAL has only a few weeks left I'm still glued to this developing issue that seems to be at the crux of the big picture. My suggestion as to the possible solution is complex but the first step would be for all executive bonuses since the entrance to bankruptcy should be returned to the company coffers. Also, if employees are expected to forgo 40% of their pensions then so should Tilton, Brace, Hacker and all the rest.

Fair is fair

 

[spacewaitress]

Even though my career with UAL has only a few weeks left I'm still glued to this developing issue that seems to be at the crux of the big picture. My suggestion as to the possible solution is complex but the first step would be for all executive bonuses since the entrance to bankruptcy should be returned to the company coffers. Also, if employees are expected to forgo 40% of their pensions then so should Tilton, Brace, Hacker and all the rest.

Fair is fair

[post="267480"][/post]​

Fair is fair is right. It's a little tiresome hearing all the good reasons why the execs should be exempt.

What a concept...try something good intentioned...doesn't fit the corporate paradigm, and we're reminded of that here daily. No one has the balls to try something new.

 

[uafa21]

I couldn't agree more. Why do exec's deserve a bonus when a company operates on a loss.

 

[JAMAKE1]

I couldn't agree more. Why do exec's deserve a bonus when a company operates on a loss.

[post="267700"][/post]​

Because, in management, a bonus program is part of one's compensation package. In traditional collective barganing agreements, bonuses aren't NEGOTIATIED as part of the compensation package. Bonuses are paid to managers for meeting certain departmental performance objectives. It's just how the compensation is structured in upper level managerial positions. If one's department meets certain performance objectives, ragardless of whether the company is making a profit, a bonus is paid. Unfortunately, most people who belong to a labor union don't understand this concept. Believe me, the bonuses they are getting are a fraction of what they'd be getting if United was making money.

Furthermore, I thought it was very misguided of my union to contest retention bonuses that United needed to pay in order to RETAIN highly-skilled talent from fleeing to other airlines or other industries where they could COMMAND more mony based on the skill-set that these employees bring to their position.

Retention bonuses are necessary. It behooves all of us on the front line to have the BEST people working in positions that are critical to the success of the corporation.

It's unfortunate that the word "BONUS" has such a bad connotation to organized labor (of which I am a part of). In traditional collective bargaining agreements, compensation is tied to SENIORITY rather than PERFORMANCE. So management compensation is a different model.

I took a Managerial Accounting class which really educated me on this subject. Rentention bonuses are a GOOD THING, if it keeps the right people who are the best in their game (finance, revenue management, accounting, etc). from flocking elsewhere.

 

[Bear96]

JAMAKE is correct.

The seniority-driven step increases in the union payscales haven't been frozen because we are losing money. The graduated pay scale is a negotiated part of the compensation pakcage for union employees; bonuses based on individual performance is part of the package for management.

Otherwise, to be fair, we should have a big outcry every time a union employee moves from, say, the 9th to 10th year on the pay scale. WHAT! An automatic pay raise at a time when the company is doing so poorly??? What an outrage!

Bonuses keep management at a company. Seniority keeps unionized employees here.

(Standing by for the gratuitous and predictable attacks about how poorly management is doing so they shouldn't get "performance" bonuses...)