Oh, yeah...about that observation. The total number of Dividend Miles I have is zero. So that's not my agenda either. Surprised? Don't be. Like I said, you don't really know the first thing about me.PITbull said:
How Much Are You Worth?
- Thread starter traderjake
- Start date
PITbull
Veteran
mweiss,
Than Fine. I don't know anything about you accept your arrogance on here. Folks have to be able to survive. REgardless of your market place demand theory. And if you are saying you have no frequent flying miles and no agenda....then your just sick to spend precious time telling the employees of U to "fall in line" or "fall out".
Than Fine. I don't know anything about you accept your arrogance on here. Folks have to be able to survive. REgardless of your market place demand theory. And if you are saying you have no frequent flying miles and no agenda....then your just sick to spend precious time telling the employees of U to "fall in line" or "fall out".
pitguy
Veteran
mweiss,
So let me get this straight. You have no stakes here, but you feel compelled to tell others that they should come and work for a wage that is not a living wage. That is not kosher pal.
So let me get this straight. You have no stakes here, but you feel compelled to tell others that they should come and work for a wage that is not a living wage. That is not kosher pal.
Just to bring some perspective to the original topic "How much are you worth",
My 16 year old daughter makes $13.00 per hour for babysitting.
Reflect on that. I would think it is time to fall on the grenade. Dont let fear and uncertainty discourage you from moving on and finding the job that really does pay you what you think your worth.
My 16 year old daughter makes $13.00 per hour for babysitting.
Reflect on that. I would think it is time to fall on the grenade. Dont let fear and uncertainty discourage you from moving on and finding the job that really does pay you what you think your worth.
Actually, I never said you should come and work for a wage that is not a living wage. (And who decides what a "living wage" is, anyway?)pitguy said:
What I said is that the job you are doing is becoming devalued. It's happening in every industry in the nation, so it's not like you're alone there. I'm also saying that claiming otherwise and demanding wages that reflect your claim is spitting into the wind.
Or, to put it in other terms, why don't you do something about the injustice, instead of crying "woe is me" about the injustice? You are not victims unless you decide to be.
And I never said I don't have a stake in the outcome of the industry. I said I don't have any Dividend Miles.
Of course, she doesn't have any benefits, so that should be taken into consideration. But, yeah, she's making more than my wife, who has a bachelor's degree and a decade of experience under her belt. And my wife doesn't get any benefits either.bluetoad said:
Amen!
So Michael, if I doing a really good job, how am I part of the problem?
I really want to know, because I get the impression dave feels the same way about his employees.
You know, the same ones that have been furloughed and thru two rounds of concessions, and still hit the DOT metrics.
Old saying: how sharper than a serpent's tooth is the tongue of an ungrateful child.
New saying:delete child, insert CEO.
I really want to know, because I get the impression dave feels the same way about his employees.
You know, the same ones that have been furloughed and thru two rounds of concessions, and still hit the DOT metrics.
Old saying: how sharper than a serpent's tooth is the tongue of an ungrateful child.
New saying:delete child, insert CEO.
Dave can be a jerk, but there is a big difference between the word "Dave" and the word "Management." If he's the problem, and you blame "Managment" or "the people in Crystal City," then you become part of the problem too.diogenes said:
If you're doing a really good job (which is defined as working in the best interests of your employer), then you're not part of the problem.
It's doubtful that Dave is working in the best interests of his employer, though it's hard to say whether that's due to maliciousness or incompetence. I'm inclined to go with the latter.
One mea culpa on my part.
Way back in the day, before you came on board, we had the 'what is management' discussion.
My shorthand definition was anybody that had a copy of the big picture, and got to color on it.
I realize their are many 'managers' in title, who are not managers in fact. And I realize these folks have been dealt the same crummy hand as the union folks. Peace unto you;no harm intended.
Perhaps 'the Palace' is a better pejorative!
With regards to malicious/incompetent, there need be no dichotomy - it can be both.
Way back in the day, before you came on board, we had the 'what is management' discussion.
My shorthand definition was anybody that had a copy of the big picture, and got to color on it.
I realize their are many 'managers' in title, who are not managers in fact. And I realize these folks have been dealt the same crummy hand as the union folks. Peace unto you;no harm intended.
Perhaps 'the Palace' is a better pejorative!
With regards to malicious/incompetent, there need be no dichotomy - it can be both.
mweiss wrote":
This definition is flawed because it assumes way too much about the "best interests of your employer." Our employer's interests are not necessarily to run a successful business, to provide good customer service or safe transportation. The overwhelming bottom line for "Our employer's best interests" is rate of return on investment.
In the history of business, that has often meant scurilous and destructive behavior by employers. Efforts to drive a business into the ground for various Machiavelian reasons.
With a 3rd (or 4th, if you count the ripoff of pilots' deferred income when Siegel, et al, liquidated the pilots' pension fund) round of concessions being demanded, this one a staggering $1.5 billion/year, it seems clear that there is some other game a-foot other than saving US Airways and making it a viable business. What it is can only be speculated about (merge? purge? splurge? submerge?). There are all sorts of possibilities, but to suggest that our suspicion of managements'/Siegel's/Bronner's motivations makes us part of the problem is really a kind of scary acquiescence to the fascist character of corporate management regimes that you have correctly articulated earlier.
If the regime of a corporation is, as you put it, fascist (and I agree), than acquiescence would put one in the same company as Viche French collaborators during WW2. Umm.... No. I still prefer to be in the company of the likes of Casablanca's Victor Laslo of the Czech underground.
Resistance to Siegel is part of the solution. Collaboration and acquiescence is part of the problem.
As I referenced above, in a post the other day you stated:
The problem with this argument is that we do not have the ability to leave because we must work somewhere, and as you say, corporations are fascist institutions. If we leave this fascist institution, then we will eventually be working in another fascist institution.
If we always buckle under or bail when faced with such conditions, we never deal with the bigger problem that you point to yourself: the fascist (and therefore unaccountable) nature of corporations and their power. This entire thread started with the question: How much are you worth? as if we were chattel slaves on the auction block. We are offended by arguments that reduce us to commodities, to being less than human. And we are also offended by the suggestion that we somehow acquiesce to tyrannical foolishness from Siegel/Bronner/CCY or become refugee (and therefore out of the frying pan and into the fire of some other tyrannical foolishness).
It's just not as simple an equation as you put it. The freedoms we hold dear were won because people did not bail out. They exist because people took stands and held their ground, and in some cases went on the offensive. They are dwindling and flittering away because so many have followed the kind of counsel that you offer. Starkly put: to cave or bail.
Better to organize.
-Airlineorphan
This definition is flawed because it assumes way too much about the "best interests of your employer." Our employer's interests are not necessarily to run a successful business, to provide good customer service or safe transportation. The overwhelming bottom line for "Our employer's best interests" is rate of return on investment.
In the history of business, that has often meant scurilous and destructive behavior by employers. Efforts to drive a business into the ground for various Machiavelian reasons.
With a 3rd (or 4th, if you count the ripoff of pilots' deferred income when Siegel, et al, liquidated the pilots' pension fund) round of concessions being demanded, this one a staggering $1.5 billion/year, it seems clear that there is some other game a-foot other than saving US Airways and making it a viable business. What it is can only be speculated about (merge? purge? splurge? submerge?). There are all sorts of possibilities, but to suggest that our suspicion of managements'/Siegel's/Bronner's motivations makes us part of the problem is really a kind of scary acquiescence to the fascist character of corporate management regimes that you have correctly articulated earlier.
If the regime of a corporation is, as you put it, fascist (and I agree), than acquiescence would put one in the same company as Viche French collaborators during WW2. Umm.... No. I still prefer to be in the company of the likes of Casablanca's Victor Laslo of the Czech underground.
Resistance to Siegel is part of the solution. Collaboration and acquiescence is part of the problem.
As I referenced above, in a post the other day you stated:
The problem with this argument is that we do not have the ability to leave because we must work somewhere, and as you say, corporations are fascist institutions. If we leave this fascist institution, then we will eventually be working in another fascist institution.
If we always buckle under or bail when faced with such conditions, we never deal with the bigger problem that you point to yourself: the fascist (and therefore unaccountable) nature of corporations and their power. This entire thread started with the question: How much are you worth? as if we were chattel slaves on the auction block. We are offended by arguments that reduce us to commodities, to being less than human. And we are also offended by the suggestion that we somehow acquiesce to tyrannical foolishness from Siegel/Bronner/CCY or become refugee (and therefore out of the frying pan and into the fire of some other tyrannical foolishness).
It's just not as simple an equation as you put it. The freedoms we hold dear were won because people did not bail out. They exist because people took stands and held their ground, and in some cases went on the offensive. They are dwindling and flittering away because so many have followed the kind of counsel that you offer. Starkly put: to cave or bail.
Better to organize.
-Airlineorphan
mweiss,
Just to be fair, I do want to acknowedge your comment:
I think that Siegel (I never could get on board with this whole "Dave" thing) is probably incompetent and quite certainly malicious in a sneaky "Frank Lorenzo With A Human Face" sorta manner.
Depending upon how you define the "interests" of Siegel's employer (and how you define Siegel's "employer") one could make a case that screwing the employees and driving the company value down to an affordable acquisition price could very well be in those interests. The upper reaches of the corporate world are a strange place where a very different down-the-rabbit-hole rationality prevails.
Whatever the case may be, caving or bailing are not the only (nor the best) choices available to folks doing the work at US Airways.
-Airlineorphan
Just to be fair, I do want to acknowedge your comment:
I think that Siegel (I never could get on board with this whole "Dave" thing) is probably incompetent and quite certainly malicious in a sneaky "Frank Lorenzo With A Human Face" sorta manner.
Depending upon how you define the "interests" of Siegel's employer (and how you define Siegel's "employer") one could make a case that screwing the employees and driving the company value down to an affordable acquisition price could very well be in those interests. The upper reaches of the corporate world are a strange place where a very different down-the-rabbit-hole rationality prevails.
Whatever the case may be, caving or bailing are not the only (nor the best) choices available to folks doing the work at US Airways.
-Airlineorphan
Au contraire. You suggest that, for instance, providing bad customer service might be in the best interests of the employer, and therefore doing a good job cannot include providing bad customer service.airlineorphan said:
The safety valve there comes on the other side of the transaction. If the company isn't providing what customers want, then they don't have customers. If they don't have customers, the company isn't around for long.
As you noted, it's not always clear if the CEO is working in the best interest of the company. CEOs can forget about the best interests of the employer as much as the ramper who decides to damage a bag because it's too heavy (and, yes, I happen to personally know one who did).
Yes, theoretically one could consider driving down the value of US Airways to be a "rational" choice. I doubt that it passes the smell test, though, unless you are certain that the value of the acquired US Airways would be greater than the initial value before driving down the price. That's hard for me to swallow.
Of course the overwhelming bottom line is a rate of return on investment. Otherwise, you're working for what is called a "charity." Dave Siegel doesn't pay you. The passengers do. No return on investment means no gross profits, which means no money to pay you.
Certainly there were ulterior motives by Icahn when he purchased TWA (as, incidentally, were there when Howard Hughes purchased TWA), and they had little to do with running the business. The board of directors should have sued him for violating his fiduciary responsibilities. The same could be said for Don Carty and many of his cronies at the top of American Airlines. Dave Siegel's behavior seems a little less clearly nefarious, though no less destructive.
Productive resistance, maybe.
They're not all made alike. It's not the facism that's the problem.
They are facist, but not unaccountable.
Like it our not, human labor is, to varying degrees, a commodity. That's true at every level, including airline CEO. Sure, we each do what we can to differentiate ourselves from our competitors (other potential employees), but there is a limit to the power of that differentiation. That our labor is a commodity does nothing to diminish our humanity. You are not your job. Hopefully, your job is but a part of who you are...hopefully you do not let your job define who you are.
So instead it's better to complain about how horrible it all is? That's turning yourself into a victim. Or is it better to say "we don't like what you're doing, so rather than let you take down the company we'll do it ourselves," as some others on this board suggest? Neither of those are productive.
You can choose to be a victim, choose to cut off your nose to spite your face, or choose to take control of your life. Because none of you are likely to take control of US Airways.
"Organize" is a means. Whats the end?
PITbull
Veteran
Weiss,
Organized labor is a "religion"...there is no end.
You keep saying we as labor will never have control of U. Management begs to differ with you on that belief. Why is it that mangement keeps saying everything is up to labor. We either give or the airline sinks. What's that mean in your terms...no control?
Organized labor is a "religion"...there is no end.
You keep saying we as labor will never have control of U. Management begs to differ with you on that belief. Why is it that mangement keeps saying everything is up to labor. We either give or the airline sinks. What's that mean in your terms...no control?
What a telling statement that is. It's a religion, indeed. And its primary tenet is that "management" (defined as non-union employees higher up the ladder than union employees) is the enemy.PITbull said:
That's the business equivalent of telling you to eat your vegetables or you can't have dessert. It's only the illusion of control.PITbull said:
PitBull,PITbull said:
FYI,
mweiss - Posted: Feb 29 2004, 08:40 PM
Makes us feel all warm and comfy doesn't it?
Take Care,
UAL_TECH
