E. thats not entirely true that people hate the ceo when the company isn't growing, companies have their ups and downs, but what people hate is when management blames everything on the frontline employees,(BRICKS if i recall) especially after we already gave back huge concessions to keep our company going, then turn around and give themselves hugh bonuses even though company is still in the red, and because we supposedly don't bargain in good faith, will show you and gut your wages and benefits in bankruptcy court.....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, what happened to the shared sacrifice AMFA
How to fix AA
- Thread starter bigjets
- Start date
It's insightful to see how management thinks. Instead of taking responsibility for creating a toxic relationship, "management" thinks the employees are only upset because the company isn't growing. Not because we GAVE the company everything they wanted in 2003 then they GAVE themselves bonus's all the while they are running AA into BK. Then in 2012 the company TOOK everything because it had the BK court on their side, after 4 years of delayed contract talks. But we're only upset with the CEO because the company isn't growing.
In 2003 the unions stood behind management and then management turned around and said "It's the greedy unions fault, they actually want a raise, five years later" now it's 9 years later and more concessions, and we're only upset because the company isn't growing.
E put your fingers in your ears, and blow really hard!!!!
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Red and BigJets... take off the blinders for a second -- I'm not just talking about AMR. It's something you can see in any industry.
Mark Zuckerberg walked on water, until Facebook's stock took a nosedive... It wasn't his fault the stock was over-valued... but he's now the bad guy.
Take any team in the professional sports.... Hit a losing streak, and who gets the bad press and eventually fired?... It isn't the coach or blowing plays out on the field, but they're usually the first one villified and run out of town.
Inside the airlines, look at what's happening at WN. The company isn't cutting pay or blaming labor. Yet, the last few rounds of union negotiations have been far from what they were 10 years ago, and there's been a more critical tone taking over when the unions are talking about senior management. They pushed Herb's successor off the property.
Like I said... pay attention outside the airlines... restaurant chains, hotels, high tech, telecom, autos... The difference in attitude towards the CEO changes the moment growth stops and/or the stock price stagnates/drops.
Heck, you even see it in the general attitude towards successful people in this country. It's those damn millionaires and billionaires with corporate jets who are to blame for everything... but nobody seemed to mind when those same people were creating jobs and generating record returns for our 401Ks.
I'm not saying all CEO's are infallible. When a rising tide is lifting all boats, even an incompetent CEO or President can look good to employees or investors. Or voters. It's how they lead in a downturn or crisis that shows how valuable or worthless they are.
I know you guys like to attack Carty and Arpey, but in hindsight, they both did a good job at damage control in 2001 and in 2008. Financially, they kept the ship from sinking. But, they both hit a point where they couldn't keep the employees motivated to bail out the water faster than it was coming in. It doesn't make them bad CEO's. It just meant that the situation changed to the point where someone else had to step in.
Mark Zuckerberg walked on water, until Facebook's stock took a nosedive... It wasn't his fault the stock was over-valued... but he's now the bad guy.
Take any team in the professional sports.... Hit a losing streak, and who gets the bad press and eventually fired?... It isn't the coach or blowing plays out on the field, but they're usually the first one villified and run out of town.
Inside the airlines, look at what's happening at WN. The company isn't cutting pay or blaming labor. Yet, the last few rounds of union negotiations have been far from what they were 10 years ago, and there's been a more critical tone taking over when the unions are talking about senior management. They pushed Herb's successor off the property.
Like I said... pay attention outside the airlines... restaurant chains, hotels, high tech, telecom, autos... The difference in attitude towards the CEO changes the moment growth stops and/or the stock price stagnates/drops.
Heck, you even see it in the general attitude towards successful people in this country. It's those damn millionaires and billionaires with corporate jets who are to blame for everything... but nobody seemed to mind when those same people were creating jobs and generating record returns for our 401Ks.
I'm not saying all CEO's are infallible. When a rising tide is lifting all boats, even an incompetent CEO or President can look good to employees or investors. Or voters. It's how they lead in a downturn or crisis that shows how valuable or worthless they are.
I know you guys like to attack Carty and Arpey, but in hindsight, they both did a good job at damage control in 2001 and in 2008. Financially, they kept the ship from sinking. But, they both hit a point where they couldn't keep the employees motivated to bail out the water faster than it was coming in. It doesn't make them bad CEO's. It just meant that the situation changed to the point where someone else had to step in.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
You've danced all about what was said.
Straightforward comment here:
We are "upset" because after having returned to the company 30% of our total compensation, the sixth floor butt-nuggets squandered the opportunity given them by their employees - and still called us "bricks in the backpack" - then rewarded themselves to the tune of $360 million dollars in bonuses for job performance near and below the call of duty.
What excuse could you possibly offer for these actions, that is, if any semblance of peace is to be between the company (the twu is included in all references to "company") and workers?
AA89
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 690
- Reaction score
- 320
I would like to see one example where they tried to motivate employees. The attitude was more of "management is more valuable than labor so we need to retain this awesome group we have. You peasants will accept the crumbs we give you".
We will never know how it would have played out if management would have taken the bullet with labor and "shared in the sacrifice" after 2003. Maybe after the other airlines went through bankruptcy the employees at AA would have once again "pulled together". Management blew that chance.
Mark Zuckerberg actually came up with a great idea. Tom Horton is in the same class as Lorenzo and Icahn. They invented nothing but have the lack of morals necessary to get wealthy by taking from the middle class.
I think you misinterpret the ability of working people to differentiate between an entrepeneur and and a scumbag. Moving American jobs out of the country is nothing to brag about.
Lets first talk about Mark Zuckerburg and Facebook, there were a lot of analyst out there that said why is facebook stock so high it doesn't produce anything, but the real problem was when the stock was tanking he went on his honeymoon to Italy (not the mark of a true leader)
Now lets talk about sports, when a player gets to professional status, he has a lot of talent, now the when whole team isn't performing at its' best, the troubleshooting chart points to the coach (leader) a perfect example is the SF 49ers, same players different coach, from Mike Singletary to Jim Harbaugh.
"Heck, you even see it in the general attitude towards successful people in this country. It's those damn millionaires and billionaires with corporate jets who are to blame for everything... but nobody seemed to mind when those same people were creating jobs and generating record returns for our 401Ks."
You need to stop listening to Rush Lindbaugh, nobody hates success, that's just a talking point from the RNC, what people don't like is those billionaires, make up the tax code (Romney's tax break for the middle class will be for capital gains tax and estate tax, most middle class people don't live off dividends from stock and most middle class people aren't going to inherent over $1 million when it starts being taxed) by "donating" to a political party then those same billionaires take advantage of everything that America offers, which is great, but then the "job creators" either force the employees to take cuts or move jobs out of the country, all the while giving themselves bonus's and raises. I guess your signature of Clint Eastwood's quote, only counts if you have a D at the end of their name.
But sense this a thread about AA and that is what we are talking about, lets stick with that. The executives lead this company into BK, created a toxic relationship with the employees, after the unions stood with management and gave the executives everything they asked for in 2 weeks of negotiating (then delayed contract negotiations for 4 years, 5 years later), only to see AMR spiral down the toilet all the while giving themselves bonus's because they were essential to the operation. Don't misunderstand me, if AA was successful those leaders deserve bonus's but they don't deserve those same bonus's when they totally fail, meaning BK.
Americans love success, unfortunately AMR was not successful under the leadership we had. We could have lived with shared sacrifice, but that only meant for the front line workers not the people who actually make the decisions that put us into BK.
jimntx
Veteran
But Bigjets, you are not seeing the big picture. The executives' decisions, plans, and strategies are all perfect, and would have succeeded except for one thing they overlooked until now--the employees are being paid too much, and there are way too many of them.
