Management Raises
- Thread starter D M G
- Start date
JAMAKE1
Veteran
I believe you had said in one of your previous posts that if labor takes a pay cut then bonuses shouldn't be given to management. The term "management" encompasses a wide spectrum of workers. I get the sense that labor loves to begrudge anyone who happens to make more money than they do. Glenn Tilton was poo-pooed for getting a $3 mil signing bonus and a $900,000 a year salary, but you know what? nobody wanted the job of turning around a sinking ship and the guy was begged to come to United. He had the power to write his own ticket in terms of his compensation. Who are we to say that someone doesn't deserve to make what they make? This may sound very controversial to you, but as an employee at United I want to see the company successfully emerge from bankruptcy and if that means that they have pay bonuses keep key talent, then I am for it. And no, I am not a cheerleader for management and I don't drink the kool-aid.
PITbull
Veteran
JAMAKE1,
Your perceptions of your mangement is all fine and dandy. Not all managements are inept or incompetent. I hope you didn't take my posts and put them into certain general catagories. The point of the post you referenced of mine and cited above was that if a company is in "concessionary mode" NO ONE SHOULD BE RECEIVING BONUSES. AND I MEAN NO ONE...VP, CEO ETC.!
You bring up United management and equate the same logic with U. I don't believe you know enough about U management or the inside of our "ship" as I don't know enough about your management and "ship".
I just don't agree with your view point and I surely don't believe that United managment or business is the "gage" of all airline managments or businesses.
Open veiw,
Our labor employees do apply for these jobs, rarely do they get it. We have 20,000 employees on the street. I am sure there are many many who qualify for these positions, but for some odd reason they don't get hired..hmmm, maybe its their ages.
Your perceptions of your mangement is all fine and dandy. Not all managements are inept or incompetent. I hope you didn't take my posts and put them into certain general catagories. The point of the post you referenced of mine and cited above was that if a company is in "concessionary mode" NO ONE SHOULD BE RECEIVING BONUSES. AND I MEAN NO ONE...VP, CEO ETC.!
You bring up United management and equate the same logic with U. I don't believe you know enough about U management or the inside of our "ship" as I don't know enough about your management and "ship".
I just don't agree with your view point and I surely don't believe that United managment or business is the "gage" of all airline managments or businesses.
Open veiw,
Our labor employees do apply for these jobs, rarely do they get it. We have 20,000 employees on the street. I am sure there are many many who qualify for these positions, but for some odd reason they don't get hired..hmmm, maybe its their ages.
JAMAKE1
Veteran
"if a company is in "concessionary mode" NO ONE SHOULD BE RECEIVING BONUSES. AND I MEAN NO ONE...VP, CEO ETC.!"
PITBULL...I respectfully disagree. If this were the case, you would have your key talent that you need in order to keep departments functioning, flocking to other companies. You would have very high turn over rates in key positions. That would be a bad business move. I don't understand why AFA can't see that...
PITBULL...I respectfully disagree. If this were the case, you would have your key talent that you need in order to keep departments functioning, flocking to other companies. You would have very high turn over rates in key positions. That would be a bad business move. I don't understand why AFA can't see that...
PITbull
Veteran
JAMAKE1,
I am not sure you get it.
Let's talk about United then. United is in such a sorry state; same as U, not because of labor. After all, we don't design the business model or plan.
However, you implying "fear" of losing your so called talent, so comical. I could see if it was JetBlue managment or SW, but c'mon man. Your CEO should have been shoved out and barred from looking in. When I read that United management gave incentives for the retirees to leave, and then socks them with high medical premiums once they retire is tactless, scheming, and deceitful at best.
I am not sure you get it.
Let's talk about United then. United is in such a sorry state; same as U, not because of labor. After all, we don't design the business model or plan.
However, you implying "fear" of losing your so called talent, so comical. I could see if it was JetBlue managment or SW, but c'mon man. Your CEO should have been shoved out and barred from looking in. When I read that United management gave incentives for the retirees to leave, and then socks them with high medical premiums once they retire is tactless, scheming, and deceitful at best.
PITbull, I get what you're saying, and in terms of justice, you're probably right. But justice and economics don't always mesh well, and this seems to be one of those cases.
What's the key difference between management and labor in this picture? With labor, seniority becomes golden handcuffs, keeping you at the job because you couldn't leave for another company without starting over. With management, you can leave at any time without a penalty. In fact, often such people move up when they move out.
Now, I don't know enough about what's going on with US management to be able to comment on whether or not the raises do make economic sense. But they could if it turns out that people are leaving US because they're looking for job security, and people aren't coming in to replace them because they're looking for job security.
What's the key difference between management and labor in this picture? With labor, seniority becomes golden handcuffs, keeping you at the job because you couldn't leave for another company without starting over. With management, you can leave at any time without a penalty. In fact, often such people move up when they move out.
Now, I don't know enough about what's going on with US management to be able to comment on whether or not the raises do make economic sense. But they could if it turns out that people are leaving US because they're looking for job security, and people aren't coming in to replace them because they're looking for job security.
JAMAKE1
Veteran
Yes, very underhanded and very deceitful, no doubt. That doesn't mean that highly specialized workers in the IT department or revenue management department shouldn't not be offered retension bonuses. I don't think you have a very solid understanding of business. The position of flight attendant does not have the same value as say, a financial analyst or a systems analyst. A flight attendant is far easier to replace than a highly specialized worker. I am not putting down flight attendants. I am one. But flight attendants are a dime a dozen...management doesn't NEED to offer incentives for them to stay. If a flight attendant ops to leave the company, it is not detrimental to the operation of a department. You seem to really hate this fact...
PITbull
Veteran
JAMAKE1 said:
LOL....
Now that's funny, and you really don't have a clue of my education background. Again, you see f/a, ("a dime a dozen") and then you equate that with ignorance in business principles.Comical indeed.
PS: FYI: Every single person in every job in any capacity is replaceable and easily I might add...all the way up to the President of the United States. Now, how much is his talents worth???? Millions, like your CEO at United?
Let us recall that (for reasons that are sometimes unclear to me) many people strive to be the President of the United States. Not so many were interested in running UAL.
'Course, having said that, I'd have been happy to take Tilton's job for half the money. Really!
'Course, having said that, I'd have been happy to take Tilton's job for half the money. Really!
PITbull
Veteran
mweiss,
And I am sure you could have done Tilton's job just as well or better.
I do very strongly believe that many folks in lower paying jobs have a misquided perception that if one is in "control" and elevated to a high position, that they just must be talented and deserve very high compensation for the accountability and responsibility that should go with the job. Basically, these personality types "fear" higher authority and never want to challenge them, and never dare would question their compensation.
However, those in control who make the rules never look to critique themselves or their competence, and hence never think about taking a paycut for poor decision making or incompetence. Those who have been badgered and abused by these managments tend to believe that their worth is small and they believe some how it is THEY that must be responsible for a company's poor performance, only because they value the opinions (however misquided) of those of higher authority, more than their own.
And I am sure you could have done Tilton's job just as well or better.
I do very strongly believe that many folks in lower paying jobs have a misquided perception that if one is in "control" and elevated to a high position, that they just must be talented and deserve very high compensation for the accountability and responsibility that should go with the job. Basically, these personality types "fear" higher authority and never want to challenge them, and never dare would question their compensation.
However, those in control who make the rules never look to critique themselves or their competence, and hence never think about taking a paycut for poor decision making or incompetence. Those who have been badgered and abused by these managments tend to believe that their worth is small and they believe some how it is THEY that must be responsible for a company's poor performance, only because they value the opinions (however misquided) of those of higher authority, more than their own.
Bonuses or raises will always be the bitter pill for any union labor. And the irony, being, it is the doing of the union in itself. Unions operate under the notion that individual performance isn't relevant, rather protection as a whole is more important. Seniority withstanding, the f/a of the year gets the same pay as the one faking an injury. The personable f/a get the same pay as a rude f/a. The one calling off to be home for the holiday gets the same pay as the one called to work to replace them. So that is labors bonus. Its just spread out smaller among all members equally. So enjoy it. Thats what the monthly union dues are for.
While you don't design the business plan your demands have a direct effect on the business plan and the ability for that plan to work.PITbull said:
What about the AFA's attorneys with regard to the retirees leaving early at UAL. Seems UAL was within their contractual obligation (even though they should be ashamed of themselves) and the AFA failed their members AGAIN over this issue. Why didn't they review that provision in the contract and make sure the language written protected their members? Seems their dues money isn't being spent on good enough attorneys.
A truce by CCY huh?? Well, we can only take your word on that and pardon me if I'm a little skeptical on that.PITbull said:Aero Man,MrAeroMan said:Amen Brotha!!
Amen this..........
Guess what? There has been a "truce" by CCY.
Read'em and weep, sucka.
As for your "sucka" comment I guess it's just your "rough and tough" attitude coming out that you PIT F/A's have. I must say it is true to your form in ALL your dealings with people who have a different viewpoint from yours or challenge your stance on issues that affect your constituency.
You may in fact be right MWeiss. I guess I'm just a little skeptical.mweiss said:I think the "sucka" comment was just a joke of sorts...sometimes PITbull is capable of levity.
