What's new

RLG International

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Goose
  • Start date Start date
T

The Goose

Guest
Outlined briefly in the latest "Informer" (PropagAAnda, or perhaps PrAAvda?). I did a bit of checking on these clowns - they're out of Vancouver, BC. Canada. Seems as though we haven't yet gotten rid of Carty's Canadian influence.

They seem to specialize in helping employees enjoy a corporate screwing.
 
Great just what we need another union-busting firm, I guess that makes 4 or is it 5 consultants running this company, and not one of them have yet to figure out the true problems. A hint for our high paid consultants, it's the pay stupid. :shock:


The RLG Difference

Other consulting firms use a specific process and promise results. Not us. RLG promises results and uses a variety of processes to make those results happen.

In fact, we are different from other consultants in many more ways, and we believe strongly that each difference reflects in our results:

We are evaluated on your return on investment of at least four to one.
We focus on performance improvements to your bottom-line.
We provide a balance between behaviour and result changes.
We relocate a business coach and their family to implement full-time, on-site.
We co-implement together to develop your initiative for cultural change.
We individually coach your people on leadership and business acumen.
We orchestrate events to ensure learning and sustainability.
 
Great just what we need another union-busting firm, I guess that makes 4 or is it 5 consultants running this company, and not one of them have yet to figure out the true problems. A hint for our high paid consultants, it's the pay stupid. :shock:

I was told someone in that outfit says pay is never the problem - that's why the finance people in corporate love 'em.

Hey man - where else can we go for entertainment and be paid as well as we are? I know, it's not as great as it was, but ... most comedy clubs have a cover charge.

I've asked this question and have never gotten a straight answer:

- "If the (mis)management wants solutions from the workers as they claim, why do they spend so much on outside consultants?" -



DUH!!​
 
I've asked this question and have never gotten a straight answer:

- "If the (mis)management wants solutions from the workers as they claim, why do they spend so much on outside consultants?" -
DUH!!​
Because those in management asking for solutions have no credibility with their workers, and so therefore would most likely be given a one-finger solution if they asked. The ones with credibility know what the problems are and realize it starts and ends with the contract. So instead they dress up this pig called a consultant to do the work they don't have the guts or know how to do. The pig is a new fresh face, who pretends to care about us, but truly has one goal in mind of gutting us of anything that actually remains in this sh*tting thing we call a contract. Meanwhile the union sits back and allows this union-busting activity to take place on the property in exchange for UB pay, meals, cigars, etc. etc. :down:
 
I was told someone in that outfit says pay is never the problem - that's why the finance people in corporate love 'em.

As a former consultant let me say that there is scientific research that shows that pay increases are neither an effective nor "permanent" motivator. The point that most consultants gloss over in pitching their services to management is that the same research ALSO showed that lack of pay was an immediate and long-term DE-motivator. Now there's a "no, duh" for ya.
 
As a former consultant let me say that there is scientific research that shows that pay increases are neither an effective nor "permanent" motivator. The point that most consultants gloss over in pitching their services to management is that the same research ALSO showed that lack of pay was an immediate and long-term DE-motivator. Now there's a "no, duh" for ya.

Research, statistics, etc. are tools to gauge each situation to come up with a management "plan".

There are two VERY important tools that neither management or overpaid consultants will/know how to use. They are EYES & EARS.

Why pay consultants? Just talk to the front line players. I'll tell AA what needs to be done in order to regain and continue to be THE best airline in the world.

1) Don't lie to the work force.
2) Do NOT steal from the work force.
3) Listen to your work force.

If the above is ever forgotten give Herb A CALL.
 
As a former consultant let me say that there is scientific research that shows that pay increases are neither an effective nor "permanent" motivator. The point that most consultants gloss over in pitching their services to management is that the same research ALSO showed that lack of pay was an immediate and long-term DE-motivator. Now there's a "no, duh" for ya.


Unless, of course, an AA executive threatens to leave for greener pastures thus forcing AA to give him/her what he is demanding because he/she is so valuable to AA. Only motivates executives i guess.
 
Research, statistics, etc. are tools to gauge each situation to come up with a management "plan".

There are two VERY important tools that neither management or overpaid consultants will/know how to use. They are EYES & EARS.

Why pay consultants? Just talk to the front line players. I'll tell AA what needs to be done in order to regain and continue to be THE best airline in the world.

1) Don't lie to the work force.
2) Do NOT steal from the work force.
3) Listen to your work force.

If the above is ever forgotten give Herb A CALL.

Quite true, however, it's impossible to quantify those three items on a balance sheet; therefore, they aren't important or don't exist to the finance devils running the company.
 
Unless, of course, an AA executive threatens to leave for greener pastures thus forcing AA to give him/her what he is demanding because he/she is so valuable to AA. Only motivates executives i guess.

Looking at the airline industry, I'm not aware that any of their chosen few went on to another industry and did very well at all.

Got a bit more info on RLG Int. - they seem to have patterned their "assistance" on the teachings/beliefs of a behavior specialist named Aubrey Daniels. Amazon has a number of books by this clown listed.
 
Research, statistics, etc. are tools to gauge each situation to come up with a management "plan".

There are two VERY important tools that neither management or overpaid consultants will/know how to use. They are EYES & EARS.

Why pay consultants? Just talk to the front line players. I'll tell AA what needs to be done in order to regain and continue to be THE best airline in the world.

1) Don't lie to the work force.
2) Do NOT steal from the work force.
3) Listen to your work force.

If the above is ever forgotten give Herb A CALL.
You forgot one;
Pay your work force.

I'm so sick of hearing that "money is not a motivator " BS line. These clowns are simply adhereing to the NAZI propaganda technique that if you repeat a lie enough times it will become accepted as fact.

Lets break this lie down to the core. Proponents of the lie claim that "money is not a motivator'. What is the primary reason that somebody shows up for work? Financial Compensation.
The primary reason why someone gives his labor to someone else is money so money not only is a motivator for going to work but its the primary motivator.

Money provides us the means to physical sustinance.

However, people have needs other than physical and that is what these MINAM (Money is not a motivator) scam artists try to exploit. People have Emotional or spiritual needs as well. I have no doubt that the basis of the MINAM strategy comes from the study of cults such a Jim Jones or the Manson Family. Cults exploit people whose spirital or emotional needs are not met. The followers of Jim Jones were not motivated by money. Their primary instinct to surive was overwhelmed by such a stong emotional attachement to their cult (culture) that they mudered and committed suicide upon their leaders command. The cult culture is all about self sacrifice for the benifit of someone else. The cult culture makes the victim so dependant upon the cult that it overides the survival instinct. Cults exist through the emotional addiction of its victims. Cult members are bascially emotional addicts.The emotional addiction is similar to chemical addiction to substances like Heroin, alchohol or tobaco.

The MINAM strategy is to introduce a similar culture in a corporate enviornment. Willing self sacrifice on the part of the workers for the company. They dont want you to think of this as a business transaction or just a job but a "family" (like the Manson family). The themes of family, inclusion and self sacrifice for the benifit of the leaders is a common thread through MINAM philosphy and cultism. They want to change the terms of the deal between worker and employer from strictly financial to one where they give you intangible emotional satisfaction as a subtistute for tangible monetary based compensation.

When ever these leaders talk about culture, just chop off the "ure" and remember CULT. Money is the motivator, dont ever let some greedy overpaid BS artist convince you of anything else. Remember they are all salesmen, people who make a living trying to convince others of what they dont believe themselves. These people do not care about you, if they did they would give you money. They only want to give you what doesnt cost them anything and in return they expect you to make them more money.
 
I'm so sick of hearing that "money is not a motivator " BS line.

Again:

It has been taught for decades that money is not a motivator. In the context of those courses, the statement is true. I will not into it, but suffice it so say that it was my major by the time I finally finished college. According to one of my sons, it is still being taught, at least at Stanford GSB. We do have some interesting conversations on this.

However, we can learn much from the Donald Trumps of this world. He is famously quoted as saying "Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score."

One can also say that many of us are motivated by money to feed our families, while those at the top are motivated by money to feed their egos. This comparison invites a form of circular logic that can get us bogged down in Maslow's hierarchy of needs and self-actualization and validation and so forth, which runs full circle back to the statement that money is not a motivator. However, it is also taught by other theorists, that money is indeed a motivator until the individual's basic needs are met. After that point, then money is indeed not a motivator. Much of this dialectic hinges on the definition of "basic" and "needs".

Studying any of several of the permutations of Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows that "self-esteem, confidence, achievement, and respect by others" are near the top. For the people in question, I would say that those needs are[\i] the top. I don't think any of these theoreticians ever spent much time with working men. It is also my observation that this stuff is being taught by, and studied by, people who have no experience or even much exposure to working people. My classes were generally populated by wanna-be yuppies or at least ambitious clerks who already saw themselves as management material. I believe every hour of studying Maslow should be balanced by a few minutes of reflecting on Eric Hoffer. I suddenly had the realization that I had failed as a parent, and had neglected his education, when my MBA student son told me he had discovered Hoffer on his own. On his own, he recognized the value of throwing Hoffer into the mix.

I am digressing, but I believe one of the reasons Hoffer is not taught is because he is blue collar and actually worked for a living.

Academia has the same disdain for those who actually work as we see in other places.

"Money is not a motivater" has become a mantra for those who are paid to tell management what they want to hear. My own take on the "money is not a motivator" thing is that it applies only after a certain level of pay and economic comfort is reached. We are not yet at that level. And it has a corollary that is being ignored. "Lack of money, particularly involuntary pay cuts, is a giant demotivater." And those of us who have seen our pay dwindle over the last twenty-some years have had a lot of that demotivation.
 
Wrench, that was a very good and well written post....

My own take on the "money is not a motivator" thing is that it applies only after a certain level of pay and economic comfort is reached. We are not yet at that level. And it has a corollary that is being ignored. "Lack of money, particularly involuntary pay cuts, is a giant demotivater." And those of us who have seen our pay dwindle over the last twenty-some years have had a lot of that demotivation.

I agree with your take on MINAM, but I don't know that the corrollary is being ignored entirely. Remember that AA had never considered involuntary (or even voluntary) pay cuts prior to 2003. It had happened at a lot of other carriers, including the one I worked for in the 80's, so the demotivating factor was not ignored by any measure.

It's just that there are some other factors which have to go into the compensation equation. Bob has alluded to the fact several times that AMT's are more or less commodity labor -- the required skillset is the same whether you're fixing aircraft for AA, WN, or FL.

I currently own a house that we've remodeled pretty extensively, and sits on the third largest lot in a neighborhood of about 400 lots. When we go to sell it in a couple years, I'm not going to be able to get an appraisal of $200/sf if houses with similar floorplans are selling at $150/sf. I might get $160 or $165 because of the larger lot, but that's about it.

Labor contracts aren't all that different. It's not an insult on your skill level, but at some point, you have to balance out the benefit of keeping people happy vs. the expense of paying a premium above the market rate for the skillset you offer.
 
Wrench, that was a very good and well written post....

I currently own a house that we've remodeled pretty extensively, and sits on the third largest lot in a neighborhood of about 400 lots. When we go to sell it in a couple years, I'm not going to be able to get an appraisal of $200/sf if houses with similar floorplans are selling at $150/sf. I might get $160 or $165 because of the larger lot, but that's about it.

The comparison/example/analogy of your house is, of course, correct. However, your house is primarily a place to live, and secondarily, an income producer. It does not relate directly and completely to our situation because our labor is exclusively income producing. There are employment situations that provide something besides income, but not for us. An example would be, a person who is building his resume while earning sustenance.

Labor contracts aren't all that different. It's not an insult on your skill level, but at some point, you have to balance out the benefit of keeping people happy vs. the expense of paying a premium above the market rate for the skillset you offer.

Sadly, the law of supply and demand does indeed apply to us. Since the airlines have lowered their hiring and maintenance standards, the ever-increasing supply of cheap labor is hammering us.
 
RLG will try to sell you a lot of "teamwork" and "leadership". But where I have worked in the past, RLG was always known as "Really Likes Gossip" or "Rick Likes to Gossip".

RLG will promote teamwork and leadership. Meanwhile, when RLG is behind closed-doors with management they gossip about employees to management and suggest who should be fired and removed. The classes and leadership offered are just a front to get in the door and do what RLG does best - gossip and ruin cultures.
 
RLG will try to sell you a lot of "teamwork" and "leadership". But where I have worked in the past, RLG was always known as "Really Likes Gossip" or "Rick Likes to Gossip".

RLG will promote teamwork and leadership. Meanwhile, when RLG is behind closed-doors with management they gossip about employees to management and suggest who should be fired and removed. The classes and leadership offered are just a front to get in the door and do what RLG does best - gossip and ruin cultures.


I thought it was actually the "Really Looking Good" Consulting Group.

You know when a coporations labor relations are in the tank, the Executives bring in the "Really Looking Good" Consulting Firm to try and convince everyone involved that there is NO PROBLEM. Almost like swinging the pendulum before your eyes repeating "You're Getting Very Sleepy", only this firm will keep repeating...

"REALLY LOOKING GOOD"

"REALLY LOOKING GOOD"

"REALLY LOOKING GOOD"
 

Latest posts

Back
Top