Seigel: Should he agree to concessions also?

Braveheart

Member
Jan 29, 2003
60
0
Let’s take a VOTE.
The answer can only be YES, NO or UNDECIDED and please only vote ONCE.
Whether you are employed by US Airways or not, please feel free to participate in this vote. Voting poll closes at Midnight on Valentine’s Day, February 14, 2003.
QUESTION:

WHERE AS, if Seigel, the 32 Vice Presidents, the Executive Staff and all Managers employed by US Airways did free fully and willingly agree to the following terms, would you have agreed to the concession demands more freely if they agreed to the following concessions themselves:
1. Seigel agreed to a $150,000 per year salary until US Airways was brought back in the black
2. No Vice President, Executive or Manager can make above $125,000 per year
3. All the above must receive the same Medical Insurance Benefit Plan as employees
4. All the above must receive the same Pension Plan package as employees
5. None of the above can receive a pay increase until everyone employed by US Airways is entitled to a pay increase
WHERE AS, neither Seigel, the 32 Vice Presidents, the Executive Staff and all Managers cannot receive a pay increase until all employees are also entitled to a pay increase. A set profit margin for pay increases to all must be negotiated and agreed to by all Unions and Seigel before anyone can get a pay increase.
3.gif'']
 

Braveheart

Member
Jan 29, 2003
60
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/4/2003 4:10:41 PM Severed-N-Happy wrote:

and just how do you expect to get good and talented help to fill those positions at those paltry wages and benefits?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Same as he is planning - there are many unemployed CEO's. Some have possibly tried the same stunt he inaugurated.

Since you feel they are paltry wages for a CEO, why is his attempt to have paltry wages for his troops?

Just think, no troop agreements he has no job either. He will have to settle for paltry wages to rebuild his career also if there is no company.

[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif'] BRAVEHEART [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif']
 

airlineorphan

Senior
Aug 20, 2002
380
0
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/4/2003 4:10:41 PM Severed-N-Happy wrote:

and just how do you expect to get good and talented help to fill those positions at those paltry wages and benefits?
----------------
[/blockquote]

The pleasure of doing a great job at a great company is enough reward for any CEO, I would think.
-Airlineorphan [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif']
 

PITbull

Veteran
Dec 29, 2002
7,784
456
www.usaviation.com
YES Aeroman,

77% cut, and some, if you consider ALL the empoyee stock that was lost in the ESOP program and 401K. And NO CHANCE TO RECOVER IT; UNLIKE SENIOR MANGEMENT.....Let' go there!
 

PITbull

Veteran
Dec 29, 2002
7,784
456
www.usaviation.com
The idea here, as I stated in another Post, is that management made some "give backs", but they were not sacrifices. 20% of $750,000 is not the same as 10% of $35,000. Difference is 10% paycut brings wages to $28,000 yearly; 20% of $750,000 brings salary down to $600,000 yearly. Big difference again, senior mangement's contract entitlement to bonuses commencing for 2004 for their personal performance targets, especially substantial if they EXCEED those targets going forward. "Rank and file" employees NO bonuses.

Senior mangement DID take same medical as Pilots. Lower end employees took a slightly lower medical for the same plans. Again, rank and file employees will not get increases to endure higher medical contributions going forward; Senior Mangement will be entitled to significant bonuses and stock options going forward.

Senior management did take salary cuts and "snap back" returns on this second round of concessions (not the first) only because of much pressure from Labor. But, they will make up the difference with the bonuses going forward. Pension issue for management has NOT been addressed. And even though mangement has NOT replaced some positions in lower mangement, THEY HAVE PROMOTED UPPER LEVEL MANGEMENT TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. Those folks got to circumvent their original pay concessions by getting promoted.

I guess mangement felt they did a great job for them "getting out the message".


My vote: Cuts were needed across the board; however, NOT this deep and NOT for as long as we took.


Great not to have the Company "liquidate". In exchange for this great feat, is the personal bankruptcy filings of many U employees; even those that got to keep their job!
 

Braveheart

Member
Jan 29, 2003
60
0
AeroMan:

BTW, Bill just called and told me to tell you "HELLO" and he gives you his best regards. He also told me to tell you good luck debating the pilot everyone hates.

Can't win em all dude!

Pleasant dreams,

3.gif']
 

Braveheart

Member
Jan 29, 2003
60
0
AeroMan:

Let's play the game on an even playing field. You demand cuts, major cuts, then you must also sacrifice a major cut. If the dude don't like the 77%, he can go apply somewhere else for a job, plain and simply as 1-2-3.

Why should all the employees suffer for mistakes made by CEO's and Vice Presidents? I know bubbster, he wasn't here when they occurred! Well, he new before he accepted the job there was a major problem.

When you demand, your request will always be retaliated and becomes harder to understand. If you ask and agree to suffer the same consequences it makes it much easier to accept and understand. It’s called “COMMON SENSEâ€￾ dude!

Don't worry dude, I really am beginning to likes you. Keep up the good work.

Beers to your Cheers!

11.gif']
 

diogenes

Veteran
Aug 22, 2002
2,515
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/4/2003 8:22:43 PM PITbull wrote:


Senior management did take salary cuts and "snap back" returns on this second round of concessions (not the first) only because of much pressure from Labor. But, they will make up the difference with the bonuses going forward. Pension issue for management has NOT been addressed. And even though mangement has NOT replaced some positions in lower mangement, THEY HAVE PROMOTED UPPER LEVEL MANGEMENT TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. Those folks got to circumvent their original pay concessions by getting promoted.

-------------------------------------------

PITbull,

I can vouch for that. Know of a few department managers recently promoted to 'directors', but their phone number, office, and as near as I can tell, job description, remained the same.

How honorable

 

retiredman

Member
Dec 17, 2002
29
0
I am curious, where did you get the number of 32 VP's, you need to open your eyes and really see what is going on in this industry. What you see at U will be the norm for all majors within the next year. You continue to begrudge anyone and anything that does not meet your personal "seal of approval". Wake-up, enjoy life and move on.
 

MrAeroMan

Veteran
Dec 29, 2002
895
2
Hey Junior,

I was taught long ago that you can't debate ignorance nor can you debate with closed minded people. Like I said before if you come up with an intelligent question I'll be more than happy to give you my views. So far you're all wind and no substance so blow on brotha...blow on!