Your time may be better spent worrying directly about your value or how USAir values you as a customer, because I see corporate decisions every hour that are contrary to the slogan "USAir begins with you".USFlyer said:
Sorry You Need To Take A Paycut
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
BoeingBoy said:
So let me get this straight...
You advocate a policy that someone should be expected to do the job of a VP (or any other position) without actually being given that position?
Do you advocate that policy elsewhere, as well? Should people be expected to run a station without being named station manager? Should someone be expected to captain a plane while being called a F/O?
That's a great way to get your talented people who, as you noted, "presumably are capable of performing the duties required by these positions," to simply throw their hands up in frustration and leave (as if there aren't enough other reasons already). And boy, it's not like the company needs someone who is qualified and has some institutional knowledge to be in charge of its real estate dealings right now.
PITbull
Veteran
Art at ISP said:
Art,
Managment has not proposed salary cuts. They have proposed payroll reduction of 20%...
Thant means the payroll dept will have a 20% reduction due to elimination of certain postions. Senior Execs have not committed to cutting their salaries. After all, Lakefiled had proposed in April that he would give certain employees "retention bonuses" every quarter...that is at the same time he was asking ALL of labor for major transformation concessions.
I saw the notice that went out.
PITbull said:
Well, turnover in CCY is reportedly sky high right now. Cutting staff by 20 percent while leaving salaries near constant means the people left do 20 percent more work for the same pay. To be honest, if too many folks leave from HQ, turning US around will be impossible. Senior executives are a different story ... I'm assuming they will take some sort of pay cut. It's the day-to-day folks in AP, HR, Legal, Finance, etc. that are leaving at, what I've been told, is an alarming rate.
At the company I work for, we were told today during a management meeting that the job market has tightened up all of a sudden again, and we need to focus on retaining people. Many departments are once again having trouble filling positions with experienced folks. The non-union job market is very different from the seniority-based, union model, and CCY compensation needs to account for that. But, as I said, *senior* executives need to understand they themselves need to set an example.
PITbull
Veteran
USFlyer said:
That maybe happening in your little neck of the woods. But in the real world, job market is poor. And corporations are not hiring, but consolidating the work.
YOu say leaving CCY at alarming rate...where I sit, I DON'T KNOW ONE PERSON IN CCY THAT HAS VOLUNTARILY LEFT yet. In the Inflight Dept, no one has quit. They walk around like "deers in headlights" overly concerned about what Labor is going to do or not.
I think I would know.
CCY needs to get use to doing much more with less.
Labor has been in this mode for 2 years. With all the productivity changes in concession 2 and now 3, we are 20,000 less people and climbing.
I don't think Boeing Boy's beef was with the title bestowed on these individuals but with the expected increase in pay and benefits. If I am reading his intent correctly what is wrong with this concept when front line employees in all areas are expected to far exceed their historical levels of productivety while at the same time being offered far less money and benefits?Flying Titan said:
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Thanks, DCD
That's exactly what I meant. All across the company the rank and file employees are being asked (told) to work harder for less pay and benefits. After all, it's "market reality" isn't it?
Yet at the upper levels life goes on as always. Heaven forbid that top management should have to practice what they demand of the lowly workers.
Some on this forum are always quick to tell us worker bees that times have changed and we have to adapt or die, but just as quick to tell us how "it's different" at the top of the food chain.
Jim
That's exactly what I meant. All across the company the rank and file employees are being asked (told) to work harder for less pay and benefits. After all, it's "market reality" isn't it?
Yet at the upper levels life goes on as always. Heaven forbid that top management should have to practice what they demand of the lowly workers.
Some on this forum are always quick to tell us worker bees that times have changed and we have to adapt or die, but just as quick to tell us how "it's different" at the top of the food chain.
Jim
PITbull said:
This comment alone shows a lot of the ignorance out there regarding the economy. Big corporations do not drive job growth in this country. Small business employs many more Americans than the big evil corporations that so many seem to hate.
BoeingBoy said:
Firstly, adding a VP title is a promotion and these people who have been around for a while just MIGHT have earned it. Did you ever think of that? And, nowhere does it say they are getting a pay increase. When CCY has already announced decreases in the non-union jobs, it's unlikey their raise(if any) was anything of significance.
Secondly, you're making ANOTHER wrong assumption that the positions were already adequately filled. Is it possible that these folks were assuming some responsibilities of their respective departments, but there was nobody overseeing the entire deparmental job? That's called leadership. That's what a VP is there to do for their respective departments. Give these people some slack and let them do their job. If, after a few months, you don't like what they're doing, then complain.
Your 'working class' vs. 'white collar snob' attitude really shows. The non-union talent at the company has just as much to lose as the rest of the rank and file if this airline fails. I imagine the ones that are still around are there for one of two reasons - because they can't find better work or because they believe in the company and want to make it work. Or maybe a combination of both. The same can be said for the rest of the company, too, probably.
bookmdano
Advanced
A concession vote means that you agree that it is ok for veteran employees to take it in the shorts again, that we have no other self worth than our job?
A non-concession vote means that you agree that you will no longer subsidize greedy CEOs, COOs, and VPs that rape and run?
Does this sum it up?
A non-concession vote means that you agree that you will no longer subsidize greedy CEOs, COOs, and VPs that rape and run?
Does this sum it up?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
PHL,
"Firstly, adding a VP title is a promotion and these people who have been around for a while just MIGHT have earned it."
Never said they didn't earn it. But there are plenty of people on this forum that tell many of us that we should be happy to make over entry-level wages no matter how long we've been here or how much we've "earned".
"When CCY has already announced decreases in the non-union jobs, it's unlikey their raise(if any) was anything of significance."
Making an assumption yourself, aren't you?
"Secondly, you're making ANOTHER wrong assumption that the positions were already adequately filled."
Nope, the positions were vacant - hence the promotions. You know, to fill the vacant job. What I did say was that these folks presumably had the skills, knowledge, etc required by the position since they were chosen. They didn't suddenly acquire all that when the "VP" appeared in front of their name.
"Is it possible that these folks were assuming some responsibilities of their respective departments, but there was nobody overseeing the entire deparmental job?"
It's not only possible but likely, never said differently.
"Your 'working class' vs. 'white collar snob' attitude really shows."
Nope, it's a "What's good for the goose should be good for the gander" attitude. People all over this company are being asked to work harder for much less. Should we expect any less of those at the top? Sounds like you may have a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
"The non-union talent at the company has just as much to lose as the rest of the rank and file if this airline fails."
No argument there. So you should agree that the sacrifices should be the same too. Do you?
Frankly I don't care if they get "Grand Poopa" or "Exaulted" in front of their name. But I've heard too many times that we have to adjust to "market reality", that the "market won't support those pay rates anymore", that "brand X only pays $Y so you don't deserve $Z", etc. Until it comes to CCY of course. Then it's a different tune.
Jim
"Firstly, adding a VP title is a promotion and these people who have been around for a while just MIGHT have earned it."
Never said they didn't earn it. But there are plenty of people on this forum that tell many of us that we should be happy to make over entry-level wages no matter how long we've been here or how much we've "earned".
"When CCY has already announced decreases in the non-union jobs, it's unlikey their raise(if any) was anything of significance."
Making an assumption yourself, aren't you?
"Secondly, you're making ANOTHER wrong assumption that the positions were already adequately filled."
Nope, the positions were vacant - hence the promotions. You know, to fill the vacant job. What I did say was that these folks presumably had the skills, knowledge, etc required by the position since they were chosen. They didn't suddenly acquire all that when the "VP" appeared in front of their name.
"Is it possible that these folks were assuming some responsibilities of their respective departments, but there was nobody overseeing the entire deparmental job?"
It's not only possible but likely, never said differently.
"Your 'working class' vs. 'white collar snob' attitude really shows."
Nope, it's a "What's good for the goose should be good for the gander" attitude. People all over this company are being asked to work harder for much less. Should we expect any less of those at the top? Sounds like you may have a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
"The non-union talent at the company has just as much to lose as the rest of the rank and file if this airline fails."
No argument there. So you should agree that the sacrifices should be the same too. Do you?
Frankly I don't care if they get "Grand Poopa" or "Exaulted" in front of their name. But I've heard too many times that we have to adjust to "market reality", that the "market won't support those pay rates anymore", that "brand X only pays $Y so you don't deserve $Z", etc. Until it comes to CCY of course. Then it's a different tune.
Jim
bookmdano
Advanced
bookmdano
Advanced
The only blind man is the man who refuses to see.
Someone is going to have to pull the plug, this has gone on way too long and disrupted too many lives.
And to even mention that the CEOs; COOs and VP's deserve their position or title is laughable.
Has anyone read the "Transformation Plan"? There is no transformation and there is no plan. And if the judge can't figure it out, than this is pathetic.
Someone is going to have to pull the plug, this has gone on way too long and disrupted too many lives.
And to even mention that the CEOs; COOs and VP's deserve their position or title is laughable.
Has anyone read the "Transformation Plan"? There is no transformation and there is no plan. And if the judge can't figure it out, than this is pathetic.
PITbull
Veteran
N628AU said:
Now that's a simple minded, right-wing comment.
Small business do not offer livable wages, benefits etc. WE are not talking about business that offer min wage or slightly above min. wage jobs. Those are a dime a dozen and plentiful.
