U
casual rat
Senior
- Aug 25, 2002
- 413
- 3
And just think, someone once called our Execs 'carpetbaggers'. Hmmmm....Nawwwwww!
Interesting...the bankruptcy judge didn't have to approve this?
Oh, no...wait...as I read the article, we don't have a clue if they're getting any money at all. The only thing we know is that they didn't agree to terminate the program.
The headline is misleading at best.
Oh, no...wait...as I read the article, we don't have a clue if they're getting any money at all. The only thing we know is that they didn't agree to terminate the program.
The headline is misleading at best.
UAL_TECH said:
This is typical of the sort of BS the press, especially the rag quoted in my opinion, likes to do: Titillate to sell copy. The headline is pure BULL S--T.
The TRUTH is that management employees have ALWAYS...well, for as long as any of us have worked there that is...had up to 40% of their compensation "at risk". It's been done that way to incentivise and prod. Fine or not, to insinuate that UAL had to "find" the money to fund a program that they've always had is horse crap. And given the stresses of running a company in bankruptcy on top of the excellent, often industry leading performance as ranked among their peers, it's very easy to argue that these "management" employees (which really means the non-union people in the trenches - NOT the corporate royalty) deserve a standard or even above standard "bonus" on top of their base pay (that they have taken hits on just like everyone else.)
The trashy article tries to focus on Tilton and his cronies (there are only 7 top directors of the firm that fall completely under the "corporate royalty" umbrella), but that is NOT whom the $100M (or however much it really is - I don't trust Chicago Bidness' fact checking for squat) predominantly goes to. It goes to regular Joe working stiffs, like the local managers at each station and in each set of cubicles at WHQ, as well as all of the union employees these days. And Tilton is the one who insisted that ALL of the employees be added to the program!
Also, the 5% quoted is inaccurate BS as well(shocked, I'm shocked I tell you). The pilots had as much as 10% of their compensation "at risk" under this program, and it's certainly possible that plenty of other groups did too. Sure, those targets were hard to hit, but if UAL came out of BK and started posting excellent results they WOULD have hit them. If you add the 10% to the possible profit sharing payouts (That Tilton also insisted on!) then you could be looking at 15-20% of total compensation being paid out to LINE employees on an annual bonus basis! That's serious money folks.
Of course, labor relations being what they are at United, the employees have never trusted management not to set the goals so high that they would never pay out that well. And I think it's that sort of piss poor relationship between management and labor at United (left over from the bad old days) that is leading to some of the unions negotiating away a possible 10% get for a FOR SURE 2 or 3% lesser cut in pay. Bird in the hand and all that...
Whatever, short of it: Don't believe ANYTHING you read in ChitownBidness.com.
olyinaz said:
First point: Labor doesn't trust management because management sold their credibility down the river - WAY down the river, a long time ago. Why should they expect 'trust'?
Second point: (bad old days)? What are you implying here? That we've run into 'good times' and need to put that past behind us? This has NOTHING to do with ‘leftovers’, this has everything to do with the here and now.
Third point: Don’t believe ANYTHING that is SAID rather than DONE
United management has to face one simple fact: their word, their signature on a contract has ZERO value at this point because they threw that away long ago. Not just with labor, with anyone. They believe that they are holding a great hand – they never knew how to play cards to begin with.
OP
UAL_TECH
Guest
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #8
olyinaz said:
The 5% was built into the AMFA M&R contract so I do not see how you would be 'shocked' at this revelation
olyinaz said:
Anyone that takes a third party 'interpertation' as 'the sole truth' is myopic (or lazy).
But I should trust your analysis?
I have been receiving 'roughly' $222 per quarter for 'success sharing'.
Does this amount make me work harder to receive 'another' $222 next quarter?
B) UT
mweiss said:
Look up ‘seniority’ in the dictionary. The entire concept is based on birth, rank or (especially) length of service. Rank itself is also basically a length of service position except in meritorious promotions in time of war – something I hardly think United is worthy of invoking.
The real problem here is the absolute swollen bloating of United management ranks. There simply are too many managers and nowhere enough reasons to justify their being. They present a hindrance to productivity on all levels.
I propose a ‘test’ for let’s say, SFOOV – let’s have 98.978% of all of the management staff take a 90 day leave and lets see if it has ANY effect on the throughput of the maintenance checks.
I guarantee you it will NOT.
OP
UAL_TECH
Guest
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #11
mweiss said:
OK, you have thrown this out several times now, but added this 'twist'.
Please explain to us barnacles how 'seniority' is the fundamental reason for the disparity between management pay and union pay?
UTI should be clearer...It's the fundamental reason that management pay gets treated differently. And I refer to "union pay" as shorthand; DL's nonunion mechanics and flight attendants have the same seniority issue.
But the reason is fairly straightforward. In every job, there are several forces at work to keep you there and to drive you away. Everyone has the "job ickiness" factor driving them away. Everyone has the pay keeping them there.
But the union employees also have seniority as a set of "golden handcuffs." If you work as a UA mechanic for 20 years and move to AA, you get treated exactly the same as if you were a snot-nosed kid off the streets. No extra money, no layoff protection...nothing. So there's no incentive for you to move from UA to AA, even if the pay at AA were, say, 20% higher.
Compare that to the management jobs (or, in IRS terms, "exempt" employees). If you put in 20 years at UA, you're worth much more at AA than if you had no relevant experience. If AA offered you 20% more to leave UA, it'd be pretty compelling. As incentive to stay, some companies offer stock options. Good idea...until the company files for bankruptcy and the options become scratchy toilet paper.
In other words, you can get away with paying the union folks less, especially when you're talking about people with a lot of seniority. Those handcuffs become mighty snug after a decade or so. Without useful stock options and a shaky future, retaining exempt employees takes money. What else can you give them to stay???
But the reason is fairly straightforward. In every job, there are several forces at work to keep you there and to drive you away. Everyone has the "job ickiness" factor driving them away. Everyone has the pay keeping them there.
But the union employees also have seniority as a set of "golden handcuffs." If you work as a UA mechanic for 20 years and move to AA, you get treated exactly the same as if you were a snot-nosed kid off the streets. No extra money, no layoff protection...nothing. So there's no incentive for you to move from UA to AA, even if the pay at AA were, say, 20% higher.
Compare that to the management jobs (or, in IRS terms, "exempt" employees). If you put in 20 years at UA, you're worth much more at AA than if you had no relevant experience. If AA offered you 20% more to leave UA, it'd be pretty compelling. As incentive to stay, some companies offer stock options. Good idea...until the company files for bankruptcy and the options become scratchy toilet paper.
In other words, you can get away with paying the union folks less, especially when you're talking about people with a lot of seniority. Those handcuffs become mighty snug after a decade or so. Without useful stock options and a shaky future, retaining exempt employees takes money. What else can you give them to stay???
casual rat
Senior
- Aug 25, 2002
- 413
- 3
Unfortunately, many Execs here are short-timing 'carpetbaggers' whose sole interest lies with themselves. Sure, they're trying. Other Execs (in the case of Jack Brace and 'Ronald' Pete McDonald) have been here a shade too long. One thing you can be sure of--they've got their bags open as residual cash finds its way in. Why do we want the 'skippers' who led us into these waters around much longer?
Borescope said:
Get over it. You're NEVER going to change the gross system that corporate America uses to compensate each other...ooops, I mean "senior management", through union negotiations or through bitching and complaining about it. The only hope you have is that congress might get a involved, but they'll likely screw it up more than help, so again - GIVE IT UP, move on to something more productive than bitching about other people's gots.
The more important issue is how does any of that story relate to YOUR PAY. If you want to trade 5% (or greater depending upon performance) of possibly pay away for 2 or 3% GUARANTEED pay then fine - do it. But stop bitching about what the clerks and cubicle rats earn because that is PREDOMINANTLY who that article was about.
I'm supposed to bargain for as many geddas as I can possibly drag home for MY kids, but when Tilton or anyone in corporate royalty does the same it's heinous? Sorry, I never bought into that double standard.
And one last thing, whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, this management team is the only one in the last 20 years OR MORE that's actually been interested in running UNITED AIRLINES. Working against every obstacle the business has had to throw at them they've managed to keep UAL still in the fight. I don't give a rats ass if they're nice guys or if MacDonald wants to outsource or whatever (that's what unions are for, either you have the leverage to stop it or you don't) the bitching point du jour is - all I care about is them making appropriate moves that are in the best interests of the firm. What a concept!!
Crandall was a ass and was hell on labor too, but you ask any American pilot and they'll say, "Yeah, he was a bastard, but he was OUR bastard." High praise.
I hope to be able to lay that same praise on Tilton and his cronies soon, but so far at least I can say, "Well, at least he's not trying to kill us." For UAL that's a HUGE improvement.
Fire away.
