In the bad times, such as the present, mangagement comes to labor and asks the unions to open up contracts, take concessions and pay cuts. But in the good times, they don't come to the unions and ask to open up contracts to restore those concessions and paycuts. Not consistent to say the least. But that's good managing when what CEO in his right mind would ask to open up a six year contract while the company was having profitable year after profitable year? You can't fault them for that, but you can fault labor for not agreeing to open up contracts in the down times.
And I speak only for myself about my plans if AA shuts the doors. not the remaining 99,999 people.(by the way, the ranks are rapidly dwindling with more reductions on the way.) And I never faulted upper mangagment for making higher salaries than the worker on the floor. It was the outrageous compensation I have referred to.
I honestly doubt management would agree to the same percentage increase the big boys get. Here's what I see.
Suppose, for ****s and giggles, and I'm just throwing numbers out, that here is the scenario:
AA has 100,000 employees.(all compensation except top ten execs.) The average salary of these people is $50,000.00 per year.
That's 5,000,000,000 in annual payroll. And feel free to double check my math.
Now let's say the top ten executives' average salary is $350,000. (just a guess)for an annual payout of $3,500,000.00.
Now, there is a good year and the top ten execs get a 5% increase in pay.
That's a $17,500.00 increase per top ten exec for a total of $175,000.00 for the year.
Now we use your "worker increase tied to managements'increase."
The average $50,000.00 per year employee gets a $2500.00 increase.
Fair enough, same percentage.
But for the 100,000 employees, the total increase is $250,000,000.00
I would tend to say that that $250,000,00.00 increase would just seem a bit too steep in managements' eyes.