Originally Posted by
AtlCSIP
Originally Posted by
Nevets
Again, it's not just one person's raise we are talking about. They are giving raises out to two management teams when the job can be done with one. Yet they ask us to give back some of ours? How is not the two related since it all comes from the same bottom line? Why are you so defensive about them with me when I haven't skewed the facts posted about their raises? Let me put it this way, if you were this executive management team, would you give yourself the raises they have from 2010-2012 and then ask your workers to forgo some of their small compensation? If not, why not. And of not, then what's the difference?
Again, different point, and I am not being defensive of them, but I have owned and operated businesses in the past, so my perspective is different than most.
We weren't talking about the potential waste associated with 2 management teams, although I would agree with you they should be unnecessary by now, resulting in savings.
What I would do wasn't the point, but since you asked, I have never asked for pay concessions from an employee who worked for me and do not believe pay concessions are the correct way to proceed in relation to our situation. I have let people go who were not worth the pay they received, but I digress. Our issue has nothing to do with the problem of management raises or the waste associated with 2 management teams. Our issue is 1. Are we worth more than we are currently paid? Generally, yes, and 2. What can we do to increase our productivity and/or value added to justify additionl compensation beyond that which we are currently worth? If you can answer number 2 (I have some ideas, though they would not be popular) then you have reached a realistic point from which to bargain/negotiate for additional compensation beyond that needed to get us where we already should be. Once we show that our raises are deserved (which I believe they are) it is management's responsibility to determine how to fund those raises, which, you would think, would include eliminating one of the management teams, but that is their problem, not ours.
I'm on your team. We are fighting for the same things. We are worth more regardless of what management does, and that needs to be our point in negotiations.
My only point is that if they are getting pay raises, regardless of whether its 73% in one year or 24% between 2 years, I find that as a problem when they ask us for concessions. Your disagreement was that it was only 12% pay raise per year and that we all got raises the year that they took a one year pay cut (which they more than made up the following year). That is not fact. Many of us, mostly for those that make the least, FOs, didn't get a pay raise at all. And none of us has gotten a 12% pay raise per year, let alone just keeping up with inflation. So even if we don't skew the numbers (your point), I still see a problem with that regardless of any other point.
What do you disagree with what I said above.