Originally Posted by
GunshipGuy
Why can't DALPA set goals that they can be held accountable to? Enough ether, feel-good goals that allow those in leadership positions to claim success no matter how ineffective they may end up being. By contrast our company has set the following goals and expects their success to be measured by them:
- 10-12% annual operating margins
- Annual EPS growth of 10-15%
- 15% return on invested capital
- $5+ billion annual operating cash flow with ~50% reinvested back into the business
- Investment grade balance sheet metrics, including $7 billion of adjusted net debt by 2015
There is a huge difference between the internal goals of a commercial enterprise and the goals of a collective bargaining agent such as our reps. Unlike ALPA, Delta does not have a single protagonist from whom they seek to wrest these goals or out of whose pocket the costs of these goals are paid. Rather, this is the sought-after result of their business plan, which involves a myriad of individual negotiations and/or transactions with customers, vendors, etc.
When I represent a client as a defendant or litigant in a criminal or civil proceeding, we discuss our goals in private and develop our strategy from there. But I NEVER let the DA or opposing counsel know anything specific about our goals, other than our current negotiating position. Only in that way can I reasonably expect to achieve the greatest possible outcome for my clients. This leaves them with no objective means by which to measure my success, only their individual level of satisfaction with the outcome.
IMO, the circumstance of a collective bargaining agent such as ours is much more aligned with that of an attorney such as myself than it is with a public commercial enterprise.