What's the Latest at ASA/Expressjet?
08-10-2013 | 05:23 AM
#4001
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
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.
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.
You also act like management compensation occurs in a vacuum. If the company was profitable and growing,and we were getting raises along with management, no one would care. But when the company isn't growing or profitable, management needs to embrace shared sacrifice. For them to tell us we're too expensive and need to give concessions, then award themselves a raise (regardless of whether its 12% or 83%) is out of whack, and really a slap in the face. Obviously we don't need to give THAT bad if they can afford to pay him that handsomely to attend meetings and smoke cigarettes out front all day. You act like BH invented this whole thing. BH is just COO. He takes orders directly from SGU and implements them. He functions like a senior VP, yet gets paid like a CEO. And to use your argument, it's not justified for the amount of work he performs.
08-10-2013 | 08:23 AM
#4002
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 5
From: 737 Left
You're looking at this whole thing from a management/business owner point of view. Most of us in this industry became pilots because we didn't want to be part of the cubicle culture. The airline industry and its pyramid scheme seniority system (where the higher the pay the less you work) has been in place since its inception. You are decrying this system, but its never going to change. In fact, it's a big reason why many of us do this day in and day out.
You also act like management compensation occurs in a vacuum. If the company was profitable and growing,and we were getting raises along with management, no one would care. But when the company isn't growing or profitable, management needs to embrace shared sacrifice. For them to tell us we're too expensive and need to give concessions, then award themselves a raise (regardless of whether its 12% or 83%) is out of whack, and really a slap in the face. Obviously we don't need to give THAT bad if they can afford to pay him that handsomely to attend meetings and smoke cigarettes out front all day. You act like BH invented this whole thing. BH is just COO. He takes orders directly from SGU and implements them. He functions like a senior VP, yet gets paid like a CEO. And to use your argument, it's not justified for the amount of work he performs.
You also act like management compensation occurs in a vacuum. If the company was profitable and growing,and we were getting raises along with management, no one would care. But when the company isn't growing or profitable, management needs to embrace shared sacrifice. For them to tell us we're too expensive and need to give concessions, then award themselves a raise (regardless of whether its 12% or 83%) is out of whack, and really a slap in the face. Obviously we don't need to give THAT bad if they can afford to pay him that handsomely to attend meetings and smoke cigarettes out front all day. You act like BH invented this whole thing. BH is just COO. He takes orders directly from SGU and implements them. He functions like a senior VP, yet gets paid like a CEO. And to use your argument, it's not justified for the amount of work he performs.
I realize that my point of view is that of a business owner, since I have been for much of the last 25 years, which is why my opinions are what they are from a business standpoint. Logic would say that you can't consistently pay people more to accomplish less and remain viable for the long term. If that is possible, tell me how.
As far as the management/pilot debate is concerned, I think it's obvious that I got tired of the cubicle and would prefer to be here. I would, however, like to leave this place better once I move on.
08-10-2013 | 09:18 AM
#4003
Banned
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
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?
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.
What do you disagree with what I said above.
08-10-2013 | 06:20 PM
#4004
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 5
From: 737 Left
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.
What do you disagree with what I said above.
Are you worth more because somebody else got a raise, or because you are under compensated for who you are and what you can do?
08-10-2013 | 08:38 PM
#4005
Banned
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
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.
What do you disagree with what I said above.
Are you worth more because somebody else got a raise, or because you are under compensated for who you are and what you can do?
Has it occurred to you that the reason no one has ever mentioned their raises (even though we have been unprofitable and many of us haven't gotten any raises for almost 3 years) is because they are now asking for us to take concessions? There wouldn't be a fuss about this like there is if they wouldn't be asking for concessions. It's the lack of leadership that correlates the two. You just refuse to be open minded about that.
08-10-2013 | 08:46 PM
#4006
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
From: 73N-A
So I saw an article which showed that the CEO of Taco Bell makes 420x what a typical worker at a store makes which is ridiculous in my opinion. But it made me think what if they made a cap on how much a CEO can make. Not in terms of dollars but relationship to their lowest paid employee? Dunno just a thought...
08-11-2013 | 04:59 AM
#4007
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
So I saw an article which showed that the CEO of Taco Bell makes 420x what a typical worker at a store makes which is ridiculous in my opinion. But it made me think what if they made a cap on how much a CEO can make. Not in terms of dollars but relationship to their lowest paid employee? Dunno just a thought...
Now what about a pilot? Shold there be a cap on what a pilot makes? Once you've been at a company a while, you will make more that the vast majority of the US population. Is that fair that I make substantially more then the ramper loading the plane and physically work much less?
08-11-2013 | 05:07 AM
#4008
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
I believe we are in the position of having it "both ways".
Our pay shall not move up and down with profitability like a ceo's because we have a contract that states what we make. However, the management team is paid substantial incentives when profit goes up and this is a sign that we are doing well as a company.
Brad's pay went way up=no concessions needed. However, SKYW did not get a billion dollars in the bank by paying Skywest pilots what they were actually worth to the company.
Our pay shall not move up and down with profitability like a ceo's because we have a contract that states what we make. However, the management team is paid substantial incentives when profit goes up and this is a sign that we are doing well as a company.
Brad's pay went way up=no concessions needed. However, SKYW did not get a billion dollars in the bank by paying Skywest pilots what they were actually worth to the company.
08-11-2013 | 07:20 AM
#4009
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
From: OH CA - Retired
So I saw an article which showed that the CEO of Taco Bell makes 420x what a typical worker at a store makes which is ridiculous in my opinion. But it made me think what if they made a cap on how much a CEO can make. Not in terms of dollars but relationship to their lowest paid employee? Dunno just a thought...
The answer is not a cap. There are too many workarounds. The answer is to start a shareholder's revolt, and vote out the boards of director and replace them with people that have the interest of the company at heart, and not the interest of feathering their cronies' nests. How many boards is BH on?
08-11-2013 | 07:44 AM
#4010
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 5
From: 737 Left
So you have absolutely no problem with the executive team (I'm not talking about one person) asking for concessions when he has been taking raises?
Has it occurred to you that the reason no one has ever mentioned their raises (even though we have been unprofitable and many of us haven't gotten any raises for almost 3 years) is because they are now asking for us to take concessions? There wouldn't be a fuss about this like there is if they wouldn't be asking for concessions. It's the lack of leadership that correlates the two. You just refuse to be open minded about that.
Has it occurred to you that the reason no one has ever mentioned their raises (even though we have been unprofitable and many of us haven't gotten any raises for almost 3 years) is because they are now asking for us to take concessions? There wouldn't be a fuss about this like there is if they wouldn't be asking for concessions. It's the lack of leadership that correlates the two. You just refuse to be open minded about that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
