United is merged: CEO Smisek is ready to take on the world - USATODAY.com

I wish Mr. Smisek would follow his own advice. Maybe he has and his compensation is relative to other airline executives and doesn't have to match the sacrifice of the employees at the company he runs.

In 2005, pilots at CAL gave up 40% of their pay plus had their pensions frozen. We are two years past the amendable date of our contract.

From 2005-2009, Mr. Smisek's compensation totaled $17 million. He WILL get his $750,000 salary for 2010 since the company will make money (an empty gesture at the beginning of the year). In addition, Mr. Smisek sits on the Board of Directors for National Oilwell Varco, Inc. From 2006-2009, he earned just shy of $900,000 as a director.

 

He also (from what I remember) walked away with a $15,000,000 BONUS yesterday (Tilton's was $10,000,000) for making this merger happen. The amounts were "grossed up" so they wouldn't incur any tax liability (yeah, we're soooooo worried about overtaxing the rich, right?). Not bad, considering we're all told there's NO MONEY for pay raises or benefit enhancements. Funny how there's always money to dole out to the top though...........

 

How much money does one human being need?

 

How do you figure we (Continental) gave up 40% of our pay??

 

As a pure capitalist, I would say how ever much I can legally make. If I remember correctly a certain president said "I do think at some point, you've made enough money..." I screamed. Glad I wasn't holding a heavy rock glass, or god forbid a firearm, I'd be buying a new T.V.

Who are you to question how much money someone makes? Now with the shoe on the other foot, who is Smisek or any manager for that matter, to tell you how much you can or can't make. The only way to turn this around is to insist on MORE via JCBA or self help. We shouldn't give a rat's rear how much some greed pig or good manager for that matter makes, so long as they make it somewhere other than from pilot concessions.

When my mechanic charges me less to fix my car, or when the bank calls me and arbitrarily reduces my mortgage or when my girlfriend comes home with a reduced grocery bill, then and only then will I feel like anyone should make a little less. If I were you however, I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

You are right, I probably exaggerated a tad since I was angry reading his comments to the press.

But if you think about it, immediate loss of pay, freezing of the pension plan? You don't think freezing the pension plan hurt a lot of pilots to the tune of more than 40% of what they could expect as "pay" in the future? I know apples to oranges.

 

I'm not a big fan of hyperbole as I believe it undercuts any good position, but your 40% was not ridiculous. I believe C02 was sold as a roughly 26% reduction in the overall value of C97. When you add up the obvious (compensation, retirement, vacation, PBS) and throw in the "minor" tick me off stuff, that 26% figure seems realistic, if not conservative. To regain a 26% contract value cut would take a 34% increase in contract value. That's as of Jan. 1, 2009. Throw in inflation and you're looking at about 40% before you even begin talking about the additional "synergies" from the merger. Think about that... then think about what the execs are getting for this merger when it comes time for the up/down vote on a JCBA.

 

I agree with what you are saying, but I would throw in a different observation. I don't feel anyone should be restricted in how much they make or have the potential to make. I think, however, what a person does with the money they make and how they treat their employees contributes to how executives, leaders and wealthy people are viewed. I remember about a decade ago (I think) when a factory burned down in Massachusetts right before the holidays. The factory was a family owned business and it devastated many people who thought they were going to be out of a job. The owner decided he was going to continue to pay every employees' salary and benefits until the factory was rebuilt.

 

from JULY 2014

Bosses who yell, threaten and micromanage their way to the top, often at the expense of miserable underlings are all too common in today's workplaces.

But the Tony Sopranos and Darth Vaders of popular culture are not the most effective CEOs in the real world, according to a new study from the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.

The best bosses are humble bosses, those who empower and appreciate their employees, are open to feedback and care about the greater good, according to the research published in Administrative Science Quarterly.

"Humility is not weakness," Angelo Kinicki, a professor of W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, said Tuesday during a phone interview.

"Humility has its effects across levels of an organization in an empowered, uplifting way. You can't browbeat people into performance."

They interviewed the CEOs of 63 private companies in China and about 1,000 of the managers who work with them.

What they found is that humble bosses are strong bosses.

Traditionally, bombastic, self-assured, egocentric people are often thought to be the best leaders, Kinicki said.

"There's a stereotype that humble people are weak people, and I've never agreed with that," Kinicki said.

"Humble people are quieter, more in the background, but they lead in a different way, by empowering their employees, which trickles down," Kinicki said.

He said the qualities of a humble boss include:

• Self awareness.

•.Openness to feedback.

• Appreciation of others.

• Low self-focus.

• Appreciation of the greater good.

The qualities of CEOs with less humility include:

• More self-focus.

• Concern over their self gain, as opposed to helping the team.

• More controlling.

• Unilateral decision making.

Opposition to feedback.

The study found that the more humble CEOs acknowledged their weaknesses as well as their strengths, and are more willing to learn.

As one CEO said in the study, "I regard my job as a happy learning experience with pay."

Humble bosses are also grateful to their employees. "I appreciate my team members' passion and identification with this company," one CEO told a researcher.

Kinicki pointed out examples of humble CEOs making the news:

Tony Hsieh of Zappos is a Harvard graduate, who helped boost his company to more than $1 billion in gross merchandise sales annually. He also helped drive Zappos onto Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work For" list, with innovative customer- and employee-pleasing policies, such as "The Offer," where new employees are offered one-month's salary to leave the company if they're not dedicated and happy.

John Mackey of Whole Foods has shown concern for the greater good through his advocacy of organic food and spearheading his company's move to become the first grocery-store chain to set standards for humane animal treatment. He also announced in 2006 that he was chopping his salary to $1, putting caps on executive pay, and setting up a $100,000 emergency fund for staff facing personal problems.

Mary Barra of General Motors has faced severe criticism for problems created at the company before she took the helm in January. However, she has been quick to apologize and maintain that she's moving from a "cost culture" to a "customer culture" at GM. She has promised to do "the right thing" for those affected by recent recalls and the problems that led to them.

Kinicki knows some people may be surprised by the study results, but he summarizes, "It's time we understood that humility isn't a sign of weakness or lacking confidence, but rather, a good thing that can benefit us all."

Study finds humble bosses are best

 

John Mackey at whole foods may want to treat animals well, but he does not treat his employees very well.