synchronicity
Advanced
- Nov 27, 2002
- 144
- 0
The more I look at the fetid mess that is United, the more I wonder if there's anybody there who really knows what they're doing.
Let's start with management. Now, I've directed plenty of ire at the unions, and rightly so, but let's look at the other side. I talked with my wife today, and she is saying how everyone in her department is upset with the current situation, but what gets them the most is not that they're losing pay and benefits, but rather the perception, real or not, that management is getting to keep everything while they are losing so much.
Now, I don't know the specifics of what "management" or "senior management" is giving up, but neither do my wife and her co-workers, and that speaks volumes that Management is doing a poor job communicating with employees where it counts! If you really want to keep up morale and get "buy-in" from the employee groups through a tough time, you want to get across the concept of "shared sacrifice", big time. Kinda like this guy: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ay_050512174209
I'm sure there have been some cuts in compensation and headcount throughout management ranks, but if you want to score brownie points, you make sure everyone knows that. If you don't get that message out there, people just focus on what they're losing and what they see at least some people as retaining (like Tilton's existing pension from when he joined UAL).
Before anyone goes off on me, I know Tilton has more leverage than the average ticket agent or mechanic, I know that market compensation for CEO's is a lot higher, and so on. But by the same token, Tilton could take far larger pay cuts in percentage terms than the average worker without adversely impacting his standard of living, his compensation could still be structured so that he can make buckets of money if UAL turns around (through option grants, deferred comp, or just performance bonuses that would give him far more 3-5 years from now than he would have made with steady pay throughout the period).
I also know that some people will say "it doesn't matter what Tilton does, there are people who will roast him over a fire. Why should he give up any pay for that?" True, there are some people who will never be satisfied. But you aim to work with the majority of people who are able to change their minds. You want to motivate people, do everything you can to get across the message that we're ALL sacrificing, and here's what we ("we" being management and senior management) are doing to get towards that goal.
Another item of poor communication: the pension issue. How many UAL workers think that their pensions are now totally gone, they're getting nothing? If my wife's department is at all representative (maybe not, but what the hey), the answer is "lots". Further, how many UAL employees know that the current plan is for UAL to begin with a company match to the 401(k) plan (4% is what is in their proprosal to IAM, and it sounds like the same was proposed to IAM), plus an additional match if UAL starts making money again?
In essence, UAL is making a distress termination of their defined benefit plan, but replacing it with money in the defined contribution plan. Now, I know this isn't a great deal for workers, but the point is that it's NOT a "union members lose all their retirement benefits" situation. Good communication could stress that, and stress what UAL workers are losing (not as much as they think) and what they are gaining (or even get across the point that they'll be gaining something.
Good management works as hard as heck to get that message across.
I won't even get into UAL's interactions with their creditors. Granted, my experience with UAL's creditors was limited (my former employer leased two planes to UAL, and my father was representing a UAL creditor awhile back), and I may have been getting stories slanted by the creditor's bias, but nobody I'd talked to that was dealing with UAL was terribly impressed with the UAl people. Quite the opposite, they found them to be arrogant, confrontational, and very difficult to work with. Which is amazing when you consider that UAl was in bankruptcy and treating creditors like dirt. And no, it's not just "hard-nosed negotiating tactics", the people I was talking to have dealt with lots of corporate debtors.
I'll stop with management now, although I could go on. What about the unions? I'll start with IAM, since I'm most familiar with them. They are also godawful at communicating to the rank and file. I know more about my wife's job situation (through digging through the websites and such) than anybody in my wife's department. OK, part of that is my background and such, but a lot of that is that the Union doesn't seem too eager to have educated members. They're good at sending out screaming propaganda and alarmist proclamations, but that's about it. Not so surprisingly, few people in my wife's department thinks the union is representing them well.
Another thing that ticks me off is that the unions are also all about confrontational "negotiation", at least publicly, even when such a tactic is not appropriate. You've got a bankrupt airline, ya think you can go on strike? Does any union member think a strike will do anything other than cause the airline to liquidate? Of course, the logical choice (get your resumes in order and get another job if things get worse than you are willing to accept) is frowned on by the union, because that removes dues paying members from the ranks. Can't lose all those Union dues, can we? No, better to engage in brinksmanship.
Problem is, when you cut a deal at the last minute (which you likely will do, 'cause you know full well that a strike means 20K less dues-paying members), you now have to deal with 20K member who you've whipped up into a frenzy. Of course, I guess that helps from a political standpoint (lots of angry members ready to go to the polls for certain candidates) although if you've missed it, organized labor has a lot less political clout than they used to.
And please, don't start with the "that Union is responsible for all the bene's your wife has!" I'll note that her department was non-union when she started and went union after, and the perks/bene's etc. are essentially unchanged or slightly worse after IAM came in. They gained some bits but lost others. I could go on, but won't.
Unions and management. A pox on both their houses. And not so surprisingly, relationships between both groups continue to be abysmal.
-synchronicity
Let's start with management. Now, I've directed plenty of ire at the unions, and rightly so, but let's look at the other side. I talked with my wife today, and she is saying how everyone in her department is upset with the current situation, but what gets them the most is not that they're losing pay and benefits, but rather the perception, real or not, that management is getting to keep everything while they are losing so much.
Now, I don't know the specifics of what "management" or "senior management" is giving up, but neither do my wife and her co-workers, and that speaks volumes that Management is doing a poor job communicating with employees where it counts! If you really want to keep up morale and get "buy-in" from the employee groups through a tough time, you want to get across the concept of "shared sacrifice", big time. Kinda like this guy: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ay_050512174209
I'm sure there have been some cuts in compensation and headcount throughout management ranks, but if you want to score brownie points, you make sure everyone knows that. If you don't get that message out there, people just focus on what they're losing and what they see at least some people as retaining (like Tilton's existing pension from when he joined UAL).
Before anyone goes off on me, I know Tilton has more leverage than the average ticket agent or mechanic, I know that market compensation for CEO's is a lot higher, and so on. But by the same token, Tilton could take far larger pay cuts in percentage terms than the average worker without adversely impacting his standard of living, his compensation could still be structured so that he can make buckets of money if UAL turns around (through option grants, deferred comp, or just performance bonuses that would give him far more 3-5 years from now than he would have made with steady pay throughout the period).
I also know that some people will say "it doesn't matter what Tilton does, there are people who will roast him over a fire. Why should he give up any pay for that?" True, there are some people who will never be satisfied. But you aim to work with the majority of people who are able to change their minds. You want to motivate people, do everything you can to get across the message that we're ALL sacrificing, and here's what we ("we" being management and senior management) are doing to get towards that goal.
Another item of poor communication: the pension issue. How many UAL workers think that their pensions are now totally gone, they're getting nothing? If my wife's department is at all representative (maybe not, but what the hey), the answer is "lots". Further, how many UAL employees know that the current plan is for UAL to begin with a company match to the 401(k) plan (4% is what is in their proprosal to IAM, and it sounds like the same was proposed to IAM), plus an additional match if UAL starts making money again?
In essence, UAL is making a distress termination of their defined benefit plan, but replacing it with money in the defined contribution plan. Now, I know this isn't a great deal for workers, but the point is that it's NOT a "union members lose all their retirement benefits" situation. Good communication could stress that, and stress what UAL workers are losing (not as much as they think) and what they are gaining (or even get across the point that they'll be gaining something.
Good management works as hard as heck to get that message across.
I won't even get into UAL's interactions with their creditors. Granted, my experience with UAL's creditors was limited (my former employer leased two planes to UAL, and my father was representing a UAL creditor awhile back), and I may have been getting stories slanted by the creditor's bias, but nobody I'd talked to that was dealing with UAL was terribly impressed with the UAl people. Quite the opposite, they found them to be arrogant, confrontational, and very difficult to work with. Which is amazing when you consider that UAl was in bankruptcy and treating creditors like dirt. And no, it's not just "hard-nosed negotiating tactics", the people I was talking to have dealt with lots of corporate debtors.
I'll stop with management now, although I could go on. What about the unions? I'll start with IAM, since I'm most familiar with them. They are also godawful at communicating to the rank and file. I know more about my wife's job situation (through digging through the websites and such) than anybody in my wife's department. OK, part of that is my background and such, but a lot of that is that the Union doesn't seem too eager to have educated members. They're good at sending out screaming propaganda and alarmist proclamations, but that's about it. Not so surprisingly, few people in my wife's department thinks the union is representing them well.
Another thing that ticks me off is that the unions are also all about confrontational "negotiation", at least publicly, even when such a tactic is not appropriate. You've got a bankrupt airline, ya think you can go on strike? Does any union member think a strike will do anything other than cause the airline to liquidate? Of course, the logical choice (get your resumes in order and get another job if things get worse than you are willing to accept) is frowned on by the union, because that removes dues paying members from the ranks. Can't lose all those Union dues, can we? No, better to engage in brinksmanship.
Problem is, when you cut a deal at the last minute (which you likely will do, 'cause you know full well that a strike means 20K less dues-paying members), you now have to deal with 20K member who you've whipped up into a frenzy. Of course, I guess that helps from a political standpoint (lots of angry members ready to go to the polls for certain candidates) although if you've missed it, organized labor has a lot less political clout than they used to.
And please, don't start with the "that Union is responsible for all the bene's your wife has!" I'll note that her department was non-union when she started and went union after, and the perks/bene's etc. are essentially unchanged or slightly worse after IAM came in. They gained some bits but lost others. I could go on, but won't.
Unions and management. A pox on both their houses. And not so surprisingly, relationships between both groups continue to be abysmal.
-synchronicity
