usfliboi said:
You guys!!!! Where were all the other guys with heir money ???????? This guy took a risk plain and simple ITS a FACT ! Give credit where credit is dude. He has every right to get that money back and more.
The only right he has is to appoint the controlling majority of the board. That's it. His money (actually, to be more accurate, the money of many hard working Alabama folks) is at risk--as it would be with any other investment.
I know that Pitbull will scream mightily at this (and she and I have beat each other to death on this issue in the past, so it's really nothing new), but the ultimate driver for any business is to make money, and increase shareholder value. It's not to provide for, respect, or otherwise do anything at all for it's employees. Dave and Dave's first and most important priority is to increase shareholder value. As somebody who works for a living, I've accepted this rather shitty fact of life.
Having said that, a very good way to ensure that you increase shareholder value and return is by having (and retaining) a talented, happy, and productive employee base. Pissing off your employees will do nothing to add to the bottom line, and can, in many cases, hurt it in a big way. I would never put the few folks who I manage thru anything like what the Daves have done. Ever. I might as well shoot myself and/or take a header out my third floor office window. Both would do more for my career and my effort to increase shareholder value and return for my firm.
Concessions had to happen at US. At the time, it was the only way to keep the doors open. However, the crap that the Daves have pulled since (violating major portions of CBAs, attempting to unilaterally rewrite and creatively interperet others, etc) did not have to happen and should not have happened. Take the airbus outsourcing as a perfect example--the wanton hubris and incredible justification for doing so have failed to impress several federal judges, destroyed any chance the Daves will ever have of constructively working with the IAM-M group for years, and cost the company millions of dollars in lost revenue while the legal battle is ongoing. The initial plan to furlough FAs without offering the contractually required VF is another example--it destroys morale, any sense of cooperation, draws a line in the sand anytime further negotiations might be apropos, and cements a sense of distrust starting with the MEC and rippling down thru the rank and file from there.
Good management would have done two major things differently: obtained (or tried to obtain) what they really needed in Chapter 11--let's face it, they have the unions by the short hairs. The second thing that should have happened is a no-nonsense interpretation and implementation of the bargaining agreements. Obviously, the company might take a swing at some of the questionable language on items that might save money if interpreted in "their" (CCY's) favor. Items at the core of the CBAs (airbus outsourcing) or items impacting folks being let go (the AFA VF thing) were the
worst possible items to dicker over.
There is something to be said for positive labor relations. The folks over at Southwest (prior to the concessions at all the majors) earned a lot less money than there counterparts at the big 6. However, the working climate, positive relationship with management, and benefits seemed to make for a happy group of people. In turn, this increased their shareholder value in a big way, which in turn paid dividends for the employees themselves (due to Southwest's generous profit sharing and stock option plans). Nonetheless, Southwest has proven for a long time that a happy employee does not necessarily mean one being paid "well" in comparison with their peers--there is something to be said for a happy working environment, job security, and working for a firm that legitimately seems to care about the welfare of it's employees (and backs this up with actions that demonstrate that attitude). Forget about all the structural comparisons (hub and spoke versus point to point, legacy versus LCCs)--the thing that the Daves should really try to emulate from Southwest is their employee relations.
The key, in my mind, is that while shareholders come first, one of the most important ways you can protect and enhance the value/return to shareholders is by having a happy and productive workforce. The Daves, without a major chance in attitude, will never get there--and, even with a change in attitude, probably still won't get there simply because the actions they have already taken have destroyed any credibility they might ever hope to obtain in this regard.
I've said on any number of occasions that I'd never work for these clowns (in my current profession, it would probably involve a staff job at CCY in a nonunion status). If I did hypothetically work at a represented bargaining group on the property, my vote would be a solid "no" on any further giveback requests from the current management team. Indeed, this proponent of the concessions during Chapter 11 would in fact vote to shut the thing down before giving another dime to the Daves.
, since he believes poor, poor RSA needs to have a return on their investment at the risk and financial jeopardy of the employees of U. Seems to me, USfliboi is living way too high on the hog and is feeling quite guilty for his wage.
