Happy Bonus Day!

[WeAAsles]

 
That's hardly unique to AA. I was involved with the 2003 layoff, and we were deliberately targeting the bottom 10% of performers, even if it meant some departments had zero layoffs and some had lots. There were several people who were high performers who were moved into vacancies created by getting rid of the slugs, and even a few promotions.

By the last round of layoffs, they'd probably already burned thru the low performers *and* many of the high performers were probably already gone by that time. So the weak managers who were left behind resorted to "bridge to retirement" layoffs, which I agree are despicable. Technically, anyone who is over 40 is a protected class for age discrimination, yet it's rarely challenged when layoffs occur because HR probably manages to come up with a richer severance for people over 40...
 

I think the 2003 layoffs also created another problem that's still lingering to this day at least on the ramp. Before 2003 upper management was still able to entice people to move away from the collective bargaining unit into CSM positions (Whatever happened to the term Supervisor) but also in 2003 I saw a lot of those people who had moved up let go. They were actually among the first to be cut. Admittedly they weren't exactly automatons to the direction their bosses wanted to go but they also knew the operation quite well and had the relationships to keep things running smoothly.

Now we come to 13 years later and the airline is growing again. All the CSM's we're getting here in MIA are coming from off the streets or Eulen America. No one from the ranks is interested in the job. Same response is universal. They don't trust that they would be with the job all the way till they retire. They don't want to expose themselves to the risk, and the bump up in pay just isn't worth it. So here on the ramp we are literately getting kids coming in that "occasionally" are trying to tell us how to do our jobs. I'm sorry but even if some of them are good kids they just are never going to earn the respect of the workers because they never put in the time that we have and they can never know our jobs as well as we do. So you get a lack of respect for someone who is technically supposed to be your boss.

There is a way to solve the problem but I don't think the company would ever do it. Offer some type of employment contract to people who are willing to move up through the ranks. Of course it wouldn't be a lifetime contract because performance would suffer. But if there was a contract involved (only offered to those leaving a contract situation) that maybe had a 3 year severance attached, the company just might be able to attract some of us to make the move again like they used to before I hired on?    

 

[Worldport]

I think the 2003 layoffs also created another problem that's still lingering to this day at least on the ramp. Before 2003 upper management was still able to entice people to move away from the collective bargaining unit into CSM positions (Whatever happened to the term Supervisor) but also in 2003 I saw a lot of those people who had moved up let go. They were actually among the first to be cut. Admittedly they weren't exactly automatons to the direction their bosses wanted to go but they also knew the operation quite well and had the relationships to keep things running smoothly.

Now we come to 13 years later and the airline is growing again. All the CSM's we're getting here in MIA are coming from off the streets or Eulen America. No one from the ranks is interested in the job. Same response is universal. They don't trust that they would be with the job all the way till they retire. They don't want to expose themselves to the risk, and the bump up in pay just isn't worth it. So here on the ramp we are literately getting kids coming in that "occasionally" are trying to tell us how to do our jobs. I'm sorry but even if some of them are good kids they just are never going to earn the respect of the workers because they never put in the time that we have and they can never know our jobs as well as we do. So you get a lack of respect for someone who is technically supposed to be your boss.

There is a way to solve the problem but I don't think the company would ever do it. Offer some type of employment contract to people who are willing to move up through the ranks. Of course it wouldn't be a lifetime contract because performance would suffer. But if there was a contract involved (only offered to those leaving a contract situation) that maybe had a 3 year severance attached, the company just might be able to attract some of us to make the move again like they used to before I hired on?    

Yes and 1/4 of the CSM weren't even born when we were hired. AA also hires managers for the sake of hiring managers. Of course you can't have anarchy but half these managers are a waste. If there is a downturn they better thin the ranks of mangers before they even think of give backs

 

[eolesen]

AA hires supervisors and managers because there's always some % of the workforce who hasn't figured out how to act like an adult, i.e. show up to work on-time, leave on-time, do the job they're paid for...

All an employment contract would do at that level is protect poor performers. You'd be better off getting the union to agree to let a supervisor come back to a contract position (which I think APFA and maybe APA allow to some degree e.g. within X months/years and only if it's returning to the line from the first management/specialist position they've moved into)

 

[Worldport]

AA hires supervisors and managers because there's always some % of the workforce who hasn't figured out how to act like an adult, i.e. show up to work on-time, leave on-time, do the job they're paid for...

All an employment contract would do at that level is protect poor performers. You'd be better off getting the union to agree to let a supervisor come back to a contract position (which I think APFA and maybe APA allow to some degree e.g. within X months/years and only if it's returning to the line from the first management/specialist position they've moved into)

It has also been my experience that the company will actually offer more money to a manager off the street than one of their own employees and this manager doesn't have a MBA from Harvard

 

[WeAAsles]

It has also been my experience that the company will actually offer more money to a manager off the street than one of their own employees and this manager doesn't have a MBA from Harvard

They're hiring in here at $48,000 per year. That's what the 23 YO young lady new CSM who I talked to last week told me she is making.

 

[Worldport]

They're hiring in here at $48,000 per year. That's what the 23 YO young lady new CSM who I talked to last week told me she is making.

 A manager making less than the rank and file.... that's something . Hire less and pay more might be better

 

[WeAAsles]

AA hires supervisors and managers because there's always some % of the workforce who hasn't figured out how to act like an adult, i.e. show up to work on-time, leave on-time, do the job they're paid for...All an employment contract would do at that level is protect poor performers. You'd be better off getting the union to agree to let a supervisor come back to a contract position (which I think APFA and maybe APA allow to some degree e.g. within X months/years and only if it's returning to the line from the first management/specialist position they've moved into)

Some Unions automatically have the opinion that if you move into a management position even for MPR and decide you didn't care for it or were offered a full position that you are a turncoat. You receive a permanent scarlet letter "M" attached to you.

It's a very debatable issue E. Say a manager who was responsible for firing a well liked employee were ever to come back into the ranks. What happens to Police Officers who wind up going to prison?

So to allow what you propose does become very controversial.

 

[WeAAsles]

A manager making less than the rank and file.... that's something . Hire less and pay more chatty might be better

I was asked by a manager last year what would it take for me to move over? I said you couldn't offer what I would require. He then asked me how much. I told him a 50% raise. To me that's honestly what I felt I would be worth to even consider making that type of move.

He of course couldn't offer it even if he wanted to.

 

[WeAAsles]

Yes and 1/4 of the CSM weren't even born when we were hired. AA also hires managers for the sake of hiring managers. Of course you can't have anarchy but half these managers are a waste. If there is a downturn they better thin the ranks of mangers before they even think of give backs

Many of them absolutely are not worth what they are paying them. Especially $48,000 out of the gate with no actual hands on ramp experience.

On E's note in reverse. If they were required to put in 6 months on the ramp (Not taking away any manpower) maybe they would have at least a slight bit more value to the company from an operational perspective.

A long time ago I thought of a term for them. They're the Watchers. You have the Workers and those who stand around and watch us work.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

How many of you mechanics went to school and paid thousands of dollars or served military time and earned your A&P so your labor and license could benefit someone else over the life of your career?
 
Anybody?

No one has claimed they went to school and paid thousands of dollars for their A&P so their labor could benefit someone else's career.
 
How peculiar. 

 

[WeAAsles]

No one has claimed they went to school and paid thousands of dollars for their A&P so their labor could benefit someone else's career.
 
How peculiar.

You do understand that your compensation benefits others every day. Your taxes pay for a myriad of social programs and not just WIC checks for disadvantaged individuals. Without your taxes there would be no roads for you to drive on to get to work to be compensated. Bridges, tunnels all infrastructure. Police, Fire Departments, Schools, Airports. The list of items is huge and many extremely necessary.

 

[WeAAsles]

Oh and let's not forget the "Environmental Protection Agency" That program sucks. We should absolutely go back to the good old days when companies could outright dump their toxic sludge into our waterways that we rely on to drink and live.

Let's let that Deicing fluid go down those storm drains. Who's it going to hurt?

 

[UPNAWAY]

We used to call them NUGs, as in New Useless Guy......

 

[eolesen]

You guys get the supervision you deserve. If you put up artificial barriers (e.g. "branded" with the letter M as a turncoat), then you're going to get poor managers and supervisors in return. Likewise, if the pay is less than the people you manage and supervise, you'll attract lower quality candidates.

BTW, if you think $48K is way too much for a supervisor or manager, then you might want to rethink labor's support for all those $15 minimum wage proposals -- that works out to $31K for a fulltime employee, so why should $22/hr be out of the question for a supervisor that normally isn't eligible for overtime?

 

[swamt]

you can't beat me on my point so you throw in i.e. spell . I can't spell so who gives a rat other then you and the people I piss off  .

He always does that when someone is correct in showing him he was wrong about something. He's done it to me as well as others when he's backed into a corner. It was the exact same thing another poster on here would do when proven wrong all the time. And he was refered to as one of the twins.