Headed There In A Handbasket

[Justme]

"Hard" Management vs. "Soft" Management

OK, doesn't directly address U (the article pertains to workers at Wachovia)...but look at the excerpts below that sound exactly like what has been said about U on this board.....U is a case study for this guy..

Predictions of a "harder" corporate management philosophy are sadly becoming true, and now dominate America's corporate culture.

Soft consulting is basically the human resources development approach that recognizes an organization as an association of human beings, all of whom contribute to the production of a quality product or service at the lowest cost.

Hard consulting is different, with drastically different effects on the corporation and on society itself. It's based purely on cost reduction -- not true efficiency -- and it fits perfectly with Milton Friedman's frequently quoted justification for management and investor greed: "So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer is, no they do not."


Lower level employees are not seen as human beings with families to support, or even as legitimate members of the organization. They are merely costs to be minimized, no matter how much they have previously contributed to the corporation's success. Ethical issues of fairness and justice to lower-level employees have no role in top management's decisions -- all that counts is the return for shareholders and increased bonuses for the top executives.

For example, Ford Motor Co. has already outsourced many of its manufacturing, technical development and clerical functions. But, more importantly, hard consultants are now arguing that it shouldn't even be in the business of assembling its cars. This is called the "asset-light" strategy, made famous by Enron. Top corporate executives transfer the headaches of dealing with people -- and the risks of actually manufacturing a product -- to others who compete with each other to deliver products as cheaply as possible.

This hard management style is changing the nature of our society. We're becoming a nation of highly paid investment bankers -- and workers who must compete with each other in the race to the bottom in wages and working conditions.

Switch to `hard' management is bad for society
Workers at Wachovia and elsewhere lose jobs in name of efficiency
CHARLES M. KELLY
Special to the Observer

 

[fanlube]

Great article!! This is exactly what U is doing but they are still failing. But you know the funny thing is the most profitable and best airline in the industry Southwest, has probably the best labor management relationship and actually understands that it is it's employees that make it a great airline!!

 

[speedbird86]

Southwest, has probably the best labor management relationship and actually understands that it is it's employees that make it a great airline!!

[post="258348"][/post]​

Have you flown Southwest lately? Their employess ain't that great. I wonder how Southwest management would feel about their employees if they were to have the same financial problems that say USAirways and United have? Time may tell.

 

[fanlube]

Have you flown Southwest lately? Their employess ain't that great. I wonder how Southwest management would feel about their employees if they were to have the same financial problems that say USAirways and United have? Time may tell.

[post="258362"][/post]​

If your aunt was a man she would be your uncle!! Time may tell, but as one aviation analyst put it U's management would drive Southwest right into bankruptcy, that seems to be all their good at anyway. The reason they don't have the financial problems U has is because they have an idea how to run an airline. Financial troubles or not your employees are not the enemy and should never be treated as such. They understand that at Southwest, yes everything isn't perfect there but they do know their employees make that airline what it is! U on the other hand thinks that all their employees are out to screw them, US Airways will never be successful until the culture changes and with the current management team it dosen't appear they are to interested in having a successful airline. Outsource everything and we will have to make money right?

 

[speedbird86]

If your aunt was a man she would be your uncle!! Time may tell, but as one aviation analyst put it U's management would drive Southwest right into bankruptcy, that seems to be all their good at anyway. The reason they don't have the financial problems U has is because they have an idea how to run an airline. Financial troubles or not your employees are not the enemy and should never be treated as such. They understand that at Southwest, yes everything isn't perfect there but they do know their employees make that airline what it is! U on the other hand thinks that all their employees are out to screw them, US Airways will never be successful until the culture changes and with the current management team it dosen't appear they are to interested in having a successful airline. Outsource everything and we will have to make money right?

[post="258513"][/post]​

I don't disagree with you. My point is what if Southwest were suddenly faced with the same financial problems that USAirways is faced with. Regardless of the reasons. Where else could they cut costs?

 

[PITbull]

I don't disagree with you. My point is what if Southwest were suddenly faced with the same financial problems that USAirways is faced with. Regardless of the reasons. Where else could they cut costs?

[post="258521"][/post]​

Senior Management pay, perks and expenses. As far as Lakefield's comment about a paycut, that pimple needs popped.

 

[Finish or Ignore]

I don't disagree with you. My point is what if Southwest were suddenly faced with the same financial problems that USAirways is faced with. Regardless of the reasons. Where else could they cut costs?

[post="258521"][/post]​

That's a very big "if". I would like to point out we were not "suddenly" faced with this problem. Had W and G focused more on building a solid company, rather than filling their pockets quickly, we would'nt be having this conversation.

 

[speedbird86]

That's a very big "if". I would like to point out we were not "suddenly" faced with this problem. Had W and G focused more on building a solid company, rather than filling their pockets quickly, we would'nt be having this conversation.

[post="258539"][/post]​

That's true. I think it happend long before that though. Like back in the late '80's. When they decided to buy a couple of airlines and had no freaking idea as to what to do with them. :huh:

 

[jimntx]

What if, if only, etc. Well, it didn't, it isn't. We can all play the game of speculating what SW would do if it were in the same predicament as U. The truth is that they aren't, haven't been, and probably never will be because they have had and continue to have top-notch management.

As Robert Burns said, "The saddest words known to man are those that say, it might have been."

 

[LGA / 037]

Have you flown Southwest lately? Their employess ain't that great. I wonder how Southwest management would feel about their employees if they were to have the same financial problems that say USAirways and United have? Time may tell.

[post="258362"][/post]​

Southwest could really care less about how their employees are and act ! But their overall cost structure is so solid they make a profit even if/when fuel goes to over $60 this summer. JetBlue better defer those EMB deliveries till next year otherwise they will take a 3Q and 4Q loss this year ! ( Double unit cost ! )