airlineorphan said:
I think more precisely, Michael is trying to make a case that if there is conflict, the company will flounder.
Yup. That pretty much sums it up.
Unfortunately, he is implying that no matter the source of the conflict (sunspots, leprecauns, decaf, or an incompetent and dangerously agressive management team), the onus is on the employees to concede enough until the conflict abates.
That may be what you infer, but it isn't what I'm implying. I believe that the success of US depends on a few factors, and absent any one of them we will not see the airline last much longer.
One factor is a revamping of business practices, pretty much from the ground up. US Airways spent much of the past 20 years running on a model of extracting monopoly rents from its hubs. That model became unsustainable with the combination of the elimination of slot control and the expansion of LCCs.
Another factor is a CEO that can affect this change on the organization.
The third factor is a group of employees willing to implement the changes.
If employees cannot give unto management to the point at which said management is finally sated and stops thrashing about like spoiled children, then those employees need to get out of the way so others can offer themselves up to the ravenous maw of management.
Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it. Not quite what I had in mind, though.
I realize a set this up pretty harshly, but seriously, it's what Michael (and some others) propose if pressed to its final conclusion. At what point is the sweatshop drive in our economy a bridge too far? Is there ever a point at which Michael and others think it is appropriate for people to dig in their heels and say No More!?
That's really what I'm trying to say. Of course you can dig your heels in and say "No More." But you don't have the power to fix the problem. Ultimately, you have two productive options of action. Either you agree with where the company is headed, and you want to be part of it, or you disagree with where the company is headed, and you don't want to be a part of it.
Corporations are
not democracies. Rather, they are more fascist. Your power against the facism is the ability to leave, which is not something offered to most residents of fascist nations. You can try to make yourself heard, but ultimately the employees that face the customers aren't calling the shots.
Finally, I'd like to point out that labor, like anything else, is subject to the laws of supply and demand. I'm pretty sure that if US chose to pay pilots $5,000 per year, regardless of the equipment, they'd have a difficult time filling the seats. At $5,000,000 per year, they'd be turning people away every day. The goal should be to match the pay to the demand, in such a fashion as to ensure every position gets filled with people of sufficient quality, at as low a wage as possible.
Contrary to what many people believe, there is no such thing as a "right" to a living wage. The Constitution is silent on wages. The closest we have come as a nation is establishment of a minimum wage, with no guarantee of work. Those are the rules by which we live.
Ultimately, the answer to the question "How much am I worth [as an employee]?" is quite simple. I am worth whatever an employer is willing to pay me. It's negotiable, to be sure, but ultimately if my asking price is too high, I won't be hired. If their offer is too low, I won't accept the job.
