airlineorphan said:
mweiss wrote":
If you're doing a really good job (which is defined as working in the best interests of your employer), then you're not part of the problem.
This definition is flawed because it assumes way too much about the "best interests of your employer." Our employer's interests are not necessarily to run a successful business, to provide good customer service or safe transportation. The overwhelming bottom line for "Our employer's best interests" is rate of return on investment.
Au contraire. You suggest that, for instance, providing bad customer service might be in the best interests of the employer, and therefore doing a good job cannot include providing bad customer service.
The safety valve there comes on the other side of the transaction. If the company isn't providing what customers want, then they don't have customers. If they don't have customers, the company isn't around for long.
As you noted, it's not always clear if the CEO is working in the best interest of the company. CEOs can forget about the best interests of the employer as much as the ramper who decides to damage a bag because it's too heavy (and, yes, I happen to personally know one who did).
Yes, theoretically one could consider driving down the value of US Airways to be a "rational" choice. I doubt that it passes the smell test, though, unless you are certain that the value of the acquired US Airways would be greater than the initial value before driving down the price. That's hard for me to swallow.
Of course the overwhelming bottom line is a rate of return on investment. Otherwise, you're working for what is called a "charity." Dave Siegel doesn't pay you. The passengers do. No return on investment means no gross profits, which means no money to pay you.
With a 3rd (or 4th, if you count the ripoff of pilots' deferred income when Siegel, et al, liquidated the pilots' pension fund) round of concessions being demanded, this one a staggering $1.5 billion/year, it seems clear that there is some other game a-foot other than saving US Airways and making it a viable business.
Certainly there were ulterior motives by Icahn when he purchased TWA (as, incidentally, were there when
Howard Hughes purchased TWA), and they had little to do with running the business. The board of directors should have sued him for violating his fiduciary responsibilities. The same could be said for Don Carty and many of his cronies at the top of American Airlines. Dave Siegel's behavior seems a little less clearly nefarious, though no less destructive.
Resistance to Siegel is part of the solution. Collaboration and acquiescence is part of the problem.
Productive resistance, maybe.
The problem with this argument is that we do not have the ability to leave because we must work somewhere, and as you say, corporations are fascist institutions. If we leave this fascist institution, then we will eventually be working in another fascist institution.
They're not all made alike. It's not the facism that's the problem.
If we always buckle under or bail when faced with such conditions, we never deal with the bigger problem that you point to yourself: the fascist (and therefore unaccountable) nature of corporations and their power.
They are facist, but not unaccountable.
This entire thread started with the question: How much are you worth? as if we were chattel slaves on the auction block. We are offended by arguments that reduce us to commodities, to being less than human.
Like it our not, human labor
is, to varying degrees, a commodity. That's true at every level, including airline CEO. Sure, we each do what we can to differentiate ourselves from our competitors (other potential employees), but there is a limit to the power of that differentiation. That our labor is a commodity does nothing to diminish our humanity. You are not your job. Hopefully, your job is but a part of who you are...hopefully you do not let your job define who you are.
And we are also offended by the suggestion that we somehow acquiesce to tyrannical foolishness from Siegel/Bronner/CCY or become refugee
So instead it's better to complain about how horrible it all is? That's turning yourself into a victim. Or is it better to say "we don't like what you're doing, so rather than let you take down the company we'll do it ourselves," as some others on this board suggest? Neither of those are productive.
You can choose to be a victim, choose to cut off your nose to spite your face, or choose to take control of
your life. Because none of you are likely to take control of US Airways.
"Organize" is a means. Whats the end?