Labor And Management

[mweiss]

Per scot's request, I'm moving this discussion to another thread.

There is business eithics and their are principles of ethics in business, capatilistic businesses.

Leaving the grammar and spelling aside, yes, indeed, there are ethics involved in these arenas. They cannot, however, come at the expense of violating fiduciary responsibility without risking exposure to liability.

In case you forgot about this thing called "binding contact agreements" in capitalistic business whether union or not...THEY MUST BE HONORED! ITS THE LAW! WE EMPLOYEES DO NOT HAVE TO OPEN CONTRACTS EARLIER THAN THE AMENDABLE DATES! KAPEESH?

I capice quite well. Please show me where I said that contracts do not have to be honored.

 

[Dilligas]

Michael,

Just curious...

What was your career field before this latest trip back to academia?

Since you have publically stated you would not apply to U due to the uncertainty and instability of the company, why such an interest in the affairs at U?

Of course this is none of our business, but since you feel free to comment with such frequency on the challenges faced by those still employed at U, I'm curious as to your interest in, and stake, if any, in the outcome and from what background you speak.

Thanks,

D


PS: Comments on grammar and spelling don't really add to your arguments... we'll bow to your superior typing skills... it just makes you look kind of cruel to me, as we discussed before.

 

[PITbull]

Hey, you can save me the inference. Do you think you have the power to stop the erosion of American livable wage jobs?

I moved this response from another thread...


mweiss,


In my little arena, I'm here to balance out those who behave like our senior corporate execs...even to the extreme.


In our industry, U opened this pandora's box and placed the survivability of an airline at the foot of labor...all of it, 3 times now, placing on our shoulders the burden of ensuring the wall street gamblers and corporate execs a profit and return on their investment, at the expense, livlihoods, and sacrifice of the employees of U. Its time for the "people" to decide their own destiny.

And as you can surely attest, management has relatively not sacrificed or felt the pain of concessions in the same manner the "rank and file" has. They have admitted to no mistakes for not having a plan to compete or turn the airline around. All they have done is continuely restructured the labor agreements including the ATSB. They have no vision and have burned every bridge with labor and make no bones about any kind of regret or restitution.
Same arrogance, same pompous attitudes of more threats and calculating disregard of all labor agreements. These are not businessmen. They are unethical, disingenuous, contrite, greedy con men who have "captured" our airline and its employees and have taken them hostage. And they will not be satisfied until every employee pays for every benefit and comes to work for the lowest wage in the industry.

Will I facilitate that? Only when Hell freezes over!

 

[mweiss]

Point taken re: grammar and spelling. Mostly I mentioned it because I had to read that sentence three times before I figured out what she was trying to say. Sorta turned into a jumble. Nonetheless, you're right...it was over the line.

As to my background, I guess I began my interest in commercial aviation around the age of four, when my dad took me on a TWA flight from PHX to SAN. I loved everything about it, though naturally at that age the business aspects meant nothing to me. I was very interested in the deregulation story as it began to unfold...I followed the stories about Braniff, People Express, New York Air, America West, Texas International, Eastern, the PATCO strike and subsequent ATC capacity issues (not to mention the horrendously outdated technology they still use). I wrote a report in high school on some of the dangers in aviation that weren't being addressed.

In college, I got a degree in aerospace engineering, with the intention of going to work at Boeing's CAG. At the time I was dating someone whose brother was (and might still be) an airline mechanic. Many of his friends were rampers. We discussed the business quite a bit.

Along the way, my parallel interest in software led me into that industry (I had a better offer than Boeing). My job required significant air travel, and I had many conversations with GAs and flight crew about their perspectives on the industry. I also had the opportunity to meet with some airline execs for business, and got to talk with them about the industry as well.

When the economy turned, I was laid off. It seemed like a good time to further my education, so I'm getting what one could call a technical MBA, covering both business and computer technology...though I'm focusing much more on the business.

While here, I've had the pleasure of doing some research with some people very closely tied to airline deregulation. My most recent work was updating a paper written in the late 80s that described the monopolistic behaviors of airline hubs. The research I've done suggests that the hubs have shifted from monopolies to oligopolies. Interestingly, and to my surprise, it seems the biggest force leading to that shift was not the expansion of the LCCs, but rather the removal of slots. The LCCs, having had no monopolies from which to pick up revenue, were well-positioned to take advantage of the new opportunities.

So, given the long interest I've had in the industry, I have begun applying to jobs at a handful of airlines (among other fields).

My interest in US is not really greater than that of other airlines. There's more traffic here, mostly.

I posted quite a bit in the UA section back in the PlaneBusiness days. At the time, I was mostly posting in the threads where UA employees were talking about how the boom was going to go on forever, and UA was invincible. I kept commenting that the business was about to go through some major deflation, and that UA was one of the most poorly positioned to survive it.

Back then, most of the talk in the US board was about how awful Wolf/Gang was, with some speculation that the company was being cleaned up to merge with UA. That one almost happened...can you imagine how bad the fall would have been?

 

[mweiss]

OK, PITbull, I'll agree with you loudly on a couple of points:

1) You've had a really crummy run of CEOs. Some would argue dating back to Allegheny, though I didn't pay enough attention to the airline back then to have an opinion I'd feel would carry any weight.

2) The industry as a whole has gotten much rougher. In most respects, this is the logical conclusion of deregulation, since the markets are much more competitive. Someone's bound to believe that you have to be Wal-Mart and succeed on the backs of the employees, and it appears that Siegel is one of those someones.

But I'm confused by your tactics. Can we follow them a couple of steps out for a bit? I see a couple of possible outcomes:

1) You win, and there are no more concessions. Since Siegel knows of no other way to bring CASM down, the company folds before anyone with a clue comes in.

2) You give in, and there are concessions. Siegel might (God forbid) be hailed by the BOD as a hero for breaking the unions. No other changes are made, and the company manages to limp along a bit longer than it would have under scenario 1, but still ultimately folds because RASM never exceeds CASM.

I'm not trying to spread all doom and gloom. I'd really prefer that US Airways succeed (though not enough that I'm willing to pay $1000 per round-trip, no offense). The company has many employees who are very competent, pleasant, and want to work hard. Given the right management, coupled with a willingness to work together, the company could still make it. CO was much closer to death in 1994 than US is right now. I think.

But I'd love to hear from you what kind of future you're expecting. How do you see things playing out? What do you view as the end-game?

 

[PITbull]

There is business eithics and their are principles of ethics in business, capatilistic businesses.

Leaving the grammar and spelling aside, yes, indeed, there are ethics involved in these arenas. They cannot, however, come at the expense of violating fiduciary responsibility without risking exposure to liability.

mweiss,

Give me a break already with the mumbo jumbo fidudiciary responsibility liability crap.

Anyone who invested in U last year was taking a huge gamble. Where is it written that employees must take these concessions when asked by mangement or the airline could be sued by the stakeholders and stockholders....get real!

What? You make this stuff up cause it makes for good fodder?

Answer to your post above:

I expect the employees will decide. You can't rationalize in some "logic book" what I am talking about when I speak about "principles and ethics" in business. Those have more validity for many than you may want to believe. If you take the American Revolution and apply your logic, assumptions, and thinking, what would you think the outcome would have been?

Sometimes you need to think more past your nose.

 

[mweiss]

Give me a break already with the mumbo jumbo fidudiciary responsibility liability crap.

Hey, it's real. It drives businesses, especially at the top.

Where is it written that employees must take these concessions when asked by mangement or the airline could be sued by the stakeholders and stockholders....get real!

Sorry. Perhaps I'm not being clear. Management has a responsibility to ensure that the business makes money. Dave knows no other way than employee concessions. Nonetheless, the employees have no requirement, legal or otherwise, to accept his offer.

What? You make this stuff up cause it makes for good fodder?

Nope, I sure don't. You should take some business classes...they'd give you a whole new perspective. Carnegie Mellon has an excellent program, right in your town!

 

[PITbull]

mweiss,

Read the rest of what I wrote above, I edited the thread.

Business Courses? Do you want my education background? I already have a degree in Business as well as Nursing. Please, don't start up with me with attempting to educate me because you happen to find yourself in school.....

You don't care for my perspective because it goes against your "mind set". I don't need your kind of education...too limited.

 

[mweiss]

You can't rationalize in some "logic book" what I am talking about when I speak about "principles and ethics" in business. Those have more validity for many than you may want to believe. If you take the American Revolution and apply your logic, assumptions, and thinking, what would you think the outcome would have been?

I'm much more into ethics than it appears you believe. But what you're describing sounds more like spitting into the wind. Is your intent to fight for the sake of fighting?

Look, I agree with you that the top levels of management at US Airways are unprincipled and unethical. So why not finesse a solution instead of brute-forcing one? Get the unions to agree to concessions only if Dave is gone and you choose his replacement team. Watch how quickly his true colors show...and the BOD might even have a case for agreeing to his departure!

 

[mweiss]

I already have a degree in Business as well as Nursing.

Then why pretend you don't understand what I'm talking about???

 

[PITbull]

mweiss,

I persoanlly don't agree with deeper cuts no matter who is CEO. That may be fine for another group. $1,000 a month cut to one group is the difference between poverty level as opposed to perhaps another group. If all 27,000 employees gave in cuts an additional $12,000 a year, that would only translate to $324 million dollars in cost savings for the company. That wouldn't put a dent in the $1.5 billion they are seeking. However, that $1,000 per month would impoverish over 50% of the work force.

Do you see this point? The solution is... labor decides. The rest, will have to live with. As one poster said, "when one door closes, another opens, and God only gives you what you can handle if you believe in some spirtualism here.

 

[mweiss]

Sounds worse than that. Sounds like the solution is...US Airways closes shop because the company is incapable of generating profits.

Please prove me wrong. I'll honestly be happier if you can.

 

[PITbull]

Then why pretend you don't understand what I'm talking about???

oh, I understand full-well what you speak of. I just don't agree with your thoughts on how labor fits into the equation.

You imply that its labor who will ultimately save the company. That IMO is just mangment "hog wash". As I presented above in a simple math equation just in wages that it won't make a dent. If you add all the benefits and make the employees pay for them, its no longer a profession. Bad jobs you can find any time of day.

Management's vision of labor contribution is unattainable, and they have set up the employees to fail.

 

[PITbull]

Sounds worse than that. Sounds like the solution is...US Airways closes shop because the company is incapable of generating profits.

Please prove me wrong. I'll honestly be happier if you can.

I'm not here to prove you wrong. It is not my mission in life to save an "entity" at the expense of great unattainable, unrealistic expectations and sacrifice of employees.

Personally, I believe the co. is positioning to sell off. Hell Siegel said consolidation is inevitable. However, in my estimation, they need the wages and benefits to go to the lowest level in order to maximise sharholder value.

So, on that assumption, we as employees, lose either way.

Good night.

 

[mweiss]

You imply that its labor who will ultimately save the company.

So that's what this is all about? Sheesh, I never thought the company could succeed with doing nothing but paycuts. Well, maybe at some absurd extreme, but not at any rational level.

Where we started a few weeks ago was with my comment that the company cannot succeed with labor and management viewing each other as the enemy. But that doesn't mean pure capitulation. It means both sides have to be sincere about wanting the company to succeed, not about getting as much blood out of the dying patient as possible.

Dave hasn't set the employees up to fail. He has set the company up to fail.

So what are your plans? Long-term, I mean.