Raise for management
- Thread starter OldGuy@AA
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #17
and would you like to tell me what mgmt. employees at AA have control over oil prices, wars, Sars etc!
if those are the crucial issues, why is ANYONE getting profit sharing?
I personally think he is wrong and if you want to call it a bonus and not PS then do that, I think we should all have skin in the game.WorldTraveler said:
He must think it is okay for upper mgmt to have that risk and part of their job is to mitigate it, but he doesn't feel the rank & file should carry that risk.
D
Deleted member 14439
Guest
yet another twu FAIL!!!Overspeed said:
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Drummond needs to get Doyle and Virella to get stuff moving on money they can get us now. Prefunding match, gain sharing, remaining stock, and then get the NMB to give us a decision on representation. If the F/As can turn down a 12% (what I heard) then we should get at least that in JCBA.
He should tell 591 to stop c***blocking any type of membership benefits off stupid worthless DFR lawsuits.
He should tell 591 to stop c***blocking any type of membership benefits off stupid worthless DFR lawsuits.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
dvlhog212 said:
Yes and No.
The failure is on our own part for putting up with a union that constantly puts forth for a vote. terms of a labor agreement that include these "To Be Negotiated Later" compensation and work rule issues. We are the dumbasses for not replacing the TWU long ago.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #23
I presume the "he" is Parker and if so, I agree with you.
If issues like war, disease, and fuel prices are the determining factors, then no one at AA should be in control. perhaps a few people in OPEC or the CIA or the DoD might be able to affect those things but no one at AA can.
it is a fine line between saying that mgmt. can affect the profitability but frontline people cannot.
in reality, employee salaries - at all levels reflect their ability to guide the company. Paying a flat percentage of salary is indeed related to the ability to move the company's profitability
JFK Fleet Service
Veteran
bigjets said:
This site really needs a "Like" button.
Beef up hourly wages and related benefits.VC,SK,Holidays,ect.
What risk, don't you mean gain?UPNAWAY said:
Is Parker talking about paying himself half pay with gutted benefits, high medical premiums and all the rest of his compensation be on profits? No, he is getting a very good paycheck with the bonuses on top. He earns more than a livable wage so whats the risk he is exposed to? He can only suffer from less gain.
Parker is asking us to accept half pay with no chance to share in the gains the company is making. The increases he has proposed do not lift us, they keep us at half pay with no profit sharing.
The fact is we shouldn't have to give concessions or continue to work for half pay and hope for profits to have skin in the game, we are "at risk" either way because if the company doesn't make it we lose our jobs right?
He wants us to accept concessionary wage rates based on Bankruptcy with slight enhancements and no share in the profits. I'm ok with no profit sharing as soon as he restores all the concessions, he wants it both ways, concessions without any chance of a share of the gains. When they took the concessions that was not the deal. The deal was give the concessions and you get a share of the profits. Now that they are profitable they want to keep the concessions and not give profit sharing either.
Parker is full of crap, it has nothing to do with not wanting to expose us to risk, it has everything to do with locking in the value of the concessions and making sure that no matter how profitable the carrier is they are still enjoying the concessions they won through Bankruptcy. He is so f%^&ing greedy its not as if he just wants to lock us out of the profits that our concessions contributed to, he wants to lock out out of whats way in excess of that as well, he wants to make sure that no matter how much money this company makes that we will not share in that success and and continue to suffer from the years of failure, he wants to stick our noses into the ground and hold us there for no other reason than his own greed. IMO he is a sick dishonest bully who even if he speaks softly is more dishonest and ill willed towards his employees than Frank Lorenzo.
So Parker, the same guy who tells workers to accept concessionary terms to minimize the risk of them losing their jobs then turns around and says even if the company makes huge profits the workers would be putting themselves at risk by accepting profit sharing. he is basically saying we are better off to just accept being poor so he can get richer. We must share in the losses but not in the gains.
How can anyone not see that?
