Southwest Considring Employee Buyouts

[wwtraveler99]

There is talk of LUV trying to buyout some of the senior emplyees. Looks like with the exception of Pilots, F/As, and Mechanics all other department will recieve this offer. LUV may have done a little too much hiring following 9/11 attacks because of new security requirments.

 

[Kev3188]

Interesting....Any idea on specifics ($$$ amount, etc.)?

 

[hobbes]

"There is talk of LUV trying to buyout some of the senior emplyees."

Yes, but the question is, who is doing the talking?

 

[wwtraveler99]

"There is talk of LUV trying to buyout some of the senior emplyees."

Yes, but the question is, who is doing the talking?

Management. I have talk with several people who work in different areas and they tell me the same thing.

 

[JS]

Why can't Southwest simply layoff expensive excess employees?

Oops, once again, unions get in the way of rational business decisions.

 

[KCFlyer]

Why can't Southwest simply layoff expensive excess employees?

They can. Union rules don't have their hands tied.

 

[swagalleyhag]

Why can't Southwest simply layoff expensive excess employees?

Oops, once again, unions get in the way of rational business decisions.

Southwest did layoff about 1,000 Reservations Agents in February.

I'm sure you want to look at things in a fair and balanced manner, just like Fox News (ahem), so I'm sure you've asked why Southwest continued to hire like crazy for the year or so following 9/11, even while there was little to no attrition, no new cities, and no new airplane deliveries. I certainly hope you hold Management just as accountable as you hold the Unions.

 

[laura62]

JS,
your "rational business decisions" would have us all working for minimum wage.

 

[JS]

JS,
your "rational business decisions" would have us all working for minimum wage.

How can that be? I and millions of other people aren't in a union yet make more than minimum wage.

 

[Fly]

So you believe it's okay to fire people simply because they are older? Luckily that is illegal in this country (at least it is now) BTW, once they reverse that, sweetheart, you will be unemployed too. There is ALWAYS someone younger and willing to take your job. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[JS]

I didn't suggest firing old employees just because they're old. I am suggesting firing EXPENSIVE employees. If the expensive employees are old, so be it. The employee should be offered the opportunity to take a pay cut and make what everyone else is making. Same age, yet no longer expensive. How about that.

As for me, I am not worried one bit about being replaced by a younger employee in the future. All the people who have been laid off in the last few years were laid off because their jobs ceased to exist and they were unable to adapt.

 

[Fly]

ahhh, ok.....sorry I misunderstood. So, are you happy in your mediocre paying job? Regardless of ability or talent, you should make the same as everyone else (or get fired)? In communism, everyone gets paid the same too. Are you a communist?

 

[JS]

ahhh, ok.....sorry I misunderstood. So, are you happy in your mediocre paying job? Regardless of ability or talent, you should make the same as everyone else (or get fired)? In communism, everyone gets paid the same too. Are you a communist?

What I mean is employees with the SAME ability or talent should make the same amount of money.

With increasing seniority, experience increases and the employee should be paid more. What is irrational is for a 15 year employee to make three times that of a new hire and for a 30 year employee to make exactly the same as a 15 year employee. The differences need to be less stark and not jarringly end at the 15 year mark.

Does a 15 or 20 or 30 year flight attendant, gate agent, etc., do a better job than a new hire? Of course. Do they do a job that's three times better? I don't think that's possible.

 

[hobbes]

swagalleyhag,

"so I'm sure you've asked why Southwest continued to hire like crazy for the year or so following 9/11, even while there was little to no attrition, no new cities, and no new airplane deliveries."

Actually, I can answer that question for you, just so there's an understanding of "the other side of the story."

After 9/11, more Ground Ops employees were needed for security reasons. Remember, for a good while there, the airlines were responsible for I.D. checks at the security checkpoints, dump searching baggage, and handwanding the selectees at the gates. Those things required additional headcount, which Southwest had to hire. At the time, management really didn't have much of a choice. Even sending out a lot of volunteer employees from headquarters to help with security procedures wasn't enough, as many Ground Ops employees were still having mandatory overtime. It was chaotic, and in order to maintain good customer service, SWA had no real choice but to hire. What else could have been done?

As I understand, hiring in Res after 9/11 was minimal, and done largely to fulfill needs on certain shifts. In retrospect, was it the right thing to do? I don't know. I'm hesitant to cast stones at them, as I can guess that there are lots of factors that go into any decision to add (or even fill) positions within a particular department. Knowing Gary Kelly as being the cost-saving guru that he is, I can't see him approving headcount just "because." So I can't speak with much knowledge about that.

And personally, I don't agree with JS. Our most senior employees who make the most money are some of the most incredible people I've ever met. They've been with this airline a long while, and they have a lot of knowledge and bring a lot to this company. To get rid of those people would be detrimental to Southwest in the long run, IMHO. Plus, I think any overstaffing in Ground Ops will soon resolve itself due to additional aircraft and opening of new cities. I've heard amost all the employees opening PHL are transfers from other cities.

So anyway...there you have it.

 

[4wheelr]

Southwest did layoff about 1,000 Reservations Agents in February.

.

Three REDUNDANT Res centers closed - a good business decision. The (approx)2500 agents in those centers were offered transfer to other centers, transfer to other departments, or a severance package. DAL Res agents had lots of options. LIT Res had a large turnover. SLC Res came on line with the Morris acquisition. Just an observation, but it seems to me these three centers were picked for very good reasons and to minimize the impact on those 2500 agents.

Let's see 2500-1000 = 1500 jobs were saved. The 1000 opted for the severance package. Sorry but that just doesn't support the image that the demonizers are trying to project.