I posted this on another thread but it was admittedly off-topic there and is more relevant over here:
I must say I don't quite understand all the hullaballoo over getting rid of Seigel. We have gone through our little paroxysms at UA too of "Throw the bum out!" And I have always asked of those advocating such a course of action, Who do you have waiting in the wings that would do a better job? Do you think that person would come in and say, "Great job guys-- even though we are losing gobs of money, here is a big raise 'just because' and to 'raise morale'" (that favorite rallying cry of the unions)?
Anyone who comes in will go through the predictable phases of a honeymoon period, soon followed by, as soon as they start talking about what will really be necessary to make the company a viable long-term entity, the cries to get rid of that person too. In the meantime, an atmosphere has been created that only very few people would want to step into because of the vitriol from the unions. So then the only way to attract someone qualified is to offer them an obscene compensation package-- thereby inviting even MORE criticism from the unions.
It is, beyond doubt, reprehensible and indefensible that Seigel chose a course of action to violate the CBAs which were already concessionary. But why do you think a new CEO would do any differently? It's the nature of the CEO beast, with only a few exceptions.
I think there was a very real danger that had Seigel not stepped up and done what he has done so far, U would not even be here today. But obviously his work is not done yet and U is still sick. More drastic measures are necessary.
It's nice to have a scapegoat and all, but do you really think a different CEO would tell you otherwise?
I must say I don't quite understand all the hullaballoo over getting rid of Seigel. We have gone through our little paroxysms at UA too of "Throw the bum out!" And I have always asked of those advocating such a course of action, Who do you have waiting in the wings that would do a better job? Do you think that person would come in and say, "Great job guys-- even though we are losing gobs of money, here is a big raise 'just because' and to 'raise morale'" (that favorite rallying cry of the unions)?
Anyone who comes in will go through the predictable phases of a honeymoon period, soon followed by, as soon as they start talking about what will really be necessary to make the company a viable long-term entity, the cries to get rid of that person too. In the meantime, an atmosphere has been created that only very few people would want to step into because of the vitriol from the unions. So then the only way to attract someone qualified is to offer them an obscene compensation package-- thereby inviting even MORE criticism from the unions.
It is, beyond doubt, reprehensible and indefensible that Seigel chose a course of action to violate the CBAs which were already concessionary. But why do you think a new CEO would do any differently? It's the nature of the CEO beast, with only a few exceptions.
I think there was a very real danger that had Seigel not stepped up and done what he has done so far, U would not even be here today. But obviously his work is not done yet and U is still sick. More drastic measures are necessary.
It's nice to have a scapegoat and all, but do you really think a different CEO would tell you otherwise?
