What if the employee in question wasn't injured, and held the title of CEO?![]()
He made enough to not require any additional money from the company, of course! I knew you would like that answer!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What if the employee in question wasn't injured, and held the title of CEO?![]()
Question: why should the employee not bear the risk?
I'll use myself as an example. Aside from quitting a previous job, as I said, I moved near one of the 5 crew bases available to me at the time I was hired. That was no small expense, nor was my wife quitting her job for the move.What "investment" does the employee make? He/she is paid for the work done, it seems to me, so what investment?
He made enough to not require any additional money from the company, of course! I knew you would like that answer!![]()
this is what he'd say
http://video.despair.com/drkersten/a-thought-about-unions/
Recently we had several pilots return for extended disability. One pilot had an inner ear infection that caused vertigo. He was fine within a month but it took a year for the FAA to issue his medical. Under this new policy he woud have been terminated. Another pilot returned after four years with a back issue. He tried several times to return but the company doctor would not approve it. He also would have been terminated. I know there are a few who abuse the program but most pilots want to get their medical back. Punishing the many for the actions of a few is wrong.This is a tough situation for this pilot, but I have a question. How long should a company pay someone who no longer produces for the company? How easy it is, it seems to me, to be compassionate with other people's money.
CEOs usually have contracts that cover things like this.What if the employee in question wasn't injured, and held the title of CEO?![]()
CEOs usually have contracts that cover things like this.
I didn't say he shouldn't bear any risk -- I said he shouldn't bear all of it. I say that because I'm not a contract pilot. I've fully committed to spending my career here, and for the company to just throw me away because I get sick for six months is unconscionable to me. If you believe a company should be able to whatever it wants to maximize profits at our expense, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I just don't share it.
Are you kidding, of course he does. He's stated that he'd rather see the company fire him and replace him with someone working for 40K less because it would make the company more competitive. This statement is too stupid to come from a pilot and points to him being a management stooge.
I think everyone wants that.I want the company to keep me because they want to, not because the union coerces them into keeping me. Signed, The Stooge.
I think everyone wants that.
It would be great except do companies ever do things like let go of people who have been around the longest because new blood is cheaper? Downgrade out of seniority only because they save money on type ratings. Things like this.
I understand companies make substantial investments in employees, especially pilots... But the investment we have made in ourselves is also substantial and some guarantees or protection is not unreasonable.
Oh, I also like sparse's avatar.
I want the company to keep me because they want to, not because the union coerces them into keeping me. Signed, The Stooge.
You're an ideologist. It is what it is, and it ain't gonna happen.What you say is reasonable, but I am in favor of a merit system, not seniority. Seniority penalizes a pilot who loses his job and has to start at the bottom of the stack somewhere else.
This is a tough situation for this pilot, but I have a question. How long should a company pay someone who no longer produces for the company? How easy it is, it seems to me, to be compassionate with other people's money.
All the merit system says to me is ""ohh ohh I'll do anything for you because I'm willing to be the biggest kiss a.ss at the company.....Where do I purchase the lube..."
That, in a nutshell, is what I think of the merit system.
A merit system in this business punishes guys who call in sick when they're sick, and write planes up when they're broken. It rewards those who "perform," even when it flies in the face of safety. I wish that weren't the case, but I've seen it first-hand. It's not a good system for aviation.
A merit system in this business punishes guys who call in sick when they're sick, and write planes up when they're broken. It rewards those who "perform," even when it flies in the face of safety. I wish that weren't the case, but I've seen it first-hand. It's not a good system for aviation.
your complete stupidity is driving me there.
A merit system means that pilots can act normal instead of towing the union line. It means that there is an expectation that the job is going to be done correctly and pilots will be promoted because they do the job well, not because they have been with the company the longest.
It means the cost structure isn't impacted by a set of unreasonable union work rules and the company can adjust quickly in a time of economic hardship unlike union companies which get forced into bankruptcy because the union agreement means more than the welfare of the entire employee base and company longevity.
It means when a pilot does something truly incorrect and is unsafe, that a union grievance process won't save him to endanger others (like I've seen over and over).
I wish it were the case that merit systems were the standard rather than unions. I've seen unions destroy companies over and over. I've seen unsafe pilots continue to fly and I've seen careers and companies destroyed by unions.
A merit system also means that a pilot who does the right thing by NOT taking off into a thunderstorm, or flying an approach below mins into ASE, or by writing up a broken plane, or by refusing to fly hungry or fatigued (in other words a true PROFESSIONAL) will be fired. The only ones to progress in the merit system are the ones who are willing to do the WRONG thing to get the job done.A merit system means that pilots can act normal instead of towing the union line. It means that there is an expectation that the job is going to be done correctly and pilots will be promoted because they do the job well, not because they have been with the company the longest.
It means the cost structure isn't impacted by a set of unreasonable union work rules and the company can adjust quickly in a time of economic hardship unlike union companies which get forced into bankruptcy because the union agreement means more than the welfare of the entire employee base and company longevity.
It means when a pilot does something truly incorrect and is unsafe, that a union grievance process won't save him to endanger others (like I've seen over and over).
I wish it were the case that merit systems were the standard rather than unions. I've seen unions destroy companies over and over. I've seen unsafe pilots continue to fly and I've seen careers and companies destroyed by unions.
A merit system also means that a pilot who does the right thing by NOT taking off into a thunderstorm, or flying an approach below mins into ASE, or by writing up a broken plane, or by refusing to fly hungry or fatigued (in other words a true PROFESSIONAL) will be fired. The only ones to progress in the merit system are the ones who are willing to do the WRONG thing to get the job done.
As usual, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Management is set up with a chief pilot who, according to FAA design, is supposed to:
a) understand our jobs. A good chief pilot will demand professionalism, and that pilots
work when they are able. But he will also back up a pilot who is sick, hungry,
or refuses to do something stupid or unsafe. That's what a good chief pilot
does.
b) A good chief pilot also should act as a buffer between the pilots and the D.O., and prevent pilot pushing. All the chief pilots I have ever met take their job seriously, and try hard to balance the company's desire to make money with the needs of the pilots. It is a tough job. I know. I used to be one.
Unfortunately, pilots do not sign the chief pilot's paycheck. We also don't pick the chief pilot. And, historically, there has been some abuse. So.... you get the seniority system, a very flawed system that helps protect pilots from abuse, and the company from losing highly trained assets, who otherwise might change jobs far more often than we do. Nobody really likes it. Anybody got any better ideas?
Again, you are an ideologists. This is how things would work in an ideal world. Look at Ron White's pilots for example. He did the right thing by tipping off law enforcement about illegal drug use on board the plane. Do you think he kept his job?As usual, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Management is set up with a chief pilot who, according to FAA design, is supposed to:
a) understand our jobs. A good chief pilot will demand professionalism, and that pilots
work when they are able. But he will also back up a pilot who is sick, hungry,
or refuses to do something stupid or unsafe. That's what a good chief pilot
does.
b) A good chief pilot also should act as a buffer between the pilots and the D.O., and prevent pilot pushing. All the chief pilots I have ever met take their job seriously, and try hard to balance the company's desire to make money with the needs of the pilots. It is a tough job. I know. I used to be one.
Unfortunately, pilots do not sign the chief pilot's paycheck. We also don't pick the chief pilot. And, historically, there has been some abuse. So.... you get the seniority system, a very flawed system that helps protect pilots from abuse, and the company from losing highly trained assets, who otherwise might change jobs far more often than we do. Nobody really likes it. Anybody got any better ideas?
Again, you are an ideologists. .