British Airway's Chief is a Comedian...

Thursday, March 11, 2010 -

Ah well, it was nice while it lasted. New User off AGAIN due to people being pains *sigh*....to join, e.mail Feckless Wench at morticiacemetaria@hotmail.com

Home

Current Posts

There Ought To Be A Law

Viewed: 108

British Airway's Chief is a Comedian...

British Airways asks employees to work without pay

British Airways asks its employees to volunteer for periods of unpaid work
On Tuesday June 16, 2009, 2:08 pm EDT

LONDON (AP) -- British Airways on Tuesday urged its staff to work for nothing in an effort to save the company money.

British Airways PLC is struggling to come up with ways to save cash after reporting its biggest full-year loss since the former national airline was privatized in 1987.

BA chief Willie Walsh has said he would not draw a salary for the month of July, and urged other employees to work for blocks of time without being paid.

"I am looking for every single part of the company to take part in some way in this cash-effective way of helping the company's survival plan. It really counts," Walsh said in a company publication.

BA said the option meant employees would effectively volunteer to take a cut in base pay, with the lost income spread out over several months. The company had said last month it would ask employees to consider working without pay.

The UNITE union, which represents thousands of BA ground and cabin crew, gave the proposal a chilly reception. The union said that while Walsh might be able to afford working a month for free, its members could not.

BA said last month that it had lost 375 million pounds ($595 million) in the year ending March 31, compared with a profit of 712 million pounds in the previous year. That is its worst result in more than two decades of business, the previous low point being a 200 million pounds loss in 2001-2002.

Replies

6/16/2009 1:31:14 PM From: Chi This says it all "while Walsh might be able to afford working a month for free, its members could not". I love it how the overpaid fat cats love to give themselves a huge salary, mismanage the companies money, and then screw over and make the ones that do all the actual work pay the price.


6/16/2009 1:49:13 PM From: mercury The service manager at one of the dealerships I worked for offered to give up his pay for the benefit of the company once. He was told that it was not legal for him to work for no pay. Then they fired him... well, laid him off permanently. I had quit shortly before that, but was still coming in one day a week to submit warranty claims and caught a shit load of negativity for charging $100/day for generating tens of thousands of dollars worth of revenue. I had made the deal with the service manager, and once was let go, I never went back. Screw that.... they didn't pay me enough to deal with their crap.


6/16/2009 2:05:43 PM From: Chi I was planning on going back to work for United once they went ahead on their promise to pay their employees more fairly (this was pre-911.) After 9-11 not only did they not do that, but they cut people's pay even more. The renigging on the promise would be somewhat understandable considering the events, had the big shots, CEO, Executives, etc. NOT continued to overpay themselves under those circumstances.


6/16/2009 2:20:59 PM From: Chi More airlines and CEOs in general should follow the example of what a great and fair leader is really like, such as Japan Airlines CEO - Haruka Nishimatsu. He doesn't oversplurge and overspend on himself even though he is the CEO. He takes the bus to work, sits in a regular desk like his employees, eats lunch with them, they can go directly to him with problems, concerns and suggestions. His pay is $90,000, but he still makes less than what the pilots in his own company make and TENS of MILLIONS less than what other airline CEOs make. Other differences are, his company is doing well and not in the hole like those that are overpaying their execs, while the company and other employees suffer.


6/16/2009 2:23:43 PM From: BCAR Millions of Americans voted for more taxes last november. Same thing as working for free.


6/16/2009 2:28:01 PM From: BCAR The Ceo of Japan airlines may have a modest salary but I'm quite sure stock options and benifits make up for it. It's common with Japanese companies. In the US things like perks, options and stock performance incentives are more regulated and heavily taxed (40%)


6/16/2009 5:26:09 PM From: LiquidSnake Wow, the chief of BA not drawing salary for a month. I'm sure he'll really be hurt by that. I would tell him fuk you when he asked me to do the same. Give me his CEO salary for a few years and then we'll talk.


6/18/2009 7:13:24 AM From: Chi "Millions of Americans voted for more taxes last november" - Really, I'm not feeling it or seeing it. Even if that were true, how would it be any different than other administrations regarding taxes? Stock options, etc. are also taxed and regulated in Japan. 40% (which I think you're exaggerating and it varies) of taxed US stocks, etc. still doesn't compare with a ridiculous, over-inflated salary when again, the rest of the company and employees are struggling.


6/18/2009 7:16:29 AM From: mercury Taxes are withheld at 40% on bonuses... that doesn't mean that you don't get a lot of it back when you file your return.


6/18/2009 7:53:32 AM From: BCAR You get it back if you have something to deduct. Just like anyone else. Hypothetical question folks, envy aside. Which one of you would turn down more money? Chi, If you could get double what you're making now would you take it? If you took a new job and salary was negotiable would you go for as much as you could get? If you have a flooring company and could charge as much as the market would bear would you do it, or would you charge 50% less just because you were making too much? If the government stepped in and said, "Chi you make too much money, we're cutting your pay by 30% and all you will ever get from now on is a 3% annual increase", would you be OK with that? I'll agree some CEO pay is way out of line with what they are producing for the company. Yet at some point down the line someone approved it (board of directors etc.) But letting the government dictate compensation just to make a whole bunch of people who make less feel better is bullshit. And to anticipate the next round, "Well if these companies are getting federal funds there should be some controls". Well that's true enough, however if we didn't have TARP and Bailouts and stimulus garbage that wouldn't be an issue.


6/18/2009 7:56:44 AM From: BCAR Oh and Chi, America did indeed vote for more taxes. For people making more money (envy tax), for all types of things like cigarettes and alcohol (sin taxes), coming up are proposals for tax on everything from sodas to junk food (fat tax), and massive, massive deficits that are going to be hitting the books in 2010 and beyond that will have to be addressed through higher taxes (head in the sand tax).


6/18/2009 8:21:21 AM From: Chi Chi, If you could get double what you're making now would you take it? Of course, I don't make that much. If you took a new job and salary was negotiable would you go for as much as you could get? Yes, but I know I can't go too high either. "Chi you make too much money, we're cutting your pay by 30% and all you will ever get from now on is a 3% annual increase", would you be OK with that? I would, what choice do I have. And for me to be making so much that the government has to step in, that would surely have to be an exorbitant amount. Much more if I'm making so much, yet my company is failing miserably, I'm filing for bankruptcy and asking the government to bail me out.


6/18/2009 8:24:55 AM From: Chi Also, the taxes that you mentioned don't bother me nor affect me that much. In fact, I find them justifiable and good. Discourages greed, and things that are bad for you.


6/18/2009 8:42:51 AM From: mercury There are times where, yes... we do have to reduce our pricing in order to get the contract. In that case, we do take a pay cut; maybe not a 50% cut, but end result is we work for less money when it's called for. Lean times call for it and make it necessary. This is something that should be applied across the board.... and into the board rooms, too. Difference here is that the government isn't going to come and bail us out, hand us billions or trillions of dollars to waste. We sink or swim on our own.... AND pay for that company that refuses to cut back on excessive salaries. Seems to me that we have Upper class welfare going on... the very people that should be totally against handouts, and have surely built up a nice little nest egg to carry them through difficult economic times.


6/18/2009 8:52:57 AM From: mercury Also, if it's the board of directors job to look out for the stockholder investments in a corporation, they are doing a piss poor job of things if the corporation of the board they sit on is needing handouts from taxpayers to continue operations, and they should all be booted for failing to do their jobs.


6/18/2009 9:03:57 AM From: Chi "Lean times call for it and make it necessary. This is something that should be applied across the board.... and into the board rooms, too. Difference here is that the government isn't going to come and bail us out, hand us billions or trillions of dollars to waste. We sink or swim on our own.... AND pay for that company that refuses to cut back on excessive salaries. Seems to me that we have Upper class welfare going on... the very people that should be totally against handouts, and have surely built up a nice little nest egg to carry them through difficult economic times. 6/18/2009 8:52:57 AM From: mercury Also, if it's the board of directors job to look out for the stockholder investments in a corporation, they are doing a piss poor job of things if the corporation of the board they sit on is needing handouts from taxpayers to continue operations, and they should all be booted for failing to do their jobs." I TOTALLY agree. Very well said.


6/18/2009 9:28:10 AM From: mercury One more thing: if a company I worked for requested me to take a 30% pay cut, I may not be happy about it, but I'm free to seek employment elsewhere.... and muddle through on my reduced salary until something else comes along.


6/18/2009 10:05:46 AM From: BCAR But with CEO or other salary controls you wouldn't be able to go to another company to avoid the 30% pay cut. That would be the going rate there as well. My points, I'm sick of welfare, corporate or otherwise to bail out people who do a shit job of management. So yea if you take TARP money your salary should be $1.00 until you can prove you deserve better. On the other hand, say what you want but no one turns down a raise. Greed is good, it drives the capitalist engine. If I went in for an interview and said I wanted $10,000,000 a year, a private jet and a 100% bonus and they said O.K. you're godamn right I'm going to take it. And so would Chi, and Merc, and even MrsK. Do not bullshit me and say you wouldn't.


6/18/2009 10:07:47 AM From: BCAR "If you have a flooring company and could charge as much as the market would bear would you do it, or would you charge 50% less just because you were making too much?" The question was would you cut your price out of guilt? hell no you wouldn't. Would you cut your price to be competitive? Of course you would and have.


6/18/2009 10:13:37 AM From: BCAR Chi, some day, and I hope it happens soon, you will find yourself making some serious money. Again good for you and I wish you the best. Then you're going to find yourself paying $25,000 to $40,000 a year in income tax and you won't be making millions. You'll barely be making enough for a nice suburban home. You're going to see more going to the big toilet in Washington than you used to make in a year. And It's going to piss you off, and you're going to think, Damn that BCAR was right all along.


6/18/2009 10:24:04 AM From: mercury But if they later came to you and said, "Hey, the company can't carry your $10,000,000 salary this year. We have to cut it to $7,000,000. We're cutting the private jet and you get to fly commercial until we can return to profitability. Bonuses are history until we can again show a profit, because if we aren't showing a profit, 100% of zero is zilch." Would you walk away from that because it's not exactly what you signed on for, or would you still consider yourself blessed to have a salary at all? Let's face it... when you're done sucking the company dry, your paycheck won't be showing up every Friday. I'm on the same page as you are, B... I have nothing at all against people getting as much as they can negotiate for themselves. What I have a problem with is the government (i.e: MY money and YOUR money) stepping in to fund those self-imposed problems, when they are unwilling to take one for the team. The CEO that's making millions in salary, that is asked to take a 30% cut in pay is still a very wealthy man by anyone's standards. The $30/hr employee being asked the same thing is being pushed into poverty.


6/18/2009 10:48:47 AM From: BCAR Well if I could find another company willing to give me $10,000,000 I'd be gone like the wind. However the 30% cut would not be a death blow for sure. As for the employees and their union, well as you said 70% of something is better than 70% of nothing and quite honestly it takes more than just a CEO to make or break a company. All that said, company bankruptcy is often just natural selection at work. You hate it for the innocent people without jobs but the hope often is that someone will step in and buy them out and improve things. Bail outs with public funds only prolong the agony and spread it around.


6/18/2009 11:01:51 AM From: mercury The thing that's been happening, though, is that the employees are asked to take concessions, while business as usual continues for upper management, often with pay raises that are most recently funded with our tax dollars, while the "minions" try to muddle through, being told they should be happy to have a job at all. If cuts need to be made for the health of the company, everyone should get a slice of that pie... that's all I'm saying. A friend of mine is currently working on a contract that will secure his future. By this time next year he will never have to work another day in his life. He's 33 years old. He will work, of course, because he's not a slug, but he won't have to. Do I begrudge him for this? Of course not. He's worked his ass off, put tons of money into making it happen, researched the future of the idea and deserves to enjoy the fruits of his efforts. But he's also sacrificed along the way... He's had to scale back his lifestyle to fund the project, he's gone without sleep to get things done on "his" time, because he's still working a full time job, as well; any travel he's done can't be labeled as a vacation, it's been to advance his product and spent working trade shows to get his name out there. What I begrudge is some asshole calling a press conference to tell the world that sacrifices need to be made to save the company, then making it clear by his actions that he's not willing to sacrifice anything himself.


6/18/2009 1:57:28 PM From: BCAR Guys like that usually aren't around long or at least they shouldn't be. But they aren't all that way, Our CEO is a hard guy, 60 years old been with the company for 38 years. Started out sweeping the floor in one of our Canadian plants. Makes around 1.5 Mil a year plus 100% bonus opportunity. He's made his bones and I'd say he earns every penny. There are a whole lot of people like that out there. That company ladder is a bitch.


6/18/2009 2:07:15 PM From: mercury I know they aren't all like that; they're just the ones that we're hearing so much from/about right now, and it chaps my ass more than a little bit. I do realize that there are many more that HAVE worked their tails off to achieve what they have compared to those that take advantage of current circumstances.... it's the usual 10% rule at work. I don't begrudge those folks in the least, they've earned it fair and square... in fact, they give me hope.


6/19/2009 7:26:49 AM From: Chi I also don't fault or am mad at the CEOs who actually worked & earned their way to their position and salary. It's the ones drawing the exorbitant salary, not earning their keep and driving the companies to the ground, then trying to run with the money while everyone else gets screwed, is who I loathe.


6/19/2009 9:56:51 AM From: BCAR I still hope Chi gets a big raise and ends up in the 40% tax bracket. She'll dump Obama like a bad habit.


6/19/2009 9:59:52 AM From: Chi If ever made that much money to be taxed so high, I wouldn't mind it. I would still make enough money to live how I want. I don't need to live so extravagantly. I'd be more than okay.


6/19/2009 12:31:08 PM From: BCAR If you make that kind of money it's because you deserve it. And deserve to keep more of it.


6/19/2009 1:07:09 PM From: MrsK "If you make that kind of money it's because you deserve it." Please tell me you're kidding.


6/19/2009 1:41:32 PM From: BCAR Yes Mrs K I do mean it. And the reply was directed directly to Chi. So you're telling me she doesn't deserve to hit the 40% tax bracket. (now honestly No One deserves to pay that much in taxes). But yes, I do honestly think that everyone deserves to earn just as much from their labor as the free market allows. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Kobe Bryant, Hugo, all entitled to every dime they can earn.