flywithastick
Member is: ready
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 684
enigma said:I think that what I find offensive is their elitist mindset.
Let me throw in a couple of thoughts on your topic.
Do you agree that someone cannot be taken advantage of without their permission? Then along a similar line, can someone be looked down upon without themselves looking "up" to the manager?
You can't necessarily change what people think, but you do have a much better chance of changing how you feel about yourself.
In other words, short of allowing elitists like Hillary Clinton to take your freedoms, who cares if someone looks down on you if you're happy with yourself. If you enjoy life as a professional pilot, does it matter if "management" looks down on you?
This make any sense?
Many believe this, too. Some don't. But as long as you do what it takes to keep your job, and you enjoy what you're doing, does it matter?I mean that I think that some managment types act as if they are superior in knowledge and common sense to working people.
maybe better spellers, though!...doesn't mean that you'r smarter.
it's all relative. A lot of management types enjoy working 65 hrs/wk, skipping lunch, stabbing their buddy in the back to score a point with the boss, kissing up to the boss, moving their family all over the world chasing corporate success. That's their vision of motivation. No, by their definition of motivation, you're not. What does their def of motivation have to do with your success and happiness as a pilot?just because I'm not motivated by money and the acquisition of power doesn't mean that I am not motivated.
Actually, if they could figure out a way to eliminate flight crews and still make money, you'd be gone tomorrow. They're not your friend, your their tool. Cooperation would be better, but it takes more work than unilateral direction.And most importantly, just because I am motivated to protect my interests, doesn't necessarily make me your enemy. If you management types would realize that we could be partners, your life would be easier.
Why do you say this? They *usually* are just trying to maximize profits for the stockholders. Sometimes they do things spitefully, but usually bad decisions just come from lack of information or intelligence - not trying to *get* anyone.With rare exception, management has earned the opposition that they receive.
I agree with you. I've never met an unhappy SWA employee, and I've known quite a few. It's their culture. And I really don't know how they've managed to "grow it" so well.As others have noted in other strings, SWA has done OK with a unionized workforce. I would propose that SWA has done OK not because of cheaper workers, although a low cost structure is an obvious advantage, but because of superior leadership from managment. Now that Herb has stepped back, it remains to be seen if his successors can maintain the positive environment.
Bottom line, I don't have all the solutions to the problems, but I try to go in the right general direction. You figure out the solution, please let us all know.