GREATANSETT From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 509 posts, RR: 3 Posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1395 times:
I was watching a program on the history channel about the rise and fall of major companies (ie Pan Am, One.Tel, Terola, HIH, Henderson etc) and it got me thinking about the guys in charge of companies today. Its easy to look back in history and say that the problem could of been solved, that is the benefit of hignsight. So my question is, if you are in charge of a major company, government or any organization (Church whatever), what changes would you implement.
This question can relate to many companies in the airline industry, United and U.S Airways both come to mind. I only ask this as I have noticed many people critising the way in which these companies have been managed yet cannot supply answers, so answer away.
Bill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8482 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1369 times:
It all depends on the company and the market you are in. Its easy for us to sit here and say such and such should do this, but unless we are senior management of that company and know its issues and know the company we can't make proper decisions. Obviously companies want the highest return possible and wages sometimes seem to be the easiest thing to cut. But you pay peanuts you get monkeys. You want decent quality work you have to pay for it. That can be through decent wages, investment in equiptment and training etc. You have to spend money to make money and some companies seem to want to stop the spending part. Sorry buddy its not going to happen.
You have to look at where the money is going, how its being spent, is it necesary to spend that much on whatever etc. Once you look at where your spending money and how vital it is to your business then you can cut the spending on the luxruries and start making some money. And theres more to making money then just slashing your costs. Alot more.
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1351 times:
I don't think the problem is so much the people running the corporations (one idiot is just as dumb as any other and they are all stockholder's bitches these days) as "what the market is". We live in a "Wal-Mart" world, where even those like myself have an appreciation of 'getting what you pay for' have to sell their soul and get the cheap shit.
The problem is it's not as easy as "Just going to Albertson's" instead. Sure I can pay a premium there and hope the Albertsons people are treated better, but the reality is they aren't. The product isn't much better so there isin't a CLEAR reason to pay the premium if it's avoiadable. The next problem is that say Albertsons IS paying/treating their employess better, and by some miracle of fate, everyone starts shopping there and forgets about walmart. This is nice to think that people would be willing to do this, but lets see what happens. People start paying more so the Alberstons employees get paid more, well this means the people doing the paying have to get paid more which means the costs to thier employers increases. Their employer raises costs which in turn raises costs for those consumers. Can I have endless vicious cycles for $1000 Alex?
Personally, what I find offensive are the compensation packages for Executives. Let's take Mark Hurd.. read all about it here: http://www.nylawyer.com/news/05/04/040705l.html
From this and other articles it looks like this guy (yes it's mostly on paper but..) gets $20Mil just for walking in the FUCKING DOOR?!?!?!
If I was a board member the fucker wouldn't get anymore then he NEEDED to live, then if he SAVES/MAKES the company $100Mil, I'd give him 20, The employees 20, and STILL have enough to make the stock holders happier then what they were getting before.
What I want to know is who NEEDS PERSONALLY to make more then $1million/year?