Would "Job share" be a viable option?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: US
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would "Job share" be a viable option?
Apologies if this has been suggested before.
In these ugly times of looming redundancies etc., would job share be a solution to someone loosing their job outright?
Say, 2 people of similar seniority and same fleet decide to take one salary between them, enabling them to have a well earned life style and a little money coming in to settle some bills. Hopefully there would be no loss of face involved as I am sure there must be many employees who could afford to take the pay drop involved.
Or have we all got so greedy and to hell with everyone else as I'm alright Jack? Like pigs at a trough.
In these ugly times of looming redundancies etc., would job share be a solution to someone loosing their job outright?
Say, 2 people of similar seniority and same fleet decide to take one salary between them, enabling them to have a well earned life style and a little money coming in to settle some bills. Hopefully there would be no loss of face involved as I am sure there must be many employees who could afford to take the pay drop involved.
Or have we all got so greedy and to hell with everyone else as I'm alright Jack? Like pigs at a trough.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha. I've been trying to get Air Nelson (part of Air New Zealand) to do the same for several months. I've had time off work due to stress, but the company still doesn't want to play ball. There are several people in similar positions to me - not chasing the big dollars, just wanting some income and some time with the kids.
At one point the company started to talk of 3 days per week (I fly regional, 5 days per week) for 50% salary, the extra 1/2 day covering the additional cost to the company of an extra pilot (sims, medicals, uniforms etc). Seems a bit of a no brainer, what we all want, but this dinosaur company still has the attitude that pilots need to "harden up, this is the job, take it or leave it".
As you say, it's got to be a good way to keep experienced pilots rather than paying redundancy, or having pilots leave due to a desire to actually have a life outside aviation but I think most companies can't be bothered.
Good luck.
At one point the company started to talk of 3 days per week (I fly regional, 5 days per week) for 50% salary, the extra 1/2 day covering the additional cost to the company of an extra pilot (sims, medicals, uniforms etc). Seems a bit of a no brainer, what we all want, but this dinosaur company still has the attitude that pilots need to "harden up, this is the job, take it or leave it".
As you say, it's got to be a good way to keep experienced pilots rather than paying redundancy, or having pilots leave due to a desire to actually have a life outside aviation but I think most companies can't be bothered.
Good luck.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be a viable option if the three parties were in agreement. The two employees might well have to take significantly less than 50% of their previous salary to compensate for the additional employer costs of having two employees carry out one task.
Sounds lovely, but I am not too sure there are "many" employees who could afford to take the pay drop involved. Running a home and a growing family at any time, let alone in these difficult economic times is usually a major challenge for most people. Often both partners have to work to make ends meet and provide for such luxuries as annual holidays, Christmas etc. Those that can afford to take part time work, often already do. Of course that is usually because they benefit from new found pension income, or a significant drop in outgoings by virtue of such things as their mortgage payments ending.
Maybe, but I think it is simply a case of survival in a very cut throat business environment. The employers we work for cannot behave like charities. They are busineses with a need to maximize profit and minimize cost in order to survive. Those skills that they need to hire in, will often be at the minimum market rate as part of that survival. In turn those employees will find a very unsympathetic ear from their own creditors, when they suggest halving their loan repayments or mortgage repayments in order to share their job.
Pigs at a trough? Outrageous! Next you will be suggesting our elected leaders behave in this manner.
enabling them to have a well earned life style and a little money coming in to settle some bills. Hopefully there would be no loss of face involved as I am sure there must be many employees who could afford to take the pay drop involved.
Or have we all got so greedy and to hell with everyone else as I'm alright Jack? Like pigs at a trough.
Pigs at a trough? Outrageous! Next you will be suggesting our elected leaders behave in this manner.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: south east UK
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when redundancies were suggested (but ultimately not needed in the end) in my company, quite honorably most people put forward ideas of part time, job share etc rather than put someone on the street in the current climate. (so we're not all like the MP's after all!)
The company said that part time and job share didn't save as much as one would think, although you save a salary, you still have all the recurrent training, sim traing, lcencing costs, medical costs, recency and currecy requirements to worry about.
I'm not sure of the economics, but ultimately its not going to save the company as much as one thinks it might. So don't be surprised if they don't welcome your suggestion with open arms
The company said that part time and job share didn't save as much as one would think, although you save a salary, you still have all the recurrent training, sim traing, lcencing costs, medical costs, recency and currecy requirements to worry about.
I'm not sure of the economics, but ultimately its not going to save the company as much as one thinks it might. So don't be surprised if they don't welcome your suggestion with open arms
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757 driver
The company said that part time and job share didn't save as much as one would think, although you save a salary, you still have all the recurrent training, sim traing, lcencing costs, medical costs, recency and currecy requirements to worry about.
Pure laziness and lack of political will.
Suggest individuals will pay for their recurrent sim through reduction in salary over 12 months. Recurrency, such as Line Checks, would cost very little. Medicals can easily be met by individuals. Licence renewal every 5 years.
Then see if they can come up with actual costs which would render the idea prohibitive....
What's the next excuse?
Pure laziness and lack of political will.
Suggest individuals will pay for their recurrent sim through reduction in salary over 12 months. Recurrency, such as Line Checks, would cost very little. Medicals can easily be met by individuals. Licence renewal every 5 years.
Then see if they can come up with actual costs which would render the idea prohibitive....
What's the next excuse?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: FL450
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah and then we can pay for uniforms and id's too. Not forgetting if we need any food refreshments whilst at work we could pay for that too.
What a great business model!!!
Then when business picks up we can charge for pilot applications, interviews and assesments.
I shall call my idea...................................Bryanair.
What a great business model!!!
Then when business picks up we can charge for pilot applications, interviews and assesments.
I shall call my idea...................................Bryanair.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: US
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies so far.
I would like to point out, this idea if implemented, would not be without sacrifice. However the people taking the biggest hit are the ones on the street without a job.
Kelly
If you were made redundant, would you not wish someone had offered to share your job, thereby possibly saving half of it? Or are you immune to redundancy? If you think you are, then I suggest you think again. I would have thought, half a job was better than no job.
I would like to point out, this idea if implemented, would not be without sacrifice. However the people taking the biggest hit are the ones on the street without a job.
Kelly
If you were made redundant, would you not wish someone had offered to share your job, thereby possibly saving half of it? Or are you immune to redundancy? If you think you are, then I suggest you think again. I would have thought, half a job was better than no job.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard on the grapevine that lufty takes their NFFs (lufty flight school graduates) now in a job share structure, 2 sharing one job to at least allow them to aquire some experience and work in the job they were hired for. I might be wrong and i know nothing about the specifics, so anybody who knows would be more than welcome to correct me.
Job sharing can save the company quite a bit of money, however there are some additional overhead costs so the company wont save half the money. However the overhead costs are very very small compared to the saved amount of money if you do it on a large enoug basis, even in a high overhead cost structure country as germany.
Job sharing can save the company quite a bit of money, however there are some additional overhead costs so the company wont save half the money. However the overhead costs are very very small compared to the saved amount of money if you do it on a large enoug basis, even in a high overhead cost structure country as germany.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kelly Hopper
Yeah and then we can pay for uniforms and id's too. Not forgetting if we need any food refreshments whilst at work we could pay for that too.
No one is suggesting it's the best way.
However, as someone has already pointed out, it's better than making people redundant. The airline also gains because it still has a current work-force to call upon when things look better.
No one is suggesting it's the best way.
However, as someone has already pointed out, it's better than making people redundant. The airline also gains because it still has a current work-force to call upon when things look better.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: south east UK
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company said that part time and job share didn't save as much as one would think, although you save a salary, you still have all the recurrent training, sim traing, lcencing costs, medical costs, recency and currecy requirements to worry about.
Pure laziness and lack of political will.
Suggest individuals will pay for their recurrent sim through reduction in salary over 12 months. Recurrency, such as Line Checks, would cost very little. Medicals can easily be met by individuals. Licence renewal every 5 years.
Then see if they can come up with actual costs which would render the idea prohibitive....
What's the next excuse?
Pure laziness and lack of political will.
Suggest individuals will pay for their recurrent sim through reduction in salary over 12 months. Recurrency, such as Line Checks, would cost very little. Medicals can easily be met by individuals. Licence renewal every 5 years.
Then see if they can come up with actual costs which would render the idea prohibitive....
What's the next excuse?
Of course its better than someone loosing their job - but honestly - would you accept a 50% job share - but only on 40% Salary due to the extra costs?
I expect in a large airlines with regular routes and rosters it would be possible, albeit not realising the full 1 for 1 savings. I would guess 4 pairs of people doing a job share would probably save 3 redundancies. In a small airline with irregular work its almost impossible.
Also the answer that came from our employer was not 'dismissive' it was a considered answer after they had looked at the possibilty - clearly not lack of will.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757 driver
its not an excuse! employers are not charities. If you propose a 'job share' in lieu of redundancy then the employer would expect the two people doing a job share will cost the same as 1 person.
Quite. It's all about margins, then.
Perhaps next time airlines ask pilots to take a pay cut they should also be reminded pilots aren't charities.
Cutting out all the emotive stuff, if an airline, especially a small one, wants to keep its pilots (political will) it can find ways by some serious engagement with the work force.
Pilots are generally the highest paid group in any aviation concern and, therefore, the easiest and most obvious target.
Small airlines with irregular work can find themselves caught out if a lucrative contract presents itself at short notice. Also, what cost recruitment and retraining?
I presume all this has been discussed at length.
Quite. It's all about margins, then.
Perhaps next time airlines ask pilots to take a pay cut they should also be reminded pilots aren't charities.
Cutting out all the emotive stuff, if an airline, especially a small one, wants to keep its pilots (political will) it can find ways by some serious engagement with the work force.
Pilots are generally the highest paid group in any aviation concern and, therefore, the easiest and most obvious target.
Small airlines with irregular work can find themselves caught out if a lucrative contract presents itself at short notice. Also, what cost recruitment and retraining?
I presume all this has been discussed at length.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: south east UK
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to be emotive, I'm just saying that a 'job share' in our business is not as simple as may first be apparent, so if you are trying to sell an idea to the company its worth considering all the issues above.
My wife does a job share in a very senior position in her profession and it works very well, so I'm certainly an advocate of flexible working. However splitting a monday - friday office role in half is a different kettle of fish to splitting a pilot in half.
I suspect, however, that the current climate will open peoples eyes to the benefits of such working practices, itprevents people being put on the scrapheap, and as you say it gives the employer a 'rapid response' ability to spin up, Whilst everyone else is trying to recruit, you can just turn all the part timers back to full time!
My wife does a job share in a very senior position in her profession and it works very well, so I'm certainly an advocate of flexible working. However splitting a monday - friday office role in half is a different kettle of fish to splitting a pilot in half.
I suspect, however, that the current climate will open peoples eyes to the benefits of such working practices, itprevents people being put on the scrapheap, and as you say it gives the employer a 'rapid response' ability to spin up, Whilst everyone else is trying to recruit, you can just turn all the part timers back to full time!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757 driver
the current climate will open peoples eyes to the benefits of such working practices, itprevents people being put on the scrapheap, and as you say it gives the employer a 'rapid response' ability to spin up, Whilst everyone else is trying to recruit, you can just turn all the part timers back to full time!
Hopefully, employers/management will be enlightened and act accordingly.
Hopefully, employers/management will be enlightened and act accordingly.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Job share is not a solution. Would be nice...
But they would never go for that.
The airline will still have double cost of (recurrent) training etc. for two crewmembers.
And they will not invest an extra penny - well to the contrary.
xxx
Happy contrails
But they would never go for that.
The airline will still have double cost of (recurrent) training etc. for two crewmembers.
And they will not invest an extra penny - well to the contrary.
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Screwballburling, it worked for many years in an airline I worked for in Germany. They found themselves with too many Captains one winter and asked for volunteers! The deal was you had to share with another who would work alternate calender months on half the salary. I shared with another guy who lived overseas so it suited him too. When the company discovered that they could get 6 X 100 hours out of us in a year, a total of 1200 hours as opposed to 1000 from one captain, they saw the light and let us stay on the deal for years. The extra 200 hours they got out of us paid for the extra sim ride on their side and we got 6/10ths of our previous annual flight pay. It is a win-win situation if only you can get the wheels to see it that way. We also gave up our leave entitelment. 6 Months a year on furlough was quite enough!
I ran a boat business and my partner ran a holiday company in our spare time.
Overall we came out with about 60% of our previous earnings, plus what we made in our other jobs.
I ran a boat business and my partner ran a holiday company in our spare time.
Overall we came out with about 60% of our previous earnings, plus what we made in our other jobs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: US
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rubik101
Thanks for that good response.
That is what our lot would love, especially if they could screw 900 hours per year out of one part time pilot!
What is going to happen for sure, if the economy ever does pick up, will be a chronic shortage of pilots. Possibly the worst in living memory, as people will not be trained at present, permanent, premature losses through redundancy and the normal attrition rate.
Thanks for that good response.
That is what our lot would love, especially if they could screw 900 hours per year out of one part time pilot!
What is going to happen for sure, if the economy ever does pick up, will be a chronic shortage of pilots. Possibly the worst in living memory, as people will not be trained at present, permanent, premature losses through redundancy and the normal attrition rate.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: FL450
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scewballburling and Sweetie:
I am not imume to redundancy; far from it. I am up to my ears in this cr@p and need a job more than anyone right now. However, the sarcastic tone of my post had a point. Pilots are already expected to pay pay pay employers costs as it is. Any suggestion that training costs, medicals etc should also be bourne from our pockets as a matter of course is just yet another step in the wrong direction. You must consider that as soon as one operation starts this nonsense it quickly becomes the norm for all.
"Pilot's are not a charity." I am not a charity. I work and expect to be paid. It is how I earn my living. (Or at least used to!)
Now what you could consider is those fixed costs being met by the government??? They are already tax deductable for the employer. Seems like a small cost to keep someone in work compared to unemployment.
I am not imume to redundancy; far from it. I am up to my ears in this cr@p and need a job more than anyone right now. However, the sarcastic tone of my post had a point. Pilots are already expected to pay pay pay employers costs as it is. Any suggestion that training costs, medicals etc should also be bourne from our pockets as a matter of course is just yet another step in the wrong direction. You must consider that as soon as one operation starts this nonsense it quickly becomes the norm for all.
"Pilot's are not a charity." I am not a charity. I work and expect to be paid. It is how I earn my living. (Or at least used to!)
Now what you could consider is those fixed costs being met by the government??? They are already tax deductable for the employer. Seems like a small cost to keep someone in work compared to unemployment.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kelly Hopper
Now what you could consider is those fixed costs being met by the government???
Would be nice and I agree with much of what you say. Then, you've set a precedent for the steel workers/car workers and anybody else who feels he should get government help. I was out of work in the past for a year and sympathize with you.
T'ain't going to happen and we need to accept the world as it is not as we'd like it to be.
I have had arguments with management in the past over new recruits paying for TRs etc. Chief Pilots openly admit it's not their idea but the accountant's. Very difficult to stop the rot. Happens even in the education sector where students are expected to take out loans.
What is encouraging is that groups of pilots have been able to engage with the more enlightened managers and come to some sort of deal which is acceptable to most. In other words, they have dealt with what they are stuck with and not pontificated over how things should be.
As we all know, not all airlines take the kind of long-term view we are suggesting. Like it or not, we are in recession and managers always use this as a way of 'streamlining' their operation. If we're lucky, we can use our collective imagination and persuasion to minimize the damage (50% is only one tool), as we've seen exemplified in different ways in different airlines.
If we're unlucky, we're saddled with people who 'know the cost of everything and the value of nothing', to use a well-worn cliche.
Would be nice and I agree with much of what you say. Then, you've set a precedent for the steel workers/car workers and anybody else who feels he should get government help. I was out of work in the past for a year and sympathize with you.
T'ain't going to happen and we need to accept the world as it is not as we'd like it to be.
I have had arguments with management in the past over new recruits paying for TRs etc. Chief Pilots openly admit it's not their idea but the accountant's. Very difficult to stop the rot. Happens even in the education sector where students are expected to take out loans.
What is encouraging is that groups of pilots have been able to engage with the more enlightened managers and come to some sort of deal which is acceptable to most. In other words, they have dealt with what they are stuck with and not pontificated over how things should be.
As we all know, not all airlines take the kind of long-term view we are suggesting. Like it or not, we are in recession and managers always use this as a way of 'streamlining' their operation. If we're lucky, we can use our collective imagination and persuasion to minimize the damage (50% is only one tool), as we've seen exemplified in different ways in different airlines.
If we're unlucky, we're saddled with people who 'know the cost of everything and the value of nothing', to use a well-worn cliche.