Strange Bedfellows, Indeed

Well, I had this week’s topic (government intervention) pretty well set in my mind and then, out of left field, Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) strays from the Appalachian Trail all the way to Argentina. Now there is one wrong turn, folks! They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this is getting out of hand.

Amid calls for his resignation, Governor Sanford is striving to maintain some semblance of order in the operation of his state’s business. Camps are divided between “Who cares” and “When is he leaving”. Personally, I care a great deal. Why? Good question. After all, I do not fall within the blanket of South Carolina government, so why should I lose any sleep over who Sanford is sleeping with?

To answer that, I need to go back to the ’80’s and take a look at the Reagan administration and policies that sprang from that era. As far as I can tell, things began to change during Reagan’s second term when then-Attorney General Ed Meese convened his Commission on pornography. The next thing you know, Southland Corporation (7-Eleven stores) was pulling Playboy and Penthouse magazines off of their shelves.

Up until that point, “Republican” was a reference to fiscal conservatism and the empowerment of the individual. It seems to me that the Republican Party, in trying to prolong and preserve its power, began to see the Religious Right as an important ally in that quest. It took some time and tinkering, but, by the end of the 20th century, they had it down pretty pat: family values and the like with the full voiced support of Republican office holders and candidates. Throwing stones at the left? More like bricks, if you look their response to Bill Clinton’s dalliances.

The only problem in this approach is that all of us, regardless of political persuasion, are subject to straying from the straight and narrow. Now, should a regular guy get caught in a strange boudoir the outrage is relatively tame. But if this same guy historically espouses “family values”, that outrage grows exponentially due to the hypocrisy, if nothing else.

Political sex scandals are nothing new and the distribution among the two parties is nearly split. The Republicans, however, suffer much more through these trials because of their family values stance. No one likes a hypocrite and the right sets themselves up for major retribution by clinging to this holier-than-thou position. Trust me, no politician should waste time claiming to be above any kind of fray.

We should not give a rip about the bedroom or bathroom (in the case of Larry Craig) habits of our elected officials. We should care, however, about the two party system. If the Republican Party continues to concentrate on socially admirable traits rather than the solution to real problems they diminish their importance in the political debates that need their input.

So come on, you guardians of the right: leave the bedroom behind and walk over to the office, where you belong. While I may not agree with some of your proposals, I recognize the need to keep you at the table. Continuing to hang your hat on the nails of fidelity and family will only ensure your limited effectiveness in remaining a viable voice within the political spectrum.

Qualifications

Many of us possess some sort of qualification to perform specific tasks. Probably the most common is the driver’s license: it “qualifies” an individual to operate a motor vehicle. Some qualifications can be found on the walls of doctor’s or lawyer’s offices and they attest to a level of expertise in each case. I carry my qualification in my wallet. It is an Airline Transport Pilot rating, is issued by the FAA, and qualifies me to fly in the left seat of a commercial airliner. It is the gold standard of aviation and every commercial airline captain carries such a certificate.

In recent media reports, much has been made of the Colgan Air captain involved in the Buffalo, NY crash having failed numerous checkrides. It is this point that I wish to dwell on for a few moments and hope you have the time and inclination to read further.

In my thirty nine years of aviation affiliation, I have taken countless checkrides. And a portion of my Air Force career was dedicated to administering checkrides to fellow pilots. I am proud to say that, through a combination of timing, skill, and luck, I have never failed a checkride. That is not meant to portray myself as the brightest bulb in the box. I am far from infallible and remind myself of that fact every time I strap into my aircraft.

To arbitrarily consign an aviator to mediocrity based solely on the number of failed checkrides is to oversimplify a complicated issue to the point where any meaningful conclusion is impossible. I have seen colleagues who are more than capable pilots fail a checkride for a variety of reasons. Generally, the failure is due to the misapplication or poor timing in the performance of a given procedure. A mistake, in other words. While a checkride is only a snapshot of a pilot’s ability, it affords one the opportunity to learn from such a mistake and re-attempt the task. There are many reasons behind a busted ride, but all evaluations have a common conclusion: satisfactory performance.

Did you fail your first driver’s test? How about the bar exam? Or your medical boards? Or perhaps you had more than one failed attempt. We do not look back in such a way after a car crash or an undesirable verdict or an unsuccessful surgery. Why should we after a plane crash? Granted, such failures may illuminate shortcomings in training or ability, but to take the results out of hand and render a blanket condemnation serves no useful purpose.

Should airlines be afforded the opportunity of reviewing an applicant’s complete aviation history? Of course, but such background investigation has been spotty, at best. Perhaps due to an FAA mentality of voluntary compliance, perhaps due to a supply and demand dilemma at the regional airlines who are finding it increasingly difficult to find would-be employees willing to work long hours for low pay. In either case, there is nothing wrong with a peak into the past so long as it is accompanied with an explanation of any questionable areas.

Ironically, I am currently embroiled in a debate over “qualification” with my employer (a major US legacy airline). The airline has elected to modify the instrumentation of the aircraft I fly from old, “steam driven”, round gauges to a state of the art electronic display . This new display provides me all of my basic flight information: airspeed, altimetry, rate of climb/descent, and the like. In my 24 years at this airline, I have never flown a similarly equipped aircraft. Nevertheless, last November, in my scheduled recurrent training session, I watched a short video on this new equipment and took a short quiz. At the conclusion of this quiz, the instructor told the entire class that we were now “qualified” to fly a jet with this new display. I took exception to this and immediately contacted the appropriate powers-that-be. “Don’t worry,” they said. “You’ll be down for a simulator before you’ll ever see it on the line.”

Unfortunately, that promise rang hollow. I have yet to return for my next recurrent training session and was presented with the new display just several weeks ago. Knowing full well the possible ramifications, I turned and walked off the aircraft. I advised the proper folks that I did not feel qualified to fly with such a novel and untried presentation without first seeing it in a simulated environment. “Well, you’re qualified,” they said. Yes, by virtue of a check mark in a box I was, indeed, technically qualified. On a more pragmatic scale, though, I was anything but fully prepared to conduct a safe and uneventful flight.

We each must hold ourselves accountable when operating under the “qualifications” of any permit, license, or approving authority. Drunk driving or any other careless behavior predicated upon the theory of “it’ll be alright” is a dereliction of the responsibility accompanying the qualification. While my airline (and the FAA) consider me qualified to command an aircraft with a display format I have yet to actually touch, activate, and (yes) make a mistake, I beg to differ. The unwritten contract I have with my crew and my passengers expecting only the best from me holds far more import.

Supply and Demand

The idea of supply and demand reigning supreme in the marketplace is nothing new. Last week, I wrote of executive bonuses and wondered why there are no employee bonuses of any significant size. Supply and demand (theoretically, at least) should take care of the worker-bees, but subtle shifts have caused a mutation in the original theory, I’d say. I offer some examples:

Doctors: Becoming an M.D. is a laborious and expensive enterprise and it stands to reason that anyone entering into this profession would seek compensation commensurate with the time and energy dedicated to a successful outcome. A young doctor today sees limited income potential in traditional areas of General Practice and seeks, instead, a specialty so as to maximize earnings. But HMO’s, promising to solve the health care crisis, have succeeded only by limiting specialized care and lowering payments to physicians in general. As a result, many reconsider a career in medicine. The prospect of national health care and even lower rewards drives even more medical hopefuls into other, more lucrative, areas.

Despite these facts, medical school tuitions remain high and the prospect of making a reasonable return on investment is leading to an increased shortage of qualified doctors for you and me. Where does supply and demand figure into this problem?

Airline pilots: These folks have traditionally come from the military services with long resumes and more than a modicum of flight time. But the military pipeline has slowed to a trickle. Not that one would notice, what with airlines cutting capacity, but the day will come when demand once again returns. What then? Well, we have a supply of pilots at the regional airline level and they have cut their teeth on smaller jets with similar technology. Their move to a bigger cockpit might be an easy transition, but who fills their spot? You’re right...no one. Much like doctors, professional pilots spend a large portion of time and money obtaining the experience required by the airlines. So, as pilots’ wages and benefits have been slashed through bankruptcy court or concessions coerced through the threat of Chapter 11, why spend time and money on a job that is not currently available and, even if it were, offers little or no reward for the effort? With such a gloomy future in the industry, many choose other career fields.

Teachers: Society once thought of an education as something that just happened. Kind of like the sun rising in the east. Not so (as we now realize). As teacher salaries have been decimated, so, too, has the quality of education available to our students. “Teaching” has been reduced to crowd control and passing a test tied directly to funding at the expense of “learning”. Low pay and dismal job satisfaction combine to, once again, force those that would otherwise seek a career in education to look in other directions to secure a piece of the American dream.

The list of career fields that are short on personnel yet still fail to offer incentives goes on and on. Most are technical in nature or require some sort of specialized skill and the day is fast approaching where the supply falls to zero. How? Well, the folks that currently hold these positions worked a good while to attain their current level of success. Unless their eventual replacements see similar rewards, they go in other directions and replacements simply no longer appear on the horizon. The time to create demand through financial and quality of life possibilities is before the supply line dries out, i.e. now. Waiting until there’s a critical shortage only guarantees a crisis of greater proportion.

There are two areas that still provide opportunity and they lie at opposite ends of the employment spectrum: executives and clerks. I would like to think that today’s unemployment rate would create an opportunity for many businesses to get rid of the recalcitrant clerks, indifferent attendants, and other unpleasant employees in favor of someone who needs a job, wants a job, and realizes the qualities that make for a desirable applicant.

Conversely, doesn’t everyone want to be the boss? With that kind of supply, why the need to create demand? It stands to reason that executive pay would come down to a point where the two were relatively equal, doesn’t it? (Don’t hold your breath on this one, though.)

We depend on many folks with various skills that combine to make our economy and society work. Neglecting them on the premise of corporate productivity and profitability does nothing to ensure a continuing supply of similarly qualified employees.

Financial Pheromones

Close your eyes and take a deep breath. Can you smell it? Try again. “Smell what?” you ask. Why, the smell of money. After all, there is nothing more important than money, is there? Why else would so few be receiving so much? In the economic turmoil of the past several years, we’ve become all too acquainted with the ever-burgeoning executive bonus. These additional payments, we are told, assure the corporation’s ability to attract the best and brightest business-types to their ivory towers rather than lose them to a potential competitor. Could someone please tell me how “best and brightest” is defined? And then, could someone tell me why many of these bonus paying entities are in such dire financial straights? Hell, if they’ve got the cream of the crop in their boardrooms, why aren’t they achieving a higher degree of success?

We all know, on some level, that this rationale is nothing but a gimmick to explain away rewarding a small faction with very large sums regardless of their performance. Plain and simple, but how do we move away from this construct? First, we have to accept the basic premise as false and here’s a place to begin reconnecting with reality:

We all have a given quality of life. Some of that quality is due exclusively to the numbers written on our paycheck while other parts entail more subjective components: working conditions, geographic location, neighbors, proximity to family members, schools, and the like all add in to the mix that ultimately creates our level of satisfaction with that quality. Would you move across the country for a 10 % raise? Perhaps, if other factors appeared to be more favorable. You might even take a pay cut to get to a better position with a better future in a better area, wouldn’t you? And it goes without saying that many of us would find a way to go anyplace and work for anybody if offered a substantial raise. But not all of us and maybe not even most of us.

“You can’t buy happiness” is an appropriate adage to introduce at this juncture simply because it is true. Unless, of course, you see money as a pathway to every possession that, in theory, will make you happy. There’s a few lottery winners out there that might fall into this category, but most of us define our quality of life in more diverse terms. As a result, bonuses to attract the best possible executive should be unnecessary if the whole package offers a great opportunity.

And what about the best and brightest employees? Where are the bonuses to bring in the best auto workers, or municipal clerks, or doctors, or airline pilots, or anything else? Don’t we need the brightest and best on every step of the corporate ladder? It would seem so since many companies are floundering with supposedly exceptional leadership.

How about letting these would-be corporate wizards test the job market out there and see how desirable their skill sets are? Do you really believe most executives would leave a great job at a great company if their bonus were to disappear (or at least diminish)? I don’t, but it’s high stakes poker and the suits are not only dealing, but they can see everybody else’s hand. The shareholders fold and the rest is financial history. The Board of Directors? Nah, they’re in on the scheme and hang on to their perks only so long as they enable the largess flowing to the management teams.

How about embracing the idea that money, while important, is not the be-all and end-all in the boardroom or the trenches?Once we realize that the smell of money is not all that intoxicating, we can start to reshape corporate philosophy through specific shareholder resolutions and, in the meantime, refusing to blink when threatened with the departure of some omnipotent, omniscient CEO.