It's my managers money right?

Yesterday at work I was extremely discouraged by two events in particular.

Number 1:

We run a roster of 5 staff in the morning, with staggered start times:

The shifts run 0500-1100, 0600-1300, 0630-1430 X 2 and 0700-1500; these shifts are replaced by 4 afternoon shifts, a 1200-2000, 1400-2100, 1400-2200 and 1500-2300.

So our staffing requirement in the afternoon is reduced by 1. This effectively is amended when bad wx is forecast and we get in someone on Overtime to cover the peak from 1600-2000 (4 hours minimum OT payment).

The reason for the disparity in staffing levels is traffic demand; the morning peak is always busier than the afternoon peak. I guess businesses always start their day early; but finish meetings etc. at different times; at least this is how is seems.

So what was the issue: The Supervisor decided that the 0500-1100 did not need replacing when the person called in sick. So this would put us below minimum staffing; which we often do due to not having an option. Why in the case? Lack of staff to fill the vacant shift, no, simply management discretion.

So what mitigation is offered to overcome the 'stupid management decision'? Traffic Management strategies; so for the cost of about $500 (gross, the cost of the call out) We force the traffic to be delayed and avoid, enter the airspace in a particular manner so as to not overload the 4 controllers working the 4 sectors without breaks; or the 3 sectors when there should be four, so that some toilet breaks etc can occur; did someone say breakfast?

I think that the cost to industry in this scenario would exceed $5,000 (much higher if holding delays resulted), due to all the delays created in managing the traffic; for what reason, so the company didn't spend a lousy $500. Was this in the name of safety? Hell no, management stooge economics 101.

Number 2:

Almost 7 months ago a controller was "promised in writing" a pay rise on achieving their next set of ratings; this happened 5 months ago and guess what, no pay rise.

The individual in question was given a BS excuse initially about high sick-leave, 7 days in the year all consecutive, when an immediate relative was effectively on his death bed.

The individual has been 'strung along' with multiple meetings, e-mails, phone calls about a 'decision pending'; the decision now rests with a manager at head office; who apparently has being "mulling over" the decision for 2 months now; in my experience it's most unlike that individual to not make a snap call.

All the while the controller involved has been 'required' to perform extra non console duties in all this time to prove his 'worth' whilst the decision is pending.

Makes me wonder if the manager has being BSsing him the whole time; or whether the administration really is that incompetent and can't approve a pay rise ($5K or so per annum) without the say-so of someone 1 wrung below the CEO; hell by the time it is approved he'll have achieved the annual increment anyway.

It does actually come out of the purse or wallet of the relevant manager right, that's why that are so reluctant to pay; well perhaps not; it's a disgrace.