The original offer was a 25% raise over 4 years. Then Boeing offered 30% and went to the public with it. And now this deal is at 35%. The union originally asked for 40%. I know there are a lot of other details mixed up in here around bonuses and retirement benefits and job security and so on. But does this mean the union “won” this process since the number is close to what they wanted? The one big thing it looks like they aren’t getting that the original deal had is that the next model won’t be guaranteed to be built in Washington.
Also, is it actually good for the union workers in the bigger picture? Presumably they lost one month of pay. And a lot of other (non union) people are getting laid off, who probably view the union as a bad actor. Also those tired of the union work culture in Everett may continue to leave, continuing a drain of the best talent. Boeing probably is in a more precarious position than ever before. They will likely stick to the smaller plane lineup and diversify manufacturing away from Washington and automate more. So is this really good for the union or is it just really good for the workers who are there now, since they will get the most of what they could get out of the company before they retire? To them it may not matter what the future of Boeing is past their retirement.
Union X post: https://x.com/IAM751/status/1847641501637247081
Deeper details of deal: http://www.iam751.org/2024StrikeProposal/
This kind-of-anti-union post would be a lot more interesting if it attempted to answer the questions it raises with facts instead of speculative “maybes”.
As far as I’m concerned, higher compensation is a long term win. If new hires are offered less, they will know they are being taken advantage of.
Higher comp is not a win if it comes with enough strings attached.
For instance, they could tie pay / layoffs to seniority (all your coworkers are unfireable incompetent union “good old boys” that don’t bother pretending to work any more, creating a hostile workplace and tanking company revenue), or the contract could make it unprofitable or infeasible to continue ramping up production in the union controlled facilities.
Since Boeing managed to remove the clause saying they’ll keep making planes in Washington, I’m guessing the latter happened with this deal.
The "good old boys" stereotype is a stereotype for a reason: it doesn't actually happen in meaningful numbers.
If you get paid well, have good benefits, and can't get fired arbitrarily (union still allows for firing based on performance), it turns out your workers will be happier and more productive.
Also, if labor costs (paying a decent wage) tank a massive jet company, they already had many other problems under the hood. Your argument is also proven to be false, because Airbus (heavily unionized) has been eating Boeing's lunch for years since they didn't greedily spin-off everything nor slacked on quality control for the shareholders for short-term gain.
[flagged]
[flagged]
>Presumably they lost one month of pay.
A new grade 4 hourly worker at Boeing made $19 an hour before the strike. $3,040 a month before taxes. https://www.iam751.org/docs/2024/FRONTMar24.pdf
There's a reason they went on strike. $36,480 a year doesn't go far when you have to pay Seattle area rent.
The Harbor Freight Tools store 2 exits from the plant has a sign saying that they are hiring cashiers at $22.50/hr. No exaggeration, sign is in the window, Edmonds WA location.
So what's stopping them from jumping ship to supposed greener pastures in Edmonds[1][2]?
That a IAM union machinist would even consider a voluntary career pivot to the retail antithesis of "Buy Union-Made & American-Made products" because of a window sign says a lot...no exaggeration necessary.
[1] https://harbor-freight-tools.careerarc.com/job-listings/harb...
[2] https://harbor-freight-tools.careerarc.com/job-listings/harb...
Unfortunately, landlords do not accept Union Pride as rent payment. We live in a society.
Benefits?
Sold out 2 contracts ago in return for a clause guaranteeing work placement in Washington state, which Boeing promptly moved to South Carolina as soon as the contract expired.
> Also, is it actually good for the union workers in the bigger picture? Presumably they lost one month of pay.
It depends on the details of the contract but often the company has to pay the workers for wages lost while on strike unless they went and got a temporary job during the strike. It makes the bargaining eaiser because the company has more of an incentive to bargain in good faith since it's harder for them to "just wait it out".
But on the latter points, Boeing is a strategically important industrial company. The federal government has an incentive to ensure their long term stability, or at least the appearance of it.
Being offered the next airplane is a bit of a red herring since the non union South Carolina plant has a track record of bad deliveries and some sales contracts forbid aircraft being delivered that are built there amongst larger quality issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_South_Carolina
So yes this is a win for them. Being paid properly for your time is likely an issue everyone here agrees with when it’s their pay on the line.
Boeing has huge contracts and is the go to for the US Military Industrial Complex. They have plenty of contracts on hand to bring in revenue as they figure themselves out. Their ability to create problems has been clearly shown to be a tone at the top problem combined with bad management decisions that has lead to poor product delivery, regulatory missteps, and the design shortcuts that lead to accidents that brought on their most recent cycle of pain.
A lathe operator has no impact on those decisions whether she is paid $20 or $27 per hour.
Being told that customers won't buy your airplanes unless you build them in your union shop must sting for management there.
It's great that the subcontractors and executives and day traders who own the stock for a few seconds care so much about "what the future of Boeing is past their retirement".
It’s probably worth asking if the deal was good for the union leadership’s personal finances and/or political ambitions.
If you look at the University of California contract negotiations (different union), you’re likely to conclude that the campus and most employees are on one side, and union leadership is on the other side.
Yes. This is absolutely a win.
One month of pay vs years of stagnant wages, concessions in regards to health care, as well as pensions getting axed. https://fortune.com/2024/09/13/boeing-machinists-vote-strike...
Hmmm. I wonder if you have a bias here.
> Also those tired of the union work culture in Everett may continue to leave
Yeah, they won't leave for not getting salary increases in line with inflation (at the very least) in 16 years, but they will leave because the union is fighting for their benefit.
What are you on? It's appalling how people will justify poor treatment of workers and argue against workers fighting for better treatment and pay.
> Also, is it actually good for the union workers in the bigger picture?
What's the alternative? Wait forever for Boeing to give workers a decent raise, which absolutely will NOT happen? Workers just got a big pay raise by demanding for it.
But yes, you're right that Union leadership is also spineless. Modern union leaders tend to appease the big bosses by giving in to what they want, trying to convince workers that the lower offers is the best they can get, and then trying to get the workers to vote for it. Stronger leadership would have rejected it because they know that workers are the soul of a company: without workers there is no company.
Among a certain people, the executive class is nearly worshipped as the good guys. God for forbid they get held accountable for anything not related to shareholders
> without workers there is no company.
Is they gradually move production to non-union factories in other states then there would be a company but no [union] workers...
Boeing already tried doing this. Several big Customers rejected deliveries from the non union plant because they were unacceptably poorer in quality.
I'd guess that has more to do with the incompetence of Boeing's management than with some inherent properties of union workers. Presumably they could fix that.
It must be lonely being the only person in the world defending Boeing management
I bet you could buy as the friends you wanted.
What's amusing is the union negotiated the last contract, which was rejected by membership.
So maybe the union should reject that contract too just to see if they can get a better deal.
I didn't know about this situation, but I know in some strike situations there is a backpay or signing bonus that is negotiated
> To them it may not matter what the future of Boeing is past their retirement.
of course they don't, and why should they? Boeing doesn't give a f*k about its employees
> probably view the union as a bad actor
based on what? rather they seen the benefits of unionizing as otherwise you get nothing (and get laid off); this sounds like FUD
[dead]