Article title jumps the gun. Union members still need to vote on whether to accept the deal Wednesday.
> The union announced the deal Saturday morning, saying, “it warrants presenting to the members and is worthy of your consideration.”
> The union plans to vote on the deal on Wednesday. Nearly 95% of workers voted to reject the last tentative deal, which the union’s leaders recommended.
I hope the workers reject and continue the strike, forcing Boeing into bankruptcy will be a very good thing for the country even if it leaves investors and banks unhappy.
How is forcing one of its largest employers, one of its largest manufacturers, and leaving the commercial airliner market dominated by foreign companies good for the country?
Realistically they’ll get bailed out. In other words, taxpayers will subsidize the failures of the company and the deals struck by unions. Ideally we would instead fund more competitors from an early stage.
You’re right, it still has to go to vote. But union representatives in the negotiating position have approved of the deal. On the other hand they approved of the initial Boeing offer that got nearly universally rejected. So who knows what will happen. I suspect this vote will not be nearly as skewed.
I don’t know the situation with Boeing. But unions are sort of cancers of economy, which will grow and rotten healthy institutions. Their demands will grow indefinitely, as they become more and more powerful. At some point, there is no way back.
Look at their outcomes in France! The problems seem to be increasingly spreading to US.
"The Local Average Treatment Effect of a 1% decline in unionisation attributable to RTW is about a 5% increase in the rate of occupational fatalities. In total, RTW laws have led to a 14.2% increase in occupational mortality through decreased unionisation."
A union worker forgot bolts on the door plug on the Alaska plane, and workers from the other union (SPEEA) designed MCAS, which was one of the causes of the two 737 Max crashes.
Oh no, god forbid the people doing the actual work get any benefits for doing so and that they have a voice for how they're being treated! No, the managerial class who do nothing but sap resources are for sure not the cancers.
Oh, this is wishful thinking about unions (enabling workers get fair compensation and benefits for the work that they do, etc). The reality of the unions can be quite different, and counterintuitive, especially as they evolve over time.
My recollection is that some European countries have better union laws where competition between unions is allowed rather than giving each union a legally protected monopoly where others cannot work. The lack of competition makes American unions especially bad and leads to corrupt union leaders or unnecessarily hostile relationships with their company. But it doesn’t have to be that way. There might be better balanced approaches.
Yes, unions in Germany are more decentralized and less malign. In France, unions are nationwide, and the same across the entire sectors. Having worked in that system, it’s horrible. Trust me, it may look cool on paper, you don’t want that malignant tumor.
I have written a few detail posts on my experience in that system in HN. I will see if I can find them.
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.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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
Readit News
> The union announced the deal Saturday morning, saying, “it warrants presenting to the members and is worthy of your consideration.”
> The union plans to vote on the deal on Wednesday. Nearly 95% of workers voted to reject the last tentative deal, which the union’s leaders recommended.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Look at their outcomes in France! The problems seem to be increasingly spreading to US.
"Decreased unionization rates in the United States have been linked to an increase in occupational fatalities."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union#Health
"The Local Average Treatment Effect of a 1% decline in unionisation attributable to RTW is about a 5% increase in the rate of occupational fatalities. In total, RTW laws have led to a 14.2% increase in occupational mortality through decreased unionisation."
https://oem.bmj.com/content/75/10/736
https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2016/union-membership-in-the-u...
In other words, some of them were expensive and outsourced.
I have written on my experience, see for example
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598155
I think Americans read its theory on paper and fantasize it. I don’t think they appreciate how it will look like in practice, 3 decades later.
I have written a few detail posts on my experience in that system in HN. I will see if I can find them.
Update: Here is one
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26598155
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/
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is they gradually move production to non-union factories in other states then there would be a company but no [union] workers...
So maybe the union should reject that contract too just to see if they can get a better deal.
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 Comment