Slog Comments
Boeing Said It Will Deny Equal Pension Benefits to Married Gay Couples
1
I think this is more about not wanting to pay more than they have to than it is about discrimination. And it is discrimination (assuming the story is correct), but it's more of a secondary-reaction discrimination.
2
It seems to me that the headline should read, "SPEEA claims that Boeing ..."
Whatever happened to journalistic balance?
Whatever happened to journalistic balance?
3
Today's "assertions that Boeing discriminates is blatantly false clearly true and, quite frankly, offensive."
There, fixed that for you.
There, fixed that for you.
5
@1 .. but see this how discrimination works. next to religion, money provides the rational foundation discrimination no matter if we talk about race, gender, or sexual identity.
6
@2 Journalistic balance died with elvis.
And by that I mean some people say its still alive, but nobody really believes it.
And by that I mean some people say its still alive, but nobody really believes it.
7
Um, yeah, Boeing... now's not the time to start fucking with the gays or the unions.
I wonder if Boeing's contract negotiator is from South Carolina.
I wonder if Boeing's contract negotiator is from South Carolina.
8
'What we said today is that [these pension benefits] are not currently addressed in the contract."
That's an unambiguous statement right there that fits well with Goforth's saying they referred to federal law. It goes further, too, because if they believe federal law gives them coverage I'm guessing that their R-74 analysis will basically be used to lay out what they are required to do... and pensions will be noticeably absent.
9
Companies such as Microsoft, Verizon, AT&T and Starbucks offered benefits to the partners of gay couples way before gay marriage was ever legal.
11
Is The Stranger taking journalism lessons from TMZ? It sure seems like it since Tim fired all the adults who used to report the news.
12
@11 -- Do tell, Cato.. what's your side to this story?
@8 -- And that might lead to a federal court case where a judge will have to decide to hold up DOMA.
@8 -- And that might lead to a federal court case where a judge will have to decide to hold up DOMA.
13
Boeing so wants to move everything to North or South Carolina or which ever back water state over there it can hardly control itself. One hopes DOMA is shown to be unconstitutional, then Boeing will hit the PANIC button and head back east in 3 months.
14
@12, It's Mr. Cops Can Do No Wrong!! Hi How have you been? Sorry that that nasty court awarded that guy one of your hero's beat the crap out a lot of money. Sucks when the police are held to account!!!
Haven't seen you around in a long time! How have you been? Hmm? Notice you don't show up very often so it's glad to see you on line again.
Going out clubbing this weekend? Hope to see you out!!
Haven't seen you around in a long time! How have you been? Hmm? Notice you don't show up very often so it's glad to see you on line again.
Going out clubbing this weekend? Hope to see you out!!
15
@12, let's meet up in public sometime though. I know you have "issues" with me for a couple of years now. And I'd LOVE to meet...in a public place...I don't trust you not to be violent...and talk about your position on a variety of positions. Perhaps a coffee shop up on 15th Ave east this weekend? And if that doesn't work I can certainly work you in on another day. Let me know...I'll be there!!
16
@6: Journalistic "balance" is half-baked bullshit most of the time. Nowadays what it amounts to is pairing an advocate for marriage equality with Tony Perkins on a news program. It's running to an anti-gay campaign for a quote on something great that happens to a pro-gay campaign.
The story here is well-reported (he talked to Boeing!) and relies heavily on credible sources (he talked to Boeing!). If a person disagrees with the portrayal that is totally their right! Their options are to await confirmation, work their own shoe leather or just ignore the story.
He came to a different conclusion than some would have if they had done the work themselves, but that is journalism. It just looks foreign and "unbalanced" to some people because Dominic actually went to the trouble of accepting his source's description of what transpired after hearing from both sides. In most cases professional journalists are now so detached from their own reporting that they've essentially become aggregation machines for sources and PR related to current topical events.
The story here is well-reported (he talked to Boeing!) and relies heavily on credible sources (he talked to Boeing!). If a person disagrees with the portrayal that is totally their right! Their options are to await confirmation, work their own shoe leather or just ignore the story.
He came to a different conclusion than some would have if they had done the work themselves, but that is journalism. It just looks foreign and "unbalanced" to some people because Dominic actually went to the trouble of accepting his source's description of what transpired after hearing from both sides. In most cases professional journalists are now so detached from their own reporting that they've essentially become aggregation machines for sources and PR related to current topical events.
17
Is Cato trying to pick a fight with someone? I might have to fly up there to see it. (@ 10, I would fly with an airline whose fleet is mostly if not entirely supplied by Airbus, like Frontier.)
18
"weren't required to honor Washington State state law on this matter...."
No, Dumbass.
Washington State state law isn't applicable.
And, no, South Carolina will not hassle Boeing about "this matter....."
No, Dumbass.
Washington State state law isn't applicable.
And, no, South Carolina will not hassle Boeing about "this matter....."
19
@17 doesn't involve you but I find it odd how you "invite" yourself so such things.
I've been dealing with six shooter LONG before you ever had a Slog account.
I've been dealing with six shooter LONG before you ever had a Slog account.
20
@17 And I never said anything about a fight..I want to discuss our differences of opinion in person. And I KNOW you like to take things out of context (like you being okay with killing innocent kids in the middle east as long as Obama supports gay marriage) but really...try to keep up.
Oh..and my first and last name HAS been published on Slog by Elli (with my permission) so I doubt I'd be trying to start a fight.
Oh..and my first and last name HAS been published on Slog by Elli (with my permission) so I doubt I'd be trying to start a fight.
24
@ 20, don't slog drunk. The "@ 10" means that I was addressing... @ 10. Let me know if I need to explain how that works.
Also, trying to claim cred via "I was here first" pissing contests is just sad. Almost as sad as your always-changing reasons for not voting for Obama. I believe you care about children on other continents as much as I believe in Mitt Romney's personal integrity. Just stop with that, okay?
Also, trying to claim cred via "I was here first" pissing contests is just sad. Almost as sad as your always-changing reasons for not voting for Obama. I believe you care about children on other continents as much as I believe in Mitt Romney's personal integrity. Just stop with that, okay?
25
Boeing is technically right. Employee pensions are governed by ERISA, which basically says that pensions (and all employee benefits) are exempt from state law. Employee benefits are only governed by federal laws, which means that DOMA is the law of the land.
Boeing could (and should) choose voluntarily to give same sex couples the same pension benefits. However, Boeing is already trying to get out of pensions that are crushing the company's long term viability. I do not think this is coming from a place of bigotry, but from a company who is counting every penny.
Boeing could (and should) choose voluntarily to give same sex couples the same pension benefits. However, Boeing is already trying to get out of pensions that are crushing the company's long term viability. I do not think this is coming from a place of bigotry, but from a company who is counting every penny.
26
@1 and @25
Let's say, hypothetically, that Marcus Bachman waved his magic anti- gay wand over all LGBT Boeing employees and the next day all of those employees married someone of the opposite sex. Boeing would provide survivor benefits to each and every one of those spouses. To deny those benefits to same sec spouses is discrimination, pure and simple.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Marcus Bachman waved his magic anti- gay wand over all LGBT Boeing employees and the next day all of those employees married someone of the opposite sex. Boeing would provide survivor benefits to each and every one of those spouses. To deny those benefits to same sec spouses is discrimination, pure and simple.
27
I work for Boeing. The Chicago management has been utterly stupid, pig-headed, and crushingly atavistic in their negotiating style. Time to strike! Who cares if they leave? Fuck 'em. I'll take my talents to other, forward thinking companies. Oh, and by the way, I speak French too. Please come, Airbus!
29
@26. There is a difference between discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect. I am just saying that I believe the purpose is financially motivated, but it has a clearly discriminatory effect.
31
Companies such as Microsoft, Verizon, AT&T and Starbucks offered benefits to the partners of gay couples way before gay marriage was ever legal.
So has Boeing, just not survivor death benefits. Boeing has used extending health benefits over the past decade+ to its advantage in hiring very talented people that the military and other companies.
What the company will find is that this hiring advantage they have had is being damaged by this negotiating tactic.
It's short sighted.
Boeing doesn't want to extend retirement benefits to new employees, is that ageism? Probably not.
They are negotiating, just not doing it very well.
So has Boeing, just not survivor death benefits. Boeing has used extending health benefits over the past decade+ to its advantage in hiring very talented people that the military and other companies.
What the company will find is that this hiring advantage they have had is being damaged by this negotiating tactic.
It's short sighted.
Boeing doesn't want to extend retirement benefits to new employees, is that ageism? Probably not.
They are negotiating, just not doing it very well.
32
@25 -- How are pensions crushing their long-term viability. You're not suggesting Boeing invested poorly with their well-managed retirement accounts, are you?
Next you're going to tell me they minimized contributions to the fund to help balance their budget during lean years but never repaid those borrowed dollars when they were fat.
Boeing will give on this issue. Probably before Christmas.
Boeing airplanes are the best in the world. The 787 will change the airplane game. Boeing owes the quality of its products and its stellar reputation to its union employees; by far one of the most productive work-forces in the world.
Next you're going to tell me they minimized contributions to the fund to help balance their budget during lean years but never repaid those borrowed dollars when they were fat.
Boeing will give on this issue. Probably before Christmas.
Boeing airplanes are the best in the world. The 787 will change the airplane game. Boeing owes the quality of its products and its stellar reputation to its union employees; by far one of the most productive work-forces in the world.
33
@30 there's about 50,000 bumper stickers in town which say you're wrong, the resonant frequency at take-off when I fly on airbuses gives me pause every time...
I'm not surprised at Chicago-based Boeing's position - they moved HQ in large part to avoid the awkward news footage of picket lines outside their offices every time management pissed off workers.
It's simple labor law and good lawyering. Federal law controls and unlike the pot initiative they don't have to rely on non-existant federal police to, as @29 says, save a lot of money.
I wonder if Perkins Coie is still handling their business - boycott them!
I'm not surprised at Chicago-based Boeing's position - they moved HQ in large part to avoid the awkward news footage of picket lines outside their offices every time management pissed off workers.
It's simple labor law and good lawyering. Federal law controls and unlike the pot initiative they don't have to rely on non-existant federal police to, as @29 says, save a lot of money.
I wonder if Perkins Coie is still handling their business - boycott them!
34
@29, it doesn't matter why they're discriminating. There's no good reason, moral or financial, to discriminate.
35
Federal law doesn't forbid a company voluntarily extending pension benefits. Once those pension benefits are given, then ERISA forbids them from being taken away; that's what federal law controls.
36
Who says that Boeing has even proposed this?
Oh - that's right -- it's the guy who is on the other side of the negotiating table -- so it must be true!
It's curious that SPEEA didn't share this revelation with its members on their website: www.speea.org. Oddly enough, Ray Goforth only felt compelled to tell The Stranger about it.
Oh - that's right -- it's the guy who is on the other side of the negotiating table -- so it must be true!
It's curious that SPEEA didn't share this revelation with its members on their website: www.speea.org. Oddly enough, Ray Goforth only felt compelled to tell The Stranger about it.
37
@32, you understate your case. Boeing employs "one of the most productive" workforces in the world; they are simply THE most productive workforce in the entire history of the world. The best industrial workforce that ever was or ever will be. I'm proud to say I met Dan Hartley (union leader, former president of SPEEA) once.
It pains me to say it, but Boeing Chicago is now managed by shortsighted nincompoops who undoubtedly know everything there is to know about stock options but nothing about airplanes, and the company -- and America -- will suffer for it.
It pains me to say it, but Boeing Chicago is now managed by shortsighted nincompoops who undoubtedly know everything there is to know about stock options but nothing about airplanes, and the company -- and America -- will suffer for it.
38
@29. To say that there is a difference between discirminatory purpose and discriminatory effect in this case is to make a distinction without a difference. Let's say (hypothetically once again) that in order to save every penny (as you proposed @ 25), Boeing decided it would not offer survivor benefits to the spouses of Jewish employees. Would you still say their actions were not coming from a place of bigotry?
39
@36: Who says that Boeing has even proposed this?
RTFA. Boeing spokesperson Doug Alder said it.
Unless Boeing changes their policy, it remains their policy.
RTFA. Boeing spokesperson Doug Alder said it.
Unless Boeing changes their policy, it remains their policy.
41
Boeing is largely a military contractor, and the US Military (especially the Air Force) is mostly run as a Christian Taliban organization. So they have to pander to their base. That, and as stated above, they have the major hots to move as much of the operation as they can to Jeebusland.
42
The Boeing Company and its Senior Leadership (or Lack of) is a powerful manipulative monopoly who abuse thier position of industrial superiority. They assume that they are all powerful and exercise that appraoch to everything they undertake, regardless if it is applied against their competition or their own employees. It appears that the measure of success is not about sharing the fruit of labor with its employee's, those that truly deserve the credit, but is about how to maintain the postion of power they have achieved and its abilty to retain that power. The Company will never willingly relinquish any minutia of power or change its attitued as long as its CEO's, CFO's and executive can fullfil the finacial profits to the Board of Directors and its major stock holders in return for lucritive executive bonus's. To expect anything less is simply ludicrous and a wasted effort. To make any gains the proven tactics that were employeed when union organizations were first organizing must be employeed. The company must be stung to the point that they feel the pressure. The employee's, retiree's and potential interns must point out that success was created by the human aspect and that they are the key to any future success.
44
@35 ERISA (the Employment Retirement Income Security Act) is the Federal law governing how a variety of benefits plans MUST be administered. It covers not only pensions, but also insurance - like Health Savings Accounts.
My employer recognizes domestic partners and extends as much of its benefits to same-sex couples as it can. But it cannot extend full HSA benefits to my husband because ERISA forbids it.
Why? Because ERISA is in turn governed by DOMA. Overturn DOMA, and the discriminatory tax implications of ERISA will also fall. Boeing will have no choice but to extend equal benefits to same-sex married couples.
If same-sex couples are considered married in the eyes of the IRS, then pension benefits MUST be administered the same to all married couples. If the IRS doesn't consider us married - as is currently the case - then Boeing CANNOT extend them to same-sex couples. It's really that simple.
My employer recognizes domestic partners and extends as much of its benefits to same-sex couples as it can. But it cannot extend full HSA benefits to my husband because ERISA forbids it.
Why? Because ERISA is in turn governed by DOMA. Overturn DOMA, and the discriminatory tax implications of ERISA will also fall. Boeing will have no choice but to extend equal benefits to same-sex married couples.
If same-sex couples are considered married in the eyes of the IRS, then pension benefits MUST be administered the same to all married couples. If the IRS doesn't consider us married - as is currently the case - then Boeing CANNOT extend them to same-sex couples. It's really that simple.
45
It will be very interesting to see what happens when DOMA falls and all the people who said, "Federal Law governs, so we can ignore state law" find themselves dealing with legally married federally recognized (but state non-recognized) marriages nationwide.
WIll they then say "I know this is Mississippi, but federal law governs, so of course our out-of-state married same sex couples get benefits." Or will they suddenly claim that state law trumps their federal duties?
WIll they then say "I know this is Mississippi, but federal law governs, so of course our out-of-state married same sex couples get benefits." Or will they suddenly claim that state law trumps their federal duties?
46
44
but!...but!....Obama SUPPORTS gay marriage!
He bled political blood to get DOMA overturned!!
oh, wait......
but!...but!....Obama SUPPORTS gay marriage!
He bled political blood to get DOMA overturned!!
oh, wait......
48
Today, I am thankful for Karma, who has been "outing" so many anti-gay bigots! Happy Thanksgiving, Karma!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkES-dmDm…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkES-dmDm…
49
@37 -- YOU understate. The Boeing workforce's incredible awesomeness isn't limited to just this world. They are far more productive than any workforce ever assembled on all of the non-gaseous planets in our solar system.
Had the Boeing workforce built Rome, they wouldn't have needed an entire day. Had the Boeing workforce created the universe, we'd watch football three days a week instead of simply one.
Seriously, though... they're pretty productive (in terms of translating man-hours of labor into dollars). Boeing has all but admitted: If you want your plastic airplane built correctly, build it with a union workforce in Washington state.
Had the Boeing workforce built Rome, they wouldn't have needed an entire day. Had the Boeing workforce created the universe, we'd watch football three days a week instead of simply one.
Seriously, though... they're pretty productive (in terms of translating man-hours of labor into dollars). Boeing has all but admitted: If you want your plastic airplane built correctly, build it with a union workforce in Washington state.
50
It's surprising to me that Boeing is resting on federal requirements as their excuse. Are they going to stop paying for maternity leave since none is required? How about paid vacation? No federal requirement there.
51
I have been wondering for years. Internal Boing documents showed that moving production so South Carolina would cost the company money both long and short term with zero benefit, even without a strike. Why have stockholders never sued them?
52
Remember when Papa John's said it would make employees pay for their health care?
Contact Boeing at their Investor's page, use their Twitter feed, use their Facebook links, and don't give up.
Make a big splashy mess and make it a sh1tstorm of hurt for them in all media - WSJ, WaPo, NYT, anywhere.
They'll give in faster than you can imagine. Disrupt their product launches. The media cost of all the negative publicity will make them bend.
Contact Boeing at their Investor's page, use their Twitter feed, use their Facebook links, and don't give up.
Make a big splashy mess and make it a sh1tstorm of hurt for them in all media - WSJ, WaPo, NYT, anywhere.
They'll give in faster than you can imagine. Disrupt their product launches. The media cost of all the negative publicity will make them bend.
53
My feelings are as follows:
Dear Boeing, What is final is the first impression... and from what I read here you are willing to use legal same sex marriages as a bargaining ploy. That kinda makes ...
me sick....like I just ate a Chick-Fil-A sandwich without knowing it. Yeah Chick-Fil-A came around but ONLY after it affected the bottom line. So while your negotiations are not "Final" yet the initial distaste in my mouth is.
Email this guy with your thoughts: Doug Alder
Media Relations
206-544-1814
doug.alder-jr@boeing.com
Dear Boeing, What is final is the first impression... and from what I read here you are willing to use legal same sex marriages as a bargaining ploy. That kinda makes ...
me sick....like I just ate a Chick-Fil-A sandwich without knowing it. Yeah Chick-Fil-A came around but ONLY after it affected the bottom line. So while your negotiations are not "Final" yet the initial distaste in my mouth is.
Email this guy with your thoughts: Doug Alder
Media Relations
206-544-1814
doug.alder-jr@boeing.com
54
My feelings are as follows:
Dear Boeing, What is final is the first impression... and from what I read here you are willing to use legal same sex marriages as a bargaining ploy. That kinda makes ...
me sick....like I just ate a Chick-Fil-A sandwich without knowing it. Yeah Chick-Fil-A came around but ONLY after it affected the bottom line. So while your negotiations are not "Final" yet the initial distaste in my mouth is.
Email this guy with your thoughts: Doug Alder
Media Relations
206-544-1814
doug.alder-jr@boeing.com
Dear Boeing, What is final is the first impression... and from what I read here you are willing to use legal same sex marriages as a bargaining ploy. That kinda makes ...
me sick....like I just ate a Chick-Fil-A sandwich without knowing it. Yeah Chick-Fil-A came around but ONLY after it affected the bottom line. So while your negotiations are not "Final" yet the initial distaste in my mouth is.
Email this guy with your thoughts: Doug Alder
Media Relations
206-544-1814
doug.alder-jr@boeing.com
55
why don't they do what's right...do what they preach on their website...this is not being a leader in Aerospace...this is being closed minded and completely hypocritical...inclusion = innovation...not exclusion...wow what a disappointment...apparently I am not part of Boeing's definition of Diversity
http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/diversity/…
http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/diversity/…
56
THIS is why I support gay marriage. If we use another word, like "civil unions" or "domestic partnership" or any form of marriage lite, then that makes it easier to screw gays out of their rights. "Married" should be "married" under the law. That was the point.
And federal laws banning pot might overcome some states' recent decriminalization rulings, but that's a case in which one law directly contradicts another. I thought that federal law said that states had to recognize marriages performed in each other. I'd like to know more about this.
And federal laws banning pot might overcome some states' recent decriminalization rulings, but that's a case in which one law directly contradicts another. I thought that federal law said that states had to recognize marriages performed in each other. I'd like to know more about this.
58
@56
Article IV of the constitution, known as the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution states, basically, that each state in the union will recognize the legal judgments and proceedings of all the others. This has a great deal of relevance in business and law. For example, if a small business incorporates in one state, but grows to do business in multiple states, it does not have to reincorporate in each one. If a defendant is a lawsuit loses and is ordered to make payment to the plaintiff, the defendant cannot avoid paying by moving to another state. The Full Faith and Credit clause has also traditionally been applied to family law, so that if a couple marries in one state, that marriage has been recognized in all the others, as well as by the federal government. DOMA is in direct conflict with this aspect of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and may be unconstitutional on those grounds. You can read more about FF&C here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar…
DOMA is also thought to be in direct conflict with the fourteenth amendment, which, among other provisions, stipulates that each state should provide equal protection to all citizens under the law. The fourteenth amendment, passed to help insure the citizenship of freedmen during Reconstruction, also served to help advance civil rights laws in the 20th century. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.co….
DOMA allows states to discriminate in apparent violation of the fourteenth amendment, because a state like Louisiana will more or less be expected to recognize the Washington state marriage of Bob and Mary, but is allowed not to recognize the Washington state marriage of Adam and Steve.
My husband and I live in Louisiana, and although we are legally married, Louisiana does not recognize our marriage, meaning, among other things, that while all of my heterosexual colleagues are allowed to carry spouses and children on the employer-provided health insurance, I cannot add my husband to my policy. Since his employer does not provide health insurance, this is a major issue in our lives, one which DOMA specifically enables, and one which is in apparent violation of both the Full Faith and Credit clause and the fourteenth amendment.
DOMA also forces other, more progressive states to discriminate against their own citizens and creates special sub-classes of discrimination. After December 9, for example, when same sex marriage becomes practice in Washington, the federal government will recognize some marriages performed in Washington, but not others, just as it now recognizes some marriages performed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, and Iowa, but not others. This has direct consequences for income and estate taxes, for social security survivor benefits, etc. etc.
More...
Article IV of the constitution, known as the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution states, basically, that each state in the union will recognize the legal judgments and proceedings of all the others. This has a great deal of relevance in business and law. For example, if a small business incorporates in one state, but grows to do business in multiple states, it does not have to reincorporate in each one. If a defendant is a lawsuit loses and is ordered to make payment to the plaintiff, the defendant cannot avoid paying by moving to another state. The Full Faith and Credit clause has also traditionally been applied to family law, so that if a couple marries in one state, that marriage has been recognized in all the others, as well as by the federal government. DOMA is in direct conflict with this aspect of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and may be unconstitutional on those grounds. You can read more about FF&C here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar…
DOMA is also thought to be in direct conflict with the fourteenth amendment, which, among other provisions, stipulates that each state should provide equal protection to all citizens under the law. The fourteenth amendment, passed to help insure the citizenship of freedmen during Reconstruction, also served to help advance civil rights laws in the 20th century. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.co….
DOMA allows states to discriminate in apparent violation of the fourteenth amendment, because a state like Louisiana will more or less be expected to recognize the Washington state marriage of Bob and Mary, but is allowed not to recognize the Washington state marriage of Adam and Steve.
My husband and I live in Louisiana, and although we are legally married, Louisiana does not recognize our marriage, meaning, among other things, that while all of my heterosexual colleagues are allowed to carry spouses and children on the employer-provided health insurance, I cannot add my husband to my policy. Since his employer does not provide health insurance, this is a major issue in our lives, one which DOMA specifically enables, and one which is in apparent violation of both the Full Faith and Credit clause and the fourteenth amendment.
DOMA also forces other, more progressive states to discriminate against their own citizens and creates special sub-classes of discrimination. After December 9, for example, when same sex marriage becomes practice in Washington, the federal government will recognize some marriages performed in Washington, but not others, just as it now recognizes some marriages performed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, and Iowa, but not others. This has direct consequences for income and estate taxes, for social security survivor benefits, etc. etc.
59
@5 is correct.
Slavery persisted not just because whites thought blacks were sub-human. It persisted because the Southern economy absolutely depended on slavery. There was an economic incentive to keep the status quo. I'm sure at the time business people who were trying to stay in business said "Emancipation isn't covered by federal law so I can keep my slaves."
To say that "federal law says we don't have to do this" isn't an answer. But if they are going by the book, can we change the book?
So is the next step to address federal law?
Slavery persisted not just because whites thought blacks were sub-human. It persisted because the Southern economy absolutely depended on slavery. There was an economic incentive to keep the status quo. I'm sure at the time business people who were trying to stay in business said "Emancipation isn't covered by federal law so I can keep my slaves."
To say that "federal law says we don't have to do this" isn't an answer. But if they are going by the book, can we change the book?
So is the next step to address federal law?
60
Boeing has one sh*tty union negotiator. Just how much money are we talking about in granting SS survivor benefits? Likely not even a rounding error when one looks at the big picture. But by running his mouth off like this he just handed the union folks one PR golden ticket.
Unless hes out of cellphone range. I'm guessing this idiot negotiator is not going to have the best holiday weekend.
Unless hes out of cellphone range. I'm guessing this idiot negotiator is not going to have the best holiday weekend.
61
I guess I'll have to start checking the aircraft being used for my flights, and never choosing flights using a Boeing airplane. If they can be this stupid on this issue, stupid is stupid and who knows how many flaws are in their products?
64
You people are fucking retarded. I fully support equality for all but saying you are going to fly airbus only is just stupid. You can nt control what aircraft the company uses and if you choose airbus only airlines good luck getting anywhere. Frontier is airbus only but thats it everyother us airline uses boeing including us airways. And good luck boycotting a company with no need for public interest. And chik-fil-a tastes fucking great.
65
Are you REALLY shocked & surprised that one of the biggest right wing, conservative fed businesses is anti gay?
REALLY?
REALLY?
66
Just another hypocritical stance from the Executives running Boeing. Past Executive employee scandals at Boeing have demonstrated It's OK for them to sleep around with their office staff and support mistresses, (which is a clear violation of Company Policy and Ethical Behavior)...but when it comes to taking the high road to offer ALL Americans equal rights / benefits....they once again fall short and show that they are truly just low-hanging hypocrites.
67
Just to have an on balance approach to this, unions are not credible sources around negotiation time.
68
@58, Actually since I work at Registered Agent for corporations let me set something straight, they may not have to incorporate in the new state they're now doing business in, but in many cases they do have to file paperwork with the additional states as a Foreign Corporation and meet all the same annual requirements for filings, fees, and taxes for the that state as does a Domestic Corporation. A Corporation is considered Domestic in the state they first Incorporate in and Foreign in all others that they register to do business in. So if they operate any facilities in state other than their Domestic as part of expanding they do indeed file in the new state as well. If they are sending people across state lines to do work, they have to file in the new state.
Corporations aren't in and of themselves evil. The majority are small businesses protecting their personal assets from their business liabilities and their business assets from their personal liabilities. The larger ones are just more prone to abuses in the mistaken idea they need to reward their stock holders above all other considerations.
As to the issue at hand in this article, the Boeing rep giving vague answers doesn't discount what the Union rep says happened. It may be this type of negative response to what is happening in negotiations is what is needed to turn things in favor of equality for all their employees. True, nothing is final until negotiations are over as the Boeing rep said. And that phrasing alone lends credit to the Union reps reporting. The Boeing rep didn't deny the account, he dodged it.
Corporations aren't in and of themselves evil. The majority are small businesses protecting their personal assets from their business liabilities and their business assets from their personal liabilities. The larger ones are just more prone to abuses in the mistaken idea they need to reward their stock holders above all other considerations.
As to the issue at hand in this article, the Boeing rep giving vague answers doesn't discount what the Union rep says happened. It may be this type of negative response to what is happening in negotiations is what is needed to turn things in favor of equality for all their employees. True, nothing is final until negotiations are over as the Boeing rep said. And that phrasing alone lends credit to the Union reps reporting. The Boeing rep didn't deny the account, he dodged it.
69
As we change day by day in so many things, many people take time to catch up. Hopefully this will change as well.
70
The fact that DOMA does not --require-- Boeing, or anyone else, to provide equal benefits does not mean that DOMA --forbids-- them from doing so.
I'm by no means much even of a layperson when it comes to labor and benefits law, but it would be interesting to see what other large companies (and unions) have done in states where marriage and civil unions are legal.
One has to wonder whether Boeing takes the same pseudo-legalistic approach towards its filings with the SEC, the Defense Department, and the Federal Aviation Administration.
I'm by no means much even of a layperson when it comes to labor and benefits law, but it would be interesting to see what other large companies (and unions) have done in states where marriage and civil unions are legal.
One has to wonder whether Boeing takes the same pseudo-legalistic approach towards its filings with the SEC, the Defense Department, and the Federal Aviation Administration.
71
I have witnessed prejudice at Boeing. In fact they have and still discriminate against marital status which is against Wa State law. The company violates this all the time including who you are married to. They should get their butt sued big time. They also expect their employees to listen to customers make derogatory comments towards Jews and women to sell billion dollar planes and expect women not to have children. I was told this. After 20 years not getting overtime or comp time putting up with bastards i told them to shove it. They will do anything for a buck and I mean anything. VPs having affairs with Chicago governing PR person, VPs wives asking employees to pick up dog poop at their house for a corp party, VPs getting in bar fights then promoted to 787 line....
73
Hello, I have browsed most of your posts. This post is probably where I got the most useful information for my research. Thanks for posting, maybe we can see more on this. Are you aware of any other websites on this subject.
trends in mobile advertising
Hello, I have browsed most of your posts. This post is probably where I got the most useful information for my research. Thanks for posting, maybe we can see more on this. Are you aware of any other websites on this subject.
trends in mobile advertising
74
I just found this blog and have high hopes for it to continue. Keep up the great work, its hard to find good ones. I have added to my favorites. Thank You.
Full TG Global Article
I just found this blog and have high hopes for it to continue. Keep up the great work, its hard to find good ones. I have added to my favorites. Thank You.
Full TG Global Article
Comments (74) RSS