Comments

1
How dare the workers think they deserve to share in the good times! When times are bad, obviously the workers should get screwed so the fat cats can keep their yachts, but when times are good, those fat cats are looking to get BIGGER yachts!!
2
The company line is they need these savings to remain competitive with what is bearing down on them from Airbus and others. We can argue ourselves blue about how valid that position is or why it somehow appropriate to put this on our backs. The company has leverage the union has a divided stance, local against international for it. This is a high stakes poker game with union members deciding the next play with Jan 03 vote. Is Boeing bluffing? Reject it and find out, accept it we will never know.
Personally I don't trust Boeing not to do something incredibly stupid with the 777X.
3
"Is Boeing bluffing?"

Personally I don't care if they are or not. I hope the machinists vote no. Packing up and moving isn't as easy or cheap as the suits in Chicago seem to think.
4
Go machinists!
5
For the nth time, no one is "losing their pensions." The accrued pension benefits to-date will remain; future "pension" money, i.e., retirement funds, will be switched to a 401K-type plan, with many investment options available, and with generous matching amounts from Boeing. Why is this so onerous?
6
@5 Defined benefit > defined contribution. Nobody's retirement is better served being based on a gambling scheme.
7
Airbus opened its A320 line in Alabama for two reasons: it's a right to work state and big tax breaks from Alabama.

If the Europeans can do that, why not Boeing?
8
@7 It shouldn't be called 'right to work.' That is right-wing, corporate BS marketing/spin. It should be called 'right to screw workers.' But when cheer-leading the race to the bottom (except for the 1%ers) it makes sense to talk in Orwellian double-speak.
9
@9 well 20,000 people applied for the right to work when Airbus started hiring for the first 2000 jobs. Apparently Airbus wasn't too impressed with Puget Sound machinists.
10
@9 If people are desperate enough they'll put with almost anything. But I don't want to live in that kind of society. We've fought wars to make this country a more perfect union. If you and your kind keep pushing we can do it again. You guys talk about class warfare all the time. Things keep going the way they are you might just find out what it really looks like.
11
@10 oooh, a revolution! Will it be televised?
12
@10 Of course! CNN and Fox would make a killing in ad revenue!
13
@10

what cha gonna do jack? seize the plants, build the next generation of airplanes and take over all the sales contracts ? what?

let's stipulate it's immoral and unfair or even that life itself is unfair. so what. watcha gonna DO folks, it's not enough to whine.
14
@5, companies have a way of making defined contribution plans not pay out. They set dates for the company's contribution to only kick in after 5 years, they reduce the amount they will match, the employer contribution can be withheld during bankruptcy proceedings so that the employee only gets the dollars he put in and the company ends up contributing nothing.
15
@8: Indeed, calling it right to work is ludicrous. What it is is union busting, plain and simple. Preventing organizations of workers from being on an equal footing with the corporations they are trying to negotiate.
16
Slog's pretty good when Goldy's being the reverse of a Shabbos goy. Except for that execrable Hanukkah poem.
17
How about some provisions in the contract that require similar concessions from management salaries? If the compay needs the concessions to remain competitive then proportionate concessions must be required from all of the employees - including management.

I would like to see collective bargaining agreements that link worker total compensation to executive total compensation. The executives can only get a raise when the workers get a raise. Executive pay is cut when worker pay is cut. Not just salary, but all compensation. If income inequity is a problem then let's address it directly.
18
To #5 - Are you saying that the new 'retirement' plan is more generous than the existing pension scheme? Will it be more stable, will it have tougher guarantees of payouts in retirement, will it benefit the workers more?

Of course the answer is no - and as any of us who've seen our 401ks devastated by wild swings in the stock markets know, a pension with guaranteed retirement income is much better.

For those who don't have a pension (like me) - don't complain that these guys are better off, organize your own workforce to get management to improve your own benefits.
19
Just a friendly reminder that Boeing executives decided to spend $10B in a stock buyback program, increase the dividend 50% all while having three different new planes to pay for.
20
A $10B stock buyback that could be argued is funded by Wa St. taxpayers. But, Boeing has to stay competitive in that world market, all those other airplane manufacturers, etc. R&D! Efficiencies! World Leader! Nimble! Everyone has to pitch in and sacrifice!

All so they get to say thanks and piss away $10B on stock manipulation games.
21
For the 9th time, if accepted I WOULD loose most of my pension! I am 35 years old and have 3 years with Boeing. Oct 2016 my current pension would be frozen and replaced with a MUCH less valuable 401K style contribution. The pension that I would not be loosing would be worth approx. $570 at age 62. Left alone under the current contract at age 62 it would pay $2730 a month. Stop telling me I would not be loosing my pension!
22
All right Chuckles.

How about this. You have one of the best blue collar jobs in the region, with superb benefits. NOBODY but crazy socialist freaks like Goldstein feels even a tiny bit sympathetic to your whiny BS.

When Boeing moves to get away from entitled lazy union so called workers, good luck getting a job compensating you half as well.
25
@24
r
Sure, it's possible. But it's a separate discussion.

At issue is whether the best compensated blue collar workers in this area are acting even in their own best interests chasing their employer off with childish whining.
26
@25: I'm wondering where you get the idea that simply asking to NOT have a pay cut (when the company is making decent profits) constitutes "childish whining".
Actually, I've noticed a pattern here. From issues of labor rights to gay equality, you like to characterize the opposing viewpoint as whining "it's not FAAAIIIIR!" in order to avoid addressing the possibility that, just maybe, what they are protesting isn't actually fair. Chew on that.
28
Fuck the machinists, amirite? I don't have a pension, so why should they? They should be grateful just to have a fucking job!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.