Boeing Strike Seems More Like Corporate Terrorism 40 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
If only Boeing (BA) were Brazilian. In 1995, oil workers at Brazil’s state-controlled Petrobras (PBR) decided to go on strike (because the government was reorganizing the company in advance of partial privatization, which has only made union workers more money).
After unsuccessful negotiations and a drastic slide in oil and gas production that threatened not only Petrobras’s profits, but the daily lives of Brazil’s citizens who had no gas to heat their homes or cook their meals, the country’s then-president did what many a company executive dreams about. He sent soldiers into the Petrobras refineries where workers were protesting, and “suggested” that the oil workers return to work immediately. And it worked.
It would make things so much easier if U.S. companies could threaten unions with military intervention, but unfortunately, private ownership and America’s pesky non-partisan stance between management and labor prevents Boeing from getting the Army involved in its negotiations, no matter how “vital” the airline industry is to commerce or how many federal mediators the negotiations involve.
And unfortunately, the company’s machinists know Boeing has no real fangs when it comes to threatening them. So they figure an 11% raise, signing bonuses and cost-of-living adjustments (When was the last time you got an 11% raise on top of your cost-of-living raise for nothing more than showing up to work on Monday?) aren’t enough to entice them back to the negotiation table. The machinists know they hold all the cards. And to prove it, they went on strike this weekend.
Why not? It worked last time (in the 2005 strike, which was also the last time machinist contracts were up for negotiation), why not try it again and see what they can squeeze out of the company? In fact, strikes are starting to look like standard operating procedure when it comes to Boeing’s machinist union.
And the fair balance of power between management and labor envisioned by high-minded union organizers more than a century ago is devolving into a form of corporate terrorism. In the world of unions, strikes are supposed to be a big, bad threat, not a normal step in the negotiation process. If you’re striking everytime you’re negotiating, something’s wrong.
Personally, I think this strike has less to do with giving machinists a fair shake and more to do with the union bosses showing Boeing who’s in charge.
Instead of trusting union leaders to present its offer fairly at a vote (and with the union’s strike-happy history, who can blame the company?), Boeing tried to circumvent bosses by posting its new machinist contract offer directly on its website for all employees to read for themselves.
It seems like a logical idea, in this post-internet age of freely disseminated information, to provide every union member with the unadulterated form of Boeing’s offer. But even today, unions can tend more toward fifedoms than chat rooms. And I’m sure Boeing’s attempt to bring the individual machinists back into the equation angered at least a few megalomaniacal (uh, I mean humble and selfless) union leaders.
The last time Boeing’s machinists went on strike (or the last time they had contract negotiations, which is one and the same thing), they halted work for nearly a month and cost Boeing a pretty penny. We’ll have to wait and see whether Boeing will call the machinists’ bluff or if they’ll win the day again.
Disclosure: none
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
It would appear labor relations is not a subject that you should be writing about.
As a former unionist who now advises employers on their labor-related issues, you have a few valid arguments and one very, very wrong and immoral point.
To declare that is it "unfortunate" that U.S. companies cannot threaten unions with military intervention indicates you know very little about the history of labor unions in the United States and seem to value freedom even less.
Further, with few exceptions (Boeing being one), the strike as a weapon for unions is a pea shooter, as most companies would find it all too easy to replace striking workers (as Boeing probably could, albeit not quickly or cheaply).
Rather than arguing that today's unions (based on a model from the 19th century) have outlived their usefulness, have caused irreparable harm to many companies (and their workers) within heavily unionized industries, and are controlled by union bosses with a penchant for moving America toward socialism--all of these would be valid argument--you chose to make an argument for forcing labor at the point of a gun. This makes one wonder, what are your basic beliefs?
To argue that a man (or woman) should work at the point of a gun is to argue against freedom and for its opposite--slavery.
That said, TODAY's union leaders (including the IAM's Buffenbarger) also place little value on freedom--for anyone who argues for the coercive power of government to interfere in the private relationships between labor and captial (be it from one side or the other) argues for the enslavement of one or the other. To argue that a man (or woman), a business owner or a worker, should work at the point of a gun is to argue for slavery and should be condemned.
When today's unions fail to win in the marketplace of ideas and are failing in their pursuits to gain marketshare by building membership, they resort to buying politicians and relying on such deceptive legislation the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
EFCA allows unions to manipulate workers into unions by removing the ability of workers to have a secret-ballot vote on the subject of unionization, then requires employers (under the threat of the coercive power of government) to "recognize" and "bargain with" the union and, after 120 days of "bargaining," forces a government-induced contract that may not be in their (or their workers') best interests (the second provision of EFCA, which is government-forced binding arbitration). What happens if an employer refuses to go along with this coercive abuse of power? Legal actions, judgments, fines, and potential jail.
Today's union desire to use the power of governent force is nearly as bad as writing that the government should threaten military intervention during a strike at the end of the contract--both are based on a premise that one man has the right to enslave another.
Ms. Grimmet, ultimately, the laws of cause and effect will be the best arbiter of the Boeing dispute. If Boeing agrees to a contract that makes it uncompetitive, you will see that company (and the striking Machinists' jobs) go the way of the Steel and Auto industry. That is the way a free market works.
But to argue for government intervention from either side is wrong.
This is a principle that was espoused by the father of the modern labor movement, Samuel Gomers, for good reason, but completely forgotten by his offspring--today's union bosses.
Ms. Grimmet, you need to check your premises and learn your history before writing on a current event that you know little about.
Let me start off by saying I have worked for Boeing for 27 years and have enjoyed my job and the company as a whole!
But over the last 10 years or so I have seen a rapid decline in what was a once a caring company into a greedy corprate monster!!
It's not about the Boeing family anymore, it's about the CEO's and share holders. They want more, well we do to, but we are not as greedy as they are.
I have not seen an hourly employee get millions in stock options and a healthy retirement, even if they get fired or asked to retire for inappropriate behavior and busniess dealings, or mismanaging a program so bad they replace you to try to get the program back on track.
How about outsoucring so much that your new A/P model is two years late, and the company is still throwing millions of dollars to these companies to bail them out and try to get them up to speed. Oh and part of that millions is IAM works going there to help fix the problem. They can afford to send people around the world but can't afford to keep the work here because of cost!! Sorry that doesn't add up!!
So, about the conttract!
As I watch and read all this comments on the blogs and news on TV I have noticed no one wants to tell the public what the contract will cost the average worker over the life of the contract.
For a family of 3 or more the better health care plan went up from 4K to 6K per year out of pocket. This alone would cost the average family all the great bonus money all the, non IAM members, thinks is so great. Yes there are cheaper plans that would only cost half of your great bonus, but as a provider fro your family do you want the best you can get or settle for OK.
This is just the start of the money out of pocket for the younger work force, and they DO NOT THE BIG BUCKS EVERYONE IS SAYING THEY MAKE!!! Most of the younger poeple make 13.00 to 14.00 an hour. My son works for ROTO ROOTER!, and trust me you pay more per hour for him to come out and plug your toliet than people are getting paid to assemble something that is carrying your loved ones around the world at 38,000 feet in the air. No room for error!!!
So my point is, don't get down on the IAM workers because they want something a little nicer for their family and future.
They do work long hard hours for what they get just like everyone else out there. /Show more... /Show less.Reply Report abuse
Please don't look for that to happen any time soon.
I've been at Boeing now for 21 years and this is my 4th strike. We struck in '89, in 95, in '05 and now again in '08. Lets also not forget that in '02 the union called for a strike, however that time they did not get enough votes. Any sane and marginally competent individual would agree that the IAM is a strike happy union. Worse yet, the membership is a bunch of sheep who, with the exception of '02, do exactly what the union tells them to do without reasonable thought entering their collective minds. How do I say this? Simple, I'm there. I hear the workers talk, what they say and how they say it. I have sat down with over a dozen of my fellow workers with calculater in hand to add up the pros and cons of the contract offer. Even with the union stewards present to sell the union line not one person could show SPECIFICALLY how this was anything but an exceptional contract offer by teh company. I was met with nothing but rhetoric which quickly turned to yelling when I insisted that the union specifically show me how we were loosing on this contract.
This is in addition to my demonstrating, again with calculator in hand, that we union members never receive a net gain from going on strike. Even in the '05 strike that we supposedly "won" what we gained still to this day has not made up for what we lost by missing those paychecks.
Now after reading this response many people will probably think I am anti union and anti labor. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Unions are essential to keeping labor from being exploited by the "make money at any cost" corporations of the world. Because make no mistake, corporate America would have everyone back in sweat shops tomorrow if they could. BUT...union members also need to be smarter. Only 15% of this countries labor force is union...the lowest it has been in 60 years. This isn't the fault of the Republican party, its the fault of most workers not wanting union representation because of how many companies in America closed up shop in America because of strike happy unions, and what continues to happen with strike happy unions like the IAM.
Yes - I was also a machinist in the aircraft industry and the membership was NEVER the controlling or deciding factor - the union leadership will decide. One of the few things that RFK ever did right or at least attempted to do was shine a light on them.
Take a good look at what the members are having to do in Detroit today.
days. My wife is looking forward to Victoria with its beautiful gardens, and I was looking forward to visiting the Boeing plant in Everett. Unfortunately because of the strike, we found out it is not open. Being from Michigan I am well aware of the power of Unionis and some of the unintended consequences. We are having difficulty attracting
any new plants up here and continually hear about jobs being lost.
We have been the auto capitol of the world - but now not so much.
I hope the future does not hold the same for Boeing and Washington
As for replacement workers here's a little known fact: Boeing can't get enough workers as is. Over 30% of those hired in the last year have quit. Why? The standard Boeing work schedule for an IAM member who is involved in airplane assembly is 19 days on and 2 off. Not just for a little while, for years on end. Not every shop is working it, but enough are that people will strike just to have time off.
Remember there is alot more to this strike than an outsider could imagine.
I humbly submit the following to you Stephanie: Ahem....
Do you happen to know what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is? Read article 23. It basically states everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. And you know who the biggest critics are of the UDHR? The Islamic community. Funny huh? Look it up for yourself. As a 21 year Boeing employee I can add this: Every three years there is an expiration of our IAM contract. Every three years the company cries broke and we lose a little medical here, little dental there. No problem, after 9/11 we wanted our company to get healthy again, As well as our country. So now we are healthy. Guess what happened again? More medical takeaways hidden in the fine print. Boasted as a great offer by Doug Kite, who was charged with selling this contract to thousands of people who distrust him. So Stephanie, let's say whoever you work for every three years starts chipping away at your medical. Which, no offense, you appear to be headed down the wrong health path at such a young age. Wait until after 30 or 40 your knees will start to feel the burden you've place on them. Listen and understand, the older you get the MORE YOU NEED medical help. You'll see someday. Medical means a lot to Boeing people, building airplanes...not easy. You know how to rivet? That's an impact sport where after ten years the doctor says you can't feel your fingers due to nerve damage. Good God grow up and learn from the experience of life.
When was the last time the company had this many orders and this much in profits. They never have, and yet after health care takeawyas in 2002 and 2005, and only 1 wage increase since 2002 which came in 2004, the company still believes it can take away from the workers.
What about outsourcing and job security statements. What's the poiint of a raise and benefits if the company just plans on outsourcing your job in a few years.
This article reeks of conservative BS. The American economy is in shammbles and the main reason is corproate/wallstreet greed.
I ask you again. If a company has record oreders for their product, and record profits, why should a employees accept less job security and added expenses on their health and dental care. What does it take for a corporation to make or sell before they offer up a no takeaway contract and reward the employees that have proven they are very productiive when compared to the outsourcing (see 787 debacle) the company insists upon.
No this isn't terroism... its a war. It is corporate America vs: the citizens. It is greed vs: need. The only evil party here is CEO's and execs who value wealthy shareholders rather then the blue collar workers who rivet, weld, assemble, repair, and work weeks upon weeks of forced OT.
This article is completely incorrect in its assupmtions that the union is to blame. It is not !!!!!
Where to start? You comment about military intervention would be laughable if it wasn't so disturbing. Terrorism? That's an insulting comment to all victims of the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts. Your immaturity and ignorance are on full display here. You're always welcome to move to Brazil if you think having a gun pointed at your head is a good idea.
The new hires make $10 to $12 an hours and may take them as long as 11 years to reach max pay if laid off. This strike is about keeping work in the US and the jobs inside the factory union jobs.
We all know how Wall Street hates welfare, how come they don't despise corportate welfare. Boeing has recieved about 8 Billion in tax breaks, infrstructure improvments and revamped and reduced the L&I and unemployement benefits. They had the teachers COLA and Classroom size reductions stopped. The only way tax payers get their money back is through payroll taxes. Boeing promised jobs for those billions and now they want to dump dump dump offshore. They laid off thousands immediately after 9/11. America is a mess because we let high finance steal from the AMerican people. Print money like now tomorrow. Justice in a free market is called failure. Yet we print money to bail out thieves in the home loan industry.
If you capitalists love this system then why won't Boeing make all employees true stake holders in a no game profit sharing plan?
Get your facts please.
Don
As for BA purchasing its parts from overseas, why wouldn’t they? For as often as their unions strike they have to to ensure the parts are there so when the employees decide to come back to work they have something to do.
My Grandfather worked for Boeing, he would be ashamed of your unions today.
A lot of people seem to be complaining about the compensation packages that the executives get. They may in fact be excessive (believe me, I have thought about this a lot, as I work for one of the largest companies in the entire world) but there are reasons:
1) The CEO of a corporation has the primary job of being responsible to the shareholders of the corporation. His job is to maximize profits for the benefit of the people who have plunked down their hard earned money to watch it grow. In many cases his or her compensation is tied directly to share price. CEOs must make hard decisions regarding the operation of the company...I would not want to have that job. They are painfully aware of the image they have, and the weight of that responsibility. I believe that they truly want to do right by their employees...however, their decisions are based on numbers and hard logic. To do any less would be to do a disservice to the tens of thousands who invest their money in the company. And don't think that they don't work for it...I guarantee you the CEO of BA is working more hours a week than any of the people on the floor. He might have a plush office when viewed from the outside but I guarantee you to him it is a prison as well.
2) Is any person on the floor willing to put their signature on the company's annual report and risk going to jail if it turns out that the numbers are not factual? Do any of them have any idea how complicated that report is and how much risk there is (PERSONAL risk) in signing that report? They are paid well because they willingly take that PERSONAL risk and trust in their people to do the right thing.
Yes, when compared to the rest of the world our CEOs do seem to be more highly compensated. But in no other country in the world is the risk of that position so high.
No I did not read the contract offered by BA to it's labor force. My bad if I quoted numbers that are out of line. My comments have been intended to address the broader issue...that the union management in this case is not only not operating in the interests of the rank and file, but against the very fabric of the American way of life...the freedom to choose when and for whom you work. By putting up a picket line and telling those that want (hell, NEED) to work that they cannot, they are no better than the gestapo and will be no less culpable for the fall of this country and its (already shaky) economy.
They are powerful enough to be figuratively considered holding a gun to the head of management and saying, "cough up or I pull the trigger". The union bosses have already made their pile on the backs of the rank and file...if BA goes down they lose nothing, but rather just retire to the banana states and laugh. If BA capitulates, they just pile more on.
And I saw another comment about how Airbus must be taking this...they are rubbing their hands and sensing fat profits. Every day that BA labor strikes is another day they get beat in the market on the superjumbo aircraft. If the workers can't see that this threat may actually do BA in, they either crazy or totally uncaring. They may not have jobs to go back to.