• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boeing Machinists Approve Contract To Secure 777X Work

Pity really, a chance for Boeing to rid itself of the corrupt Unions, oh well.
 
Lursa said:
There is a lack of skilled workers in SC....that is the reason for their issues. And that can be fixed...it just takes some time. Boeing has options in places with a skilled workforce...like Huntsville, AL.

Boeing shouldnt be held hostage by worker demands no longer feasible in our economy.....like any business, they owe it to their shareholders to find the most economic choices long-term.
Click to expand...

Why isn't paying your workforce a negotiate wage a good economic decision? It's sounds pretty unethical for a company to suggest if people vote on something the wrong way they will loose their jobs. The company can afford it. I see no proof they were unable to share in the wealth of that company. That company seems to be doing A okay.
 
specklebang said:
Is this true?

Secret Wounds Of Globalism: Boeing Sells Its Technology -- Cheap -- To Japan - Forbes

or false?
Click to expand...

Good article. I'm not at all surprised: from the article

The Japanese in particular have played Boeing like a violin. On the one they have been prepared to pay top-dollar for Boeing planes — but have insisted in return that Boeing transfer more and more of its erstwhile most carefully guarded manufacturing secrets. In the short term agreeing to Japan’s demands may have seemed like a great idea because it boosted immediate profits and by extension, of course, the value of top executives’ stock options. But the long run effects have included not only the loss of tens of thousands of American jobs but the weakening of the U.S. trade balance. And, of course, in the end Boeing’s entire future is called into question.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Why isn't paying your workforce a negotiate wage a good economic decision? It's sounds pretty unethical for a company to suggest if people vote on something the wrong way they will loose their jobs. The company can afford it. I see no proof they were unable to share in the wealth of that company. That company seems to be doing A okay.
Click to expand...

The company gave them what they were going to get. they rejected the 1st contract. boeing came back and said here is additional pay raises etc.. they rejected that one (after all the other unions had signed onto the deal).

Beoing said we aren't offering anymore this is the deal accept it or we are going to move the plane to another location. they didnt' have to accept it, but the younger workers decided having a good paying job and feeding their families was more important than 100 a week strike pay and losing a long term contract.

even though the vote was close 600 votes between them self interest comes out in the end.

It doesn't matter if the company is doing A ok. if they don't want to pay something they don't have to. the workers can accept or not accept, but they will suffer the consquences of what they decide. boeing had 22 states already pitching to build the planes if the contract fell through.
 
ludin said:
It doesn't matter if the company is doing A ok. if they don't want to pay something they don't have to. the workers can accept or not accept, but they will suffer the consquences of what they decide. boeing had 22 states already pitching to build the planes if the contract fell through.
Click to expand...

Again, it sounds unethical. I don't think they were concerned about a raise. It was the pension that was the sticking point.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Again, it sounds unethical. I don't think they were concerned about a raise. It was the pension that was the sticking point.
Click to expand...

it isn't unethical. it is business.

yep the pensions were, but the thing is that boeing is doing what most companies are doing and canning their pensions. they simply can't afford the legacy costs of pension funds and still be competitive.

the competition between airbus and boeing is fierce and every need to maintain that competitive bid is crucial.

from what i understand they are going to back the 401k funds pretty well. no word on how much but it seems to be an ample contribution. usually it is a matching up to a certain amount.
 
ludin said:
it isn't unethical. it is business.

yep the pensions were, but the thing is that boeing is doing what most companies are doing and canning their pensions. they simply can't afford the legacy costs of pension funds and still be competitive.

the competition between airbus and boeing is fierce and every need to maintain that competitive bid is crucial.

from what i understand they are going to back the 401k funds pretty well. no word on how much but it seems to be an ample contribution. usually it is a matching up to a certain amount.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can afford it. They just rather invest that money elsewhere. Maybe, in the Cayman Islands, or an executive bank account or whatever. Why give it towards someone's retirement when it can be funneled to the top?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Good article. I'm not at all surprised: from the article

The Japanese in particular have played Boeing like a violin. On the one they have been prepared to pay top-dollar for Boeing planes — but have insisted in return that Boeing transfer more and more of its erstwhile most carefully guarded manufacturing secrets. In the short term agreeing to Japan’s demands may have seemed like a great idea because it boosted immediate profits and by extension, of course, the value of top executives’ stock options. But the long run effects have included not only the loss of tens of thousands of American jobs but the weakening of the U.S. trade balance. And, of course, in the end Boeing’s entire future is called into question.
Click to expand...

It does make me wonder how much our beloved Corporations will sell us out in the quest for another dollar.
 
Lursa said:
There is a lack of skilled workers in SC....that is the reason for their issues. And that can be fixed...it just takes some time. Boeing has options in places with a skilled workforce...like Huntsville, AL.

Boeing shouldnt be held hostage by worker demands no longer feasible in our economy.....like any business, they owe it to their shareholders to find the most economic choices long-term.
Click to expand...

Nobody in Huntsville has experience with building aircraft, they focus on smaller systems. The reason why Boeing unions are entirely reasonable in their negotiations for high pay is because they are incredibly valuable and nearly impossible to replace. If all you needed was regular machinists and capital to run an aerospace company, China would be dominating the field.

Frankly, I'm sick of this nonsense propaganda that ****ing your employees maximizes shareholder value. Boeing has built cutting edge aircraft for decades in Washington and their employees were well paid for it. Aerospace is a industry where you either provide top quality and go out of business. People don't overlook manufacturing defects even for cut rate prices, even a single failure can kill an entire company. That level of quality is expensive, but its still an absolute requirement. You might have a couple profitable quarters by cutting corners, but eventually it ends up costing a lot more than good employee compensation.
 
rathi said:
Nobody in Huntsville has experience with building aircraft, they focus on smaller systems. The reason why Boeing unions are entirely reasonable in their negotiations for high pay is because they are incredibly valuable and nearly impossible to replace. If all you needed was regular machinists and capital to run an aerospace company, China would be dominating the field.

Frankly, I'm sick of this nonsense propaganda that ****ing your employees maximizes shareholder value. Boeing has built cutting edge aircraft for decades in Washington and their employees were well paid for it. Aerospace is a industry where you either provide top quality and go out of business. People don't overlook manufacturing defects even for cut rate prices, even a single failure can kill an entire company. That level of quality is expensive, but its still an absolute requirement. You might have a couple profitable quarters by cutting corners, but eventually it ends up costing a lot more than good employee compensation.
Click to expand...

yes it does if that company can't maintain a competitive edge against it's competitors. just look what legacy pension plans have done to the auto industry. it is driving them bankrupt.
the reason that foreign car makers are doing so well is that they don't have legacy pension costs for their products. they run 401k systems.

while most of their cars are built here in the US they are building better quality cars cheaper than the big 3.

the company rule is to stay in business. if it can't do that where it is at then it will move to another area.
 
specklebang said:
It does make me wonder how much our beloved Corporations will sell us out in the quest for another dollar.
Click to expand...

If you don't like them they'll happily move elsewhere. In fact other States, and countries, are eager to have them move to their area.
 
Grant said:
If you don't like them they'll happily move elsewhere. In fact other States, and countries, are eager to have them move to their area.
Click to expand...

Well, I wish they would all move to my state because our economy could use some diversity. It's the other countries that worry me. As for states, sure, let them bid against each other. Thats their job.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Why isn't paying your workforce a negotiate wage a good economic decision? It's sounds pretty unethical for a company to suggest if people vote on something the wrong way they will loose their jobs. The company can afford it. I see no proof they were unable to share in the wealth of that company. That company seems to be doing A okay.
Click to expand...

They get a very good wage and will get increases. Why are you assuming they do not?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Again, it sounds unethical. I don't think they were concerned about a raise. It was the pension that was the sticking point.
Click to expand...

Yes, mainly. That was my impression as well.

And they arent 'losing' anything....their pension programs are being frozen as is. THey are welcome to make their own arrangements elsewhere.

Nothng that many other Americans dont have to do. The fact is, they felt they were entitled to it. Newer workers felt the same. However, the company disagreed, it affects their bottom line, and in today's economic climate, is not, just *IMO* unreasonable.
 
rathi said:
Nobody in Huntsville has experience with building aircraft, they focus on smaller systems. The reason why Boeing unions are entirely reasonable in their negotiations for high pay is because they are incredibly valuable and nearly impossible to replace. If all you needed was regular machinists and capital to run an aerospace company, China would be dominating the field.

Frankly, I'm sick of this nonsense propaganda that ****ing your employees maximizes shareholder value. Boeing has built cutting edge aircraft for decades in Washington and their employees were well paid for it. Aerospace is a industry where you either provide top quality and go out of business. People don't overlook manufacturing defects even for cut rate prices, even a single failure can kill an entire company. That level of quality is expensive, but its still an absolute requirement. You might have a couple profitable quarters by cutting corners, but eventually it ends up costing a lot more than good employee compensation.
Click to expand...


Oh well. I think it sets a good precedent to tell a group of workers that they are not 'irreplaceable.' It's up to the company and if the company decides it's worth developing a new worker base elsewhere and that that investment is worth developing and will pay off in the future, great. It gives others opportunity. It's a delicate balance between who has too much power....the workers or the corp. In the current economic environment, older Union contracts may no longer be relevant or financially responsible. In the light of the current economic environment, some expectations are more entitlements than realistic.
 
rathi said:
People who build aircraft aren't like fast food workers. Its a skilled trade that is based on institutional knowledge. Boeing already tried to build a plant in South Carolina, and is so troubled that it can only meet half its production quota. The only reason why Boeing won the negotiation is because they cleverly screwed the next generation of worker. The current employee's average age is around 50, so they won't really be impacted by the new contract.
Click to expand...

Yeah, SC is so bad that Boeing is expanding there....

Boeing expanding South Carolina footprint
 
rathi said:
Nobody in Huntsville has experience with building aircraft, they focus on smaller systems. The reason why Boeing unions are entirely reasonable in their negotiations for high pay is because they are incredibly valuable and nearly impossible to replace. If all you needed was regular machinists and capital to run an aerospace company, China would be dominating the field.
Click to expand...

The meme that it takes a special kind of worker to do a certain job is nonsense. Workers can be trained, relocated, educated etc...The union is experiencing the same thing that the rest of the jobs market is going through, which is in times of high unemployment, the market leverage is shifted toward the company.

Frankly, I'm sick of this nonsense propaganda that ****ing your employees maximizes shareholder value. Boeing has built cutting edge aircraft for decades in Washington and their employees were well paid for it. Aerospace is a industry where you either provide top quality and go out of business. People don't overlook manufacturing defects even for cut rate prices, even a single failure can kill an entire company. That level of quality is expensive, but its still an absolute requirement. You might have a couple profitable quarters by cutting corners, but eventually it ends up costing a lot more than good employee compensation.
Click to expand...

Most of the people that back unions in here commonly use the argument that companies should negotiate better, or stronger when the argument is made how unions kill companies. Well, in this case that is exactly what happened, and what we seem to be hearing now is how greedy the company is....Can't have it both ways people....;)
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, SC is so bad that Boeing is expanding there....

Boeing expanding South Carolina footprint
Click to expand...

I've notice the "experience" line used by the machinists in Seattle quite a bit over the last few years. There is some truth to it right now but in 10 years when the "No Strike" agreement expires, that mantra will no longer exist. In a decade, SC will have the experience necessary and be pretty darn competitive.

And they would have been further along if the NLRB had held up the plant's opening.
 
Fishstyx said:
I've notice the "experience" line used by the machinists in Seattle quite a bit over the last few years. There is some truth to it right now but in 10 years when the "No Strike" agreement expires, that mantra will no longer exist. In a decade, SC will have the experience necessary and be pretty darn competitive.

And they would have been further along if the NLRB had held up the plant's opening.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, that line is just another scare tactic used by pro union forces, and put out there as a meme....If SC was doing so badly, they sure wouldn't be expanding with long term agreements to finish the plane from start to finish on site.
 
ludin said:
yes it does if that company can't maintain a competitive edge against it's competitors. just look what legacy pension plans have done to the auto industry. it is driving them bankrupt.
the reason that foreign car makers are doing so well is that they don't have legacy pension costs for their products. they run 401k systems.
Click to expand...

The only competitor Boeing has is Airbus, who pays high European wages. There is no such thing as cheap labor capable of building commercial airliners. You have bought into the nonsense that all labor can be trivially replaced and has no real value. When it comes to building airplanes, it couldn't be further from the truth.

while most of their cars are built here in the US they are building better quality cars cheaper than the big 3.

the company rule is to stay in business. if it can't do that where it is at then it will move to another area.
Click to expand...

Cars are nothing like airplanes. The build standards are light years apart.
 
Lursa said:
Oh well. I think it sets a good precedent to tell a group of workers that they are not 'irreplaceable.' It's up to the company and if the company decides it's worth developing a new worker base elsewhere and that that investment is worth developing and will pay off in the future, great. It gives others opportunity. It's a delicate balance between who has too much power....the workers or the corp. In the current economic environment, older Union contracts may no longer be relevant or financially responsible. In the light of the current economic environment, some expectations are more entitlements than realistic.
Click to expand...

Washington Boeing employees have continued to build excellent high quality aircraft as they have for decades. Meanwhile, the Dreamliner has run into problems because of managements failures in outsourcing components and problems in setting up different production lines. Rewarding failure and punishing success is utterly moronic.
 
rathi said:
Washington Boeing employees have continued to build excellent high quality aircraft as they have for decades. Meanwhile, the Dreamliner has run into problems because of managements failures in outsourcing components and problems in setting up different production lines. Rewarding failure and punishing success is utterly moronic.
Click to expand...

What are you basing this on? Do you have anything to back up your claims here? Because the only thing I have read is that some slow downs in delivery are due to Boeing having to send the planes to a different state for paint, and Logo, then return it to SC for delivery, which has been addressed, and a new paint facility is being built in SC for that reason....So, I'd like to see what you have.
 
j-mac said:
The meme that it takes a special kind of worker to do a certain job is nonsense. Workers can be trained, relocated, educated etc...The union is experiencing the same thing that the rest of the jobs market is going through, which is in times of high unemployment, the market leverage is shifted toward the company.
Click to expand...

Boeing could build up a real production line in South Carolina. They could relocate experienced workers, build up local infrastructure and supply chains, give grants to local educational facilities for needed job skills and everything else they do in Washington. However, that requires a serious investment in both time and money that belies their "cheap labor" justification. Especially because once their employees gain expertise at building aircraft, they need to be paid higher salaries to retain them. You can't build airplanes without paying people a lot of money, that is simply market forces at work. There is a reason why nobody builds airliners in the usual countries with cheap labor.

Most of the people that back unions in here commonly use the argument that companies should negotiate better, or stronger when the argument is made how unions kill companies. Well, in this case that is exactly what happened, and what we seem to be hearing now is how greedy the company is....Can't have it both ways people....
Click to expand...

If Boeing fails because they refuse to pay reasonable wages to retain their specialized workforce, that failure squarely falls on management. I'm not claiming that Boeing is going to collapse tomorrow, but continuing to make these kind of stupid mistakes will have consequences down the road.
 
j-mac said:
What are you basing this on? Do you have anything to back up your claims here? Because the only thing I have read is that some slow downs in delivery are due to Boeing having to send the planes to a different state for paint, and Logo, then return it to SC for delivery, which has been addressed, and a new paint facility is being built in SC for that reason....So, I'd like to see what you have.
Click to expand...

Boeing is currently building 1.5 aircraft a month in Charlotte when their schedule called for 3. Boeing SC shifts message on North Charleston production goals – The Post and Courier
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom