Read today's coverage of the looming payouts to many Boeing workers as a result of the company meeting incentive targets. Note the caption for the first photo in the story: "Hourly production workers are not eligible for incentive payouts." Let's examine that briefly.
Later in the article one reads this:
Members of SPEEA joined the incentive plan as a result of negotiations for its 2005 contract.But it's "a hot button" for the hourly workers of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) blue-collar union, said IAM spokeswoman Connie Kelliher.
"It's insulting to them that they are excluded," she said.
Let's get the facts clear on this one. SPEEA members are partaking in this payout - equivalent to three full weeks of pay - because their union negotiated for such inclusion and the members approved the proposed contract. Contrary to what the Machinists Union spokeswoman implies, the Machinists were given a clear chance to also join such a program.
Indeed, the last round of negotiations was a startling display of the new economy versus the old. Boeing provided an offer that moved the Machinists toward the new economy, complete with participation in the incentive program, special bonus payments to 401(k) accounts, and annual pay increases - which as most people recognize compound over time. In return, Boeing asked for concessions in how much they provide in traditional pensions and retiree healthcare; the legacy costs that have caused so many problems for the airline, auto, and steel industries.
The Machinists would have none of it. They insisted on keeping their old economy perks. Boeing wasn't thrilled, but conceded on those issues. At the same time, they withdrew the new economy incentives and replaced the annual pay increases with annual cash bonuses instead (which do not compound over time). The Machinists Union accepted the offer. Its members approved it.
Complaining now about the deal is not only incredibly poor form, it reveals that the Machinists may finally be figuring out - after three years of hefty payouts - the very deal they insisted upon and agreed to wasn't quite such a good choice.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 31, 2008 08:22 PM | Email ThisIf the members of the other union are insulted, then they are babies.
There, THAT was meant to offend!
What exactly is the difference between "Incentive Payouts" and "annual cash bonuses" besides the former being a vaiable based on a economic formula and the later being a fixed amount? Neither will compound over time. Only wage increases will compound. Seems to me the union simply chose the quarantee of a fixed amount over the gamble of a variable one.
Posted by: ITK on January 31, 2008 10:17 PMThe annual cash payments replaced the wage increases. The incentive pay, which is multiple times larger than the annual cash payments, was ditched in favor of retaining higher fixed pensions and more generous retiree healthcare.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 31, 2008 11:04 PMThe tragic thing is that union members, for the most part, don't realize that Union leaders are supporting a presidential candidate with a history selling them down the road. Hillary the Wallmart Board member is the subject of this video clip.
Posted by: JDH on February 1, 2008 07:46 AMYeah, it's a Rich Guys' Recession, for sure...
Posted by: John Bailo on February 1, 2008 09:24 AM1) BA was going to eliminate retirement benefits for future IAM employees. We said "no" that would be unfair for several reasons (Honesty: Not the least of which is looking out for our own).
Having been there for 30 years, I have been "assured" (contractually) by management that the reason my wages are lower than they could be is because they are "investing" for my future in the BA retirement plan.
Who can't see beyond the end of their short-sighted nose that if I screw the next generation over they won't return the favor?
Now, SPEEA was offered a similar deal: Screw the next generation for an EXCEEDINGLY SMALL increase in the 401k input. They WILL GET THEIRS. When the balance is 51-49 employees who are getting NO RETIREMENT, then those THOUSANDS of SPEEA folks will be S.O.L.
2) Let's be honest here. If BA management (God, there's more of 'em everyday!!!) was honest about the situation, the payout could/would materialize for the IAM workers.
But, like the democrat-loving ilk that BA management is (What? You folks didn't know the history of BA management being democrat stooges? Like Shrontz who was in Jimmy f**king Carter's administration? That tells ya a whole bible's worth right there!!!) they'll pit worker against worker, class against class.
Hmmm, let's see: Class warfare. Whose playbook is that in? Romney? No. Oh, that's right. McCain, Billary and Barry Obama's!!
Posted by: cmiklich on February 1, 2008 05:55 PMOr maybe the Japs, Italians and COMMUNIST RED CHINESE who have ZERO HISTORY of building anything as complex as a commercial jet aircraft. BTW, how are THEY doing? Oooooooohhhhhh. That's right. Those anti-Union foreigners are MORE THAN A YEAR behind schedule on the 787. What's that gonna do to next year's bottom line?
It should tell you something about the corporate leadership at BA that they didn't choose someone who knows aerospace manufacture to lead the company, but someone whose expertise is in DUCT TAPE (3M). Duct tape and airplanes don't mix. Even IAM members know that!!!
Posted by: cmiklich on February 1, 2008 06:02 PM