The odds of a terribly long strike affecting the local economy look greater than ever. See coverage from the Times & the P-I for more.
In short, neither side has budged from positions that seem intractable. More importantly for the long-term picture, Boeing has recently been talking openly of the problem of housing assembly operations in a "strike zone." The likelihood of future assembly lines being established in other states just keeps going up.
Meanwhile, Bruce Ramsey puts two and two together on one of the oddest circumstances of the strike, in a discussion of the recent financial sector shock:
The Aerospace Machinists didn't know. Their eyes were on an airplane company with a fat order book, not at an economic body about to go into convulsions. They thought it was a fine time to have a strike against Boeing. They were going to hold out. I guess they still are.
This doesn't look like it's going to end well.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 15, 2008 06:53 AM | Email ThisIt's time for a revolt, a massive crossing of the lines, and a dissolution of the union.
The union leadership is only out to serve the union leadership. What do they have to lose? Not their pay and benefits.
Posted by: Chris on October 15, 2008 06:46 AMFor all of you who think the union workers are getting screwed by Boeing, I invite you to drive through the parking lot at Boeing field. The parking area inside the fence looks like the Paris autoshow. On any day you can see all of the latest brand new corvettes, mercedes, bmw, and tricked out trucks. And they aren't the executive's cars, those are the cars of the union shop guys.
Posted by: blindman on October 15, 2008 08:10 AMSomehow they need to work out the problems or show the company they can do the job for less and much better than somewhere else.
Standing on the corner screaming at Boeing well get you ZIP!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 15, 2008 08:21 AMWell everyone should hope this this country econ doesn't crash. If it does, the plane sells will crash like 2001 and the IAM will have NO jobs.
Now that is scary.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 15, 2008 09:14 AMSigh.
Posted by: Hinton on October 15, 2008 09:18 AMOk, why didn't Boeing move?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 15, 2008 10:01 AMBest and Worst Bang for the Buck Cities
Abha Bhattarai, Forbes.com
Oct 10th, 2008
"The economic storm sweeping the country has left Americans with few places to hide.
But those looking to hunker down might want to head to Texas, where they can get the best value for their dollar.
That's because Austin and San Antonio lead our list of places where your money goes farthest. Residents of both enjoy affordable housing and promising prospects for job growth in coming years. Houston and Dallas also land in the top 10, at Nos. 4 and 7, respectively.
In Depth: America's Best-Value Cities
"Texas, as a whole, is one of the few economies that's performing extremely well because of the energy and technology sectors," says Andrew Gledhill, an economist at Moody's Economy.com. Plus, he added, military bases in San Antonio have continued to draw a steady steam of personnel and federal employees to the city, spurring widespread job growth.
The state's manufacturing sector has also grown in recent years, and a reputation for affordable housing continues to lure people to the South. When accounting for median household income, a house in Dallas, for example-with a median price of about $150,000-is four times more affordable than a house in Los Angeles, the worst-ranked city on our list."
Gregoire and her Seattle ilk are soooooooo arrogant. So are the Unions
They truly believe Boeing has no options.
Fools! Boeing will move to a right-to-work state with the best cost of living. DUH!
What would Boeings departure do to the State Budget??
They will likely move to a Right-To-Work State like Texas with very reasonable cost of living compared to Seattle-area.
Boeing will likely offer similiar salaries to what workers are getting now.
The real losers will be the Machinists & Engineers. What employment options will they have in Washington? ANSWER: NONE (unemployment)
They will be forced to sell & move losing equity in their homes as the real estate market collapses with excessive suppply ala 1969. You remember that Jim?? I do. Picked up some very, very cheap rentals. But it was the workers who were hurt. Now they are willing to hurt themselves again??
They will also have to pay to move themselves to Texas for their same job!
Foolish Jim.
Do you not learn from history??
Do you not have a handle on the current rising unemployment?
Hundreds of thousands of people will be applying for those jobs in Texas Jim.
I don't want to see Boeing leave...but I can't blame them.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 15, 2008 10:58 AMHave you seen this.
________________________________
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at The New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Mr. Miller's Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ms. Ghilarducci's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5% of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3% a year, adjusted for inflation.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 15, 2008 10:58 AMDream on, union. Why not go on strike for levitation benefits, or biannual Santa Clauses? Or sex tourism benefits in exotic faraway tropical countries! Now THAT's realism.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on October 15, 2008 11:25 AMBoeing Machinists - RIP
Posted by: swassociates on October 15, 2008 11:27 AMPS--
Jim...can you say "Y'ALL"??
Better start learnin' pal.
You think because a move costs millions, it won't pencil out?? Boeing will amortize this over a decade....not a year.
Trust me Mike...Boeing has this pencilled out pretty well. No where on their pro-forma's does it say "let's not do this because Jim won't like it".
Dollars & Cents talk Mike.
The Union has pushed Boeing to the brink...the membership best reel them in quick.
Workers have the most to lose!
It's a fact Mike.
Lose Home Equity with collapsing real estate market if Boeing shuts down.
401(k)'s already in the tank.
Cost of living in Washington rising rapidly with Gregoire and her tax-and-spend cronies.
Wake up!
Mike, why wouldn't/couldn't they move? Your guys are baiting them to just pack up and leave. That same goes for the taxes our State charges.
I've heard of several conversations with the big boys regarding Boeing. They are indeed about ready to pack up and go. That was four years ago; it just has to be more so now.
Posted by: swatter on October 15, 2008 12:47 PMDid you happen to see the news about the Dana Corporation a couple years ago? Oh wait, Dana Corporation no longer esists. A one time Fortune 500 company, with factories and subsidiaries all over the world, with assest and sales in the billions, POOF, gone into bankruptcy.
Did you happen to see the news about General Motors just this week?
You are a fool if you think "too big" inoculates a company from failure... ESPECIALLY when 'too big" is hobbled by ever growing union demands of the past, present and future.
Boeing needs to respect its employees with salaries equivalent to management. -Posted by Mike at October 15, 2008 11:27 AM
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with respect: it has to do with value. A stock clerk's value is not the same as that of an executive. There are a fewer people qualified to make executive decisions than there are qualified to stock shelves. Have you ever even heard of supply and demand?
How about the employees respecting the company enough to want it to grow and succeed?
The profits of the company need to be shared with all who make a contribution. -Posted by Mike at October 15, 2008 11:27 AM
It has absolutely nothing to do with "sharing". That "contribution" is called a JOB. For that JOB you earn a paycheck. The employer and employee have a mutually beneficial arrangement, nothing more. Going to that job is not an investment in the company. Those that invest, those that gamble on the company with their investment are the only ones who should 'share the profits'.
You seem to have bought into communism hook line and sinker. You seem to think tht because a you earn a paycheck form a company that you are entitled to make demands. You aren't.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 15, 2008 01:07 PMSo I would say it looks like they are going to stay for a few more years.
But, I do understand as a union person you can't ask for the world.
At one point the shareholders well understand they can't make money from Boeing and their bucks will go somewhere else.
Howdy Jim
Well, maybe I don't know a thing. But I do know enough to have been a business owner for more then 25 years, employee as many as 10 people at a time (although that varies depending on work load), pay taxes, and pay my bills. I can tell you that my responsibility to my employees as an owner ends when their demands override the chance of success for my business. If the demands of my employees become unreasonable I am better off to make my business smaller. Have any of you pro union machinists thought of that as it applies to Boeing? An unhealthy company is of no value to you as a worker. The unions business should be to work in partnership with business to grow. Growth guarantees jobs much more then a contract.
But what do I know, I'm not a highly skilled machinist.
Posted by: swassociates on October 15, 2008 01:30 PMOr are they always -- every single time -- a bunch of ungrateful whiners who should shut up and thank their benevolent bosses that they have a job at all?
Posted by: Labor Goon on October 15, 2008 01:46 PMOr are they always -- every single time -- a bunch of ungrateful whiners who should shut up and thank their benevolent bosses that they have a job at all?
Posted by: Labor Goon on October 15, 2008 01:47 PMMike and Jim, I was like you guys...I grew up in Black Diamond in a family supported by a single construction worker's income.
It took me many years to get through college. I worked my way through, and finally graduated from UW. I didn't receive a single government grant because I was a white male and had parents that weren't on welfare. I didn't take out a lot of low interest government loans. I bought my education when I could afford it. I borrowed and/or bartered for books, buying only when absolutely necessary. I used the computers in the labs instead of buying my own, although I later pieced together a "RePC special" for under $100...(thank God for Linux and the open source and free software movement)
Fast forward some years and my hard work has paid off. But I now am one of the people whom Obama will be taking money from to give to you. Y'know, "spreading the wealth around". My marginal tax rate will go up to 49% under his tax plan and I am by no means wealthy, I live in the south end and drive a used Toyota. I don't have car payments, I don't carry credit card debt, and we bought a house we could afford on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage.
By all intents and purposes, I have worked my ass off and done the responsible thing with my time and money. Now I will be punished for earning my american dream. Obama thinks that it is right and proper for the government to take what extra money I do have and give it to you.
I only have one thing to say to that: fuck him, and fuck you. God knows I earned the right to say that.
I hope Boeing leaves and I personally hope you face hardship because of the union's hubris and arrogance. I'll probably have to leave as well. Nevada or Texas is looking pretty good right now. Their real estate markets are reasonable and jobs in my line of work are plentiful. I'll need to lower my overhead (e.g. house payments, energy costs, etc) to preserve my retirement and kid's college funds under the socialist Obama/Democrat government.
Normally, I don't get angry at people or wish them ill on this site and there are a lot of trolls on this site that probably deserve it. But you really touch a nerve with me when you think it is "economic justice" or "compassion" to use the government to steal from those of us who have earned our success.
It is morally wrong to steal from people. You can use the government and call it taxes but it is still stealing and it is still wrong. You have no right to what I have earned. Your kids aren't worth more than mine. They don't deserve my kid's college savings. You chose to work in a union and skip your education. I chose to never be in a union and never stop my education.
We made different choices, and now that the results of those choices is known, you have no right to use the government to try to "even the score." Instead I suggest you go back to school and do what I did. UW has great night programs in Bothell and Tacoma. And of course I urge you to see how wrong-headed and immoral the redistribution of wealth really is and start voting for traditional conservatives (i.e. low tax, smaller government, anti-entitlement, politicians which aren't necessarily Republicans).
I know the trolls on this site will disagree with me and that is fine. My goal was to put a face on those "evil rich people".
Posted by: blindman on October 15, 2008 01:53 PMI'll answer that. No.
Because you know what the rest of the world does when they are not satisfied with their pay or benefits? They find another job.
Posted by: Palouse on October 15, 2008 01:54 PMThere have been strikes in the past where I would have supported the workers. In cases where work conditions were dangerous and/or caused health problems. But I think that hasn't happened in decades.
I don't necessarily disagree with unions. I believe that the constitutional right of free association gives citizens the right to form unions. But, at the same time I believe that same right gives citizens the right to work for anybody who will hire them under any terms mutually agreed upon between the worker and the employer.
That means that I believe there is a "right to work". It's really not a new "right" it is a consequence of a constitutional right. I believe the closed shop unionism in this state is unconstitutional. That's where the problem lies.
Boeing should leave. The only thing they can do to put pressure back on the unions is to move work out of the state. It is the only option they have to keep the unions in check. That's why they will never agree to job guarantees. It would make Boeing completely at the mercy of the unions.
Posted by: blindman on October 15, 2008 02:07 PMTell me this. Why shouldn't Washington be a right to work state? If you think union membership is good then fine, but what if I want to work for Boeing and I think my skills are good enough to carry me without the aid of a union? Shouldn't I have that option? What good is served by denying me that freedom?
Posted by: swassociates on October 15, 2008 02:22 PMEven Army M/V who has no stake in the Boeing process will suffer as the Everett Fire Dept. receives less tax revenue due to all the foreclosures. The value of his house also drops significantly as his neighbors pack up and head for greener pastures. You guys don't want to hurt Army M/V do ya?
I think Gregiore's leadership on this subject has been extremely poor, I suspect she'll be out of work come Nov. Now the question is why isn't Dino stepping in right now and working the situation to his advantage?
No. Never. And never will.
In fact, at times I've gone out of my way to cross a picket line deliberately.
Or are they always -- every single time -- a bunch of ungrateful whiners who should shut up and thank their benevolent bosses that they have a job at all?
Yes. Always.
Every.
Single.
Time.
With that said, I can kinda understand where Jim Keilman is speaking from. He clearly thought it (applying for the job) was the right move at the time, but has also stated he's not particularly happy with the union in this mess.
There are plenty of people of all political persuasions who are forced into joining the union and they shouldn't be blamed for that.
Right to work!!!
Posted by: jimg on October 15, 2008 02:49 PMPosted by Mike at October 15, 2008 12:24 PM "
Mike--
ANSWER==Yes they can.
Will they? It depends how cooperative Labor & Government are.
I agree it will take a huge investment and several years.
It all depends upon how it pencils out.
I'm not saying they will leave Jim...I am saying it is a definite option....Y'ALL!
Posted by Jim Keilman at October 15, 2008 11:50 AM"
And now you just keep right on posting.
You are as honest as your "negotiators"!!
Waaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So go ahead Jim, vote for Gregoire.
When your strike checks stop, give her a call.
With what Jim, your strike check??
Blindman...I came out of nothing too.
I'll be damned if Robin Hood O-blah-blah and his merry band of thieves will fleece me. I worked too hard, taken risks and sacrificed too much to get to this point in my life for that to happen.
I feel for thuds like Jim.
He sincerely wants to work, make whatever he can and have a decent life with plenty of guarantees.
KLOWNS like Jim are incapable of understanding that Business Owners are not the enemy...they are the true job-creators and pay the vast majority of taxes O-blah-blah wants to give away to Poor folks for their votes.
Don't be a fool Jim.
Open your eyes.
There are no guarantees..especially in these tough economic times.
And to the goon who continues to taunt Boeing saying you can't move....consequences are often ugly. Kind of like calling Mike Tyson the "N" word and sticking out your chin.
Do you still have Health Insurance??
FWIW - I too think what's coming is going to become heavy handed. I have family and close friends who are not ok with what's coming to pass in the tax code and will be severely impacted. The majority of them are marking for BHO anyway. The understanding is that investment expenditures are required to prevent the republic from teetering into the abyss, not to subsidize the unmotivated or to reward the naive who think the world owes them a living. It's more analogous to an "8 years same as cash" loan from W, Inc., invoice payable on receipt.
Posted by: Acid Brain on October 15, 2008 03:14 PMAcid Brain, sorry, it's 45% and it is the marginal tax rate, meaning it is how much the government will take on the next dollar earned. Here's the WSJ article that explains it. What basically happens is I won't get any of the welfare checks and the last 20% of my pay for a year will be taxed at 45%. The last 20% of my pay is where I derive my longterm financial stability from. I use that money to save for my retirement and my kid's college. Currently that marginal tax rate is 34%, which is still way too high. Why can't we just switch to a 15% flat income tax that everybody pays?..no loopholes, no deductions.
And if you think Obama is really taxing "the rich" with this plan, consider for a moment that he wants to only raise the dividend tax rate from 15% to 20%. People who are really wealthy are members of what I call the "ownership class". They earn most of their income from owning stock that pays dividends rather than from working. So the really rich will only pay a flat 20% tax under Obama. Taxing the rich my ass. He's soaking the middle and upper-middle class in terms of percentage of income. By middle and upper-middle class, I'm talking about salaried Boeing engineer type of incomes.
I'm trying my best to join the ownership class by taking that last 20% of my income and investing, amongst other things, in dividend paying stocks and interest bearing bonds. By raising the marginal tax rate, Obama is just making it harder for people like me to have a comfortable retirement. And then if I happen to have money left over when I die, the Democrats want to confiscate it rather than have my kids receive it.
Jim, you should start a citizen's initiative to make this state a right to work state. I'll help. I'm sure there are lots of Boeing employees who were forced to be in the union just to work for Boeing. I know there are lots of state employees that feel the same way after Gregoire forced them all into the SEIU so that the union had more dues money to donate to Gregoire's re-election campaign.
Posted by: blindman on October 15, 2008 04:17 PM"The understanding is that investment expenditures are required to prevent the republic from teetering into the abyss, not to subsidize the unmotivated or to reward the naive who think the world owes them a living."
Are you talking about the bailout or are you talking about Obama's redistributionist tax racket? If you're talking about the redistribution of wealth, that is hardly an investment. The welfare checks that the bottom 30% will receive are going to buy flat screen TV's for poor people. It won't do one bit to change the poor spending habits they are teaching their kids. It won't be invested. It won't be saved. That money will be smoked, drank, and watched.
Obama is disingenuous or dumb. If his wealth redistribution plan is just a vote buying scheme, he's disingenuous. If he really thinks it will make our society better, he's just dumb. Vote for Obama so we can all buy a new TV!!
Posted by: blindman on October 15, 2008 04:56 PMYou have summed up Obama's plan very well. His tax plan is the most extreme welfare expansion in the history of this country, but he has simply renamed it a "tax reduction for 95% of Americans." Slight of hand. Unfortunately, the MSM does not make any effort to question him on it, nor does it even attempt to explain what his plan really amounts to.
Most disturbing is that the current administration is laying his groundwork for him. With the government taking equity stakes in all of the country's banks, politics will now enter the credit markets. And, once the government gets started in a direction like this, it is rare for it to reverse course. Expect it to buy in further or force it's way into banks perhaps without buying in. Want credit? You're interest rate will be tied to your "carbon footprint." Have a business and want a loan: prove "gender equity" in your business.
You are right about the "ownership class" as well. They love the idea of having Democrats in charge because there is not surer way of ensuring that someone with entrepreneurial spirit does not unseat them. Look at Mexico - this is how that country is run under the guise of "socialism." Really, all the government does is protect the wealthy who own monopolies in each industry (like Carlos Slim) and make it impossible for others to disrupt the socio-economic class order. They are protected, while the rest of the country lives on hand-outs. This is the vision Obama has for our future, whether he knows it or not.
Posted by: BananaLand on October 15, 2008 05:28 PMNot quite bud. I can take my skills anywhere in the world. For the people of Boeing it's different.
What you didn't take from what I said. If the union wants more and more to a point that it kills Boeing it's a good chance they may leave.
One has to only look at Detroit and see what has happen there. (GM, Ford) are near broke because of to many union demands.
PS.. if you look at states that are run by dem's and dem control. They are all in money trouble.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 16, 2008 09:19 AM