*obvious hyperbole
Getting 96% to vote to go on strike pretty much says that company offer is complete garbage. You probably can't get 96 out of 100 people to agree that the sky is blue.
And while I wish that things were a bit more fact heavy, sometimes the sticking point is something really arcane and non-obvious to outsiders (on-call requirements, for example).
People can vote the same way without agreeing with each other. Some of them could think it's a bad offer, the others could think the company has bankruptcy immunity because the government will bail them out so they might as well hold out for more even when the company makes a reasonable offer.
> And while I wish that things were a bit more fact heavy, sometimes the sticking point is something really arcane and non-obvious to outsiders (on-call requirements, for example).
This isn't an excuse for not providing the explanation. What should happen in this case is that you get a longer article because there is more context to unpack.
Bit of a green hue towards downtown, regional bank creating the Aurora Desjardins
Another pet peeve of mine is omitting the time frame for wage increases. A 25% raise today is not the same thing as a 25% raise over the course of 4 years.
And is also different than 25% over 4 years while also removing a 4% per year annual bonus.
If you need more information on the union's position you can check the union's website: https://www.iam751.org/?zone=/unionactive/private_view_page....
Would that really help, though? Do you have the industry know-how, expertise, and internal knowledge to assess whether the offer is reasonable or not?
Otherwise it just reads like “lots of people are mad”. Well about what exactly?
It’s fine for a headline, but not very impressive reporting.
It's like a BS meeting by a BS manager that he holds for "stakeholders" where he just throws a bunch of facts on the table, and then proceeds to do nothing to guide the decision making process. And then during the whole meeting we all run around like headless chickens trying to find out more info and context, all half-arguing with one another because we all have different pieces of the puzzle.
</rant> Sorry had one of these just yesterday, and no matter how delicately I phrased or insinuated-it the person with the most info/context just did not offer up guidance and direction (ironically it's the same person that organized the meeting). Then at the end they gave praise to all those that contributed and then said they'll schedule another meeting to discuss the outcomes because we "couldn't reach consensus" or "decide on the next course of action".
In 2009 Boeing decided to build the 787 in a non-union factory in SC instead of in Washington.
A few years later (can’t recall exactly - it was around 10 years ago), Boeing cut the pensions for new workers. The union was not in a strike position at the time.
In the last 5 years the company has pushed forward with the 737 Max program with all of its problems that you’ve likely heard of.
There was a leadership crisis and a new CEO is starting. They’ve made a big show about recommitting to Washington.
The contract that was voted on this week included a headline raise of 25% over 4 years, but buried in the details was the elimination of a 4% annual bonus.
Sounds like there is a generation’s worth of grievance to sort out, and this being a fraught moment for the company, the union has decided to press their advantage. More power to them. This could have been avoided if the company leadership had a long-term approach to management and employee relations.
I don't think that entirely detracts from the general premise of wanting to be given more information however.
We live in an era where a lot of media types actively push pro-unionization ideas. It'd be helpful to present facts and details alongside union efforts! I personally assume that if details are withheld it's because they'd be damaging to their argument. YMMV.