Not sure how either side in this dispute are going to “win”.
Seems they're getting closer, previous proposal was rejected by 95% of the workers, so seems it's going in the right direction at least. If Boeing wants to stop loosing money at the rate they're currently doing, they better come up with a acceptable deal quickly.
I have not sympathy for management, but this move is cutting off their noses to spite their faces. It's not symbiotic.
Obviously management have been absolute bastards in managing the company almost to the point of bankruptcy, but it would be foolhardy to add insult to injury and speed up the company's demise --which it can only blame itself for.
If I were the union, rather than ask for large raises at inopportune times, I would ask for veto power in the Board to overrule stupid moves like the 737-MAX fiasco. This would save jobs and provide more opportunity for profits and raises.
Boeing will blame the workers at least partially when they file bankrupcy. At least other companies will take workers more seriously.
Historic example: Banana companies in poor countries were terrible. Lives and environment were destroyed in exchange for years of explotation. It was not fair for the workers. Absolutely without a doubt in retrospective The workers always lose, but without a fight the situation doesn't improve for them.
Additionally, this makes it seem like you are implying, "They are getting something that others aren't, so they should be happy and take it.". IMHO the takeaway should be, "The union has got them a much deserved raise, more Americans who are being underpaid should join a union to get fair compensation.".
If you think 8% is outrageous for them, why not demand more for yourself? Instead of kneecapping people you don't even know out of a somewhat pathetic need to feel adequate, why not simply match them? Then, you won't have to look up to people you feel are beneath you.
Boeing has had decades of bad management for sure, but the unions have gone along for the ride
so now, Boeing products are considered inferior; how can Boeing charge more than Airbus for an inferior product?
the unions have a weak hand anyway...where else will they work? they are Boeing lifers one way or another
Gonna be interesting to see if this ends up true or not :) In the end, there won't be a Boeing if no one wants to work there, and no one is gonna want to work there if you can't sustain your own life on what you get from working there.
This is also what "winning" means for Boeing, they don't want machinists striking forever. Both parties obviously just want an agreement that both parties will say "yes" to
> If Boeing wants to stop loosing money at the rate they're currently doing, they better come up with a acceptable deal quickly.
Again, the same goes for the other party here. The one Boeing proposed seems acceptable to me, but I guess the machinists are free to reject whatever they want and propose whatever they want in response. I'm genuinely curious what they even want, aside from the pension plan they obviously won't get.
Not really, the workers are loosing money since Boeing is refusing to come up with an acceptable deal, the reason for the strike in the first place is because they weren't paid enough for the job they're doing.
> The one Boeing proposed seems acceptable to me
Are you a machinist working for Boeing? I'm guessing you, like most of us, are involved in software one way or another, and it's seems hard in general for people to empathize with blue-collar workers unless you've been one yourself.
> I'm genuinely curious what they even want, aside from the pension plan they obviously won't get.
TLDR from the initial demands:
- 40% raise
- Reinstate the defined benefit pension plan they lost a decade ago
- Higher contributions to employee 401k retirement funds
Seems like it's pretty well known what the workers want, yet Boeing still puts forward proposals that don't meet the demands. And besides that, Boeing shared the last proposal to the media for even approaching the workers with it. Not sure what they're thinking.
Right, I believe that is what I said: both Boeing and the machinists are losing money because both Boeing and the machinists are refusing to come up with a mutually acceptable deal.
> I'm genuinely curious what they even want, aside from the pension plan they obviously won't get.
TLDR from the initial demands
I know what the initial demands of both Boeing and the machinists were, and now that they've both announced their initial demands, we move on to both parties compromising.
Surely neither party thinks they'll get everything they want at the expense of the other party? That's no recipe for a working compromise. Like do the machinists actually think companies can afford pension plans for everybody? Have the machinists done the math on that?
Honestly, it feels weird asking 1 former employer to take on the responsibility for guaranteeing a decades-long retirement. That responsibility should fall to individuals and/or governments. I view the role of employers as paying workers to work, with both parties being able to terminate the deal by leaving, and with both parties keeping what they accrued during the deal.
What I'm trying to say:
- If there was no strike, the workers would continue to lose money, this was the status quo before the strike
- If there is a strike with no resolution, both Boeing and workers lose money, but workers would lose them anyways (see the line item above)
- If there is a strike with a resolution favoring Boeing, workers continue to lose money, Boeing stops losing money
- If there is a strike with a resolution favoring the workers, workers stop losing money, Boeing stops losing money
To me, the ideal situation (for the human individuals involved) seems pretty clear.
> Like do the machinists actually think companies can afford pension plans for everybody? Have the machinists done the math on that?
Isn't the free market supposed to magically work this out somehow? The workers and the union made the calculations on how much they need to be able to have a reasonable salary. If Boeing can't pay that, Boeing is doing business wrong somehow. At least this is the common "free market" Americans like to throw around.
- If there was no strike, the workers would continue to make money (albeit less than they would like), and Boeing would continue to lose money, this was the status quo before the strike
- If there is a strike with no resolution, both Boeing and workers lose money, but Boeing would lose anyways (see the line item above)
- If there is a strike with a resolution favoring Boeing, workers continue to make money (albeit less than they would like), Boeing would probably keep losing money
- If there is a strike with a resolution favoring the workers, workers continue to make money (albeit less than they would like), Boeing continues losing money
> Isn't the free market supposed to magically work this out somehow? The workers and the union made the calculations on how much they need to be able to have a reasonable salary. If Boeing can't pay that, Boeing is doing business wrong somehow.
Boeing and the workers both calculated what they each want. If you believe that a failure to come to a negotiated agreement constitutes "doing business wrong", then both parties are guilty of "doing business wrong". Personally, I don't.
It's like if you are a prehistoric hunter and you ask yourself while injured and vulnerable to bag your biggest most arduous prey. I'd save that for a healthy day and today just catch something to live for tomorrow.