Economics

466 readers

255 users here now

founded 2 years ago

126

Boeing offers staff 25% pay hike in bid to avoid strike (www.bbc.com)

submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave to c/economics

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Boeing is offering its staff a 25% pay rise over four years in a bid to avoid a strike that could potentially shut down its assembly lines as early as Friday.

Union leaders representing more than 30,000 employees have urged the workers to support the proposal, describing it as the best contract they had ever negotiated.

If approved, the agreement would be an important achievement for Boeing's new chief executive, Kelly Ortberg, who faces pressure to fix the company's quality and reputational issues.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Hildegarde 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're wasting everyone's time by making up problems with a contract. Multi year contracts are standard. There may be a lot wrong with the contract, but the fact that its a multi year contract like every normal union contract isn't one of them.

No one who negotiates union contracts is worried that an employer might randomly decide to revert a negotiated payscale.

[–] JoshuaFalken 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The point I was trying to convey is that companies are run by people and people are corruptable. You're correct to say there's no reason to think any specific contact would be violated. It's folly however, to think companies never take action against a union as a whole or a worker individually.

Given the recent whistleblowers that have stopped being alive in recent Boeing memory, I don't think it's alarmist to suggest they might not be a trustworthy bunch.

Either way, my apologies for the way I half heartedly wrote something the other day.

[–] Hildegarde 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, companies are corrupt. However, the way you described it cannot happen. Boeing is smart enough to not try to fuck over workers in a way that they are guaranteed to lose and all but ensures an immediate strike.

Even after the contract expires, they have to continue paying at the previous rate. If boeing wanted to pull something they would be smart enough to do it in a more subtle and effective way.

[–] JoshuaFalken 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ah so that's the line you think they won't cross? Glad we were able to narrow that down.

I'm of the opinion there are no lines a company won't cross if there's a dollar to be made, and there's decades of evidence this is the case. It wasn't that long ago that big business would hire people to give a beat down to protesting workers.

It's not my goal to change the minds of people online. Ultimately this conversation has boiled down to me having an opinion based on actions I have seen taken against workers, and you believing there is a line in the sand that "cannot" be crossed because the company is smart enough not to.

We aren't getting anywhere by continuing.

[–] Hildegarde 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You keep saying there's tons of evidence, yet provided none.

Find me one time an american company unilaterally decreaced the pay of a union contract during its term.

If that was common, we would't negotiate multi-year agreements.

In fact, it would be far easier for them to do that after the contract expires, and a 1 year contract term would give them many more opportunities.

[–] JoshuaFalken 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I guess the point I made three times didn't get across to you, did it.

[–] Hildegarde 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't know what point you're trying to make. Yes I think boeing taking am action that ensures a strike and also loses them money for no benefit is not plausible.

Do some cursory reading on the national labor relations act.

[–] JoshuaFalken 0 points 3 months ago

When I wrote that it was taking Boeing at its word, I was leaning more into a possibility of leadership changing their minds.

All I was really getting at by commenting about the contract was that corporate greed exists

The point I was trying to convey is that companies are run by people and people are corruptable.

I'm of the opinion there are no lines a company won't cross if there's a dollar to be made

I even said:

You're correct to say there's no reason to think any specific contact would be violated.

And yet you continue to harp on about this, and now tell me to go do some reading? Read the comments you're replying to.

You haven't conceded a single thing or even mentioned any of the rebuttals I have made to you points, and you continue to attack what I have repeatedly stated as only being my opinions.

I should have trusted my instinct beforehand. This isn't a discussion. This is a waste of effort.