Executive Director At SPEEA Discusses Boeing, Contracts & Strikes
October 1st, 2008
With the IAM strike at Boeing approaching its fifth week, closely monitoring the situation is the second major union, the SPEEA.
SPEEA Executive Director, Ray Goforth was kind enough to spend some time with FleetBuzz Editorial.com to answer a few key questions - not only about the IAM strike, but also in relation to the soon-to-expire contract with the SPEEA.
Although discussions between Boeing and the SPEEA have not started as well as the union had hoped, the path to industrial action is by no means certain and is one that both sides would ideally like to avoid.
1) To what extent, if any, have you as a union been influenced by the circumstances surrounding the ongoing IAM strike?
Boeing management provoked the IAM strike by confusing public relations with collective bargaining. Instead of working collaboratively with the union to find the terms of a deal that both sides could live with, Boeing management attempted to impose their terms through a media campaign of newspaper advertisements, radio advertisements, compulsory meetings in the workplace and a relentless barrage of postal and email.
Somehow, they’d convinced themselves that they could bypass the elected leadership of the union and sell a deal directly to the union membership. Their direct dealing campaign failed miserably with the IAM.
Unfortunately, Boeing management does not appear to have learned anything from this experience. Recent statements from Scott Carson and Doug Kight seem to indicate that they (in essence) blame the IAM members for being too stupid to understand how beneficent Boeing is.
Boeing is now in the process of rolling out a nearly identical direct dealing campaign against SPEEA members. It will fail just as miserably with our membership.
2) Do you consider a strike represents a viable 21st-century option to resolve an industrial dispute or do you hold that any strike represents a failure for all parties involved?
Both. Labor law exists to extend a measure of democracy into the workplace. In the ordinary course of events, decisions are made at the top of the organizational chart and transmitted down through the management ranks. When employees are unionized, they don’t have to helplessly accept the decisions imposed upon them. The employees elect their own union leaders and those leaders serve as liaisons to corporate management. The union serves as the collective voice of the employees. There are a variety of mechanisms through which the union can express that voice.
In collective bargaining, the employee’s voice is heard by an elected negotiating team that sits down with management to negotiate the core issues of employee concern (wages, hours and working conditions). If those talks reach impasse, the law establishes the withholding of labor (a strike) as a legitimate tool to be used.
However, a strike is a powerful tool that harms the employer, the employees and causes collateral damage to the community. It should never be used lightly.
I answered in the affirmative that it represents a failure for all parties involved because that is very often the case. However, not always. Sometimes one of the parties is so out of touch with the needs of the other that the failure is largely one-sided. In the case of the 2008 IAM/Boeing strike, I place 99% of the blame on Boeing management. This strike was the entirely predictable outcome of their aggressive anti-union campaign.
3) Does the SPEEA realise that back-to-back union strikes at Boeing may make the company more averse to sending more work abroad as opposed to keeping it in-house?
Doesn’t a strike potentially weaken union fears of job security if a deal cannot be reached?
This is a false analogy.
Beginning in the late 1990s, Boeing began to adopt a faddish business model that essentially sought to replicate how companies build VCRs, tennis shoes and other cheap consumer goods. Boeing envisioned a world where they could order parts from the cheapest manufacturers around the planet and then simply assemble them, slap the Boeing logo on it and call it a Boeing airplane.
However, (as their workforce warned them) aerospace products are extremely complex, highly engineered items that are ill-suited for the type of outsourcing one sees (for example) in consumer electronics. Every single program that Boeing attempted this business model on has been a disaster (most notably the 787). The global supply network created cost savings up front but the coordination costs, re-work costs, and delay costs have been earth shattering. One cannot simply purchase a complex synergistic aerospace workforce on the global labor market.
For the most part, the global network of “partners” and suppliers are simply not up to the job of delivering components with the tolerances required for an aerospace product. Boeing has had to fall back upon its domestic workforce (with the tribal knowledge that comes from building such products for decades) to rescue the program.
Simply picking up the factory and moving it to India is not a reality. The 787 program almost completely failed because they outsourced parts of the plane. Outsourcing even more would only compound the error. Moreover, Boeing has to deal with certain political realities.
If Boeing even attempts to accelerate their outsourcing, they may find that the military side of their business (roughly half their revenue) would have difficulty getting funding through Congress. The union isn’t going to dictate how Boeing runs its business but we won’t sit idle if they attempt to steal the livelihood of our members.
The MBAs and the accountants at Boeing headquarters should start respecting the opinions of their workforce. If they’d listened to them about the 787, those planes would be flying in the sky today. If they listen to them at the collective bargaining table, then we can avoid a strike.
4) Boeing negotiators didn’t read the Summary Proposal in the first set of talks. To what extent will the SPEEA remain rigid that its demands are met, even if a strike ensues and means Boeing is less willing to meet those demands while members stop working?
SPEEA delivered a complete redline proposal to Boeing outlining every proposal that we were making. The goal was to get Boeing to take this process seriously. We wanted them to see the full scope of the union’s expectations so that they could work on a proposal that would be acceptable to the union. Unfortunately, instead of responding in a substantive way, Boeing began to rollout the same public relations direct dealing campaign that they launched against the IAM.
They gave us a vague “platform for discussion” that explained how they intended to seek a series of substantive takeaways from the SPEEA membership. It was quite disappointing.
If a company was struggling financially and a union was demanding huge wage increases, we’d all look at that union as if they were idiots. Their demands are out of touch with the reality of the situation.
Now imagine the reverse. You have Boeing with record profits, $10 billion dollars in cash reserves, a pension plan that is OVERFUNDED by $5 billion, and an order book that’s full well into the next decade. What conceivable reason could this company have for seeking to take pay and benefits away from their workforce? There certainly isn’t a business case for it.
The proposed takeaways that we’ve received so far are insulting. When Boeing increased CEO McNerney’s pension by $3.5 million last year, how am I supposed to take seriously a proposal to eliminate the pension for the employees who actually design and build the products?
Where are the priorities of this corporation?
The attempt to seek takeaways represents a stunning disrespect for the workforce that made the company so profitable and successful. Moreover, this is a startlingly irresponsible business decision. The very future of the Boeing Company rests upon the success of the 787 program. Instead of valuing the employees who are trying to save the company, Boeing corporate chose this moment to pick a fight with unions that represent more than 1/3 of the entire Boeing workforce.
The shareholders should hold the Board of Directors accountable.
5) In light of the above, some analysts have questioned whether union leadership is really looking after the interests of its members by being so militant - what or how will the SPEEA react if it faces membership mutiny in the face of Boeing staying adamant that it will not back down on its offer as it has done with the IAM?
What those analysts fail to understand is that labor unions are democracies. Every position taken by a union is taken by an elected leader or a professional staff member operating under the direction of the elected leadership. There’s no such thing as a membership mutiny.
If the members vote to reject the contract and go on strike, then that’s what we’ll do. In 2000, the members voted to strike and stayed out for 40 days until Boeing made a reasonable offer. Our membership is fully prepared to do so again.
What I find interesting about this question is that the financial analysts who are calling me actually have the opposite opinion from those cited. It’s not as if they have sympathy for the union but they can’t understand how Boeing could be conducting these negotiations so incompetently. From their perspective, these are business decisions and Boeing’s approach makes no sense to them.
The company doesn’t need anything that it’s seeking and yet they’ve brought productions line to a halt, are losing airplane orders, lost revenue of over $100 million a day, and now the costs have the potential to increase by an order of magnitude if they provoke SPEEA into a strike. The stock analysts that I’ve been talking with are mulling over the idea of pushing for a management shake-up at Boeing headquarters.
The longer industrial action continues, the harder it becomes for all parties concerned to clear a pathway to resolving their differences.
Mediation may just be the key in the Boeing/IAM dispute, but its clear that the SPEEA will also stand firm on its members interests. No one envisages a quick-cut deal to avoid confrontation, but given the stance the IAM has taken with a view to protecting jobs in the Puget Sound region for the upcoming 737 and possibly 777 replacements, one may argue that such stand off’s may be short term pain for long term gain.
Fundamentally, the prospect of long term labour peace can only be achieved in the here and now.
Right now, that seems as distant as ever.
(Prior articles on the Boeing/IAM strike can be found by clicking these links here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Comments from Boeing staff, IAM & SPEEA members is both welcomed and encouraged. To speak in confidence, please click here.)
Sphere: Related ContentEntry Filed under: Airlines, Boeing, IAM, Ray Goforth, SPEEA
28 Comments Add your own
1. Graphite Epoxy | October 1st, 2008 at 5:39 am
As a striking IAM member, I think the media, the analysts, aerospace industry leaders and especially the leadership at Boeing should pay very close attention to Mr. Goforth’s remarks.
They represent a very accurate account of the origins of the current labor dispute.
Unfortunately, Boeing seem prepared to deal with our distinguished friends in SPEEA in the same manner, with a high probability of the same results.
2. Chas | October 1st, 2008 at 5:58 am
This is a one-sided Union view. McNerney’s salary or increase is irrelevant to this matter. What the Company needs to do is make a competitive offer to its Union employees. I strongly believe it did so, particularly with the economy the way it is. It should not have to offer salary/benefits greater than what is competitive in the marketplace simply because it is currently doing well. Further, the concern with retaining jobs seems misplaced. If Boeing made such costly mistakes with outsourcing, one would think they would have learned their lession and would only do such in the future when it did make sense (which if the logic is followed, would not be very often or to a large degree).
3. Jon | October 1st, 2008 at 6:07 am
I started off by replying to one poster and found myself looking deeper into the state of affairs.
Not to forget to mention that,it doesn’t take a genius to outsource jobs. Nor does it take an MBA. Those who live in the real world; understand how the game is played. So is Boeing surprised by the union’s backbone, or was it planned all along?
In business, it’s screw your competitor; employee; government; customer; your fellow employee. all to get you more money for that bigger payout. Now the company wants to deny union workers a just increase in pay or benefits, because that is the way to get higher pay for your exec’s. Im sure Mcnerney had big checks for all exec’s if the negotiating team had pulled this one off.
Why is the union striking; is it just about money? No, even thou the press can’t seem to get past the front end numbers.
I can only speak for me; but my view is that we are striking not just for pay, but for the obscene amounts of disparity between
Boeing workers and exec’s. Union pension is 72 dollars a year; exec’s is 400 a year. Top exec’s is 4000 a year!
We all know that Boeing can’t go back all the way and reverse outsourcing; it can do some, but not all. Airbus is outsourcing to.
China, may become the next big competitor. Didn’t help with Boeing showing them how to build airplanes thou.
What is it that the average union member wants; job security improvements: jobs for future employees; Better retirement;
a fair wage for trying to live the middle class dream. Most people understand higher costs to consumers; bad money management from our government; peak oil - hell peak everything! Were a nation that has prospered in good times and want
them to continue. The question is “can we?” Energy crises; food crises; benefit crises; corruption crises! Political leadership
is gone; corrupted by big banks; the IMF and corporate drive to make wall street happy. But wall street is corrupt also; you have a better chance of winning in Vegas! Social security is 7 trillion in debt! Medicare is 34 trillion in debt! Derivatives are 100 trillion in paper (worthless paper?). Were not on the gold standard anymore; we have fees coming at us from all directions. Our rights have become privileges?
I could go on and on; but some would just label me a conspiracy nut; so I will let you find how the dots connect.
So, is it any wonder that were scared! Is the American way of life over? Can we wake up and stop blaming everyone else and look into the mirror and find, that we are the problem; that we are the solution! I sometimes wonder why Boeing and the union
are always at odds. Is it just a respect issue? Not seeing the other, as a useful component to the entire body, our symbol in the sky? Perhaps it’s time to look at each other as a team and not as an adversary. But this would take a leap of faith and many
working at this company can’t see anything but the past to condemn each other. With so much suspicion in the wings, it’s hard
to make a move first, in a direction other than one up man-ship or a sign of weakness.
I think the first place to start, is a state of being in the right mind to listen; not just the word itself - but the meaning behind it.
If we cannot change our way of doing, our so called business; then we are doomed to like Russia before us; in total collapse
of our way of life and the future as we know it. There is to much at stake here, to just stand in the way of progress. I could tell
you it’s the two party system; or the capitalistic system we live under. But alas, I think it’s the state of man; his fear of the
unknown. But like a favorite episode of Star Trek, when the majority was afraid of the minority metamorphosing and what impact that would have on the other group, if the minority metamorphosis into something different; leading the majority to find it’s self changing it’s very nature. Would fear cause that potential nature to run for it’s life or destroy itself. Would the nature of man’s metamorphosis into what he was meant to be all along?
One machinist view of many years in the trenches…..
4. Satan | October 1st, 2008 at 6:51 am
As another IAM member on strike I just wanted to say thank you for a clear and concise breakdown of what is going on with the Boeing negotiation team and the teams representing the union employees. I wish our union president was as intelligent, informative and competent as Mr Goforth
presents himself. Thanks for SPEEA’s support of the IAM.
5. Fly Boeing | October 1st, 2008 at 6:57 am
I too am a striking IAM Member. It seems the SPEEA organization has it’s work cut out for them as well.
Mr. Goforth seems to have hit the nail on the head with his logical & articulate assessment of the current labor issues at Boeing. Hate to say this, but I kinda wish our union leaders sounded as informed & accurate as he does.
Regardless, I hope BOEING, IAM & SPEEA come to an agreeable resolution in the very near future. We’re ready to build more aircraft. Good Luck Everyone!
6. mike j | October 1st, 2008 at 7:06 am
The SPEEA leader said it very accurately.
As far as Boeing management’s business decisions on the unions and on 787 (and their general outsourcing) it makes no sense, and in essance Boeing seems like some spoiled child in a temper-tantrum “do it their way or else”.
A Boeing Management shake-up is a good idea and recommended (and the Board of Directors also, because they’re the ones pulling the strings).
And a shake-up might ultimately be the only solution, ie if you’ve ever watched a kid doing a tantrum, their decisions are very far from sane, they will NOT listen to anything, and they very often destroy things.
For some reason the All Mighty and “World-Class” Boeing couldn’t satisfy 80 percent of the IAM workers, and is about to do the same with its engineers and higher educated professionals.
What a joke Boeing is, what a sick non-funny joke…
7. DonS | October 1st, 2008 at 7:16 am
I will congratulate Mr Goforth for his efforts to fix the organizational and financial train-wreck left by his predecessor, while at the same time putting forward some rational comments about the current impasse with IAM, which will probably carry over to SPEEA negotiations.
However, he paints a utopian view of how a union is supposed to work in a democratic fashion and infers that the SPEEA membership somehow choses and elects the negotiation team. Unfortunately, the SPEEA process does not provide for membership election of ANY negotiation team member. This process has resulted in essentially the same team as was used by the previous Executive Director in 2005. The 2005 team had near disastrous results on pension issues when they initially pushed for acceptance of the notorious cash balance pension plan, and accomplished a total sellout of early retiree medical, and an not so subtle increase in certain medical costs. This was quite an accomplishment considering the SPEEA pension plan has always been identical and equal to that negotiated by the IAM, as are a significant portion of the medical issues. Despite ‘ best intentions ‘, significant changes in either pension or medical are nearly impossible unless there are hidden takeaways or just plain stonewalling by Boeing.
Boeing must have had a big chuckle when reading the SPEEA proposal which included items such as 401K issues already dropped weeks earlier by Boeing in their Best and Final Offer to the IAM, and a plea to restore the early retiree medical. However, since 2005, SPEEA has brought aboard a staff member experienced in health care issues, so hopefully the former fiasco in that area will not happen again. It remains to be seen if a benefit such as early retiree medical, once dropped can ever be recovered.
On a larger scale, both SPEEA and IAM have been reluctant to use outside competent ERISA legal and actuarial help in obtaining or reading the ‘ fine print’ legal documents that support the contract, and which for the most part are still hidden from the members. Boeing has made good use of this reluctance and is winning the PR wars as to ‘outstanding’ offers. I believe the old cliche - BIG PRINT GIVETH and fine print TAKETH away sums up the situation. Putting working union members as part time negotiators without extensive qualified competent professional help up against the legal and actuarial professional talent bench available to Boeing is like putting the local industrial league baseball team up against the Mariners, and betting the financial future of thousands of members on the outcome.
The industrial team might get a few base hits, but the final outcome is certain. Not that the union and members lose everything, but that all questionable calls will always be in favor of the Pro Team.
Don Shuper - Associate Member in Good Standing
8. pato | October 1st, 2008 at 11:43 am
Concur that a Boeing Top Management shake-up is a good idea and recommended. Also that the Board of Directors be replaced because they’re the ones that put Top Management in place.
9. SPEEA member | October 1st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ray Goforth is an Evergreen-educated socialist who is trying to make a name for himself on the backs of the hard-working men and women of Boeing’s engineering ranks. His confrontational rhetoric serves no purpose in what should be a facts-and-data-driven negotiation process. Labor and management need to work together to create and maintain a profitable, competitive aerospace company that will stay in the Puget Sound region for decades to come. Note-to-Ray: Before you attempt to price us out of the airplane manufacturing business, take a look at how these very same tactics have served the domestic steel and auto industry.
10. SPEEA MEMBER | October 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I appreciate Ray’s summation of a regressing business mentality in Boeing Corporate that Boeing is not even aware of. I can’t say I’ve ever heard it put so clearly. It’s almost like the Corporate Leaders have become reprobate and are no longer able to see clearly. They seem as if to push the Union to the edge is a personal victory instead of a business decision. I would like to see a 6 year contract that would give both the Company and the Union more visibility for future business planning and maybe promote some healing between Union and Company. 3 year contracts are just too short.
11. Jacobin777 | October 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
First I would like to thank FleetBuzz Editorial.com for the interview.
Quite in depth and we get to see first hand what the unions want (or at least what their stands are).
I’m not going to take a pro or anti-union stance. I will bring up one fact however. Boeing has a VERY viable competitor in EADS/Airbus and even they are outsourcing many of their jobs (part of the Power 8 Program).
I only hope BOTH sides find a “reasonable” equilibrium and stop the nonsense childish bickering and accusing..its going to go nowhere.
12. DonS | October 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
In regards to the post 10. SPEEA MEMBER | October 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
and wish for a longer contract, there are several legal reasons why a shorter than 3 years contract is not viable, and practical reasons why a longer than 3 year contract is not in the best interests of the members. Accurate crystal balls fortelling the future have yet to be invented or developed.
I would hope that member gets more involved, and asks the negotiation team about the pros and cons of such a change- and ask about what happened re the longer contract SPEEA agreed to at Spirit.
More important IMO is to ASK the team why they are dragging their feet in getting outside- non conflicted legal and professional help in fully understanding the benefits issues. It is a sad commentary on the existing team that at least one member is clueless regarding obvious conflicts of interest between ex-Boeing union staff members and Boeing- while supposedly working in the members best interests. Other team members are still in the cover-up mode.
Don
13. CEObetrayal | October 1st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Mcnerney is no different than the CEO’s of WAMU, Lehman, AIG or Freddie or Fannie. He will, without a doubt line his pockets first and foremost and if the company falls flat on its face….he falls into a fat wad of cash. You and I know its wrong, but I am sure Jim thinks he is special…and deserves to profit from the pain or others. Boeing is arrogant….they could have given the IAM enough to get the contract passed, but they picked a fight with them and and now punish them. Thats a very CEO elistist attitude and thats a fact….just ask the employees / shareholds of Lehman.
14. Gary | October 1st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
The employees here at Boeing are forced to sign an ethics letter stating that we will act in an ethical manner. The executives in Chicago sign the same letter but obviously it doesn’t mean the same thing to them as it does to us. The company poled surveyed and took the pulse of the IAM membership in the recent negotations. They tried to persuade the IAM members to vote on the companies purposal and not comply with the labor law. It seems to me that the ethics in this case were certainly violated and it seems that they (company exec’s) don’t care! This is certainly not the same company that I agreed to work for!
15. Aurora | October 1st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
What is astonishing is the overall deterioration in both the economic climate & outlook since the IAM went out on strike. While most of us felt that the unions were bargaining from a position of strength, given the backlog for aircraft and likely demand, the news of late should serve to give everyone pause–even in this duopoly. Most economists and pundits seem to agree that a recession is looming and only the length and severity are up for debate. Yet I keep reading accounts and hearing rhetoric that hearken back to the ’50s and ’60s when things were different in the world.
Airbus has just opened an assembly line in China and is ramping up to a production rate of 40 A320 family aircraft per month. They have concluded outsourcing agreements with Tunisia, with more in the works on the A350 program. If Airbus had a manufacturing advantage before, they will have an absolute killer advantage post Power 8. Meanwhile, with deliveries halted because of this strike, Boeing’s stock continues its inexorable slide to…what…$20 per share? How much employee wealth will be wiped out if that happens? How many layoffs will happen regardless of what the unions do when the inevitable order cancellations hit and that robust backlog starts shrinking?
I’m hoping that what I hear and read in public is just posturing and that cooler heads are keeping the lines of communication open in the background.
16. DonS | October 1st, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Regarding Boeing ethics - it is an oxy-moron.
Regarding the Boeing v Union Negotiations- any concept of common sense or ethics long ago became obsolete. Regarding cooler heads - frozen brain cells are not at all helpful. Boeing has committed to PR and bullying tactics which have been approved by the Board.
As to benefits - I would suggest every employee carefully read the 6 pages in the pdf file listed. This was submitted as part of testimony before a Congressional committee about 1 week ago on Sept 25th by a well recognized authority on those issues
http://tinyurl.com/4atfhe
Norman Stein
Douglas Arant Professor of Law
University of Alabama
The rest of the details are at
http://edlabor.house.gov/hearings/fc-2008-09-25.shtml
Why not ASK your Negotiators ( IAM and SPEEA ) what they have done or are doing to protect the membership from the loopholes mentioned by Mr Stein ?
17. it's gonna be a long, cold january | October 1st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Oh, Chas (see post #2), you really don’t get it. McNerney and other Execs pay and benefits absolutely matter! The pocket-lining and absurb compensation for executives all over this country is a serious problem. And if you think the reason this Boeing Company is successful is only because it has a great CEO, think again! Don’t get me wrong, he’s not too bad as CEOs go. But it is on the backs of the thousands upon thousands of everyday grunt workers that really keep this company moving in the right direction. It is our engineers and our machinists and our non-union regular guy employees, that are bringing in the bucks. Our ingenuity is priceless. I don’t think McNerney could have designed the 787, nor manufactured it, nor tested it.
One last point, you are right. Boeing should offer a “competitive”, as in average, package of pay and benefits. Only if they want “competitive, or average products designed and built. Last I heard, Boeing claimed to make top of the line, innovative, technologically advanced systems. Doesn’t that warrant top of the line, innovative, and advanced benefits packages?
When companies don’t give their employees a stake in the company, there is no motivation for improvement. The better us employees make the company, the more money the company makes, thus we should benefit from the company’s success. I am tired of the ideology that if a company is successful and making money, the execs get all the credit and the money, and that it is ok to cut the out the regular-joes just because other places are doing it.
18. Jon | October 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 am
Steel and auto industry. What happened to the electric car? Killed by the auto industry and big oil. Why, they can’t make the kind of profit they could with SUV’s and huge trucks!
Common, if the heads of the auto industry had any brains to see beyond next quarters earnings, they would have beat the foreign car makers, by moving to alternatives long before. Instead they chose to go bankrupt. And you want to blame the unions for this? Next the Steel industry.
Weirton’s management proclaimed unity of interest between workers and management. Workers were thus supposed to “trust” management, after all “our interests are the same.” This was however, rhetoric as illustrated by the following three examples. First, though management called on workers to accept responsibility for their actions, executive management resisted attempts to be held accountable to worker-owners. In fact on occasion executives spent $7 million of the company’s funds to purchase insurance that would protect them from the consequences of acts of gross negligence they committed!
19. DonS | October 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 am
RE -post ” SPEEA member | October 1st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“Ray Goforth is an Evergreen-educated socialist who is trying to make a name for himself on the backs of the hard-working men and women of Boeing’s engineering ranks. His confrontational rhetoric serves no purpose in what should be a facts-and-data-driven negotiation process.”
Perhaps Mr SPEEA member might want to closely examine the FACTS and DATA about previous negotiations, and just what Mr Goforths position in negotiations really is.
1) He has NO vote at the table
2) His job is to SUPPORT the Team and the members, and NOT to set policy, and to work AT the direction of the E_Bored( not a typo ).
3) He is NOT elected by the members.
4) Her is NOT an ex-boeing employee double or triple dipping in pension plans from Boeing- Teamsters- and SPEEA.
negotiation process.”
Perhaps Mr SPEEA member might want to closely examine the FACTS and DATA about previous negotiations, and just what Mr Goforths position in negotiations really is.
1) He has NO vote at the table
2) His job is to SUPPORT the Team and the members, and NOT to set policy, and to work AT the direction of the E_Bored( not a typo ).
3) He is NOT elected by the members.
4) Her is NOT an ex-boeing employee double or triple dipping in pension plans from Boeing- Teamsters- and SPEEA.
5) His job is NOT to be the ‘ country’s best negotiator ‘ as was incorrectly claimed by the Boffia types who still make up a majority of the Board, the negotiation team, and effective control the SPEEA Council
The above is his job description - and in conformance with SPEEA Governing Documents. He is NOT the self proclaimed Emperor of SPEEA as was Bofferding.
5) His job is NOT to be the ‘ country’s best negotiator ‘ as was incorrectly claimed by the Boffia types who still make up a majority of the Board, the negotiation team, and effective control the SPEEA Council
As I said in my first post in this thread
. DonS | October 1st, 2008 at 7:16 am
I will congratulate Mr Goforth for his efforts to fix the organizational and financial train-wreck left by his predecessor, while at the same time putting forward some rational comments about the current impasse with IAM, which will probably carry over to SPEEA negotiations. ‘
OTOH - MR/MS SPEEA Member, you might want to ask about the kissy-face approach used by Mr Bofferding when dealing with Boeing. When the going got tough- Boffo took a dive. he was against the strike, he rolled over in the 2005 regarding benefits, and tried to sellout the membership with the Pension Value Plan. Ever wonder why ? ASK ms Cole, Mr Rice, Mr McCarty, and the other members of the 2008 team who were also on the 2005 team.
How many of the Team members KNEW that had they gone for the PVP plan, the previous 10 year limit on pension plan accrual while working for the union would have been removed ?
http://tinyurl.com/25t94s
AS it was, Boeing did award during the 2005 negotiations a leather jacket ( takes 40 years of service ) to Boffo, AND about 5 years EXTRA of pension credits- worth over $ 100,000 lifetime benefits ! Dont believe me - ASK Ms Cole, ASK Mr Rice - who believed it was good negotiations on behalf of SPEEA ! ASK Tom McCarty who believes as claimed by Boeing - such awards are private.
IN fact - it WAS a BRIBE - A FELONY !
I doubt that Ray G will ever earn a leather jacket from Boeing, and I know he will not get a free ride pension from Boeing.
Now whom would you rather have on your side ?
Don Shuper
And this is the team you want again
20. Dave1 | October 2nd, 2008 at 6:28 am
Pardon my intrussion into your thread here but I have a couple of questions I would like to ask.. and No I am neither part of BA or the union. I am sure someone in your govt. sales dept. notified the contracting officer/ Government inspector advising them that there were going to be delivery problems as out-lined in the Basic Ordering Agreement. As I do recall a similiar thing happened when the Milton Roy Co. did a similiar thing… STRIKE….. As best I recall delay in delivery / performance on any given government procurement, IS NOT AN ACT OF GOD. So, maybe you all might want to rethink the position you have taken.
Another idea/ thought is the fact .. everyone as well as myself have issue’s / and major concerns when it comes to “outsourcing” consider the FAR Part 46 as it relates to Qyality Assurance and then does that mean if you workers ever decide to fly you might consider a different method of travel.
No I do not think just anyone hired could build a plane.. I know I couldn’t, but I think both management of BA as well as the striker’s should make all efforts to reach a FAIR and reasonable Resolution to this. After 5 weeks at what 100 / 150 million loss of revenue a day.. Someone have an adding machine…
Thanks for the time
21. mike j | October 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 am
It is the truth, where Mr Goforth says “…Boeing is confusing Public Relations with Collective Bargining…” a strategy where they go public with all our (IAM) contract money numbers in order to put public pressure on IAM members, and now SPEEA members.
So as a counter-stragety for unions IAM and SPEEA, I recommend go public with all the Boeing Exec’s salaries and all the negotiating each did to accept their current positions… might find it interesting how wide the gap is.
Other than that, I will maintain that another delay was about to be announced for the 787, so Boeing wanted IAM strike to make a handy excuse for their own management blunders on the entire 787 program…
22. DonS | October 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
For mike J -Only the salaries of the top 5 execs in boeing are public information, as are their share holdings. Other execs with significant share holdings can also be found in SEC filings, as well as the contracts of the Top execs. The rest are guarded only slightly less than the actual cost figures of a given aircraft model.
For dave 1 - I am not sure, but on most large government contracts with Boeing and other Aerospace prime contracts, there are similar clauses to the commercial contracts. Exceptions can be made for genuine national defense items, but it is not trivial to make that call. For the government to take away an employees right to withhold labor from an abusive contractor would be a serious violation of rights.
For others re the Boeing arrogance and the type of people still on the SPEEA 2008 negotiation team, the following should be of interest. ASK the people noted via email and/or at the coming council meeting, and forward the answers you get to jedavies42@gmail.com - one of my friends email addresses since my regular ones are blocked by Boeing.
From several Nov 30, 2007 emails
Dear Former Prof and Tech Negotiation Team Members,
Can you tell me whether Charles Bofferding was presented a 25-year service award by Boeing during the 2005 contract negotiations?
I did not attend the contract signing so I couldn’t tell you one way
or the other. Why do you ask ? Larry Marrell
But since you asked I will say that while I do not have specific
recall of “when” it occurred, I do know that any SPEEA member on a
union LOA continues to earn years of service - and I think that is an
admirable gesture on Boeing’s part (and darn nice negotiating on
SPEEA’s part). Alan Rice
Yes, near the end of main table discussions. I definitely recall the
presentation of a bomber jacket, and I believe there was also a
plaque. I think someone took pictures of the occasion (Karen?).
Dave Baine
I will not disclose or discuss any individual’s personal information
that has come to my attention by virtue of any position that I have
held at SPEEA. Tom McCarty
I really don’t understand what Mike is trying to ask/suggest.
Is he trying to say I threw the negotiations for a leather jacket? How
absurd. This is a specious question . . . So, to help us move on, I don’t mind saying I received both a 20 and a 25 year award near the appropriate times (I hired into Boeing in August 1980 and so I got awards near 2000 and 2005). However, the last one came from St Louis because, as an IDS employee on leave my “organization lines” were through St Louis - and I don’t really remember exactly when it came.
C Bofferding
October 2008 - Check the Boeing Blues system for Bofferding.
It takes approval by both the Union and by Boeing for such an extended leave of absence.
Why hasn’t SPEEA and Boeing cancelled their approval of LOA for Bofferding ?
Ask Doug Kight and Mike Denton, they were both there in 2005
See also http://tinyurl.com/4d5gpq
23. Doug McVitie | October 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 am
Spectacular how petulant and myopic most IAM strikers are being here (with the key exception of Mr Shuper, who demonstrates a far greater knowledge of the aerospace industry’s fundamentals and the futile reality of this strike than the rest comnined).
“I AM ON STRIKE!” should be worn as a badge of failure, not of pride. Boeing senior management could buy 27,000 mirrors and send one to each striker with a simple warning printed on the box: “Use of this product leads to disappointment.”
Grow up, people.
24. Michael Anderson | October 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Doug McVitie was an X-Scarebus marketing manager.
Big damn deal. Doug, of course you’re not going to like hourly employees represented by a union, you’re a manager. You’re just another person that skims off
other businesses by calling yourself an “aerospace
consultant.” Wow…big title. What do you produce?
The answer is: nothing. Just a bunch of intangible gibberish that you market to other companies who think their getting an important service. It’s just more bloody overhead. No go look in your Hubble sized mirror and see that the real disappointment is staring back at you.
25. BOEING777 | October 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Doug McVitie was NOT a marketing manager at Airbus.
I have worked with Doug for a long time and can vouch for that.
Doug’s role as a consultant is far better than that of some other notable pretenders in the WA State area.
Those who have had the privilege of working with him would know that.
26. mike j | October 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
A DUMB WISH:
I wish CEOs, Senators, Politicians, Presidents, and many many many other Top Brass weren’t so corrupt…
Look at all the mess they’re creating- throughout the entire world, and especial the USA.
It is as if they all WANT (and are trying desperately with all their might) to destroy everything around them.
Talk about total insanity at the top!!! Destroy destroy destroy is pretty much the outcome of most of their schemes.
How wonderful this world might be if the above weren’t so.
But THAT is merely a dumb dream of the average worker on planet earth who happens also to be on strike with and for the IAM.
27. Michael Anderson | October 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Doug McVitie, MA
Founder & Chief Consultant
Arran Aerospace
Member of the Industrial Council
Doug McVitie is Founder and Chief Consultant at Arran Aerospace, a firm providing consulting services in the aerospace and defense industry. Prior, Mr. McVitie was Director of Sales Intelligence at Airbus in Toulouse, France. He has spent more than 28 years in the aerospace industry around the world. In 1996, Mr. McVitie founded Arran Aerospace, a Scottish-based consultancy providing aerospace and defense marketing and sales intelligence to industry, governments, financial institutions and other parties worldwide. Arran Aerospace has been quoted in more than 250 newspapers and magazines and Mr McVitie is regularly asked to contribute to televsion and radio programmes on aerospace and defence matters. He holds an MA from the University of Glasgow. Among his specialist commercial aerospace subjects are the current and future outlook for and aircraft of EADS/Airbus and Boeing, the importance of the aftermarket/MRO sector and supply-chain management. (This is me - Update Profile)
28. DonS | October 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Re mr mcVitie comments “23. Doug McVitie | October 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 am who said - -
Spectacular how petulant and myopic most IAM strikers are being here (with the key exception of Mr Shuper, who demonstrates a far greater knowledge of the aerospace industry’s fundamentals and the futile reality of this strike than the rest comnined). _-
On one hand I appreciate his comments about my knowledge- :), but I also believe he missed my points regarding the strike. IMO - the strike is the result of the arrogant and unethical practices of Boeing. And it need not be futile- IF both the IAM and the SPEEA .negotiators drop the charade of ‘top gun” negotiators and get some qualified ‘back room ‘ help to counter the Boeing back room types. Boeing is currently winning the PR game with skewed ‘ cost’ numbers, and the union(S) are dropping the ball by not refuting the Boeing PR point by point. Until such time as Boeing publishes the real controlling documents instead of a BS executive summary, and Until the Unions step up and force that issue - the ripoffs will continue.
By way of explaining to Mr McVitie and others who are unaware of my background, I’ll give a thumbnail explanation
I am not an IAM member on strike. I retired from Boeing in 1995 as Registered Professional Engineer with 32 years of Boeing service all of which was as a mechanical engineer in research, manufacturing, commercial and military. I have been a certified paralegal since 1996 and a Boeing shareholder and shareholder/employee activist since the early 1980’s.
I have assisted employees around the country regarding pension plan legal documents, and participated by phone in a July 2000 meeting of employee-retiree activists in Washington DC with senior DOL and Treasury Officals. This later resulted in a federal regulation which allows the EBSA to get plan documents on behalf of employees who get stonewalled by companies such as Boeing.
http://dukeemployees.com/duke3qt2000.shtml#smith
I have had 4 shareholder proposals regarding pension and compensation issues published and voted on in Boeing annual meetings, each of which gained 50 to 60 million positive votes. You can find the details in the Boeing proxy statements (DEF14)-for the years 2001 through 2004.
Billions in state subsidies have been mentioned, but always ignored is the eventual return of those dollars to the economy of the U.S. and Washington State. Equivalent or greater amounts in the same time frame were generated by the Pension surplus which went into Operating earnings. That was the same time period in which several thousand Boeing employees were dismissed. From Boeing annual reports for 2000 to 2003, typically in pages 40 to 44, you can find that 1.87 BILLION dollars were included in Operating earnings.
Better earnings translate into better management raises and perks which get us back to the ongoing ‘ sky is falling ‘ inference by Boeing as to the real effects of labor increases.
Few realize how Boeing and other companies use benefits as a profit center - both medical and pension.
I suggest that everyone read about some of the real issues by reviewing the House hearings at
http://edlabor.house.gov/hearings/fc-2008-09-25.shtml
and especially those of Norman Stein Douglas Arant Professor of Law University of Alabaman at that site
an alternate link to avoid truncation is
http://tinyurl.com/3q5ysq
Don
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed