Right-to-Work, Creepy and Right-to-Worse in Washington State

No column we’ve written has gotten more attention outside the blogosphere than the one in which we concluded that if Washington State is to truly become competitive with the South, it needs to become a Right-to-Work state.

Gov. Jay Inslee responded indirectly to the suggestion, via The Puget Sound Business Journal (it ain’t gonna happen). A leader of the engineer’s union for Boeing, Stan Sorscher of SPEEA, wrote an Op-Ed column in which he linked our column and in the next sentence said it was “creepy.” We exchanged emails with Sorscher, and he said he didn’t mean we are creepy—just the idea. The president of IAM 751, the local for Boeing, Tom Wroblewski, niftily called the idea Right-to-Worse. Several labor websites and newsletters reprinted the Sorscher and  Wroblewski columns.

We occupy an interesting position in our role as an observer and pontificator in aerospace, and in Washington State, where we live. We’re not beholden to any company or special interest here, nor are we any longer on the Board of Directors of any trade group (thus we now can say what we really think). Our only interest is the growth of the aerospace sector here. We consulted to the state Department of Commerce for 18 months, until budget cuts in 2011, recommending strategies and policies. “Beyond Boeing” and seeking a suppliers fair with Airbus for our state’s aerospace businesses were among the recommendations we made.

We watched as the SPEEA and IAM 751 members essentially bailed out Boeing (“saved Boeing’s ass” is how we put it to the Puget Sound Business Journal) during the 787 and 747-8 design and production debacles. We watched while IAM 751 struck Boeing for 58 days in 2008 and SPEEA worked to defeat Boeing’s contract offer this year.

We’ve watched as Boeing placed 787 line 2 in South Carolina (our view is that this was retaliation for the 2008 IAM strike, which Boeing steadfastly denies—and which we don’t believe for an instant). We’ve watched as Boeing cut jobs in Information Technology and with engineers, outsourcing these to non-union states. We firmly believe Boeing Chicago is waging war on the unions, with the weaker SPEEA union firmly in its sights first.

In this totality and context, we came to the conclusion that Washington State needs to make some major revisions in its approach to labor—if it wants to be competitive with non-union states. Boeing has made it abundantly clear it will move jobs from unionized Washington State—the fourth-most unionized state in the nation, IAM 751 boasted in advance of its 2008 strike.

Unions would rather have no jobs than non-union jobs. Our basic view is that nobody should be forced to join any group in order to have a job. If a work force in any company votes to organize, fine. But anyone who wants to work should be free to work. Here in the Seattle area, unions are working against two projects valued at close to $1bn because they fear non-union jobs will be attached to the businesses or construction. We think this is just nuts. This is another reason Washington State needs to become Right-to-Work. These economic-drivers will create direct and indirect jobs (some of which will almost certainly be union, since at the least garbage collectors are unionized). To actively lobby against these projects and deny jobs to those who want them and positive economic impact for the Seattle area is simply an eye-rolling moment.

Aerospace jobs are moving out of the state because Boeing is moving them to non-union areas. This State lost attracting companies in the past because the State is the fourth most unionized state in the nation.

The IAM’s Tom Wroblewski pointed to Idaho as having lower wages because it’s non-union. We think Idaho has lower wages because…it’s Idaho. There isn’t a lot there to recommend it, really, despite some truly attractive areas. Among the detriments: it’s long been a pocket for neo-Nazis and skin-heads. (We are braced for the hate mail on this one.) And unionization isn’t a guarantee the state’s education system is going to be funded as it should be, as Wroblewski infers. Washington, the fourth most unionized state in the nation, has been underfunding education for decades. Former Boeing CEO Frank Shrontz was complaining about this in his day, in the early 1990s. Only this year, after the State Supreme Court, ordered the Legislature to more properly fund education did it step up and do so.

We acknowledge the sterling work of SPEEA and IAM 751 members—as we said, they saved Boeing’s ass—but Washington has to compete with the Southern States. Being the fourth most unionized state in the nation isn’t the way to do it.

57 Comments on “Right-to-Work, Creepy and Right-to-Worse in Washington State

  1. So they should join the race to the bottom because There Is No Alternative? By the way, is anyone counting how much financial success is this plan to defeat employees and relocate the business to South? I think there was something from Boeing that showed it was losing proposition even before the 787 program got into big troubles. This push is driven by ideology, by desire of the management to have total control over employees and over the whole company with absolutely no opposition. Which, given the management track record, will only drag Boeing down.

    I don’t understand the big hoping that Airbus will break free from states influence and will unleash the cool-headed no-nonsense financially-driven rational managers. As if people can’t wait when instead of running business of producing planes the management will start to play states and employees against each other just to cash big bonuses and hide their own failings.

    • “the cool-headed no-nonsense financially-driven rational managers”
      This is an oxymoron.

      Integration into the surrounding (political) society is what makes Airbus the saner organisation.
      There is some strong inhibition working against them to f*k with their environment like the way Boeing seems to go.
      ( And the result is that Airbus/EADS are focused on longer range objectives. And I am actually against converting Airbus/EADS to an unleashed capitalist entity.)

      Radicalisation of the less qualified results from lack of work, income and perspective.
      ( i.e. give them work and a peacefull place and they will turn into bog standard conservatives )

      • Airbus is setting up shop in the US state of Alabama, which is a RTW state. They could have chosen Washington state, or any of the other 48 US states, both unionized and RTW. But unionization was just one of the factors in their decision of where to build their FAL.

        • US style unions imho appear to be unfit for a modern society by design.

          Is there any significant eurocontrolled manufacturing presence in one of the states that have mandatory unionisation ? ( How do the Japanese manufacturers handle this? )

          • Japanese manufactures usually set up shop in TN, IN, TX and other RTW states. But there are a few in union states, too.

      • I’d be amazed if Airbus considered any union state. Certainly ‘discuss’ setting up in one with state authorities etc to get a feel for deals, play one against another, but never actually go there. It’s crazy to cede control over fixed costs when there is no need to.

      • – – – – – Uwe
        US style unions imho appear to be unfit for a modern society by design. – – – – –

        Perhaps we might want to look at the education, poverty, health, teen pregnancy, and suicide rates in South Carolina and Alabama as compared to Washington State, Massachusetts, etc? Just a thought.

        • Isn’t that differential due to historic precendent with the southern US
          lagging the northern states significantly ( “internal 3rd world” )
          starting to catch up in recent decades?

          Teen pregnancies tend to be driven by class differentiation and lack of (sex)education.
          ( that again tends to be forced by religious rightwingers )

          The richer states in the US appear to travel onwards by momentum.

    • You are (unfortunately) right. That race to the bottom is not good for the US economy at large. The only one that will temporarily benefit are the happy few big shareholders of Boeing but that will not last.
      This is sad

      • I don’t see this as a ‘race to the bottom’. Big unions helped to run big companies into the ground. Look at GM and Chrysler, both came very close to closing their doors forever. Look at Eastern Airlines, unions did put it out of business, and their members out of work. Look at all the companies that have filed for bankruptcy in the past 15 years, US (twice), AA, DL, UA, CO, F9, etc. and that is just the airlines. There are other companies, too, and in other industries.
        In these companies, it was a ‘race for survival’.

      • kc135topboom :
        I don’t see this as a ‘race to the bottom’. Big unions helped to run big companies into the ground. Look at GM and Chrysler, both came very close to closing their doors forever. Look at Eastern Airlines, unions did put it out of business, and their members out of work. Look at all the companies that have filed for bankruptcy in the past 15 years, US (twice), AA, DL, UA, CO, F9, etc. and that is just the airlines.

        The way this reads is that in all those cases, it was chiefly or solely the unions that drove the companies into the ground (or nearly did so).
        If something sounds too convenient to be true, it usually is.

        Having said that, I certainly don’t mean to say that unions can’t do wrong. They can. But so can management.
        Overall, I think having a powerful representation of workers’ rights and interests is essential in keeping a balance of power. Sure, that can be a huge nuisance for companies and shareholders – but don’t forget that employees are stakeholders in the future of a company as well, and stock shareholder value isn’t the be-all and end-all in a society.
        I have to admit to hanging on to the naive idea that, while they’re profit-oriented, companies also have the obligation to serve society/the community (otherwise, generating profits just becomes a self-serving principle), and to respect workers’ rights and interests just as much as they do shareholders’.
        Still not a very popular idea, curiously, considering where an increasingly single-minded focus on quarterly results and driving down wages and union influence got us.

        Uwe :
        “the cool-headed no-nonsense financially-driven rational managers”
        This is an oxymoron.

        😀

        Uwe :
        Integration into the surrounding (political) society is what makes Airbus the saner organisation.
        I’m not so sure about “saner”. Some of the politics surrounding the electing on the heads of Airbus and EADS respectively did seem a bit silly. Then again, none of that was able to halt Airbus’ rise to what it is today.
        Also, Boeing beat Airbus hands-down in the field of management feck-ups when you look at how the whole 787 project was initially planned and implemented – and how it was handled when it became clear that delays were unavoidable. And it really wasn’t the unions to blame here – they helped save Boeing’s ass, as Scott put it.

        Uwe :
        There is some strong inhibition working against them to f*k with their environment like the way Boeing seems to go.
        ( And the result is that Airbus/EADS are focused on longer range objectives. And I am actually against converting Airbus/EADS to an unleashed capitalist entity.)

        I’d actually agree, because I think – see above – some checks and balances between a company’s interest and workers/society’s interest should always be in place. Not forgetting that Airbus wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for politics deciding that there is a need for a strong European competitor to McDD and Boeing.
        The trick then that differentiated Airbus from British Leyland, BAC, the Soviet manufacturers and COMAC these days was to give Airbus enough free leash to actually be able to respond to the market, rather than having every project dictated by politics.

    • I haven’t read much about this but surely if Boeing are trying to ‘defeat’ anyone/anything, it is a couple of Unions, not employees, isn’t it?

      As for ‘race to the bottom’ it could equally be argued it is a ‘race to the top’.

      I can’t see reduced state ownership in Airbus making any significant difference to where components are built or assembly lines located on any current line. Might influence where a 320 successor is assembled (anyone for Mobile?) but I guess it is mainly about being able to make quicker decisions, access to funding, reducing time/money spent on WTO squabbles etc.

  2. Companies, large and small, are in business for just one thing, to make money. Boeing is no exception to this, it is to make money for the stock holders. Employees, both union and non-union are part of the cost of doing business. Employees fill all kinds of jobs within a company, from non-skilled entry level to highly skilled.
    Unions add to their membership through recruiting (and sometimes intimidation), contracts, and their ability to gain higher pay and better benefits. But most labor contracts nearly never get all of what a union wants, the same is true for the company. The contract ends up being a compromise between the union and the company.
    Non-union employees are attracted to jobs at a company because of the pay and benefits offered. These are offered in the hopes of employees not accepting membership in a union in RTW states.
    Any company wants to reduce the cost of doing business to the lowest point possible. They also want to offer the highest quality product possible for the cost of that products, whether it is widgets or airplanes. Their customers demand the products sold to them are at the lowest price possible. This is always true no matter if the customer itself is heavierly unionized, or not. It is always about the companies bottom line and RTW states help in a small way in achieving that goal.
    A great well written and balanced story, Scott.

    • Companies, large and small, are in business for just one thing, to make money. Boeing is no exception to this, it is to make money for the stock holders. Employees, both union and non-union are part of the cost of doing business.

      That’s not true. Public companies are creation of state and by extension of people. If their purpose was to enrich couple of men and let everyone else worse off there is no reason why people should give them preferential law, tax and other treatment.

      It is always about the companies bottom line and RTW states help in a small way in achieving that goal.

      Do they? What may look like sure way to success – strong arm people to work more for less and not question wise men’s orders – might run into the complexities of reality. The recent attempts of Boeing management are nice example. When I look at the history of Boeing or Airbus, I see no evidence that such approach brings long term benefits. In fact it looks like it isn’t producing even short term benefits.

      • A “public company” is a company that sold stock to the public. They are not a “creation of the state”.
        But the bottom line also applies to public entities. Look at what PATCO tried with the FAA back in 1982. Their demands put them out of a job, President Reagan fired them.

        • Risk isolation and rights similar to a person in form of a corporation/public company is a privilege granted by the state as representative of the sovereign ( the whole population in a democracy ).
          With the original reasoning being that this is beneficial for this society as a whole. ( same for copyright, patents and other privileges.)
          Thus these entities exist by grace of the state.
          .. and they do not exist to enable raping the community as a whole or select major or minor groups inside this society.

      • There may or may not be a historical basis in the formation of a ‘company’ being a privilege (in Boeing’s case, when has the U.S.A. ever had a Sovereign?) Uwe, but the principle point about a company is that it allows an entity to exist separate from and beyond the lifetime of its founder(s). Public as in ‘public company’ refers, just as kc135 says, to the fact that ownership is offered to the public in general through being traded on an exchange. Hence the existence of both private (not tradedon exchanges) and public (traded on exchanges) forms of companies, as well as partnership forms. Outside the US, examples include the AG vs GmbH in Germany, and PLC vs Ltd. in the UK.

      • Uwe pointed that out: “sovereign ( the whole population in a democracy)”. The sovereign does not necessarily need to be a monarch or similar, although that is the historic meaning of the word.

        See also: Wikipedia Sovereign State

    • “Companies, large and small, are in business for just one thing, to make money. Boeing is no exception to this, it is to make money for the stock holders.”

      Ever heard of the dotcom bubble? All sorts of companies that weren’t making any money at all but the stocks sure looked good, until all of a sudden, they didn’t an longer.

      Boeing ist still making money through sales but you can see that the stock is much higher than where it really should be with what has been happening there with the 787 for the last few years. My fear would be that, sooner or later, the “stock speculators” will no longer consider it a sure bet. I am betting on later or maybe even not at all but one never knows.

      It is no surprise the unions, and hence, the governor are not keen with Scott’s suggestion. They are going to fight such an action until the bitter end and then if it happens, deal with it when it comes. They certainly aren’t going to see it as a good idea if it has any negative impact on the influence of the unions within the state.

      • “Boeing isn’t making money through sales”

        Really? Where are your figures and data to back up that statement. The quarterly reports disagree with you. Boeing is in fact doing quite well.

  3. The idea that people who benefit from a collectively bargained contract can, under the law, be compelled to have some small part of their pay diverted to the bargaining unit as a “fair share fee” – strictly limited to covering the bargaining units costs of negotiation – does not seem unfair to me. Whether that is the exact effect of Washington’s implementation of labor laws or not, I do not know.

    Right to work is, to my mind, fairly labelled as a race to the bottom initiative because the policy is pursued with an aim to overturn the incentive balance that allows unions to function. Where right to work laws are implemented in this country, unions whither away and employees lose protections, both in the workplace and in their government.

    The bigger question for Washington state, though, I think, is whether Boeing’s employment in the state will collapse faster as a result of the Chicago leaderships’ hostility or its incompetence. It looks to me like the latter is the larger threat at the moment, but I’m not sure what the governor is supposed to do about that.

    • union dues aren’t the point of malfunction afaics.

      The unions as an inside defacto subcontractor have a monopoly on jobs.
      Not a member : no job.
      This limits individual persons freedom of contract.
      The system does not have a balancing mechanism.
      ( see how unions can founder a workplace with easy )

      apropos.

      Can US unions deny membership to applicants ?

      • I have never heard of a union denying someone who wants to join their membership, Uwe. In the US, union bosses make hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, and they get unbelievable perks. Unions make money off membership dues, which in some cases is hundreds of dollars per month per union member. Unions are big money in the US.

        There is a saying here in the US (and I think in the EU, too), “if you want to know the true story, follow the money”. This is true not only for the company, but for the union too.

  4. You can’t make an happy product with angry workers.
    Behind these hands there are families stories and commitments. Failing to honor these hands is a gross mistake. Bring the Managment on night shift duty to earn its priviledges.
    There is not need of unions in a very educate ant honest work environment. A successifull company has a strong professional human resources department.

  5. OH boy – here we go. As a former SPEEA member and very much involved in union issues for a long time- I’m going to put my .00001 cents in. As to right to work issues- its really a mixed bag. IMHO- the real problem with right to work is the tendency for the unions to hide-obfuscate- and take advantage of the ‘ right to tax’ employees under the right to work mantra. At the same time , the BS about ‘ required membership” put out by the anti union types serves to stir up the folks and the old time trade union games is usede as an excuse to avoid unions. Such as a carpenter cannot pick up a wrench, and a mechanic cannot pick up a saw or chisel, etc ad naseuam. So let me try to put a few facts on the table here.

    1) In a right to work state- one does NOT have to be a member- aka ‘ closed shop “( which has been illegal for decades.

    2) One does have to pay dues or a fraction of dues to work. essentially there are four categories of ‘ dues’ involved, only one which is to be a member with voting rights.

    A) regular dues- membership- voting- company deducts
    B) Agency fee- ( in this state same as dues) no membership or voting rights- company deducts
    C) Beck Objector – reduced rate of dues- around 80 percent of regular dues- BUT must be paid by person at least quarterly
    D) Religious Objector – no dues paid to union- BUT equivalent must be paid ( with receipt furnished to union ) to a NON religious charity/non profit approved by the IRS.

    BTW – the WASH STATE teachers union- and the STATE Supreme Court got their *** in a wringer years ago by deciding and enforcing their version of the first amendment by claiming that UNION first amendement rights overrode personal first amendment rights regarding choice of participating or not participating inn an organization by making it a requirement to opt out of paying full dues ONLY during a narrow time window, and to do that every year. SCOTUS was unanimous in explaining that to State Supremes, etc ( WEA v Davenport et al 2006 )

    3) Unfortunately – unions do NOT publicize the B,C,and D issues and requirements very much. One must ask, and then ususally the details will be provided.

    4) IMHO – its only fair that NON members pay for some of the protections provided by a union, which MUST provide ALL bargaining unit members with the same services and protections ( member or not )

    5) The real problem comes with the political games played, wherein the members are rarely surveyed or asked or have a vote as to how /who the union supports. BTW- SPEEA does NOT *** directly **** support any candidate or party- but indirectly about 1/2 million/year goes to AFL-CIO for non union business :-P. This is done thru IFPTE membership fees of which 30 to 40 percent go to AFL CIO for NON UNION issues. Data can be found in an obscure form/so called audit known as a ” beck audit” put out by both SPEEA and IFPTE.
    How the split between UNION business and NON UNION business is made is subject to a LOT of m fuzzy interpretation ( at least at SPEEA ).

    6) In the case of SPEEA, until 1999-2000, they were an independent union, and got along reasonably well with boeing. Then came the Harry stonecipher crowd, a strike, and SPEEA joining the IFPTE-AFL_CIO. And as a result Agency fee was voted in- with a promise promptly ignored/forgotten of lowering dues.

    Instead, a major bonus ( about 20%) was eventually handed out to the then Executive Director. And the rest is history.

    So what can/should be done ?

    IMHO- instead of trying to play directly and indirectly political games and expand into other areas- unionsx should spend more time and funds explaining what they can offer and protect employees from abusing the members and workers, and in the generalo area of politics, give members/ agency fee payers a real voice in issues ( via a plebicite?) affecting them.

    And somehow- increasing true participation in union/company issues instead of the 80 percent apathy figures-

    AND being much more open as to issues and finances !!

    (Steps down off soapbox )

  6. Scott :
    Unions would rather have no jobs than non-union jobs.

    If it is true that – as you claim – Boeing is waging a war against unions, it seems Boeing would rather have no jobs than union jobs.
    I don’t have particular sympathies for either position, to be honest.

    True, if I don’t want to be part of a group/union, I shouldn’t be forced to join.
    Equally true in my eyes is the opposite: If I do want to join a group/union (or remain a member of one) nobody should be able to force me to not do so.

    • I made money on the dotcom bubble. I also own some Boeing stock. Yes, the value of the stock will (most likely) drop in the next few years. Want to know what I plan to do? I plan on buying up some of those devalued shares. As far as Boeing is concerned, even then I will still be a small investor. I know I will never be able to own millions of shares, but maybe several thousands will do just fine for me. Boeing has a lot of current and future projects, and only the B-787 and B-747-8 lines are currently loosing money. Even the B-767 line is still making a little money for Boeing. The future (for Boeing) is in the KC-46, B-737MAX, B-777X, B-777X, and possibly the NSA.

    • There are union jobs in RTW states. All RTW says is you don’t have to join the union if you don’t want to.

      Boeing wants workers, they just don’t want to have to deal with unions. What is wrong with that?

      • One does NOT have to join a union in a right to work state, or a ” non” right to work state.

        In a non right to work state _ IF the company has a union- and IF the union requires AGENCY FEE to cover UNION business/costs , then one must pay dues or equivalent -or in some cases dues less non union costs. ( BECK OBJECTORS )

        Companies like Boeing usually will only deduct a fixed amount of dues specified by the union – member or not ( depending on state law ). For those who wish to pay less, they must pay personally, or as explained in my other post no dues to union but an equivalent amount to charity . . .

        There is no question that most unions abuse the agency fee process, and rarely publish the alternatives- but will explain ONLY if asked . .

        What one gets for being a member is the right to vote on contracts, and to vote for union officers. ( But not the STAFF ) All other benefits are the same for members/non members.

        But just like the great american low information voter, the majority of the members are apathetic about voting ( except for contract issues) – thus allowing the elected officers to feather their own nests no different than certain managers of large companies.

        I refer to those members/voters as ” Snooze and Losers “

  7. Really people? Boeing is company controlled by greedy corporate officers. Greedy corporate officers care more about what they can personally take from the company than the long-term health of a company or the workers and locales that made the company what it is. The US auto industry did not get killed by the unions, but by greedy CEOs and CFOs (some earning a million dollars a day) that could not be bothered to notice that they needed to compete with Japanese cars that were fuel efficient and actully worked.

    The idiocy of the right to work states v. union states is that it really is about CEO’s and their henchmen making more money, not improving the competitiveness of the product. My God, Boeing competes with a French company that pays twice as much tax and pays a unionized workforce to boot and it manages to compete head to head with Boeing. Compare the executive salaries of the respective companies and ask yourself whether the move of Boeings corporate offices to Chicago had anything to do with anything other than the convenience for the CEO.

    Rich capitalist will always pit the citiznes of one state against another. Don’t fall for it.

    • You couldn’t be more wrong, Traynor. The object of RTW states is to attract more companies that will provide employment for its citizens.
      Do you really believe the citizens of RTW states would keep on voting the politicians back into office if all they supported was rich, greedy CEOs?

      • Well, if in doing so they are convinced they are simultaneously spiting northerners and taking jobs that they could not otherwise attract on the basis of their education, infrastructure, or attainment, you betcha.

        Not to mention that a too-often overlooked function of unions in the U.S. has been to fight for rights and protections for all workers — union or otherwise. As long as unions still exercise political power in states where they have not yet been routed, it will take time to roll all of that back. In the meantime even our friends in RTW states continue to enjoy those union won protections, so the deal does not seem half as bad as it eventually will.

        • Currently, union membership among all US employees is less than 14%, and dropping. Clearly it is employees in large numbers who are rejecting unions. This has happened in all 50 states, not just southern or RTW states.

    • If you look into the history of the US automotive industry decline it is certainly true that management failed to spot people switching to more suitable product (mainly Japanese product) but it is also true that excessive demands by Unions pushed the cost base beyond the point where any business could succeed.

      Pay inequality (ie how any senior management can be justified in awarding themselves remuneration at multiples of hundreds+ what entry level) certainly sours attitudes to management and rightly so, but it is no more self serving than the attitude of many Unions. I’d argue that both groups behave badly.

      What Unionisation does very badly though, and management is irrelevant to, is making it too expensive for the risk takers who create the companies that emply everyone else to set up their enterprises.

    • I would venture that a large contributor is the pension obligations that the companies owed retired workers. In many other countries (e.g. most European) this money is paid to the state that manages those funds for the employed, at rates and tariffes that are decided for the nation as a whole not on a company-by-company level.

      These obligations eventually became large enough to be a financial drag on the companies’ books and to increase the fixed costs of the company enough to make the total production cost non-competitive.

      It is true that taxes are higher in Europe, but not by an extreme amount on the company side. The difference in taxes is in my view more than offset by the pension obligations. The newer US system of 401K plans seems to work better as the pension obligations are off the companies books (owned and managed by the worker, sometimes via a 3rd party company enrolled for the purpose).

      On the worker side, the tax is higher, but you get health care, education (also on uni level), etc so you need less to get by. But his is another discussion.

  8. Well, I can say that the more difficult it will get to have a willing and able labor force, the more companies will spent on replacing them with robots. Painting whole airplanes seems to be a starting point according to Boeing. How many man hours will be lost there to these robots that seem to do the painting faster and with no complaint and lunch brake?
    What will be the Union’s response to that?

  9. So if Boeing is doing such a poor job doing things, if unions make better companies, go out to kickstarter, and get funding to start a new jet making company, and compete, and put Boeing out of business.
    The problem here is that unions want employees to get large benefits packages, management wants huge bonuses, and shareholders want big value growth, and or dividends. The customers want cheap products too… Something has to give, and until Boeing has more competition they won’t change.
    If you want more unionization, leave and go work for BBD or Embraer. Small climate change, but you’ll get the benefits you want.

  10. Uwe :
    union dues aren’t the point of malfunction afaics.
    The unions as an inside defacto subcontractor have a monopoly on jobs.
    Not a member : no job.
    This limits individual persons freedom of contract.
    The system does not have a balancing mechanism.
    ( see how unions can founder a workplace with easy )
    apropos.
    Can US unions deny membership to applicants ?

    ***** UWE_ please get off the BS re membership and jobs – ****

    1) For over 50 years in the U.S, a so called ‘ closed shop ” – requireing membership in a union to get or keep- a job has been illegal.

    2) What can be required is to pay dues or dues equivalents ( without membership ) to maintain a job in right to work states for companies who do have union representation. The concept is called AGENCY FEE. the dues equivalents are to pay for the ‘ true’ costs of union protection of employees against physical and mental abuse by employers, negotiating contracts and benefits, and sometimes defending employees against improper terminations, etc.

    3) There is more MISS- INFORMATION about Seniority issues than facts re unions.

    4) In some very narrow cases and circumstances, unions can deny membership and or ability to hold office- mainly around criminal convictions and/or inability to meet job requirements of the employer ( not really an issue since employer usually would not hire them anyway. )

    5) Please do NOT confuse the screw-ups of public employees unions with those of private sector unions – which are in the news nowdays

    Management often/usually gets the unions they deserve.

  11. Well, this is definitely interesting. Why anybody in their right mind would advocate for any state to be a Right to Worse state is beyond comprehension other than spewing the Corporate Kings rhetoric.

    Most of the population doesn’t even know what the real difference is. Statistically as tracked by the Governments Bureau of Labor statistics can help clear the air.

    Here is a Dick and Jane version according to actual facts.
    Working Families in States with “Right to Work” Laws Earn Lower Wages

    On average, workers in states with “Right to Work” law earn $5,538 a year less than workers in states without these laws.

    “Right to Worse” States Spend Less on Education
    Right-to-Worse states spend $2,671 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than free-bargaining states.

    “Right to Worse” States Have Higher Workplace Fatality Rates
    According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Worse laws.

    “Right to Worse” Laws Don’t Improve Living Standards – Unions Improve Living Standards
    Overall, union members earn 28 percent ($198) more per week than nonunion workers. Hispanic union members earn 50 percent ($258) more each week than nonunion Hispanics and African Americans earn 29 percent ($168) more each week if they are union members.

    78 percent of private sector union workers have access to medical insurance through their jobs, compared with 51 percent of nonunion workers. And 77 percent of private sector union workers have access to a guaranteed (defined benefit) retirement plan through their jobs, compared with just 20 percent of nonunion workers.

    Only 2.9 percent of union workers are uninsured, compared with 14.2 percent of nonunion workers.

    Now who exactly would advocate for Right to Worse?

    Corporations and Minions including self proclaimed Aerospace “experts”, that’s who.

    BTW – Boeing doing business in this wonderful NON right to worse state still brings in Billions for the shareholders and thank God they have a highly skilled, educated UNION workforce to bail them out of their Ivy League educated, self serving poor business decisions (i.e. 787)

  12. It seems as if the ability to reconcile Management and the Unions was missed several times in the last few years. The outsourcing approach set the stage for the Unions to feel threatened and the subsequent debacles resulted in strikes or threatened work stoppages which just hardened Management’s antagonistic attitude.

    This was all very unfortunate. There is competition between Ownership, Management, and Labor for a slice of the revenue and a more enlightened Board of Directors with better Management leadership could have understood this and tried to balance the claims. This was not in the cards, however, and the result , combined with a changing economy, is the stressful dynamics which weigh on the Company today.

    As Don Shuper has pointed out over the years, the Unions and their members have their share of blame too. So, in some way, you can say the result is because of systemic problems and ultimately were unavoidable..

  13. The American Middle Class in this country owe its very existence to Unions and the sacrifice those people made. For example, as the Unions have been dismantled, notice how much less valued College Degrees have become. I mean…just look at all the unemployed Engineers we got in this country. It is shameful.

    These kids in this country borrow huge sums of money to go to college and get a degree. They then realize that a Degree is not so much a pathway to a stable career, but a ticket to the Job Lottery. And there they are….up to their eyeballs in debt and working a low-paying job – if they can get even that.

    Is this the FREEDOM you want?

  14. kc135topboom ”
    I have never heard of a union denying someone who wants to join their membership, Uwe. In the US, union bosses make hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, ”

    as usual partly right and partly wrong. Some few do make 100’s of thousands, most do not.

    The ONLY reason union ” bosses” make bucu $$ is due to the apathy of the members, aided by the BS mantra of Said OFFICERS that like private companies, the salary of your manager or supporting staff is supposedly private. What everyone forgets- or doesn’t think or find out is that as a public non profit- union salaries ARE public- just like any government worker. As I’m sure you know, in the military- your payscale is public- and can easily be approximated by the stripes/bars/chevrons on your shoulder. But union bosses in many unions work hard to discourage or hide such information- and use BS or intimidation to hide or discourage members from finding out. And even though the basic salary info is available- the perks and pension issues are nearly impossible to dig out.

    One of the FIRST moves by the current president was to write an executive order delaying a new rule by the DOL to break out in the required Government form known as a LM2 the perks and pension $$ by indivudual instead of the gross numbers. after a ‘ re- examination and inputs by ‘ public “- ( 99 percent union brass )- the rule was scratched.

    So the $$ games being played by the Officers and the apathy of the members is mostly to blame for the high pay issue. So much for transparency.

    IMO – IF or when the unions REALLY deal with the members, and REALLY work the information issue, and REALLY stick to issues which affect the local members inn any company- THEN workers AND management would be more inclined to work together.

    Unfortunately – Pigs will be flying over a frozen hell before that ever happens..

    • As to a few union ” bosses” making $$$

      from public LM2 data salary and membership NOt counting pension and perks

      Trumka AFL_CIO President $ 277,846 11.5 Million members

      Junemann, Gregory J $183,048 President IFPTE 62,000 members
      ( SPEEA members are also IFPTE members )

      Goforth, Raymond R $171,713 Executive Director 22,898 members

      Note At SPEEA then President is a full time employee of Boeing, and extra union ” pay’ is a yearly stipend/honorarium of $ 500. However, when he does union business during the work week , SPEEA re-imburses Boeing for his base pay per hour used.

      The executive dirrector reports to the Executive Board ONLY, and is hired and fired by same Board, Members elect the Board, but have NO say in how the board runs/hires/fires Staff.

      Ray has little to NO administrative authority – and is NOT an officer- and one couid argue NOT the SPEEA leader.

      Members seem to care less about his pay, which they can access via government site- ask the treasurer, or get copies of the yearly IRS 990 form which has a bit more detail as to base pay plus perks.

      a bit more background about Ray – since he is considered by the press as being a SPEEA leader.

      Background for Ray

      http://www.libertynews.com/2013/02/1-union-boss-urging-boeing-strike/

      http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/1996-08-31.220/msg00003.html

  15. I am sorry to see you descend to the depths in saying part of Idaho issues wage wise is due to the Neo Nazi element. Shame on you, its beneath you for an otherwise well done blog (even if I do not agree entirely on the unions)

    I am willing to bet my paycheck on the fact that WA state has more Nazis in it, let alone Neo or not in Idaho. Yes they are out louded by the more progressive people by en large but WA has more numbers of dirt bag scum.

    Idaho simply is not in any economic center or crossroads let alone the fact its an agricultural state. It is also an amazingly beautiful state and not just parts, the desert is a wonder all its own, austere yes but that is all beautiful (amusing you ain’t from the Western slopes of the Cascades where you bang into one tree and tree hugger after another). And no, I am not from Idaho but I have had the opportunity to spend some time there and its a shame to see you diss it that way.

    The rest of what is discussed if fair debate and the unions do shoot not only themselves in the foot with their stupidity but the rest of us as well (and I to agree they saved Boeing’s butt and their should be a lot of good will from that unfortunately contrasted with the 58 day strike that they shot themselves in the foot with).

    Keep up the good reporting and wash your mouth out.

  16. Rudy Hillinga Why is filling out these two lines a new equirement every time I write somethingScott?

    RE: Unions would rather have no jobs than non-union jobs. What nonsense!
    When is the US going to face up to the fact that most industrial nations outside
    the US, have what is called “Mietbestimung” or “joined-decision-making” in
    Germany, in contrast with the ever-lasting confrontation and wasteful process,
    between Managements and Unions in the US?
    Why, because Unions have as much interest in their Companies making a profit,
    as their Managements. Thus more profits, shared with the Unions on a mutually
    agreed to basis, guarantee more jobs!

    • If by ‘most’ you mean 50%+ and if you also limit the Board level representation (what I guess your alluding to in ‘joint-decision making’) to companies only above a certain size (maybe 25 employees, maybe 250 employees) then you’re probably correct. But in smaller companies the reverse would probably be the case. If you then look at the percentage by total population (after all, its is probably pointless to weigh Germany and Luxembourg equally), then I suspect the figure is well below 50%, as it brings in the likes of China.

      If you want to see what the situation is like in the EU, country by country, indicating trades unions membership rates in country and ‘board-level respresentation’, have a look at http://bit.ly/192Gzui

    • Writers that sprinkle their writings with an abundance of emo words usually aren’t
      writing in context of a factual and objective discussion. ( Seems to be a core issues
      with political discourse in the US, everybody trying to win by way of the shriller hysterics )

  17. Minor correction in my initial comment – I said ” . . In a right to work state- one does NOT have to be a member- aka ‘ closed shop “( which has been illegal for decades. . . .)

    What I should have typed was ” in a NON right to work state . . . .” ++ the confusion comes due to the crappy wording/cliche of ” right to work.” and the resulting confusion with U.S ist amendment rights regarding speech AND assembly AND participation, etc which makes the short description of a NON right to work state somewhere between an oxy-moron and nearly total obfuscation of the issue.

    So make it simple . IN a state that does NOT have a” right to work ” law, one does NOT have to join a union to work- AKA a ‘ closed shop” . But one MAY have to pay dues or reduced dues to stay employed IF the local union has imposed AGENCY FEES by contract with the company.

    These AGENCY fees are supposed to pay for the real purpose of the union such as bargaining, contract administration, local union issues ,etc. They are not supposed to pay for loosely defined ‘ political” and feel good issues. However, most who feel strongly about NOT being a ‘ member” can opt to pay for what is called BECK fees which supposedly pay for union business and not for political or feel good issues.

    The so called BECK audit is not subject to normal accounting rules, and grey areas abound.

    And I’ve yet to see one published. While such objectors are due a copy of the audit, raising questions except in very obvious miss bean counting as to what is Union ” business” is much more trouble than its worth- since non members do NOT have the same access to detailed union finances as members- which is needed to find the fly specks in the accounting pepper.

    it took two or more complaints against SPEEA with the NLRB , including testimony before a congressional committee to get SPEEA to do an ‘ proper’ audit AND to correctly tell the BECK objectors what SPEEA was obligated to do for them.

    The WEA game for objectors made it to SCOTUS – and eventually back to some members/objectors significant sums.

    WEA sort of won a few battles- but lost the war. And it was all over Agency FEE issues.

    AS someone else commented – the unions have done an excellent job with precision aiming while shooting off both feet AFTER putting both in mouth.

  18. Howard :“Boeing isn’t making money through sales”
    Really? Where are your figures and data to back up that statement. The quarterly reports disagree with you. Boeing is in fact doing quite well.

    Real original quote, “Boeing ist still making money through sales but you can see that the stock is much higher than where it really should be with what has been happening there with the 787 for the last few years.”

    The start should have been, “Boeing is still making money…” but instead of choosing to intepret as “is still making money”, you chose the word isn’t and deleted “still”. Most people would have understood the correct sentence merely through the context but you decided to misinterpret and jump all over it in your oh so “cool”, sarcastic fanboy way that you keep claiming to detest in others.

    • Don’t blame your typo’s on me or attack my character, I didn’t attack yours. I just said prove it. You are the one that made the typo. I just responded to what you posted.

      A fanboy is someone with no skin in the game, in this case neither shareholder, nor works for the company, nor even in the industry. It’s like rooting for a football team, hence fan boy. I’m not a fanboy, I have skin in the game.

      I really don’t give a [edited] what you think.

  19. Aero Ninja and Howard are suspended for two weeks.

    HEADS UP to ALL:

    I’ve had it with some of you getting into personal back-and-forths with other readers, in violation of my Reader Comment policy.

    I have said over and over that you are to stick to the issues and not get into personal engagements with others.

    You can ask for more information or clarification without transcending this rule.

    I have, in some cases, privately emailed some of the more egregious offenders to “call” them on violations and to offer guidance. I’ve come to the conclusion that the 2×4 upside the head is the approach that is required. Therefore, as one might surmise above, each party engaging in personal engagement will be suspended when one of you violates the rule. This way I don’t have to arbitrate the fairness or unfairness of suspending one but not the other.

    Shape up.

    This is my blog. You have no appeal.

    Hamilton

  20. Scott,
    I would propose that there is a middle ground in business and union relations between “Right to Work” and “Union only” States. Clearly pure capitalism/vulture capitalism etc does not work well and at the same time “sandbagging Unions” does not work either. Competition from outside the local industry will eventually force change and change is in general good for efficiency, advancement etc.

    The problem (as I see it) is that there has to be mutual respect between the two groups.

    Clearly, Boeing has done well in the Pacific Northwest. It has a large uniquely trained and highly competent work force that if motivated and negotiated with in good faith should continue to do the job well in the future. If Management bows to outside forces (MORE PROFIT!!!) and tries to coerce the workforce with threats it will ultimately be counterproductive (unhappy people don’t do good work). On the other hand, Union needs to realize there is a competitive landscape that Boeing will have to compete with now and in the future. Killing the company ala Detroit is not a solution that is good for anyone.

    I don’t think that moving some of the manufacturing base to other parts of the country is a mortal threat to the Unions…to some extent it is mitigating risk (whether from strikes, natural disasters, other). It is not as though moving engineering jobs to California is going to a less unionized state with a lower cost of living.

    Balance and compromise along with some mutual trust will get a lot farther than trading punches in the papers…

    • You couldn’t have said it better, Mike. But Boeing is migrating jobs (engineering and IT) from WA State and will continue to do so. We believe the clean sheet replacements for the 737 and 777 families have a very real prospect of going elsewhere (likely SC). Of course, if IAM and SPEEA succeed in organizing the workforce there, this lessens the threat to WA State.

  21. I would propose a model whereby Seattle is given the mission of designing and building the advanced technology aircraft of the future (777-X, 787 variants, NSA) while SC is charged withbuilding volume once the production is ramped up. So have the future 787-8, 9s built in SC while the “brains and experience” of Seattle work on the tougher stuff. Sort of a mini-Third world outsourceing… ;0)

    • Mike :
      I would propose a model whereby Seattle is given the mission of designing and building the advanced technology aircraft of the future (777-X, 787 variants, NSA) while SC is
      charged withbuilding volume once the production is ramped up. So have the future 787-8, 9s built in SC while the “brains and experience” of Seattle work on the tougher stuff. Sort of a mini-Third world outsourceing… ;0)

      The only model acceptable is do what is needed to A) buy back stock- raising the dividend payouts for the execs who will be retiring within say five years
      B) dress up the ” bottom line’ via program accounting thus deferring the losses and fiasco of the 787 until AFTER those same execs pull the cord on their platinum plated parachutes, and C) get rid of the unions at any cost, thus continuing the legacy of Jack Welch Wannabees and the failed MDC.

  22. Pingback: Unions, right-to-work and free-riders | The Blog by Javier

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *