The Everett Herald has a series of stories today about labor relations at Boeing and Airbus. The links are below. Note: The Herald’s website is one of the clunkiest in CyberUniverse, so don’t be surprised if it is frustratingly slow.
Boeing and its unions already in negotiating stance. Be sure to watch the video on this link, and then click the link within the story for the second video.
Unions at Boeing and Airbus have much in common.
Machinists and rocky and rich history.
Washington State still ranks high in union strength.
Separately, there is this report:
Reducing Airbus to a solely french entity and looking just at french unions
will produce an incomplete picture.
AAAAAArrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggg non of the links work. The Herald, of course.
Just tried them, TopBoom, on receipt of your message and they work for us. But as we said, The Herald has one of the clunkiest websites in all of CyberUniverse. FlightGlobal is a close second.
I think a lot of websites try and send a bunch of data for images etc when a more text based with thumbnails of the images would be far more efficient. Just click the image to get the detail pic.
When an aircard cannot download it in a reasonable time it is too clunky.
I’d be very careful to compare labor relations In Boeing and Airbus. The differences are great and many, biggest of all cultural.
To say that A and B labour have wages and job security in common as their goal, is like saying that Americans An Europeans have in common that they need to breathe air and drink water >_>.
from the Herald, you can expect the following ‘ spins ” in order
1) 150 percent positive support for Boeing with few exceptions sort of like an extension of the Boeing News
2) 140 percent one sided ( depending ) articles about the union based on their narrow view of union issues- but tilting towards the Boeing view of unions
3) 130 percent fluff as to dems v Reps, with little or no depth, for example the Rossi- murray wto issue
Been there – done that – got the t-shirt
“The European government controls health care, leave and pensions”… well that torpedoes any credibility this story might have had right there! Ha ha ha!
(There is no such thing as a “European government” – and even though the EU may set some minimum standards in those fields, it is certainly the national governments who hold jurisdiction for each of the Airbus divisions… and here too they set the laws, they don’t “control” in the sense the journalist seems to imply.)
So what happens if the French or Italian unions go on strike because EADS/Airbus outsources jobs to the U.S IF they win the tanker ?
They have struck in the past over much much less.
In the U.S, the government could force them back to work, or the company would have to eat the costs/delays
But the U.S could do NADA to any other European or other country. And EADS consortium would have to eat the costs or settle somehow.
They even strike against work moved from one EU country to another 😉
“In the U.S, the government could force them back to work, …”
Is that because the US is on a war footing ;-?
In general if management doesn’t regress back into pre 1900 behaviour they should be able to come to reasonable agreements between manufacturer, Works council and unions.
In the EU (at least the little corner I’m in) only the legal system has the right to declare when and whether people fighting for what they believe is right presents an unacceptable disruption of public life or causes undue danger to society (based on laws passed by politicians of course). That is, something as important as figting for your rights is not left to people as intertwined with big business and other special interest groups as politicians.
Thank goodness for that
During ww2- most unions agreed to not strike. But the government set the pay rates max and companies could not offer higher wages- so extra perks like health care and pensions came to the fore.
The longshoremen agreed to not strike and to help prevent sabotage ( with the help of the mafia ) – and sort of a legal sancutary was agreed on- certain illegal actions were overlooked by the justice dept.
Dupont agreed to work on the a bomb for cost plus a dollar . . .
Until the late 50’s, aerospace companies agreed to not compete or advertise jobs in the geographical area of another company. For example Boeing would/did not run ads in Los Angeles, etc.
My understanding is that the government ALWAYS retains the right to force workers back to work in cases of government contracts affecting national security. In the cases of tankers, I doubt the government would go that far unless they nationalize the companies involved- except that under the current administration, Boeing could wind up like Obama motors . . . ;(
As has been pointed out, there’s no such thing as a “European Government” (ROTFL), but there is “something” called the European Social Charter Treaty; a treaty which has been ratified by the member States of the Council of Europe (NB: Council of Europe is not the EU).
Accordingly, the Social Charter’s Article 6 nr. 3 and 4 can only be infringed upon by the treaty signatories for the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others or for the protection of public interest, national security, public health, or morals.”
This means that under special/extreme circumstances a treaty signatory can end a strike by a “forced” arbitration “straight down the middle”.
European Social Charter (revised)
CETS No.: 163
Treaty open for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe
Article 6 – The right to bargain collectively
With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively, the Contracting Parties undertake:
1. to promote joint consultation between workers and employers;
2. to promote, where necessary and appropriate, machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements;
3. to promote the establishment and use of appropriate machinery for conciliation and voluntary arbitration for the settlement of labour disputes; and recognise:
4. the right of workers and employers to collective action in cases of conflicts of interest, including the right to strike, subject to obligations that might arise out of collective agreements previously entered into.
Article 31 – Restrictions
1. The rights and principles set forth in Part I when effectively realised, and their effective exercise as provided for in Part II, shall not be subject to any restrictions or limitations not specified in those parts, except such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or for the protection of public interest, national security, public health, or morals.
2. The restrictions permitted under this Charter to the rights and obligations set forth herein shall not be applied for any purpose other than that for which they have been prescribed.
The Contracting Parties accept as the aim of their policy, to be pursued by all appropriate means, both national and international in character, the attainment of conditions in which the following rights and principles may be effectively realised:
1. Everyone shall have the opportunity to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon.
2. All workers have the right to just conditions of work.
3. All workers have the right to safe and healthy working conditions.
4. All workers have the right to a fair remuneration sufficient for a decent standard of living for themselves and their families.
5. All workers and employers have the right to freedom of association in national or international organisations for the protection of their economic and social interests.
6. All workers and employers have the right to bargain collectively.
7. Children and young persons have the right to a special protection against the physical and moral hazards to which they are exposed.
8. Employed women, in case of maternity, and other employed women as appropriate, have the right to a special protection in their work.
9. Everyone has the right to appropriate facilities for vocational guidance with a view to helping him choose an occupation suited to his personal aptitude and interests.
10. Everyone has the right to appropriate facilities for vocational training.
11. Everyone has the right to benefit from any measures enabling
him to enjoy the highest possible standard of health attainable.
12. All workers and their dependents have the right to social security.
13. Anyone without adequate resources has the right to social and medical assistance.
14. Everyone has the right to benefit from social welfare services.
15. Disabled persons have the right to vocational training, rehabilitation and resettlement, whatever the origin and nature of their disability.
16. The family as a fundamental unit of society has the right to appropriate social, legal and economic protection to ensure its full development.
17. Mothers and children, irrespective of marital status and family relations, have the right to appropriate social and economic protection.
18. The nationals of any one of the Contracting Parties have the right to engage in any gainful occupation in the territory of any one of the others on a footing of equality with the nationals of the latter, subject to restrictions based on cogent economic or social reasons.
19. Migrant workers who are nationals of a Contracting Party and their families have the right to protection and assistance in the territory of any other Contracting Party
The Contracting Parties undertake, as provided for in Part III, to
consider themselves bound by the obligations laid down in the
following articles and paragraphs.