Is Boeing Chicago misreading the SPEEA mood–as it did IAM 751 in 2008?

There have been many articles this week detailing the increasingly contentious, evolving situation in the contract negotiations between Boeing and the engineers union, SPEEA.

We’ve previously written that this wasn’t going to be a love-fest. And it isn’t. Jon Talton at The Seattle Times has this comment, which is a pro-union take. Boeing says it wants to control costs, notably with pension and health care costs, but that it will still have industry-leading wages. SPEEA says Boeing is asking for take-aways. This Bloomberg article neatly sums up the Boeing position.

We’re not going to weigh in on the intricacies of who’s right and who’s wrong, for this depends entirely on your point of view. We do have sympathy for the Boeing position that health care and pension costs have to be reset, but we’re not going to opine on the details of any reset.

What we going observe is the following:

  • Based on our intel, Boeing is pressuring its supply chain for significant cost reductions. Cost control is nothing new, of course, but from our intel, Boeing is ratcheting up the pressure to a level the supply chain hasn’t felt for some time.
  • It doesn’t matter that Boeing is now reporting solid profits and cash flow is improving with the deliveries of the 787 finally underway. Profits are and will be helped by major reductions in R&D spending now that the 787 and 747-8 programs are back to “normal.” But this cash flow is being diverted to a resumption of the stock buy-back, a practice readers know we think benefits the likes of the McDonnell family and Harry Stonecipher more than shareholders at large. This money would be better spent on product development, we think.
  • Boeing still loses money on each 787 delivery (currently an estimated $100m per plane, according to the Wall Street Journal). The program currently isn’t projected to make a profit until 1,100 airplanes are sold, under “program accounting.” However, this figure is almost certainly to move to the right with the launch of the 787-10.
  • With cost pressures continuing, Boeing sees SPEEA’s engineers as a place to cut costs, though we’re not convinced that this is particularly meaningful in the scheme of things.
  • We think Boeing-Chicago may be completely misreading the mood of the engineers, in much the same way it misread the mood of IAM 751 membership in 2008. Chicago was then convinced that the membership was prepared to accept Boeing’s offer and that the 751 negotiating team and leadership was out-of-step with the membership. Chicago (and Longacres) were stunned when the membership rejected the contract with a vote of around 86% (as we recall) and voted for a strike by around 84% (as we recall). The membership nearly lynched the negotiating team when they announced they would try another 48 hours to reach an agreement. The effort failed and a 57-day strike ensued.
  • Management is counting on the fact that SPEEA has only struck twice since the 1990s, figuring that they won’t in today’s economic environment nor by their nature.
  • Chicago figures the SPEEA negotiating team and leadership is out of touch with the membership. We’re not so sure. SPEEA also represents engineers at Spirit Aerosystems in Wichita and those members rejected management’s contract offer by a vote of more than 95% last year. An agreement was ultimately reached, but the vote was stunning.
  • We think Chicago could be in for a big surprise by the resoluteness of SPEEA and we think it’s entirely possible if not likely that Chicago is totally misreading the solidarity between the membership, the leadership and the negotiating team.

58 Comments on “Is Boeing Chicago misreading the SPEEA mood–as it did IAM 751 in 2008?

  1. Boeing needs to make some peace with SPEEA if they want to stay on schedule with the KC-46, B-737-MAX, B-787-9/-10, and B-777X programs. To assume that SPEEA won’t strike because of the bad economy is the wrong thinking by Boeing Management. The IAM won’t cross any picket lines set up by SPEEA.

    • Actually the IAM (and all other Boeing unions) have to cross the picket lines by contract. We (I am a SPEEA member) had to cross the IAM ones when they struck.

      I just cannot understand the attitude of management, they gave IAM a lot more than they are offering us. They gave the executives and the shareholders more money. How much money are they really going to save? chump change in the grand scheme of things.

  2. @KC135 – I agree. Boeing Mgt is out of touch. It was clearly shown by the Delaney (Cheif Engineer) remarks in Bloomberg article dtd 6 SEP where he bascially said that if Engineers strike, then we (Boeing0 can go elsewhere for Engineering. You can’t jsut interchange an Engineer that design coffe makers or cars for an Engineer that designs and certifies Airplanes. Not only are the levels of design more complex, the certification requirements are compeltely different. To think an Engineer is an Engineer by the Cheif Engineer shows they are COMPELTELY out of touch. they are going to end up with a strike and HUGE deolays to multimillion doallars programs anduntilmately a black-eye and bad reputation (agian) in the eyes of Major Customers (Airlines and the US gov’t (Tanker Prog)). Are they (Boeing Mgt) willing to gamble and risk it?!……its a big bet in my opinion.

  3. I think that alot of the coverage in the press is distorted and “planted” to heighten the issues before the actual vote on the offer takes place. Each side has its point of view and the differences are always colored by talks of another strike.

    There are ongoing discussions and negotiations and it is hard to believe that Management is tone deaf. Ray Conner has come up from the ranks and understands the issues.

    • Ray Conner has not communicated with SPEEA a single time since he became BCA President. That type of snub (intentional or not) sends a powerfully negative message.

      • Didn’t Ray Connor just take over something like 2 months ago? Just give him a chance to find his new office first.

    • @BA Investor – Believe me, I am on the inside and they (Boeing Mgt) are out of touch. When SPEEA provides a proposed contract and the Boeing Team refuses to negotiate on the specifc terms…then something is going on. Why would a Compnay that is doing well and has so many new contracts, new airplane designs in the works (737 Max and Tanker and 787-9) want to play hard ball and ripple the waters?! What’s the reasoning? Makes no sense.

  4. @BA, on the contrary, Boeing has consistently demonstrated that Chicago is utterly unaware of the very existence, much less the concerns, of the productive parts of the company. The IAM strike was completely predictable by anyone EXCEPT corporate. They were caught by surprise. Sampling has indicated, and Delaney has confirmed, that there is no understanding of what the technical force does for the bottom line of the company.

  5. Problem with the IAM contract is that IAM cannot stop work if SPEEA goes on strike. We at IAM 751 have a no strike clause in our contract.

      • Not like they would be able to run the production line with all the techs gone anyway.

      • WCOG,
        Correct, but it’s actually the lack of DERs that shut down the line in 2000. Your point is essentially correct though, as Stonecipher found out the hard way when he forced SPEEA out.

  6. I think Boeing’s take on “an engineer is an enginer is an engineer” is based on their management model. They rotate their management around so much, on the theory that you don’t have to know how to do a job to manage the people who do the actual work, that “Boomerang Management” is how it’s referred to.

    I suppose there is some merit to that, but they are guilty of oversimplification of the principle. Now it seems to be “you don’t have to know how to do a job to do the actual work”.

    And, they are applying the first version at too high a level. “You don’t have to know how to run a company profitably to get a job as CEO (or president, or VP, whatever)” seems to be the operating principle now.

    I’m so disgusted…

  7. “Trench warfare” between IAM, SPEEA and the management makes Boeing weaker. I wish both sides know what they are doing.

    • Fair enough. In recognition of this reality, SPEEA offered to simply extend the existing collective bargaining agreement. No change…just roll the thing forward so that everyone could focus on turning that order backlog into actual planes (and profits for Boeing).

      Boeing rejected this offer because they want to achieve across-the-board pay and benefit cuts. In this particular case, company management has picked a fight for no particularly good reason…..other than the fact that they simply didn’t believe that there would be a fight.

  8. What’s missing is that The Boeing Company has not explained to the SPEEA union members what changes are needed and why. There has been no direct face-to-face communications from management to the Engineers/Techs explaining their position. Without this communication it will be difficult for Boeing to to get the Union members to agree and understand all the take-aways.

  9. It seems both SPEEA and Boeing are talking, and have meetings scheduled. To me it seems the communication problem isn’t between SPEEA and Boeing, but between Ray Goforth, a director at SPEEA and the SPEEA members.

    This Aug. 30, 2012 story says it, but not in so many words.

    Mr. Goforth seems to be trying to fire up the membership by only telling them what he wants them to know, not the full story. Boeing did reject the request for a contract extension, and they should have. I would have rejected it too.

    • Kc135- you are right ON re Goforth. What most membership and virtually ALL the press and media do NOT understand is that Ray is NOT an authorized spokesperson for the N team. he and a few staff ( holdovers from the Boffo days ) have many convinced that ‘ Staff knows best- and the title of Executive Director allows giving policy direction to God._ In fact, the ED is simply an Office manager and barely meets the definition of a Key employee. Other than certain emergency situations, he has NO single authority re spendinhg spending or check signing , and NO administrative authority except that specifically approved by the board in accordance with the constitution.
      The Executive Board shall have executive control and administrative responsibility for SPEEA
      …. The Executive Board may delegate to the Executive Director, or another staff person, the necessary authority to
      administer such affairs of SPEEA as the Board sees fit, but under no circumstances shall the Executive Board
      delegate all or any part of its administrative authority or policy-making functions. …


      The bargaining unit Council can overturn the Executive Board decisions re negotiations.

      5.4.2. Executive Board Actions
      Except where exclusive authority has been given to the Executive Board by this Constitution, all Board actions are
      subject to review and subsequent direction by the Bargaining Unit Council on matters pertaining exclusively to the
      Bargaining Unit. The Bargaining Unit Council may reverse action taken by the Executive Board on such matters
      by a 2/3
      majority vote, but no less than a majority vote of the entire number of Council Representatives. This
      vote must be taken within forty-five days of the Board action.
      On any vote by the Bargaining Unit Council to overturn previous Board action, Executive Board members shall be
      excluded from the vote and the quorum requirements for the vote. ..

      ++ Unfortunately , the majority of the membership – and a significant portion of the Staff and E-Board have nev er bothered to read or understand the SPEEA Constitution.

      Members apathay reigns- and few realize that Democracy is hard work, thus the STAFF has for two decades been the ‘ effective’ power structure in SPEEA.

      The strike in 2000 was a surprise to the then Executive Director- and mainly due to a few Board members and Council Officers standing up the the ED.

      In 2005- when the members discoverd the ” team ” was about to sell them out re pension issues by agreeing to change to the Cash Balance plan- the email baragge was enough to take that off the table.

      It was a bit later when SOME of the members found out that had they changed as pushed by the ED, he would have been able to collect an unlimited amount of BOEING pension credits instead of the allowable 10 years max.

      That problem is not an issue this time- but the misinformation put out by some of the Staff is almost as bad..

  10. Also, Boeing’s assertation that they are paying industry leading wages is completly false, the wages have just gotten to market average, for us to be payed “industry leading” wages, we would have to be paid more than the average. Seems the company is forgeting that they are dealing with engineers who deal with statistics on a daily basis.

    • Like Management, SPEEA’s Ray Goforth has his own agenda as KC135 referred to above. At this point it seems that firing up membership is part of that agenda and it is being done without full transparency.

      According to the Boeing SPEEA website, studies have been given to SPEEA to disclose the salary structures of the industry. It is evident that engineers know how to work numbers and get to the heart of the matter.

      It appears that these preliminary discussions are a prelude to the actual contract talk and if heads remain cooler, maybe some better understanding as well as compromise can be arrived at. Mr. Goforth’s claim all the time that Boeing “disrespects” its engineers is simply incendiary.

      • @BA – thinking that Goforth is only trying to spool up the Enginners is a ridiculous statement. SPEEA shared the red-lines of the proposed contract with all memebers. We can see for ourselves we don’t someone to tell us its a bad deal. Simple question – Why wouldn’t Boeing just renew the current contract? Why take a chance and try and cut the Pension for new hires, cut the wage pool increases for the contract, and increase the medical costs? Why create tension with your Engineers in a time when they are needed most to complete the Tanker Program on-time, the 737 max, and the 787-9 ?? Have they forgotten the last 5 years of Grinding the Engineers to get the 787 completed and finally delivered? Now their short sided thinking only remebers 10 months ago – the 787 is done. What do we care? THAT”S the message they are sending and THEY know it – they can’t be that delusional.

      • I have already noted my confusion as to how a group of professionals generally versed in math could have allowed such a travesty requesting the 3 year average basic benefit increase for each year, and then publishing phony curves that supposedly justify the request in addition to calling the Boeing proposed rate increase of about 2- 2.5 percent each year a cut. The BA proposal is identical to that in the IAM contract.

        And in even more simple terms going from $ 83/month/year to $89/month/year in a three year time frame is 89-83 = 6 6/83 = .0722 or 7.22% which is GREATER than the 6.5 percent 3 year average over the last few decades. No wonder BA insists they need to educate SPEEA !

        So how did this happen. I don’t know, but I will speculate a bit as to who, how and why this happened.

        A- Who made the curves and SOLD the arguments to the Negotiation Teams ?
        I’ll bet it was one or two Staff who pushed the issue to the N teams.

        B- How – with persuasive arguments and a few power point presentations given under the guise of WE (STAFF) have done the research and these are the FACTS, and OUR
        EXPERTISE concludes the following . . .

        C- Why ? I believe the answer is best explained in two parts plus a subtle FACTOID

        C-1 The rate increase only applies to the Techs and some few Engineers who are
        in the salary range the straddles the Basic Benefit which is to say the traditional PR and methods used by SPEEA for decades. The upper salary level of Engineers get squat! But it allows the company and SPEEA to claim an XX percent increase in Pension. BA wins, SPEEA wins, and the Engineers continue to lose due to the Covered Compensation games in the Alternate benefit formula that few pay attention to.

        C-2 The VERY real possibility that the prime driver cheerleaders for the Basic Benefit Rate increase are those STAFF members who used to be Boeing Employees. They will always benefit from a rate increase.

        How so ?


        The majority of the members do NOT know that those Boeing Employees who go to work full time for SPEEA can and do get up to 10 years of credited service ADDED to their credited service while at Boeing, payable under the BA plan when they reach retirement age .

        Of course many of those are Contract Administrators who also get a bit extra pension from SPEEA and the Teamsters.

        Lets look at the Boeing bit first – the following is NOT in the SPD you can get anytime online. Why not ? Well the BA Plan administrator says it does NOT need to be disclosed in that document. But in the LEGAL Plan document the following has been there for decades. And it is legal due to a specific exception in federal law to cover the problem of shop stewards working on behalf of the members while being paid by the company. Although SPEEA and Unions reimburse the company for such union business time, they do NOT cover the resulting benefits.

        The exception relating to credited service while on LEAVE OF ABSENCE over XX days reads as follows ;
        (B) the aggregate of any leaves of absence on or after January 1, 1971
        for service performed for a collective bargaining representative
        certified under the Labor Management Relations Act whose
        members are Eligible Employees will be treated as Credited
        Service in computing Basic Benefits under Section 4.1 (a) and for
        determining vesting. Under no circumstances, however, will an
        Employee receive more than ten years of Credited Service for
        service with a collective bargaining representative.

        This then brings up an interesting question. Why have IAM members long been aware of this statement while SPEEA members have been kept in the dark?

        Now add another question. How many STAFF members ( ex Boeing ) will be reaching the 10 year limit between 2013 and 2015?


        At least be aware that those same STAFF members ( ex Boeing ) get a generous defined contribution pension of 7 1/2 percent plus at least 4 percent matching contributions to the SPEEA 401K

        And For MANY – they also get probably 2K to 4K deferred compensation into the Teamsters Plan.

        Thats a triple dip folks. Its not a secret- other than the Teamsters pension numbers NEVER being shown in the Audit until this year.

        If you are an engine-ear – you should be concerned as to who is looking out for YOU.

        • Well written and well stated Don. I agree with your assessment. I have questioned SPEEA’s math for years. You have spelled it out and made absolutely valid statements that are backed up with facts. We need more folks like you to wade through the double-speak and ‘spit it out’ as they say. Thank you Don.

    • YEP- that also seems to apply to those who did such a poor job with numbers in the SPEEA redlined proposal regarding average rate increases in the basic benefit figures by using a 3 year average to justify the same numbers in the proposal for an EACH year increase

      So lets start with the plot shown on the SPEEA site, both initial and the current ( sept version ) revised which purport to show an average increase in the basic benefit calculation of XX$/month/year of credited service.

      The current plot is closer to the real rate increase over time, but distorts the company offer by calling it a cut.

      First, the rates offered so far are identical to the IAM rates.

      Second – the paragraph which states

      [SPEEA proposed (June 15) to increase the basic formula at the historical percentage rate. SPEEA’s redline proposal indicated increases to $88.43 on Jan. 1, 2013, $94.25 on Jan. 1, 2014 and $100.43 on Jan. 1, 2015. These reflect the BCERP basic benefit conversion factor increase equivalency from 1970-2012 of 6.5%.
      Boeing’s proposal called for a $2 increase in the monthly benefit amount each year, which would cause the factor to rise from $83 to $91 over the life of a four-year agreement. This equates to an average 2.3% growth over the length of the proposal, rather than the historical rate of 6.5%. ]

      is partially right- but totally wrong in the Historical rate of 6.5 %. The 6.5 % increase is the THREE YEAR INCREASE given at the beginning of MOST historical 3 year contracts.

      The AVERAGE historical rate per annum is between 2.5 and 3 percent, depending on when one starts the baseline calculation.

      So how did THAT happen ?

      Do you agree ?

  11. If Boeing is in dire strait to cut cost, why didn’t they start cutting McNerney’s and “Leadership Team” salaries and benefits? Where is the Boeing’s Value “Lead by Example?”
    It’s too obvious, they want to short change Engineers and Techs to drive up stock price, and hence the bonuses for CEO, CXX…

  12. From the perspective of an airline customer, still waiting for delivery of its new type, it would be short-sighted if Boeing were to put pressure on their value-creators (ok, I’m an engineer). I can understand Boeing introducing change by applying new conditions to their new hires, but the current staff are the ones with the specialist knowledge. If they strike, our planes may be even later.

    • You cannot avoid something you don’t “see” .

      Compare todays management to oldentime nobility.
      Pronounced inbreeding.
      Worthless overbearing bunch, totally dependent on infrastructure services from below. ( But sneering at those ).

      Outsourcing removed that foundation from the equation and you had the blind deciding on rainbow colours..

      Persons that are worth their title used to be ( and still are ) few in between.

      In a large system that has accumulated mass and impetus wrong decissions are largely hidden by way of delayed exposure.

  13. Boeing can try to deliver airplanes without engineers just like they did in 2000. Corporate likes to talk about sharing the wealth & the pain, but that doesn’t apply to the executives who just keep getting bigger bonuses. They share the pain by imposing cuts on the unrepresented & then expecting those of us who have the sense to join a bargaining unit to just bend over.

  14. Like a few of the others above, I’m also on the “inside” (SPEEA-represented Boeing engineer for over 20 years). I don’t know who wrote this article, but their intel is spot-on.

    The execs in Chicago and over at Longacres are WAY out of touch with the company’s engineers and techs. I don’t know one person, not one, who will vote for a contract that contains the kind of things the company has been talking about at the negotiating table (e.g. 40% smaller salary pools, 40% reduction in retirement benefits, 20% increase in healthcare costs, removal of contract language that would allow the company to change or do away with all kinds of things at any time for any reason). You encounter two overwhelming sentiments when you ask people about that stuff. Some people are VERY angry. Others think it’s a joke and are convinced the execs need to stop with the hallucinogens.

    We’re not greedy, but we’re not stupid either. What we are is armed with very good analysis skills and highly driven by facts, data and good ol’ common sense. If the company was hurting, if demand for commercial A/Ps was down, if we were having a hard time selling A/Ps, if we were slowing production rates and laying people off, such proposals would make sense, but the reality is just the opposite. Look at the company’s own press releases. Read the latest annual report. Look at all the profits. We literally can’t build the A/Ps fast enough. Example: The 737 production rate is currently at 35 A/Ps a month, up from 31.5 a month not that long ago. In the 1st quarter of 2013, the rate goes up to 38 a month. In 2014, it goes up again to 42 a month and they’re seriously exploring the possibility of going to 60 a month. Boeing’s business is BOOMING, has been for several years now and is expected to remain that way for YEARS (e.g. Boeing’s own market forecast predicts that over the next 20 years the world will need 33,400 commercial A/Ps worth a whopping $4.03T, 70% of which are predicted to be single-aisle A/Ps). If Boeing puts a proposal on the table that reflects the kinds of things they’ve been talking about, it’s going to go down in flames like the Hindenberg. No joke. It’ll be rejected by a previously unheard of percentage and if they play hard-ball and try to ram it down our throats like they did in ’99 they’re going to get themselves a strike. The engineers and techs will walk and shutter the place until the execs come back to reality. The execs don’t know it, but they’re playing with fire and if they keep it up they’re going to get burned.

    About the suggestion that it’s actually SPEEA who’s out of touch with the company’s engineers and techs … Boeing drags that out everytime a new contract needs to be negotiated (eye roll). We’ve heard it all before. It’s a crock. Put a cucumber in it, add water, vinegar, a little onion and some dill. Make yourself a pickle. Nothing could be further from the truth. SPEEA has held (and continues to hold) countless face-to-face meetings with engineers and techs all over the company to hear first-hand what we think. They also conducted various surveys before negotiations even began to find out what’s important to us. On several occasions over the last several weeks, I’ve also communicated directly with SPEEA’s negotiation teams and the highest levels of SPEEA leadership. I can assure you they know EXACTLY what I think. Nobody from the company has asked me or any of my counterparts jack, I suspect because they don’t really want to know.

    MiG Killer

  15. bbbcccc :
    @BA – thinking that Goforth is only trying to spool up the Enginners is a ridiculous statement. SPEEA shared the red-lines of the proposed contract with all memebers..

    I suggest you check out closely just who put out the phony curves claiming BA is ‘ cutting” pension benefits along with the phony explanation. What “SPEEA” claimed as to a 6 plus % average increase was about as phony as a new edsel salesmans’ pitch.

    The ” author’ of that piece of trash- and somehow putting those same numbers in the SPEEA proposal should be tarred and feathered . What he/she simply did was to insist that the previous multi decades rate change every three years be provided annually by Boeing.

    Of course Boeing said no. So SPEEA revised that chart to be a little more accurate, but left the wording and phony claim of a cut in place.

    The Boeing offer- or discussion as reported by SPEEA was exactly the same basic pension increase agreed to and in the IAM contract- namely an approx 2 plus percent change- increase EVERY year.

    And in then process, SPEEA ( read Staff) would get some of those same increases in Their Boeing pension credited service since they are on ” approved union leave of absence ” from Boeing while working full time at SPEEA. And on that issue, 99 percent of the members are clueless.

    But the engineers who average over about 95K ( current ) for the five years prior to retirement, will get zip real increase in pension for at least 4 to 6 months every year.

    So it has been for about 3 decades- NO raise in Pension if you earn significantly above average !!


    Each year in January, “covered compensation” in our Alternate Benefit
    formula is updated to reflect changes in nationwidewage data as determined by
    the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the year 2001, this will affect the Alternate
    formula byreducing the February benefit, relative to the January benefit, by
    about $18.75 per month for an employee with 25 years ofcredited service. This
    has a “saw-tooth” effect on the Alternate Benefit, which otherwise increases
    steadily as credited serviceand final average earnings (FAE) increase.
    The second change involves the 5% lump sum bonus paid on January 26, 1996. That
    bonus is applied to the Alternate benefit,after final average earnings are calculated. The bonus is
    applied by adding one fifth of the bonus to the annual FAE (or onesixtieth of the bonus to the
    monthly FAE). The bonus is added onto FAE for anyone who received the bonus in the five
    yearspreceding their retirement date. For someone with $60,000 final average earnings, and
    25 years experience, the bonus addsabout $15-20 per month to their retirement benefit,
    depending on their raise history, and age.
    With our retirement plan, someone terminates, often on the last day of some month, and
    begins retirement on the first day ofthe next month. For example, retirees terminating in
    December 2000 would begin retirement on January 1, 2001. In that case,the year 2000
    covered compensation value would apply to their Alternate benefit, and the “five years preceding
    theirretirement” would be January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2000. Thus, January 1,
    2001 retirees would enjoy the effect oflower covered compensation, and the addition to final
    average earnings from the 1996 bonus. Employees retiring in February2001 would see the
    higher covered compensation and would NOT have one fifth of the 1996 bonus added to their final
    In October 2000, we discussed these two items with Boeing Benefits representatives. We
    understood that a review wasunderway which might result in lower benefits when covered
    compensation increased. Past practice regarding lump sum payments has varied. We
    received a large (10%) bonus in December 1989. Five years later,
    retireeswould have received reduced retirement benefits for several months
    starting January 1995, but Boeing chose to apply theDecember 1994 benefit
    level, until the saw-tooth effect was overcome. After other bonuses, no
    adjustment was made.
    Binding language in the Summary Plan Document clearly states that a retiree’s benefit
    “will not be reduced” due to increasingcovered compensation, and Federal law also discourages
    cut-backs in benefits already accrued. A few days after our meetings,we were notified that the
    review had been completed, and that Boeing had decided to pay retirees in February 2001
    theJanuary or February benefit level, whichever is higher. As a result, neither the bonus effect
    nor the increase in covered compensation will reduce the Alternate Benefit calculation for
    February retirees. We’d like to thank the Company for doing theright thing in this situation.

    WHY ?

    • So, Don, I take it that you will vote in favour of the BCA contract proposal, right? Assuming here that you are an SPEEA member — or are you?

      • Its not that simple ..
        1) I am NOT in favor of the BA proposal NOR of the pile of dung put out by SPEEA for the express purpose of making an unreasonable request, etc

        2) I am not NOW a SPEEA member, having retired many years ago, but am and have been trying to get a fair deal for SPEEA engineers OVER the continued apathy of and self serving SPEEA staff as in executive Directors and a few others.

        3) Few SPEEA engineers – and I was one – bother to look closely at the Boeing pension plan and the subtle hose jobs perpetrated for several decades.

        4) Nor do most SPEEA members KNOW (or believe) that the former BA employees who work full time for SPEEA continue to get pension service credits from boeing that ONLY apply to the Basic Benefit. Can you spell double dipping. ?
        Which means that theso called pension increases widely touted in the PR apply to the techs AND the staff, but usually NOT to the enginers !

  16. Like a few of the others above, I’m also on the “inside” (SPEEA-represented Boeing engineer for over 20 years). I don’t know who wrote this article, but their intel is spot-on. . .

    I am surprised a 20 year engineer represented by SPEEA seems to have swallowed the SPEEA proposal as factual- reasonable – and assumed it was put together by competent people.

    The comments about pension ‘ cuts’ are insane- as is the ‘ request for 6 plus percent basic benefit increases, to say nothing of the continuing total abrogation of ” covered compensation’ issues proposed by SPEEA. Thereby continuing the hose job perpetrated on the upper quarttile o so of Engineers for the last 3 decades !

    Since a detailed discussion of this is nor really appropriate for this forum, I’ll suggest taking a look at a long standing site for unoffical speea information and comments known ads speea-talk.

    But for a teaser- starter – figure out if the following quote from a decades old speea spotlite meanbs anything to those about to retire- when placed in context with the current ‘ no change in alternate benefits ‘ bit posted by SPEEA.

    Each year in January, “covered compensation” in our Alternate Benefit
    formula is updated to reflect changes in nationwidewage data as determined by
    the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the year 2001, this will affect the Alternate
    formula byreducing the February benefit, relative to the January benefit, by
    about $18.75 per month for an employee with 25 years of credited service. This
    has a “saw-tooth” effect on the Alternate Benefit, which otherwise increases
    steadily as credited serviceand final average earnings (FAE) increase.

    more can be found at

    and an updated ( mostly ) excel spreadsheet at

    Those who do not learn from history- do NOT learn from history !!!

    • 1) Boeing hasn’t actually proposed anything. Oh sure, they’ve TALKED about all kinds of things (mostly reductions in this, shrinkage of that, etc), but they’ve so far refused to put a single proposal on the table, which is part of the problem. Until they do, all the blathering they’ve done at the negotiating table is meaningless.

      2) I haven’t swallowed or assumed anything. One of the things Boeing has TALKED about is reducing the size of the selective salary adjustment pools from the current 5% to 3% (or less). Despite being very highly rated and very experienced, many of us don’t usually receive a salary increase that’s as large as the pool size. It’s almost always slightly less. I don’t need to do all kinds of analysis to know how that’ll impact me. I haven’t verified what last year’s rate of inflation was, but some have recently suggested that it was about 3%. If that’s true, then with selective salary adjustment pools of 3% I and many others will be busting our asses only to see our relative purchasing power DECLINE because (as you know) the COLA we have doesn’t kick in until almost unheard of rates of inflation occur.

      3) One of the most important things when assessing information from others is knowing what motivations they might have and who they are. Right Mr. Shuper? While you often have good information to share and make good points, you also have a reputation (well deserved in my opinion) for being what most people would describe as a “sour” personality, someone who constantly finds fault with EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. As a result, you come across as a bitter, cranky old man and it diminishes the points you’re trying to make. I once worked with someone like that and after many years of listening to his constant bitching, moaning and complaining was compelled one day to ask, “Is there anything in your miserable excuse for a life that you take pleasure in, enjoy or feel good about? Anything at all?” All I got was crickets. He was unable to answer, which said more than anything he could have articulated. I know it’s a vain hope, but try to enjoy your retirement Don.

      MiG Killer

      • Yep- as to my reputation- consider the sources .

        As to finding fault – most people I know are against fraud and embezzlement or being ripped off IF they know about it and can prove it.

        I’ve been aware of the Boffo mantra for years, and despite federal regs to the contrary – was kicked out for the horrible crime of demanding finanncial records of SPEEA which eventually proved the ripoffs by Boffo and friends-

        That story is not yet over.

        As to the pension issues- I have worked- or tried to work on behalf of the large number of union members who have been ripped off by Boeing and SPEEA when they retired.


        have a good day

  17. Don :
    Its not that simple …..
    4) Nor do most SPEEA members KNOW (or believe) that the former BA employees who work full time for SPEEA continue to get pension service credits from boeing that ONLY apply to the Basic Benefit. Can you spell double dipping. ?
    Which means that theso called pension increases widely touted in the PR apply to the techs AND the staff, but usually NOT to the enginers !


    January 1,2005

    (a) General. “Credited Service” means all service accumulated by season of the
    Eligible Employee’s employment by the Company as an Active Participant prior
    to the Employee’s Retirement Date
    (b) Computation. Credited Service for each Participant shall be recorded in Hours of Service. In addition, Credited Service shall be recorded in years and thousandths of years (rounded to the nearest one-thousandth), and each Participant shall be credited for each Plan Year with a fraction of a year, not exceeding one,
    determined by dividing the Participant’s Hours of Service during the Plan Year by
    2,000. . . .

    c ) Exceptions. Credited Service does NOT include;

    (1) any service performed while an individual is not an Eligible Employee;
    (2) any service for which an Employee receives credit under any other defined
    benefit plan or money purchase pension plan maintained by a member of
    the Controlled Group, including any Credited Service earned under this
    Plan for which the Employee receives credit under the Pension Value
    (3) Service earned during a period for which Years of Service are disregarded
    under Section 1.47;
    (4) any time during which the Employee’s name was off the Active Payroll by
    reason of leave of absence or layoff, subject to the followingEXCEPTIONS

    (A) the first 30 days of the leave of absence will be treated as Credited
    Service; and
    (B) the aggregate of any leaves of absence on or after January 1, 1971
    for service performed for a collective bargaining representative
    certified under the Labor Management Relations Act whose
    members are Eligible Employees will be treated as Credited
    Service in computing Basic Benefits under Section 4.1 (a) and for
    determining vesting. Under no circumstances, however, will an
    Employee receive more than ten years of Credited Service for
    service with a collective bargaining representative; or
    5) any service earned during any period in which an Employee is eligible to
    contribute to the contributory benefit structure (Exhibit A) of either the
    Boeing Satellite Systems Retirement Plan or the Boeing Satellite Systems
    Retirement Plan for Bargained Employees).

    Apathetic Boeing Engineers nearing retirement take note

    If you cannot figure out why the STAFF does not work the alternate benefit issue on your behalf after reading this- and do not insist your Engineering Negotiators address this issue, simply bend over and smile . . .

  18. I come from the Right to work South – you know, the South where ALL Industry is going to find workers and help boost the economy. I don’t believe half of what SPEEA says as I believe SPEEA is all about perpetuating SPEEA and the SPEEA, er, uh, leadership(?). Yes, I believe the touting of average wages for a 30 year Engineer as being a flat out lie – if it ain’t, then I’m being underpaid by $40,000. Where do they get these numbers? I don’t know anyone making anything even close, so, I question these numbers – in fact, I would like to see an upper and lower end to the spectrum and data to determine if I am being lied to.

    Now, Boeing, Boeing is all about perpetuating Boeing and Boeing leadership and that’s o.k, because, guess what, if it is good for MY company, it is good for me – I mean, get a clue. Now, between Mike Delaney and SPEEA, I believe Mike Delaney IS dedicated to furthering Engineering and does not really believe an engineer is an engineer is an engineer. But, somewhere, Engineer’s have been getting the royal shaft for years here in Commercial-land. Boeing and SPEEA have watered down the Engineering Skills to the point where they can get ANYONE to operate a mouse and run a CAD program and claim the final product is as good or even better than any Engineer could do (and in many cases they would be right as not only have they raised the bar for the hourly workers, they’ve lowered the bar for engineering salary types). This is what they think because this is what they do.

    Where did this all get side-tracked? Why is it that they allow hourly workers to work as much OT as they want, and engineers just have to suck it in because engineers are being paid more money (supposedly). Well, take a look at the parking lot – all of the new vehicles and money are going to the hourly workers – it is so obvious, it is alarming. The hourly guy can make more, put away more and have more than the salary guy. Then when it is all over- we get what they get and they get what we get for retirement. Who is in a better position to retire? If you say the engineer, then you haven’t been listening. Tell your next engineer that he will not be getting as much of a paycheck as the hourly guy, that he will have the same retirement as the hourly guy and see how many engineers you get to work here. What is the point? Why would a person spend 4 to 10 years going to Engineering school if there is no incentive? Ironically, this is what the unions have done – they’ve made a level playing field. Sounds communistic, doesn’t it? Who is better off in this environment? If you say the engineer,again, you haven’t been listening.

    Look at your unionized states- Michigan, California, Washington – hey, they’re BROKE. Why, because the unions have run them into the ground, that is why.

    We need to make this state a Right-to-work state Why should I be FORCED to be in a union if I don’t agree with what they do? WHY? Because it is the LAW . If Washington State was a Right to Work state. there would still be a union, and if I didn’t want to be in the union, I wouldn’t have to be – here, they MAKE you be in their union. Ain’t freedom great? This state had better get back to Right to Work status, otherwise, the unions will slowly devour the economy, and no one will have a job. Is that what we want? No, we want our jobs You’ve heard the expression, don’t bite the hand that feeds you, haven’t you? The union will EAT the hand that feeds it. After a union has broken down a company, they buy part of it. What is wrong with this picture? Ask Poland.

  19. I read a lot of mis-impressions about these negotiations by members and observers alike. The bottom line is Certification. SPEEA members certify the the design build process per the FAA agreement. With out those that certifiy, no airplane can not be delivered thus no money may echange hands. The IAM may continue working but Boeing Co will not deliver any airplanes.
    Gary O

    • Basically correct- however- AFTER the 2000 strike, or should I say since…

      Boeing has moved many- most of the DERs or equivalents to non- SPEEA positions to prevent or at least mitigate that problem

  20. Don
    You said
    Boeing has moved many- most of the DERs or equivalents to non- SPEEA positions to prevent or at least mitigate that problem
    Wrongo bucko

    They have moved to a delegated organization set up so the DER’s are now AR’s — however they are STILL SPEEA — if an AR moves to management, he/she is encouraged to relinquish their AR delegation as they are not seen as having duties that allow them to maintain the knowledge base necessary to retain their delegation (All AR’s have to be redelegated every year)

    20 Year DER/AR
    not yet retired

    And to the person who loves the right to work state — if you are currently working there, then look no further as to why you are $40K shy of the average
    go begging to Boeing for raises etc — also if you think that Boeing doing well bodes well for you — fantasy land bucko — they will shaft you in a minute to keep the increases in their pockets, they have done it before and will do it again.
    I would rather stand up to Boeing then be satisfied with whatever crumbs they decide to throw our way.

    • RB ? Please translate for the unwashed just what a DER and AR is – I know that a DER is a Designated Engineering Representative , but the term AR escapes me.

      And I do recall a major effort By Boeing via the FAA to somehow reduce or eliminate the ‘ lever- hammer-‘ or whatever term fits to virtually stop deliveries if SPEEA should strike

      MY understanding ( from several years ago- was that BA was partly successful )

      So the term NO nerds NO birds still applies ?

      And of course the IAM can always ‘ work to rule ‘ ;-PP

  21. to Levi
    you made another misrepresentation about unions in your rant
    Why would a person spend 4 to 10 years going to Engineering school if there is no incentive? Ironically, this is what the unions have done – they’ve made a level playing field.
    The reason the hourly guys get more than the salaried (especially for overtime) — the Labor laws, not the unions (and the engineers have a union right? — how does that work) — anywho per the law, salaried people are paid a set amount for a year’s worth of work —
    part of the discrpancy of the law — and the fact that educated people (at one time) felt it was “unprofessional” to be paid hourly, or to get overtime — but time and being screwed by the company (we felt we were part of the company, unlike the “workers” in the shop) has changed that notion but we are left out in the cold
    It is the unions that got decent overtime pay for their workers, (you jealous?? I am) I want a STRONGER union not a weaker, nor ineffective one, and DEFINATELY do not want no union at all!! — It was the unions that got us the 40 hour work week, 8 hour days, week-ends, vacation time, sick leave, you name it — they fought, got beat up and died for our current cushy work environment — you want to do away with unions?? — so we can go back to the 18th century?? Robber Barons, working for the Company Store?? all those “good old days” — — Right to work states are a race to the bottom.
    The chamber of commerce rates each state as a Good For Business State or a Bad for Business State
    The southern Right to work states are mostly rated “Good for Business” but these are the same states that rate lowest in
    Median wage
    Health Care
    Highest in Drop outs etc (i.e. these are good places to have workers, but NOT good places for the workers to LIVE)

    However another telling statistic is the following
    Most of the large corporations have their headquarters located in “Bad for Business States” (i.e. that is where the executives live — even tho their operations (i.e. the workers) are in the “Good for Business states”)
    Hmmm what else do the Bad for Business states share?
    Highest median wages
    Highest ratings in health care, education, (not costs, outcomes) — i.e. these are good places to LIVE
    (and most CEO’s and executives of big business live in “Bad for business states”)
    Pls note — Illinois is a “Bad for Business state” so the claim that Boeing moved HDQ to Chicago due to the hostile enviornment in Wash State is another load of crock. — the Execs moved there for THEIR benefit.

    • AR= Authorized Representative, z, not s, unless you’re from the UK. Say it RB, you want socialism AND Communism. That is the ideal state for the, uh, state, right? Everybody getting their fair share. When John L Lewis started the AFL CIO, it was for a good reason – making it safer in the coal mines. That has now been reduced to a union asking for the moon and if they don’t get it, taking the company that pays them to its knees. Where does it end? Look at Detroit…The Auto world pays union members an average of $86/hour for their benefits, pensions, etc. – compare that to the Southern Auto Factories of $38/hour. Now, if you’re an automobile manufacturer – guess where that company that hires people and provides jobs will go? Not Detroit. So what has the union done there? Ran the company’s broke, that’s what they’ve done.

      One other thing, in 2008, one of the Union Newsletters plastered a picture of Barrack Obama on their cover and say, that’s who we want. That’s who WHO wants? Not me. You don’t speak for me and it should be illegal that you say that you ARE. If you want to go where Barrack Obama and the Unions are taking you, then have at it. But don’t tell me I want it, because I do not want it and I do not agree with it. But the Union has made it to where I don’t have a choice. Have your Union, but don’t tell me that I have to belong to it if I don’t agree with it – I want my RIGHT to WORK and CHOOSE if I want to be in a Union. It is the law because the Union made it the law. What have they done? They have taken my right to choose away from me. That is just fine with the Union because they do NOT want me to have a choice.

      South Carolina was fire up about it, weren’t they? They were so fired up about bringing the Union down there, they voted AGAINST it. Now, the Union would just love to go down to South Carolina and change their laws and force everyone to be in their Union – but that will be a long row to hoe. They like their jobs.

      My brother -in-law just left NIssan after 25 years – they paid him $150,000 just to retire – nice little package – no union there, either. The Union is all about forcing and taking, back home we call that robbery. I rest my rant.

      • Uhh levi – Unions are no different than governments or especially democratic based governments and like the U.S a republic. ” democracy is hard work ‘ If the members are apathetic and refuse to participate or keep their eye on the ball – officers- staff, they will be treated like sheep.

        besides which- your vision of all unions is based on the old ‘ trade union ‘ version, and not on many current professional unions.

        and 150k lump sum after 25 years is not a very good deal.

        and one does NOT have to join a union in any state- but you can be forced to pay dues or even become a religious objector and pay the equivalent to a non -religious IRS charity of your choice.

        if you want to rant- fine- but please try to use a few facts.

      • levi, when you start throwing the “ism” labels around your comments lose credibility

        Unions are not socialist nor communist, they are working people getting together (Right to peaceful assembly??) to be able to negotiate with a large corporation which no one worker would stand a chance with.
        Here is the reality of right to work
        A union works for YOUR interests against the corporation, in a right to work state, what that means is that free-loaders would be able to take advantage of all the benefits that the union would provide (negotiations, contract disputes, challanges to illegal firings or disciplines by the companies, benefit disputes etc) without paying for them — and when that happens, of course the unions would not be able to survive.
        no one is forced to join a union, but when a majority of workers have VOTED to join a union, and have a union represent THEIR interests with the company, then all the members that benefit from that representation share in the cost of that representation. If you CHOOSE to not join, then you give up your ability to participate in the union and help guide the direction the union takes.
        Again NO ONE is FORCED to join a union, first the workers have to vote to have the union represent them in the first place — just like in our democracy — So you don’t pay your taxes if the party you belong to is not voted into office?? Is that how YOUR democracy works??

        again, you have not bothered to notice the reality of the “good for business (bad for workers)” states vs “bad for business (good for workers, CEO’s, Corporate headquarters, etc)” states.
        So what if business comes down south and gives you minimum wage jobs, forces you into high deductible, high cost “health insurance” — Walmart gives their applicants forms and instructions as to how to apply for food stamps — FOOD STAMPS is one of Walmarts “employee benefits”!!! — i.e. we will mooch off the taxpayer in order to be able to pay our employees sub-market

        again you did not address the fact that unions are responsible for all the “normal workplace” niceties you currently enjoy — even without the union presence today — 40 hr workweek, week-ends, vacation pay, sick leave, a SAFE workplace,
        and it is sad indeed that after 29 years to think 150000 is a “nice little package”

        It is interesting that you feel proud to compare your state with less developed countries, when a company doesn’t have to look as far as China or Mexico or South America to find cheap labor to fatten their profits — they can just go to one of the Southern States to find that same cheap labor that has been sold out by their politicians — Do you think your politicians are REALLY looking out for YOUR interest when they sell you out to those companies that get tax breaks and friendly to business laws?? Really, whose pockets do you think are lined with money from those same businesses??
        Why is it that the people in those states are jealous of the pay and benefits we have worked to achieve
        In the past 40 years productivity in US corporations has DOUBLED (or more than doubled) — that means the company gets twice as much product for the same cost
        for the workers who achieve that productivity gain?? i.e. YOU GUYS DID THE WORK and what share of that improvement went to you all that made it happen?? 4% gain in median income — 4%!!!! Guess where all the money from the productivity gain went?? CEO’s stockholders, and others who had little or nothing to do with YOUR WORK — no one is asking for a “handout” or to “steal” — what is asked for is that when workers help make a company profitable — or more profitable — more productive, that that gain be SHARED by the people that made it happen — Not all skimmed from the top and crumbs sent down to the shop floor.

        Henry Ford was smart enough to pay his workers HIGHER than the norm at the time, he WANTED his workers to be able to afford his own products, and he KNEW that having a healthy, well-paid middle class would be good for EVERYONE — today’s Corporate “GIANTS” do not share the same common sense, they are all in a race to the bottom re: dealings with the workers that make their positions and wealth possible.
        So Levi, continue with your angry rants — they are directed at the wrong people, but as long as there are people like you to exploit, the CEO masters will continue to be fat and happy.

  22. AR = Authorised Representative
    The Organization (Boeing) receives the delegation, not the individuals, the Delegated Organization then choses the individuals (the Authorized representatives) — but these processes are all very tightly controlled and audited — Boeing was HOPING to take this inside the organization, but the FAA was also very wary so that they put very tight controls onto the organizational delegation, — We AR’s have all the same authority as before, and are kept free from undue pressure — there is an oversight organization composed of FAA and Boeing participants
    What is actually ironic is that this has actually slowed things down, as the Boeing bureacracy is worse than the FAA system!!
    They are very worried of doing something wrong, so everything has to be very “by the book” worse than before! (and this is with people who are not the most experienced in Certification, so those of us who have been doing this for a while have to educate the people supposedly watching over us!
    anywho, still No Nerds, No Birds
    AR’s are SPEEA — same as before, and now they have the threat of losing the entire Organizational delegation if they try any funny business

  23. Levi Hoehandle :
    Well written and well stated Don. I agree with your assessment. I have questioned SPEEA’s math for years. You have spelled it out and made absolutely valid statements that are backed up with facts. We need more folks like you to wade through the double-speak and ‘spit it out’ as they say. Thank you Don.

    LOL. You might consider why Don is so sure of himself but nobody takes him seriously. If half of what he said was true, there are a string of government agencies that would be pursuing causes of action. Labor unions are heavily regulated by the government.

    Don has no credibility. What he says sounds interesting at first but when you take a step back and look at it in totality, you realize there is a whole lot of 2 + 2 = 22 going on.

    • HEY EMPTY- you do know that about 2 years ago, it was announced in a SPEEA council meeting that there were two government agencies in SPEEA HQ going thru the books ?

      And that in mid 2010- I recall July- it was announced that the teamsters had found out that SPEEA had several staff improperly signed up for the SPEEA pension for about a decade- including top staff ?

      And that for the FIRST time in over a decade- the latest audit finally mentioned the FACT in notes re SPEEA staff pensions- that contributions were being made to the Teamsters pension plans ?

      BTW – government agencies move very slowly – especially in DOL regarding unions for a few samples

      If you want facts, send me an email

      If you think I have made a misstatement on this board or this thread- please poInt it out, and I’ll correct it IF you can provide a credible source in opposition.

      • BTW – in 2011- november – this note to members from Tom McCarty president may explain a bit more

        Item #2: Who is in the Teamsters pension plan?

        I think it was about 1999 when the Teamster represented SPEEA employees were enrolled in one of the teamster retirement plans.  At that time SPEEA asked the plan if SPEEA could also enroll four unrepresented employees. The plan agreed that those employees could be enrolled and that was accomplished. Last spring the plan contacted SPEEA and stated those four employees would have to leave the plan as now they were determined to be ineligible for plan participation. I have no idea why after 12 years of participation the plan administrators decided four SPEEA employees shouldn’t be in the plan

        You are encouraged to share this with any members who raised those questions.

    • EMPTY- As a concerned member- simply ask the E-Board executives about the following
      audit by WA State Labor and Industries regarding 2 Staff- what recovery and discipline was involved for overcharging for services by a factor of 4 to 5 for about7 or 8 years

      Thru FOIA

      Redactions by WA state Labor and Industries

      Thumbnail – Crony capitalism- SPEEA paying 4 to 5 times going rate for services


    This evening, SPEEA posted on its site the company offer-redline, and a letter to Boeing signed by the Negotiation team

    Its a near certainty that members will reject the offer.

    You may want to start _ or not start – a separate thread, since its a good bet that there will be a great deal of blogging and PR releases from both sides

    According to the N team

    September 17, 2012
    Gene Woloshyn
    The Boeing Company
    100 N. Riverside Plaza
    MC 5002-9562
    Chicago, IL 60606
    Dear Gene;
    Throughout the course of these negotiations, the Boeing negotiating team has repeatedly expressed the opinion that the SPEEA negotiating team did not actually speak for the SPEEA membership.
    Beyond words, this mistaken belief repeatedly manifested itself at the bargaining table with a refusal to engage in substantive dialog and the overt characterization of union concerns as “whining.” . .

    it goes on- downhill from there




    BTW -BA does know who speaks for the members- and it is the N-Team

    Some may recall my initial complaint about Goforth and a few staff

    BA is using this as a wedge issue-

    IMO- other than the vote – not much will happen before elections- other than blather

    Those interested might look up the data and pr in 1999-2000-

    it looks like deja vue all over again

    Thanks to ex GE and McDummy types

  25. For every dollar of untaxed compensation that Boeing provides to its employees, it costs the company one dollar minus the company’s marginal tax rate (things like health care are deductable business expenses). For every taxed dolllar that the employee must provide to replace it, to the extent that it remains revenue neutral to the employee, costs Boeing one dollar plus the marginal tax rate of the employee plus another 15.6% in Social Security and Medicare taxes. Any company that claims minimizing untaxed compensation makes it more competitive is being mis-managed by politically motivated extremists. It just doesn’t add up. It’s a zero sum game, and shifting the costs to the employees wages, in the end, only benefits the government. Maybe that had something to do with winning the tanker contract.

  26. I think Boeing Managment has been in Chicago way to long and have become part of the Chicago Machine of bullys and VERY disrespectful of “we the people” that allow them to have their BIG pay check and BONUS’s. We make that happen for them ! ! Wtihout us, they are nothing…………..

  27. SCOTT – Might want to start a new thread on this subject- after the BUC ( bargaining unit council ) meets this week to officially hear the N team reasons for rejection of BA BAF

Leave a Reply

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