Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Why the IAM 751 rejected the Boeing contract and what is needed for approval September 16, 2024
- Boeing CFO: we want to negotiate; taking steps to preserve cash September 13, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 23. New versus old, GTF versus V2500 September 13, 2024
- IAM files Unfair Labor Practice against Boeing in thumping rejection of contract September 13, 2024
- IAM rejects Boeing contract, strikes at midnight September 13, 2024
Leeham on-line poll: 61% expect no contract agreement with SPEEA, Boeing; 57% expect strike
We put two polls into the public domain this week, asking whether SPEEA and Boeing will reach an agreement next month; and if not, will SPEEA strike (a target date is Feb. 1).
The results are in: 61% expect no agreement when talks resume Jan. 9 and 57% expect SPEEA to strike. (These figures reflect results as of this writing. The data may change after this post because polling is still open.)
The percentages are a significant drop from the 96% vote that rejected the Boeing contract offer in October, but it should be noted there is no new offer on the table for SPEEA members to read and evaluate.
Additionally, this poll is of our readers and not specific to SPEEA.
Clearly the expectations are not good.
SPEEA’s executive director, Ray Goforth, is on record expecting talks to fail immediately when they resume because the gap between the union asks and the Boeing positions are so far apart. A strike vote will be solicited once talks break off.
Unlike the IAM 751, which requires a two-thirds affirmative vote for a strike, SPEEA requires only a simple majority.
The share holders are the people risking their money on Boeing. They should expect benefits and returns better than and before any of the unions, Mr. Goforth.
Sorry, share holders invest just a bit of money.
_Workers_ invest a significant part of their life.
Sorry the employees can leave anytime and seek more of what they want elsewhere. Employees don’t invest anything, unless they buy stock in the company. They put in a day’s work for a day’s pay. They don’t “invest” their life, or a part of their life.
A person who spends 25 years of her life developing the skills, knowledge, and understanding to be a proficient large-aircraft landing gear brake cooling system designer (for example) is far more heavily invested in her employer than a Wall Street fund manager who buys and sells shares all day. At the age of 47 she can’t just pick up and find another similar job since (a) there is only two other employers in the world and she isn’t going to be hired in France or Russia (b) no one hires people with that type of specific skill for other work if they are older than 40 (regardless of what the law says).
If you really want to create an economic system where there is no incentive for people to put in the long years needed to develop specialized, extremely technical skills then you need to think about and explain the long-term consequences of doing so. IMHO those consequences are eventual collapse of your society’s ability to execute complex technical projects; armies of mercenaries just don’t work as well as organic entities. Or at all.
Unless they invested when the company went public or participated in a new emission, shareholders have not done one bit to develop the company, they are passive owners and not even remotely part in the value added chain.
It is sad that the shareholder is viewed as the all mighty. Without the employees to develop and deliver the product, then the shareholder has nothing. It is the employees that have the technical expertises, the shareholder is investing the money to get a return. Also, a manager or CEO is as good as his/her employees and their ability to recognize and properly ulitize the available talent.
Without the share holder’s money invested in the company, nothing progresses much further than an idea of someone.
What was the last date that Boeing did a significant issue of new shares? By significant I mean 25% of more of the value of the company (you can adjust that to 20% or 15% or whatever). Entities buying and selling stock of long-established firms on the exchanges {1} aren’t investing any money in the entity itself; they are trading a legal fiction of a claim on future dividends – yet no entities other than public utilities have payed serious dividends since the 1920s.
{1} Something like 90% of stocks traded on Wall Street move among funds; very little is traded by “investors” as classically defined.
Money does not create anything, and certainly not value.
Management 101 states the value adding vector is the workforce, not the capital
Ahh, I see.
Neolitihic Capitalists. About the most primitive lifeform around, haven’t even learned to fission 😉
But it actually matches current fundi management principles.
Fortunately when these bright girls and boys have mathed the reality of their
production process to their primitive model they are no longer able to produce anything.
Customers are selfish critters: they want the best product at the lowest cost. Seeing ructions inside the manufacturer starts to raise their concerns about products and delivery schedules. Management may have the power, but they’d be wise not to put their throats to the razor and then shake their heads “No” – pyrrhic victories are not really victories at all.
Oh, here we go again with the European nonsense……………….
Stop that!
Just a note: shareholders that did not buy their shares from the company in an initial offering or a new emmission did not contribute anything to the company, not pne penny. What they paid for their shares went to whomever they bought them from.
If you believe otherwise, you, to quote our dear contributor Howard, “don’t know jack!”
Then you need an Economics 101 textbook. Send be your adress, I’ll give you mine.
What happens if all the share holders decides that they want to get the money back. Of course they can sell it to someone else, but if they were no buyers, what happens then. If I have money in a bank, I can expect to get that money if I wish to get it out of the bank, no? Even if share was bought after the company was formed, whoever owns a share, owns a part of it and is expected to get the market value of it, or something similar in value. If the company goes bankrupt, the workers loose their jobs (a sad thing indeed), shareholders might loose their entire life fortune.
A couple of points you seem to miss:
* Shares are not “money in the bank”
** you seem to overvalue the security of “money in the bank”
* stockholder are freely replacable.
* The market value of a corporation can be ZERO.
* If you don’t pay adequately the persons creating added value with your
money that will happen very fast 😉
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_(finance)
A couple of points you seem to miss:
* Shares are not “money in the bank”
** you seem to overvalue the security of “money in the bank”
* stockholder are freely replacable.
* The market value of a corporation can be ZERO.
* If you don’t pay adequately the persons creating added value with your
money that will happen very fast
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_(finance)
No money in the bank is totally secure, but with Federal government backing (at least in the US) you should have a very good “secured” amount (I think is $250,000.00) as of today. So, if I have that amount, would I invested in a company that guarantees me nothing? Companies need shareholders more than the people need companies to invest in. After all, plenty of people decide to stock cash inside of mattresses because they do not trust the bank, and less so a company for them to invest that money in. If a company has zero value, what’s the incentive for investing in it? You can replace stocks. Can you easily replace the amount of money that a certain investor would be willing to invest then decide not to? I know that when certain not so good grade is given to a company, investors would be weary of investing in that company. Actual shareholders might see their shares depreciate, which then can create a shares “sell off,” further dropping the price of all outstanding shares which is no good for anybody involved. So, If you have a million dollars to invest right now, will you invested in Boeing or Chrysler?