IAM’s offer to Boeing: While IAM 751 released its analysis of the Boeing contract offer of last week, it refuses to release its own offer to Boeing. We asked for it and received a terse, “That’s not available.” Thus, we are left with 751’s analysis that Boeing’s offer is unreasonable and basically unchanged from the one voted upon November 13 (and rejected by a 2-1 margin). But we don’t know how reasonable or not the 751 counter-proposal was, which was rejected by Boeing.
751’s refusal to disclose its counter to Boeing also leaves its own membership in the dark.
Meanwhile, a Chicago Tribune columnist isn’t too enthused about the Boeing “asks.” Chicago, of course, is where Boeing’s corporate headquarters are and Illinois is one of the state’s bidding for the 777X project. As we wrote on December 9, the audacity of Boeing’s asks are mind-boggling. Others are waking up to this fact.
Another analysis notes how little leverage the IAM has right now because this contract negotiation comes well before the current contract expires in 2016, and as a result 751 can’t strike.
But mark our words: if Boeing puts the 777X elsewhere after trying to strong-arm the union (in their view), there will be a retaliatory strike in 2016 regardless of the offers. This happened in 2008 as payback for the 2002 and 2005 contracts and outsourcing that came from them.
The IAM 751 members are going to strike themselves right out of a job. But we have seen the IAM shut down a company rather than give concessions, and call that a victory. (Eastern Airlines, 1991.)
IAM v Itself v Boeing: It’s no surprise that the IAM v itself v Boeing continues to dominate the aerospace news, at least in the US.
The Seattle Times has two stories in its Sunday paper worthy of note:
IAM is between a rock and a hard place (IAM v Boeing)
Two key players in the drama (International v Local)