Long, bitter history precedes union vote at Boeing Charleston today

Feb. 15, 2017, © Leeham Co.: Boeing’s touch-labor workers at its 787 assembly plant in North Charleston (SC) will vote today on whether to become represented by the International Association of Machinists (IAM).

It’s a vote with huge stakes for both sides.

Boeing vociferously opposes a Yes vote. The IAM, which represented workers on the property when it was owned by Vought before Boeing purchased the plant, was voted out by the workers, by then employed by Boeing, just days ahead of Boeing selecting Charleston for the second 787 assembly line. It is widely believed the vote throwing out the IAM was the capper in Boeing’s decision to locate line 2 in Charleston.

The IAM has been itching ever since to regain representation of the workers here. A previous vote was scrubbed when it became clear, via nose-counting, it would fail.

Huge stakes

For the IAM, a successful vote has more symbolism than merely gaining new dues-paying members. It will be seen as vindication of the earlier representation and an endorsement of its long-running campaign asserting Boeing mistreats and underpays Charleston employees. It will also remove some leverage Boeing has over the

Boeing Charleston (SC). Photo via Google images.

Seattle-based IAM 751 district, which Boeing successfully beat up on several occasions for labor contract concessions. Bitterness remains with IAM members in the Seattle area.

For Boeing, losing the vote means having to deal with another union representation that will demand higher wages and benefits. It will open the Charleston plant to the potential of strikes. It will have to deal with a union in the event of employee dismissals or grievances.

It will also be a repudiation of Boeing’s own stewardship of its employees.

Three thousand employees are eligible to vote in today’s election.

Long fight with the IAM 751

The Seattle area is represented by IAM District 751. Boeing and 751 have a long history of contentious relations. Strikes were common. The turning point was the 58-days 2008 strike, which came just as the Great Recession started. The timing couldn’t have been worse. How could the union strike for better wages and benefits, and rejecting give-backs, when the financial markets were collapsing, Boeing orders were drying up and hundreds of thousands of Americans were losing their jobs?

The strike prevented Boeing from delivering airplanes for near two months, costing it billions of dollars in revenues. The full catch-up didn’t occur until the next year.

Then CEO Jim McNerney had it with IAM. All-out war was declared. The first decision on the table was where to locate the second 787 assembly line.

Jon Ostrower, one of the leading aviation journalists, said Boeing decided as early as February 2009 to located line 2 in Charleston. Boeing claimed this wasn’t so.

New negotiations between 751 and Boeing began. Boeing wanted a long-term contract and some concessions. IAM 751 wasn’t willing to give everything Boeing wanted, but its leadership claimed they made a concessionary offer that stunned Boeing negotiators. 751 said the negotiators went away and never came back with a response.

Boeing claimed 751 demanded higher wages and benefits that were unacceptable.

In October 2009, shortly after the Charleston vote decertifying the IAM district there, Boeing announced line 2 would be in Charleston.

Along with it came state and local incentives that are widely believed to approach $1bn, but the value was never confirmed.

What was true was that Washington State kept asking Boeing if new incentives here would help Boeing decide to locate line 2 in Everett. Boeing kept saying incentives had no role—this decision was all about the union.

Union? What union?

After Boeing announced the decision to put line 2 in Charleston, IAM 751 filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), charging the decision was retaliation for the 2008 strike. Under discovery, 751 obtained documents that made it clear Boeing’s own internal assessment declared locating line 2 in Charleston was the highest risk alternative.

In a written response to the 751 complaint, Boeing—despite plenty of on-the-record press statements and conversations with Washington elected and administrative officials—claimed the decision had nothing at all to do with the union difficulties. It was a remarkable piece of sophistry.

Before the NLRB could begin hearings, Boeing launched the 737 MAX. And McNerney lowered the boom.

Forced into the MAX

When Airbus launched the A320neo program in December 2010, Boeing dismissed the airplane as a ridiculous idea that nobody wanted.

Boeing then was studying what to do about the 737: just improve it, re-engine it (an option largely publicly dismissed, but nevertheless considered) or launch a new, clean-sheet replacement.

Tom Enders, then CEO of Airbus (left), Gerard Arpey, then CEO of American Airlines, and Jim Albaugh (right), then CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Albaugh was surprised by American’s talks with Airbus. Getty photo via Google images.

Jim Albaugh, then CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, favored the latter. Confident in the presumed superiority of the 737NG over the A320(ceo), and dismissive of the neo, Boeing took its time.

All this changed in June-July 2011. Word leaked to Boeing that American Airlines was about to place a huge order for the A320ceo and neo families. Boeing officials in Chicago (headquarters) and Seattle (BCA HQ) were thunderstruck. American had been an exclusive Boeing customer since the 1990s.

But American had a huge fleet of rapidly obsolescing Boeing MD-80s. From a practical standpoint, it would have been difficult for American to replace these aging airplanes from a sole-source provider. But Boeing, complacent with the exclusive supplier arrangement with American, didn’t even know AA and Airbus were talking.

After word leaked, Boeing insiders told LNC that McNerney himself decided within 48 hours to launch the 737 MAX.

Boeing went on to win a major order from American—but the Airbus deal wasn’t blocked. More than 400 ceos and neos were ordered.

At the press conference, Tom Enders, then-CEO of Airbus, sat grinning ear-to-ear. Albaugh looked as if he had just swallowed a half dozen lemons, whole.

The 737 MAX threat

Over the next few months, it was assumed Boeing would build the MAX at its Renton (WA) plant. Albaugh even said so.

McNerney promptly slapped Albaugh down, in a rare public rebuke and illustration of oft-talked about tensions and divisions between Chicago and Seattle. McNerney said no decision had been made where to assemble the MAX.

Washington State and union officials went into panicky overdrive. The State came up with new incentives and the union granted new concessions, including extending the contract expiration date agreed after the 2008 strike.

The union also agreed to drop the NLRB complaint.

Boeing announced the MAX would be assembled in Renton. Few believed otherwise, but Boeing skillfully played the decision to locate 787 line 2 in Charleston against the fear the MAX could go elsewhere, too.

One IAM 751 insider—who is hardly a moderate when it comes to discussing Boeing—grudgingly admires Boeing’s strategy in locating line 2 in Charleston. He said the move gave Boeing then and continues to give Boeing now the ability to play Charleston off against Seattle in contract negotiations or site selection for the next airplane.

Next Up: 777X

Next up was the decision to launch the 777X program, in response to the Airbus A350 XWB. Although the A350-1000, the direct competitor to the 777-300ER, has been a slow seller, it nonetheless renders the 777-300ER economically obsolete.

The 777X is Boeing’s response. The 777-8X, about the same size as the -1000, is an ultra-long haul airplane, with more than 9,000nm range. This compares with the -1000’s range of a little more than 8,000nm.

Although Boeing claims the -8 is more economical than the -1000, LNC’s analysis gives the edge to the -1000.

The 777-9 has 40-45 more seats than the -1000 in typical three-class configuration. Accordingly, it has better seat-mile economics, but a direct comparison is unfair because the two airplanes are in different categories. Airbus is considering launching an equally-sized A350-2000, but so far has been rife with indecision.

Boeing is also considering an even larger 777-10, but at this point, it’s wishful thinking. (This figured, however, in Singapore Airlines’ decision to order the 777-9 last week. See a report on this in LNC tomorrow.)

McNerney, once more sensing an opportunity to beat up IAM 751, declared the 777X might be assembled outside Everett. A new battle with the union began, one that would tear 751 apart and pit it against its own parent, the IAM International headquarters.

More concessions, incentives and drastic fallout

McNerney demand that 751 further extend the already-extended 2008 contract, this time to 2024, and make major give-backs on health care and pension benefits.

Before the union could even take up the issue, Washington State offered to extend tax breaks given in 2003 for the 787 (line 1) another 25 years. The price tag: $8.7bn. Although for the entire Washington aerospace industry, the package’s language tied Boeing’s portion specifically to the 777X—something that was illegal under World Trade Organization rules. The WTO already ruled the 787 tax breaks illegal. LNC warned that extending those to the 777X would come under WTO scrutiny and likely would also be found illegal. The State pooh-poohed the warning, but in fact, this is exactly what happened in a decision handed down in January.

The Boeing CEO bypassed 751 leadership and began dealing directly with the head of the IAM International, which pretty much drove the bargaining. Leadership at 751 reluctantly appeared to support the new concessions. The membership revolted, causing the 751 president to backtrack and label the proposed contract “crap.” The contract was voted down.

The IAM International took over, bypassing 751 entirely and negotiated a new contract with Boeing. A new vote was scheduled the first day after the annual Christmas-New Year’s holiday break, when many senior union members were still on vacation.

Leadership and many rank-and-file members charged International set the date to stack the vote with junior members who weren’t vested in the pension and health benefit plans. The tactic worked. The new contract passed, barely.

Boeing located the new 777X wing production plant and assembly line in Everett.

High cost of peace

Boeing obtained labor peace, if that’s what you want to call it, because no strike is possible until 2024. But the cost was high.

The president of 751 retired. International tried to purge select members of the leadership team who opposed International and the two contract offers. Members were divided. Disarray within the union was deep and divisive—outcomes that no doubt didn’t distress McNerney and those in Boeing’s leadership who were anti-union.

But the cost to McNerney was not free of charge, either. Wall Street analysts told LNC the war on the union cost McNerney credibility at the Board of Directors, despite many being hand-picked by the CEO. The complaints, the analysts said, focused on McNerney’s downplaying or failing to correctly analyzing just how pliant the union would be or how disruptive the fights would be.

Several analysts believe that the declining credibility with the board contributed to naming Dennis Muilenburg president and COO of The Boeing Co. when he was, and eventually CEO and chairman on the timeline that occurred.

What’s next

Boeing continues to build up Charleston. The 787-10 is assembled exclusively here, not co-located with other 787 work in Everett. Some work for the 737 MAX is now done here. More than enough land is nearby to expand. The Middle of the Market airplane, also called the New Mid-range Aircraft (NMA), could be a prime candidate for assembly in Charleston.

Without a union, Boeing can come back to IAM 751 following the NMA program launch (generally thought to be likely next year) to seek yet more contract concessions on the current one, with yet another extension from 2024 to still farther in the future.

Undoubtedly, Boeing will try to obtain more concessions from Washington State, though what can be done with tax breaks to 2040 and an adverse WTO ruling hanging over matters will require some very creative thinking.

If the 3,000 Boeing workers vote today to unionize with the IAM, holding Charleston over Seattle’s head becomes largely moot.

This would not prevent Boeing from soliciting RFPs from across the country for an NMA assembly site. Missouri, where Boeing’s defense business is located and which is in decline, is one possibility. Boeing’s defense operations in Huntsville (AL) is another. Kinston (NC), which nearly won the 787 line 1 assembly line in 2003 (and which has a growing aerospace cluster) could be another. Other states would certainly make a bid.

President Donald Trump, who is anti-union, is to visit the Charleston plant Friday. His Tweets probably can be expected shortly after the vote is announced tonight.

22 Comments on “Long, bitter history precedes union vote at Boeing Charleston today

  1. The 777X had to stay in Seattle. Was it really possible to move the old 777 fuselage production line in the time available ? I know they have invested in technology to raise the automation for the fuselage, a cold start at another site would raise the horrors of the 787 again . While the wing could be done elsewhere there wasnt any airlifter which could lift it in one .

  2. I appreciate the review above; however, three key points are either missed/underemphasized. One, if you’re an SC BA worker, why would you EVER want these HYPOCRITES to represent you? (These are the [edited] that trashed you and your work just a few years ago!) Two, as noted in the article, SC and its residents have a golden opportunity to continue to really build its BA base by staying nonunion. If I were the SC government, I’d get busy with wining and dining, and getting the BA execs out their cold Seattle and Chicago headquarters to play golf in the SC year-round sunshine. (Send Washington state a REAL message–pick up the tab for a board of directors/annual BA shareholders meeting in Charleston. Beat’em “black and blue” with kindness/southern hospitality, SC!) Three, Washington State is starting to look completely “out of control” on its Seattle area cost of living/leftie policies. (“The center cannot hold.”) Transition your work force out of Seattle-orbit “Cascadia” (the ecotopians/GATT-rioters’ heaven), before it’s too late. BA execs/board members should remember their ultimate responsibility is to their shareholders–NO ONE ELSE!)

    • @MontanaOsprey,

      Whatever. Nevertheless, the workers in South Carolina are fools if they don’t vote for a Union. Boeing’s got a Union – a collection of lobbyists, large stockholders, executives and politicians that all work together to unsure that wages are kept down and government subsidies and military contracts keep being handed over. Boeing’s Union is very effective, and it’s the reason they don’t want to see their workers get a Union, too.

  3. In the private sector I dunno that trump is really anti union at all. He’s really us manufacturing for support, including the unions, with his immigration and trade positions.

    • Please do not tell us what Trump is and isn’t.

      Scatter shot is all you can say.

      • Why not? People on here are always telling us what Trump is and isn’t.

        Regardless he did get quite a bit of union support.

  4. Very interesting article. I don’t really notice this sort of trouble at Airbus, and the French are renowned for their lefty politics and high social costs. Does it have to be IAM, couldn’t they go with another union? $800 seems like a lot of money, even if they properly represented their members.
    The thing that I really have trouble understanding, is why was IAM so keen to spike the vote and do a deal deal rather than just letting it’s member’s decide?

    • Hmmm, both sides want to bias the vote.

      Been there, had that done to me, got scars to prove it

  5. I’d also note that a significant portion of the 787 industrial plan, aside from the two sites, was designed as an industrial anti union system. Yes, it was a total disaster for Boeing, costing even more than the 58 day strike did, but I don’t think this is a debatable point, and perhaps worth mentioning, if only briefly.

    The NLRB complaint though, I do recall reading to have been highly political (seen as anti-red state back then from the right side of the political spectrum).

    • I think more correctly by an unbiased observer, Boeing broke the law.

      Boeing can do whatever it wants, it can’t have a contract with a union and then threaten a union with job removal which they did publically.

      That in turn is a violation of the CBA.

      It was a self inflicted wound.

      If they had kept their mouth shut and just done it no issues.

      As they clearly were using it as a bargaining cudgel, they got what they deserved.

  6. Is it possible for the SC workers to ask Boeing to give them similar advantages than in Washington against the rejection of IAM … so they do not have to subsidize union and loose no day on strike!!
    And most important keep their factory going up and better

  7. About McNerney and his unrequited love for employees. He was a Jack welch wannabeee and one of the MDC gang. Books have bdeen written about the MDC takeover of Boeing and its short and long term effects on Boeing.

    Here is a sample of a response to one of his more famous comments.

    http://www.speea.org/Communications/Temp/Must_be_cowering.pdf

    And lets not forget that under the MDC gang takeover, not only did the IAM have a problem, but the engineers union (SPEEA ) had the largest white collar strike in U.S History. 40 days in the year 2000.

  8. Been there, done that, threats abound.

    Where is Kelley Ann when you need her?

  9. Interesting- AFL_CIO Trumka will co-opeerate with Trump, etc

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/afl-cios-trumka-ready-to-work-with-trump/article/2607017

    “..AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka offered a tentative olive branch to President-elect Donald Trump Wednesday, saying that the nation’s largest labor federation was willing to try to meet him part way on economic policy issues.

    Trumka had been one of Trump’s harshest critics during the campaign, repeatedly calling him a “racist” and mobilizing union support on behalf of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

    In a statement emailed to reporters, Trumka said his organization accepted the outcome of the election and offered Trump “our congratulations.” He said organized labor was obliged to try to work with Trump for the good of the nation….”

    And now Trump will apparently visit Charleston for roll-out of 787-10

    IAM is part of AFL-CIO

    Break out the popcorn- could be a cage match ..

    In this corner . .

    • There is a lot of that suck up going around

      Be interesting to see how it falls out after 3 months.

      Me, I am exhausted already.

  10. The 2008 Strike was less about money and benefits that it was about the 2002 contract, where Boeing used 9/11 and the associated layoffs as a weapon of fear to gain big concessions from 751, in a vote that saw the offer rejected, but ratified because the 60% super majority vote to strike was not obtained.

    That made a strike in 2008 a foregone conclusion. Boeing had recalled all those who wanted to come back, and was hiring anew.

    2008 was payback for 2002. The financial crisis had yet to begin, and as it turned out, Both Boeing and it’s employees largely escaped any fallout from it.

    Bylaws changes have been made to prevent meddling by the international. Boeing would be forced to approach 751 directly to re-open the existing contract. No proposal can even be talked about unless the membership votes to re-open the contract allowing negotiation to take place. And it is likely that as a prerequisite to any new mid-contract negotiation that the current “No Strike” clause would have to be nullified before any talks took place giving strike authority to the union in case talks failed.

    And the IAM international president’s powers to impose a contract regardless of the outcome of a vote “for the good of the Union”, has been stripped away.

    • Fair assessment.

      Another self inflicted wound.

      Part of the Unions problem though is that in order to keep elected (funny how abdicative that seems to be) they have to keep getting more and more.

      At some point there really is what you are worth.

      The American Auto industry did face that and its been a major restructure

      Sadly, unions have to be down to their last member before sanity prevails.

  11. I remember in the ’60/’70-ies that the Japanese (some, at least, in a number large manufacturing companies) were going on strike…repeatedly.

    They actually worked more & differently and were more productive, pushing management, then asking for higher wages getting their work approach institutionalized. True story.

    Just wanted to provide this perspective to how bad/good are unions.

    One hears so much non-sense (pick a side). Sure, sure, once you assemble ‘000 of people, human nature is what it is.

    But there are ‘orthogonal’ ways. Sometimes.

    • Yeah…Japanese Unions are an interesting phenomenon. I used to work with a bunch of Unionized Engineers at Mitsubishi Electric – they were a good bunch of guys and man-for-man the smartest Engineers I have ever known. They got along just well with Management, and vice versa – and so did the other unionized workers.

      The way the Unionized workers and Management at Mitsubishi worked together was in great contrast to what I’ve seen at American companies – who seem to be in a constant state of war with their Unions. It’s a needless and wasteful approach to employee relations that company American Management seem to prefer. Very sad.

      • Actually- SPEEA- Boeing Engineers and Techs union got along quite well with Boeing for about 50 years. Then Boeing got” bought out ” by MDC- ( “with Boeing money” ) and wthin a few years, with the MDC managment ascendant had their FIRST strike.
        In the process- the IFPTE and AFL_CIO got their hooks into SPEEA ( who until then had been an independant union) and the rest is sordid history.

        Even so, SPEEA dues are about 60-65 % that of IAM, based on 85 percent of the average hourly wage currently $ 47.21 per month.

        • Poor wording Dues per site ARE $ 47.51 and apparantley just went up to a bit over $43/month

          SPEEA founded about 1946- one early member later became CEO – T Wilson.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.