Another costly strike for Boeing, Machinists
THE NEWS TRIBUNE
The economy being what it is, many Washingtonians have watched the union contract talks at Boeing with wonderment and perhaps even envy.
Before the Boeing Machinists went on strike in early September, the aerospace company’s had offered the union’s members an 11 percent salary increase over three years (5 percent in the first year), a minimum wage increase of $2.28, a ratification bonus of $2,500, a lump sum bonus worth about $5,000 and another large bonus linked to profits.
Out-of-pocket costs for the company’s chief health plan would have gone up – but the coverage would still have been generous by most standards. Overall, even the original offer would have looked like heaven to most Washington wage-earners.
Now, after striking for nearly eight weeks, the Machinists appear ready to ratify a new offer that does not appear dramatically better. The lost weeks of work cost the rank-and-file members dearly. The hit to the company’s profits may well exceed $1.5 billion.
We are not arguing that the Machinists should or shouldn’t have taken Boeing’s final offer in August. Only the union’s members can ultimately decide if their interests were served by this particular strike.
But the frequency of these strikes – they’ve been recurring roughly every five years – bodes ill for the survival of aerospace manufacturing in this state.
We hope the leaders of both the Machinists and Boeing are approaching these these negotiations with the future in mind.
Unlike a multitude of other manufacturers – think of the U.S. automakers – Boeing has been making serious money. Last year’s profit was $4.2 billion. It has years’ worth of aircraft orders in hand. Its strike losses aren’t going to send it to bankruptcy court.
But Boeing, more than most companies, operates in a ruthlessly competitive global marketplace. Its giant rival, Airbus, is now planning to build manufacturing plants in China, where labor is dirt-cheap. Such pressures have already compelled Boeing to outsource much of its work to other countries where costs are lower. That’s been a major grievance in this year’s strike.
Like other Washingtonians, we were appalled when Boeing decided in 2001 to move its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. But companies can move their offices where they want to. Unfortunately, they can also move their assembly lines if they so choose.
Richard Aboulafia, a respected aerospace analyst, wrote recently that “aviation centers are almost impossible to create, but they can easily be destroyed. I think Seattle will be the next to go.” He predicted that Boeing would be moving its future aircraft plants to Southern states where unions are weak.
We devoutly hope Aboulafia is wrong. But there’s something badly amiss when a company and its unions wind up so often in acrimonious, costly strikes.
If Washington is going to hang on to its aircraft plants, labor peace has to last longer than the expiration date of the current contract.
