I wrote about this in another post but it’s so slanted in Boeing’s favour that near every outlet is reporting this as a 25% increase.
It’s not effective right now - it’s scaled over the next four years. This means it won’t cover the rising cost of everything and it’s peanuts compared to what the company could afford.
Honestly I wish one of these large unions would go all the way and get a salary that these workers actually deserve. We see these situations happen too often where the employer is obviously in the wrong, yet they have the capital - financially and otherwise - to stonewall the union and wait until they relent as the coffers run low.
It also eliminates annual performance bonuses, doesn’t improve their benefits, and leaves the pension that Boeing stole off the table. I was pretty excited when I read the news because someone close to me works there. When I talked to him about it he gave me the skinny. They’re probably still going to strike if Boeing doesn’t offer more.
Edited: my phone changed “doesn’t” to “does”, which completely changed the meaning
I had read about that somewhere. It’s unbelievable in some respects that if shareholders are looking for the company to make cuts, it always starts with the people towards the bottom of the ladder. So much could be recouped by taking the axe to the executive branch.
I wish your friend and his colleagues well. I hope they come out better off than this.
“Shareholder demands” is usually bullshit. It’s the demands of a few majority shareholders who are greedy beyond measure. I agree with you on your proposition though.
That was a bit tongue in cheek, probably should have put it in quotes or something. The board can more or less make any decision so long as they can plausibly say it’s in the interest of the shareholders. Like you say, this tends to match the interests of only a few entities, not actually everyone with stock.
I feel like a lot of problems arise from this short term view of any board’s fiduciary responsibility to the ‘shareholders’.
I wrote about this in another post but it’s so slanted in Boeing’s favour that near every outlet is reporting this as a 25% increase.
It’s not effective right now - it’s scaled over the next four years. This means it won’t cover the rising cost of everything and it’s peanuts compared to what the company could afford.
Honestly I wish one of these large unions would go all the way and get a salary that these workers actually deserve. We see these situations happen too often where the employer is obviously in the wrong, yet they have the capital - financially and otherwise - to stonewall the union and wait until they relent as the coffers run low.
It also eliminates annual performance bonuses, doesn’t improve their benefits, and leaves the pension that Boeing stole off the table. I was pretty excited when I read the news because someone close to me works there. When I talked to him about it he gave me the skinny. They’re probably still going to strike if Boeing doesn’t offer more.
Edited: my phone changed “doesn’t” to “does”, which completely changed the meaning
I had read about that somewhere. It’s unbelievable in some respects that if shareholders are looking for the company to make cuts, it always starts with the people towards the bottom of the ladder. So much could be recouped by taking the axe to the executive branch.
I wish your friend and his colleagues well. I hope they come out better off than this.
“Shareholder demands” is usually bullshit. It’s the demands of a few majority shareholders who are greedy beyond measure. I agree with you on your proposition though.
That was a bit tongue in cheek, probably should have put it in quotes or something. The board can more or less make any decision so long as they can plausibly say it’s in the interest of the shareholders. Like you say, this tends to match the interests of only a few entities, not actually everyone with stock.
I feel like a lot of problems arise from this short term view of any board’s fiduciary responsibility to the ‘shareholders’.