The Death of Private Sector Unions: Boeing Wins Contract Fight with Machinists Union

[chikenwing]

Yup...while they're working to cut workers pay and benefits...

Boeing CEO gets 20% pay raise

Boeing Co. CEO James McNerney received a 20 percent pay raise 2012, to $27.5 million, according to the company's proxy statement.​

So? Should everyone get a 20% pay raise? Or would they rather keep their jobs instead? They can't have both.

If the working guys can't get a pay raise, the CEO shouldn't get one, either.

In fact, there should be a rule that if you lay people off or cut payroll, you have to lose a certain amount in the executive suit.

It's called, "leading by example."

No that's called envy.

 

[occupied]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

It will not happen while management still looks to labor to take the pain their bad decisions cause while keeping the rewards for themselves and the stockholders. Some of that must translate to higher wages at some point. Wage parity with China is not a goal anyone should look forward to.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

It will not happen while management still looks to labor to take the pain their bad decisions cause while keeping the rewards for themselves and the stockholders. Some of that must translate to higher wages at some point. Wage parity with China is not a goal anyone should look forward to.

The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. That's the bottom line. Corporations exist for the benefit of their shareholders, not their employees.

You can certainly make a reasonable case that making life better for employees would lead to better quality, which would lead to increased shareholder value -- as long as you can balance that with market forces -- but at least understand why a corporation exists.

.

 

[blastoff]

Well some of Boeing's union stooges got it right for a change.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

Oh, look, it's Mac being "moderate" again.

Reality check. The country was vastly better off for most of us when Unions were strong.

And frankly, if you are competing against a country that has absolutely no regard for the well-being of its people, there's no way you can race to the bottom fast enough, which is what I suspect the corporate types want.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

It will not happen while management still looks to labor to take the pain their bad decisions cause while keeping the rewards for themselves and the stockholders. Some of that must translate to higher wages at some point. Wage parity with China is not a goal anyone should look forward to.

The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. That's the bottom line. Corporations exist for the benefit of their shareholders, not their employees.

You can certainly make a reasonable case that making life better for employees would lead to better quality, which would lead to increased shareholder value -- as long as you can balance that with market forces -- but at least understand why a corporation exists.

.

But why should the rest of us tolerate that?

Hey, one could argue that a corporation can maximize its profits by dumping carcinogens into the water supply behind the school. I mean, why not. It's not their job to care about whether those kids get cancer, right. They are just about maximizing the profits.

But then those damned freedom hating Government Nanny State types put some regulations in saying they can't do that, those bastards. Don't they love "Freedom"?

 

[occupied]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

It will not happen while management still looks to labor to take the pain their bad decisions cause while keeping the rewards for themselves and the stockholders. Some of that must translate to higher wages at some point. Wage parity with China is not a goal anyone should look forward to.

The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. That's the bottom line. Corporations exist for the benefit of their shareholders, not their employees.

You can certainly make a reasonable case that making life better for employees would lead to better quality, which would lead to increased shareholder value -- as long as you can balance that with market forces -- but at least understand why a corporation exists.

.

I know why a corporation exists, it's why unions used to exist and why the greedheads wanted to kill them, dead, and then punish American workers for thinking that they deserve fair compensation for their labor. They look at China and then look at us and wish that we were more like them, beaten into submission and willing to work twenty hours a day for chicken feed. We're getting there but at what cost?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

Oh, look, it's Mac being "moderate" again.

Reality check. The country was vastly better off for most of us when Unions were strong.

And frankly, if you are competing against a country that has absolutely no regard for the well-being of its people, there's no way you can race to the bottom fast enough, which is what I suspect the corporate types want.

Joe, I'm doing a good job of keeping my New Year's resolution of limiting exposure to people like you (turns out it's not that tough!), but I'll respectfully point out that there's nothing we can do about global competition. It's here, and whether you like it or not, we have to deal with it. That's the reality of business, and I know that many don't understand much about the realities of business.

.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

Oh, look, it's Mac being "moderate" again.

Reality check. The country was vastly better off for most of us when Unions were strong.

And frankly, if you are competing against a country that has absolutely no regard for the well-being of its people, there's no way you can race to the bottom fast enough, which is what I suspect the corporate types want.

Joe, I'm doing a good job of keeping my New Year's resolution of limiting exposure to people like you (turns out it's not that tough!), but I'll respectfully point out that there's nothing we can do about global competition. It's here, and whether you like it or not, we have to deal with it. That's the reality of business, and I know that many don't understand much about the realities of business.

.

Sure we can.

We can say, "We are not going to do business with a country that routinely violates human rights, pollutes the environment and doesn't practice fair labor laws."

I mean, shit, Right Wingers have been punishing fucking Cuba for 50 years now for not going along with the Corporatist program.


SO we can do it. It's just certain people don't want to because they are making too much money off of it. And when we are fighting that war with China over who owns Asia in 20 years, just remember, it was people like you who enabled them.

 

[Seawytch]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

Oh, look, it's Mac being "moderate" again.

Reality check. The country was vastly better off for most of us when Unions were strong.

And frankly, if you are competing against a country that has absolutely no regard for the well-being of its people, there's no way you can race to the bottom fast enough, which is what I suspect the corporate types want.

Add to that competing with countries that provide health insurance to all its citizens...

 

[occupied]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

Oh, look, it's Mac being "moderate" again.

Reality check. The country was vastly better off for most of us when Unions were strong.

And frankly, if you are competing against a country that has absolutely no regard for the well-being of its people, there's no way you can race to the bottom fast enough, which is what I suspect the corporate types want.

Joe, I'm doing a good job of keeping my New Year's resolution of limiting exposure to people like you (turns out it's not that tough!), but I'll respectfully point out that there's nothing we can do about global competition. It's here, and whether you like it or not, we have to deal with it. That's the reality of business, and I know that many don't understand much about the realities of business.

.

I realize that apathy allows greed to rule the world.

 

[zeke]

.

Hopefully one day we'll get past the simplistic, binary, all-or-nothing debate on unions and look for ways for them to provide strong wages, benefits and quality without hamstringing American businesses in an increasingly intense, globally competitive environment. Maybe a slightly more complicated approach to addressing this complicated issue.

It won't happen as long as the partisan ideologues are screaming, of course, but hopefully one day.

.

In 2012, 15.9 million working Americans were represented by a union. And that number is and has been declining.

Seems to me the objective from the corporate side of the equation is to phase unions out.

But there are a number of companies with unionized work forces that are making a lot of money. So much for "hamstringing" American business'.

I would say that companies understand that getting rid of unions in the workplace is DEFINITELY in the interest of the corporations. Fuck the workers. They could be replaced with a Chinese guy. And if that hurts the American worker and economy, well so be it.

That's capitalism. Screw the workers, screw the economy, screw the country. Yea, that is todays version of capitalism. It's all about the executives and their multi million dollar salaries and bonuses.

 

[Seawytch]

It will not happen while management still looks to labor to take the pain their bad decisions cause while keeping the rewards for themselves and the stockholders. Some of that must translate to higher wages at some point. Wage parity with China is not a goal anyone should look forward to.

The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. That's the bottom line. Corporations exist for the benefit of their shareholders, not their employees.

You can certainly make a reasonable case that making life better for employees would lead to better quality, which would lead to increased shareholder value -- as long as you can balance that with market forces -- but at least understand why a corporation exists.

.

I know why a corporation exists, it's why unions used to exist and why the greedheads wanted to kill them, dead, and then punish American workers for thinking that they deserve fair compensation for their labor. They look at China and then look at us and wish that we were more like them, beaten into submission and willing to work twenty hours a day for chicken feed. We're getting there but at what cost?

Who cares what the cost is if shareholders get richer, that's all that matters.

Mitt Romney Extols Chinese Women Working For 'A Pittance' Behind Barbed Wire Fences

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again, when I'm flying at 20,000 feet in a metal tube at 400 MPH, I really want the guys who put it together to be well trained and satisfied with their jobs. I want them well paid.

I don't want it made in a "Right to Work" state by the guy who got turned down for the job of Possum Catcher.

You obviously dont know shit about machining and the quality control process.
None union shops turn out a far better product through communication among the machinist,engineers and designers. There isnt any of the "you have no input because it's MY job" bullshit.
On top of that,in none union shops only the best people work on close tolerance work.
It's not decided by how long you've worked there it's about how good you are.
And the better you are,the more money you make. As it should be.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

[

I see unions as all one in the same. They are a cancer, either to a government or an economy. I don't begrudge someone to earn an honest day's wages, but to take a local or state economy or government hostage to earn more that necessary is a bit distasteful to me.

Do you think these companies would pay a honest day's wages unless they had to?

Get real, guy.

The thing is, the companies have the ability to hold economies hostage merely by threatening to move a factory to Cleetus' right to work state or a third world country, and they shake down municipalities for tax breaks and the like...

And you have no problem with that.

Again- Conservatism is a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

God you're an idiot. They have no choice but to pay a decent wage or they'll get nothing but shit machinist.
You dont pay some dude who makes oil field flanges the same as you would an aerospace machinist.
If you have the skills you'll get payed. If you dont you wont. It's really a simple concept.

 

[Kimura]

This one of the most nonsensical issues conservatives get all fired up about, you would think every conservative is a CEO and will get more money just as soon as they can find a way to chisel it out of some working sap's paycheck.

Not if millions of unionized working saps demanding their pensions drain a major city of it's revenue day in and day out while crippling it's economy. All we need look to is Detroit for an example of what happens when these "working saps" want bigger and bigger checks and bigger pensions.

Why do I have to keep slapping this down.

Okay, your argument would make sense if Detroit was defeated in the market by non-union scab shops.

Guess what, it wasn't.

Detroit was crushed by German and Japanese automakers.

Automakers that are unionized, where the unions have a say on who the executives are, and no one gets paid a 8 figure salary.

Detroit collapsed because the guys in the corner offices insisted on continuing to make and sell gas-guzzlers when the market was calling for fuel efficient cars.

Not to mention German and Italian automakers pay their workers about twice as much as their US counterparts. The average autoworker is Germany makes roughly $67.00/HR in salary and benefits while their American counterparts make roughly $33.00 per hour in salary and benefits, yet remain one of the most competitive automakers in the world.

Also, as long as health care remains a marginal cost of production for US automakers, good luck competing with the Germans, Italians, French, Koreans, and Japanese. Good luck....

 

[Mac1958]

Also, as long as health care remains a marginal cost of production for US automakers, good luck competing with the Germans, Italians, French, Koreans, and Japanese. Good luck....

Yup, this completely archaic and inefficient practice of tying health care coverage to employment is absolutely absurd in a modern, global economy.

I suppose it made sense at one time, but not now.

.

 

[Avorysuds]

Funny...I recall during the Wisconsin discussions all the RWers saying that it wasn't the Private sector Unions they wanted to destroy, just public sector.

It's a race to the bottom.

Err... For that to be true somewhere in the 50-80% of all middle class would have to be part of a Union, instead I think it's something like 5-10%. That's based off of memory, not claiming it to be fact.


But unless you can show a majority of middle class America being in a Union you are 100% wrong in your claims.

Edit: we are around 11%

 

[Avorysuds]

Yup...while they're working to cut workers pay and benefits...

Boeing CEO gets 20% pay raise

Boeing Co. CEO James McNerney received a 20 percent pay raise 2012, to $27.5 million, according to the company's proxy statement.​

So? Should everyone get a 20% pay raise? Or would they rather keep their jobs instead? They can't have both.

If the working guys can't get a pay raise, the CEO shouldn't get one, either.

In fact, there should be a rule that if you lay people off or cut payroll, you have to lose a certain amount in the executive suit.

It's called, "leading by example."

And yet the Dem congress gives themselves multiple raises every year.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If left up to me, EVERY job would have union representation.

That's because you're a wimp who you needs your hand held. Just face the fact that some of us are smarter and have bigger balls than you and do things for ourselves.