Published: Thursday, April 23, 2009
PRESERVING OUR AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Two positive steps to take
That Washington may be on the verge of losing its aerospace manufacturing base isn't news. Still, the warning reiterated Wednesday by noted analyst Scott Hamilton to Snohomish County business and government leaders should be treated with the urgency it deserves, here and in Olympia.
"What does Boeing want?" That's a refrain repeated by state legislators, often in exasperation.
"What do they expect us to do, roll over?" That's generally how leaders and the rank-and-file of Boeing's largest union respond when it's suggested that their frequent strikes will drive Boeing production to friendlier environs.
The answers aren't so mysterious.
The company has said, time and again, that Washington needs a more competitive business environment, which includes unemployment insurance and worker compensation costs more in line with national averages. On that score, it's critical that the Legislature leave intact the original structure of Senate Bill 5963, which would make federally-mandated changes to the state's unemployment insurance system without reducing benefits. Amendments from the House would expand benefits, eventually increasing costs for employers and reducing their capacity to create jobs.
Lawmakers must reject these changes, and Gov. Chris Gregoire should be prodding them in that direction. Otherwise, the state is essentially telling Boeing and other major employers, "Hey, we can get along fine without you."
Boeing and its unions could forge the beginnings of a more constructive, long-term relationship by finding a concrete way to avoid the work stoppages that have made many of the company's customers see it as unreliable. One way, which may be under consideration by some stakeholders, would be for Boeing and its key unions to enter into a long-term (say, 20-year) no-strike agreement, sending any contract impasses to binding arbitration.
It's a fair way to ensure reasonable deals for all, and the long-term survival of the thousands of jobs that form the foundation of the Puget Sound economy. It would send an unmistakably positive (and much-needed) signal to Boeing's customers, and create a true partnership between the company and its workers.
The alternative, continuing the bitter animosity that erupts before and during contract talks with the Machinists union, just gives the region's largest employer an easy reason to pull up stakes.
Hamilton, the aerospace analyst, told Wednesday's gathering of the Snohomish County Economic Development Council that Washington "can't have any more lip service" when it comes to keeping its most vital industry here. Real action is what matters, and it's in the vital interest of the state and Boeing's unions to take it.
"What does Boeing want?" That's a refrain repeated by state legislators, often in exasperation.
"What do they expect us to do, roll over?" That's generally how leaders and the rank-and-file of Boeing's largest union respond when it's suggested that their frequent strikes will drive Boeing production to friendlier environs.
The answers aren't so mysterious.
The company has said, time and again, that Washington needs a more competitive business environment, which includes unemployment insurance and worker compensation costs more in line with national averages. On that score, it's critical that the Legislature leave intact the original structure of Senate Bill 5963, which would make federally-mandated changes to the state's unemployment insurance system without reducing benefits. Amendments from the House would expand benefits, eventually increasing costs for employers and reducing their capacity to create jobs.
Lawmakers must reject these changes, and Gov. Chris Gregoire should be prodding them in that direction. Otherwise, the state is essentially telling Boeing and other major employers, "Hey, we can get along fine without you."
Boeing and its unions could forge the beginnings of a more constructive, long-term relationship by finding a concrete way to avoid the work stoppages that have made many of the company's customers see it as unreliable. One way, which may be under consideration by some stakeholders, would be for Boeing and its key unions to enter into a long-term (say, 20-year) no-strike agreement, sending any contract impasses to binding arbitration.
It's a fair way to ensure reasonable deals for all, and the long-term survival of the thousands of jobs that form the foundation of the Puget Sound economy. It would send an unmistakably positive (and much-needed) signal to Boeing's customers, and create a true partnership between the company and its workers.
The alternative, continuing the bitter animosity that erupts before and during contract talks with the Machinists union, just gives the region's largest employer an easy reason to pull up stakes.
Hamilton, the aerospace analyst, told Wednesday's gathering of the Snohomish County Economic Development Council that Washington "can't have any more lip service" when it comes to keeping its most vital industry here. Real action is what matters, and it's in the vital interest of the state and Boeing's unions to take it.
Comments
(