My column in today’s paper took a look ahead at next week’s Boeing Aerial Blogfest (see the entry below). Thanks to DL Byron for taking a minute to chat with me about it, and thanks to Chris Pirillo for trying to get back to me — sorry I missed your call.
Of course, everyone who gets The Herald home delivery already KNOWS that (if you don’t, call our circulation folks at 425-339-3200 … skilled professionals are standing by). Besides, the big news of the day was the International Association of Machinists’ strike sanction meeting down at Safeco Field in Seattle.
Memo to Jerry Calhoun, Boeing Commercial Airplane’s VP of HR (and a fellow wine lover): Jerry, the Machinists are NOT happy. The rank-and-file thinks you’re going to try to rip them off.
First Key Quote from an Everett 777 worker: “I’d be stupid to think the Boeing Co. wasn’t trying to take things away.”
Second Key Quote, from another 777 guy: “I just don’t trust corporations, the way they’re going.”
These guys told me they’re ready to cash in their VIPs — that’s Boeing’s version of a 401(k) — and take out home equity loans to finance a six-month strike, or even a career change. Given the insane increases in home values around here, these guys have enough equity to stay out that long and more.
The big issues in this round of talks are the same issues labor has everywhere these days: pensions, health care costs and job security. In fact, the pension thing is something I plan to write on more this summer. The IAM’s issues tie in with a whole lot of what’s going on nationally in this arena.
But there’s a ton of residual bitterness from the ‘02 contract talks, most of it surrounding a change in seniority and promotion rules. It’s a topic way too esoteric for the paper, I think, but if you guys are reading an aerospace blog, you’re gonna be into this stuff, so … here goes.
The issue is a class of jobs created in the 2002 contract for “team leaders.”
This was one of the issues that almost caused a strike in 2002 (more than 60 percent of Machinists rejected that contract, but the union needed a two-thirds majority to strike, so the contract was ratified by default). It’s still a hot-button issue. When IAM district president Mark Blondin mentioned “team leaders” in his speech this morning, the membership let out with a noise best described as a really loud snarl.
Traditionally, work teams were led by a lead mechanic, a Machinist who was promoted primarily on seniority.
But in 2002, Boeing told the IAM that the traditional lead system wasn’t working — promotion by seniority doesn’t ensure that people with communication and leadership skills end up in vital jobs that require just those things. Management wanted to change that, creating new “team leaders” with training and skills, who — btw — would be placed over the lead mechanics.
Fair enough, union negotiators said (and I’m getting this mostly from the union side, so take that into account). They first proposed universal training for the leads, to make sure they had the skills Boeing wanted. That didn’t fly.
Then the union proposed a system whereby qualified mechanics would get the needed training, creating a pool of potential candidates, who then would be promoted into the team leader slots by seniority. That didn’t fly either.
What Boeing insisted on — and, in the end, got — was a system whereby management got to chose who the team leaders are. The company seems happy with how it turned out. At least, it devoted a cover story in the February issue of Frontiers, Boeing’s in-house magazine, to discuss how well it’s working.
Here are links to some of those stories:
www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/february/cover1.html
www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/february/cover2.html
www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/february/cover3.html
The union complains the system is highly subjective and unfair — there are accusations flying around that many team leader jobs went to non-union managers who otherwise would have been laid off in the post-September 11 job slashing. Rank-and-file complain that it’s resulted in people being put in charge of teams who aren’t intimately familiar with the work those teams do.
And there’s a general sense that Boeing rammed that down the union’s throat last time, and that’s not sitting well.
Third Key Quote, from Blondin: “That contract’s been burning, bothering people for three years.”
For public consumption, the buzzword about the talks — from both sides — is “optimistic.” Everyone’s “hopeful.” Early subcommittee talks are going “pretty well” and everyone’s committed to “working together for a fair outcome.”
But roughly two-thirds of the Machinists showed up for today’s strike sanction vote — a record high percentage for one of these things. Of those, 98.5 percent cast ballots indicating they’re ready to walk come Sept. 1. And if they do, the team leader issue — something that’s not going to get much press and is way too complex for Channel 4 to explain during a live shot from outside the union hall — could end up being a big reason why.
Anyway, here’s a link to my Wednesday column. Look for my story on the strike sanction rally in Thursday’s paper.
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/07/13/100bus_corliss001.cfm
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
