SPEEA to recommend rejection of 'final' Boeing offer
As 787 crisis unfolds, engineers union also will seek strike authorization from members
Just to provide some clarity here...
1. SPEEA has two separate bargaining units, the Techs and the Profs. There really isn't a system in place in case one group votes to accept the contract offer and the other group votes to reject, it would pretty much be accepted at that point. But there is a SPEEA Tech negotiating team, a SPEEA Prof negotiating team, a SPEEA Tech Bargaining Unit Council (BUC), a SPEEA Prof BUC, SPEEA Tech "rank and file", and SPEEA Prof "rank and file".
2. The SPEEA Tech and SPEEA Prof negotiating teams both unanimously recommended rejection.
3. Now it goes to the BUCs, who are expected to recommend rejection (notionally, Jan 23).
4. Then, it will go to the rank and file, who will vote between (about) Jan 25 to Feb 4. Rank and file will also be asked to authorize a strike if the offer gets rejected.
5. If the offer gets accepted, it's all over. If the offer gets rejected AND the rank and file DON'T authorize a strike, SPEEA will ask Boeing to continue negotiations, but Boeing doesn't have much of a reason to. If the offer gets rejected AND the rank and file authorize a strike, SPEEA and Boeing will restart negotiations.
P.S. This offer is apparently much better than previous offers, but includes no pension for new-hires. SPEEA has offered to give up the pension for new hires, as long as the new system is roughly equivalent to the pension, which Boeing rejected. So, is this the hill SPEEA wants to die on? Conversely, the savings to Boeing on Day 1 of the this contract are ZERO, as there aren't any new-hires at that point, but a strike by SPEEA would cost Boeing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars PER DAY, so is this the hill Boeing wants to die on? Boeing could guarantee acceptance of this offer if they'd amend it to continue pensions for new-hires for two years, and in the meantime they would commit to working with SPEEA to create a pension replacement that is roughly equivalent to the current system (i.e. not intended to screw a bunch of people).
Sentiment: Strong Sell
I have long ago suggested a reasonable solution to the Pension Issue- matter of fact I ran 4 shareholder proposals in 2000- 2004 on the issue, and received 8 to 12 percent of votes ( thats 30 to 50 mililon shares in favor.
In 2003 I said - and its in the proxy statement for that year- can be downloaded from Boeing
typical - slight changes over the years
RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors adopt the following policy:
(1) All EMPLOYEES vested at time of conversion be given a choice between their Heritage plans or the Pension
Value cash-balance plan at time of their termination or retirement.
(2) The cash balance plan to provide a monthly annuity at least equal to that expected under the old pension plan,
or an actuarially equivalent lump sum.
Boeing implemented the Pension Value Plan (PVP) in 1999 for over 100,000 non-represented employees. Although
the PVP is primarily one of benefit formula change, Boeing has previously claimed it could not comply with
eligibility, vesting, benefit and funding requirements by giving employees a choice at retirement or termination. We
believe, however, that the Company can allow such a choice, as other companies like Kodak, 3M, Motorola, Delta
Airlines, and AT&T have done.
In their February 23, 1998 message to shareholders, Boeing said “A company, any company, is nothing more or less
than the people who make it up.” We believe Boeing should “walk their talk” in pension issues.
The Company’s pension plan documents state that “[g]ains arising from experience under the Plan will not serve to
increase the benefits otherwise due any participant but will be used to reduce future Company contributions.”
Boeing, like many corporations, legally improves earnings with non-spendable pension gains based on anticipated
pension fund returns.
Boeing typical response follows
Boeing seeks to switch
to a 401 K plan for
I happen to like 401 K
plans. With a 401 K
plan I would be in charge of
my retirement nest egg,
not a company that could
possibly one day go
happens to future employees
is of no concern of mine
nor do I consider
it a reason to strike
at this time. I
recommend no strike.
as usual phantom ( MB ) you are clueless
BA 401K only allows you to have a choice of inveastments run by ING.
Not the cheapest or the best
And they charge 50 cents/month for a so so computer program, unuseable if within a year of retirement .
Or for a 1/2 to 1 percent/year fee ( of your total in the VIP/401k plan ) , they will actively manage the ING funds for you, and give you some advice.
One can do better in Vanguard or Fidelity or . . .
And in the early 2000s the BA plans got a return on investment of 17 percent ( 2003) and a long term average ( before the Obuma disaster) of over 7 percent.
Can you or any average investor do as well ?
And in 2001- the pension earnings were so good, they made up 22 percent of OPERATING EARNINGS
IN 2002 ONLY 15 PERCENT OF OPERATING EARNINGS
and in 2003 - 32 percent of Operating earnings were from the pension plan
That made a good payday for the execs !!!
Doesn't Boeing already offer a 401K & pension to its current employees? Seems if all they offer in the future is a 401K then effectively that is a significant cut in benefits unless it is offset with higher wages.
Every year companies keep cutting and cutting. Now you know where the real earnings are coming from.
I for one will vote against a strike. Their offer is fair and on par with the US and other companies or in a lot of cases better. SPEEA is feeding itself and the members poison in the long term in my humble opinion.