Rocket Science Needed to Resolve Boeing Strike

I guess Boeing makes airplanes only — no rockets. But you’d think even airplane makers would’ve learned something form the last few weeks. In a previous post, I noted that part of the reason for the 27,000 machinists going on strike at Boeing has to do with the enormous profits made by Boeing in recent years and executive compensation compared with regular machinist compensation (which isn’t all that bad but pales in comparison with executive comp).

As suggested in a recent article in the Washington Post, the strike, now in its seventh week, appears a long way from being over.  Anytime a strike goes beyond a week or two, there’s always the chance that everyone is in it for the long haul, to the ultimate benefit of no one.  According to the Post, the strike is beginning to adversely affect thousands of wokers outside Boeing.  If one big company sits idle, many smaller companies that live and breathe because they do business with the big company become idle.  And this isn’t the best time for any company to be idle.

Experts quoted by the Washington Post predict that if the Boeing strike continues indefinitely, the aerospace industry could go the way of the auto industry. So it appears that no lessons have been learned from the past month, and no lessons have been learned from the long decline of the auto industry (which, lest we forget, was at one time quite profitable).

One veteran aerospace industry consultant blames the strike on years of poor labor relations at Boeing. Whether this means HR wasn’t doing its job or upper management wasn’t listening to HR, I don’t know. But pulling no punches, the consultant states bluntly: “It seems there is no learning taking place.”

So is rocket science needed? No. Learning is needed. Out front HR leadership is needed. Progressive executive leadership is needed. Not just at Boeing but at all companies and organizations. If you ask why I’m not blaming the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for some of Boeing’s woes, it’s because I don’t blame unions for union organizing or for strikes. I fight with unions, but I don’t blame them. If we’re honest, it’s not their fault. It’s an employer’s fault for not learning, for not knowing and meeting employee needs, and for putting profits above all else.

1. 

   dk says:

   October 22, 2008 at 9:36 pm

   First of all Boeing does build rockets, just not in Washington or Oregan. Second, why is it that all the major industry with union shops, that also show great profits end up in the same boat as the auto industry? Is it just coincidence? These 27,000 strikers have no idea how many people are affected by this strike. Also, most of us make half the wages and don’t have any supplemental income!!
2. 

   John Phillips says:

   October 23, 2008 at 7:58 am

   Thanks very much for your comment and your point of view.

   I was afraid someone was going to call me out on the rocket science thing. Oh well.

   Not all major industries with union shops end up in the same boat. Industries that negotiate unrealistic contracts, don’t regularly take the pulse of what the future holds, and don’t monitor closely what the competition is up to may very well end up in the same boat. Also, companies and industries that maintain a scorched earth approach to labor relations with unions reciprocating can find themselves in the same boat. Today, in my opinion, industries that have a pay structure, particularly for executives, which is so far out of proprotion to anything reasonalbe, may also find themselves in the same boat.

   Companies and industries that have been able to avoid labor problems for the most part are those who’ve figured out how to work with their unions honestly and firmly. They don’t negotiate with the union only when the collective bargaining agreement expires; they’re constantly negotiating (maybe talking is a better term) with the union.

   One reason that union membership has been on the decline for so long is that companies have become smarter about dealing with employees who decide there’s no need for a union. My fear is that many companies have lost their way when it comes to employee relations and that we’ll see an uptick in union organizing. If the Employee Free Choice Act is passed, we’ll certainly see that.

   Finally, I have no idea what the machinists at Boeing should be making or what you should be making. As I noted in my post, strikes (particularly long ones) damage everyone. But I also believe that few strikes are really about money (although I would never say that employees aren’t greedy just like management is sometimes). You’re closer to the situation and have a better feel for what it’s really about at Boeing. Regardless, it sounds like it’s time for management leadership and union leadership to become leaders instead of negotiators.

   Thanks again for weighing in.
3. 

   RO says:

   October 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm

   Thanks for the article. Typical mechanic is grade 4. Top of wage is 28.43. Beginning wage is 12.72. That beginning wage is more of an issue in my opinion. It was the same beginning wage in mid 90′s. Upper wages keep rising with cola adjustments. It is one way that reflects your comments on corporate greed. The fact that many in the union make 26 to 36 an hour after many years and are not complaining about that beginning wage may reflect union greed. Also, there could be an attempt by the union to allow retaining employees more by performance than just by union membership.
4. 

   John Phillips says:

   October 23, 2008 at 5:11 pm

   Thanks for weighing in.

   Unfortunately, there’s plenty of greed to go around.