The Boeing vote: A double win
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers members employed by Boeing in the Seattle area struck admirable blows against their local union bosses' baleful influence by insisting that they have the opportunity to vote on an eight-year contract extension, then by approving it, which ensures they'll build Boeing's new 777X jetliner.
They voted narrowly — the deal passed with 51 percent of ballots cast — for job security, accepting in exchange a pension freeze and a switch from an old-style defined-benefit retirement plan to a 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan. National union leaders sided with them — and against local union leadership — on whether to vote on this deal, which Boeing offered after 67 percent of the union workers rejected a prior proposal in November.
In the interim, Boeing had been shopping for other 777X work sites, drawing offers of public-money giveaways — incentives and tax breaks — from 23 states, including Pennsylvania, whose offer was rejected on Dec. 20. Ending Boeing's 777X public-subsidy quest, this contract extension ensures that Keystone State taxpayers won't be unwilling venture capitalists for the aerospace giant.
Hopefully, this vote by Boeing workers signals greater determination by union members to decide their own fates, less power for union bosses acting against the interests of the rank and file — and fewer reasons for states to battle among themselves in races to the public-subsidy bottom.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.