this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
170 points (99.4% liked)
Work Reform
10003 readers
568 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This article doesn't specify, but based on the previous 25% offer, I'm guessing this new and improved proposal is also structured over four years.
New information to me is that the union initially sought a 40% increase. Kind of silly to think that when 90% of your workers decline an offer - any offer - that adding an extra few percent will get you an agreement.
I wrote this before when the union declined the 25% bump, but it bears repeating:
If Boeing were to pay the 40% the union is looking for upon returning to work, and committed to annual salary increases that were double whatever inflation is moving forward, they would have 32,000 employees that would never strike the rest of their careers.
But then the shareholders get less ROI and the bench needs their till.
How would they afford next year’s stock buyback?
Think of all the "extra" bolts that competent mechanics and engineers would put in airplane doors, you'd hurt margins...slightly. Hard no from Board.
What do you mean the article doesn't specify? It's literally the first sentence of the article.
Funny, I went through the article twice looking for the term length. Maybe I missed it because it's written and I was looking for a digit. Thanks for pointing that out.