The news that a long awaited order from British Airways was split between Boeing and Airbus was a mixed blessing for the local aerospace giant. Even at that, however, the fact British Airways went solely with the 787 and not the competiting A350 was a continued validation of the superiority of Boeing's product in that large, profitable class of planes.
In other news affecting Boeing, the details of the labor deal between GM and the UAW are reminiscent of Boeing's latest deal with the Machinists. Though the company appeased the union on "job security" (while continuing to do everything they reasonably can to move more company functions outside the unionized workforce), the company provided no wage increases or COLA's, only a signing bonus and selected annual lump sum payments - none of which compound into higher annual base pay over time. GM drove a harder bargain since Boeing did at least include COLA's, but GM also succeeded more so than Boeing in creating a tiered structure where new union hires will be on a different, lower pay scale.
Clearly, the GM/UAW deal was driven by the near death spiral of high labor costs and shrinking market share afflicting the Big Three, thus the UAW didn't fare quite as well as the Machinists who were negotiating with a company in Boeing on a firmer financial footing. No doubt Boeing wouldn't be upset to have a VEBA like GM to reallocate its retiree health care obligations, but the Machinists might well throw themselves in front of that train in the next contract negotiations if it came up.
Either way, the overall trend line is clear: the industrial unions that long bargained for unsustainable pay and benefits are losing ground as the reality of competition in a globalized economy takes effect.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 28, 2007 07:25 AM | Email ThisBut if people band together to monopolize quality labor, you pundits whine and moan like crazy.
Unions are business entities, they sell a product: labor and they try to get a high price. In the final analysis, they should be Republicans.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 28, 2007 08:26 AMOn the left, workers need to be told they are going to have to fight on a new level to make American jobs. Fighting the Boss is not enough. The left is closer to a rational stand on immigration than the right and we need a much better immigration policy that does way with 20 million illegals while taking advantage of the Mexican labor pool to do things at a cost that is globally competitive. At the top end, encouraging a global brain drain into the US is a win win for us.
On the right, Bush tax policy encourages the flow of capital to areas with cheaper labor. A smart tax policy now would focus on increasing American productivity and savings. Romney's 200K exemption on capital gains is worth discussion.
The right also has fanatical ideas about health care, taxes, infrastructure, and education. To be competitive, we need a drastic change in deficit spending, health care, and support for education.
On both sides, we need to understand that globalization is as inevitable as the tides. We can an should do somethings to channel this and make it equitable, but we can not stop it. One implication is that US wages will fall to a world-sustainable level. On the right, we need to level our current pay scales to make more of the GDP stay in workers' pockets. On the left, we have to encourage the export of unionism. Both sides need to discourage consumerism until Americans save more.
On both sides REALISM needs to be the watchword. For republicans this means their support for creationism, private corporatism as opposed to true free markets, antipathy to stem cells, unlimited oil, .. gotta go. For dems, this means that fantasies about all people being able to achieve the same, doctrinaire views on the family, .. these too gotta go.
Today, with the GOP in shambles, it is easy to point the finger and forget that both parties are capable of electing incompetents and the worst hypocrites may be those who deny having hypocrisy. OTOH, the GOP may be in a unique position to realign itself with economic liberalism.
As someone that deals with quality for a living, unions are not someplace where you find "quality labor" - it is typically where you find the absolute worst ethics possible. Nobody uses union labor unless they are forced to.
Posted by: John Galt on September 28, 2007 08:42 AMMicrosoft is a great example .. it is a global corp based here that makes optimum us of what we do.
Unions need to grow in the same way. A UAW worker needs to be able to compete with his compere in China.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 28, 2007 08:54 AMHAHAHAHA, right!
So the UAW is going to run their retirement and healthcare. You better read up on how the Teamsters wasted their retirement.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 28, 2007 09:51 AM"OK MR. Corporate Boss we know you have morals, believe in the Christian religion and pay twice as much taxes as your labor force. However, we must give & take to make this more equal for your workers. I suggest you give them more money and benefits and quit praying to Jesus. The Union will then give up its demand you pay for our home owners and automobile insurance this year."
SJ do you have any idea why there are people who believe in different philosophies? Why there are different religions? Why there are different political parties? Why there are different views of a house to live in? Or different cars?
It is because we are not cut from the same cloth. Some people do not want unborn babies to be murdered nor cradle to grave government care (that's an oxymoron!) nor to be sheep working for a corporation. We enjoy choosing between Microsoft or open source software. Don't give me a job, but give me the opportunity to create one. Don't take my money to give me less medical care or enslave me as a dependant of the state. Let me choose to share (that by the way is a moral belief) what I earn.
We will never become "one" in belief or the way we want to live. When we do, we will no longer be free citizens. We only become "one" in choosing to live in the greatest FREE country in the world.
Posted by: Ken Howard on September 28, 2007 09:56 AMSo can you tell me what you put in your car to make it run?
And just for the fun of it. PLEASE tell us all, how many cures have come from "baby" stem cells instead of adult cells.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 28, 2007 10:03 AM1. I use the same stuff you do, the oil that is a limited resource. Do you think there ar einlimitted supplies of oil?
2. Stem cell biology is very new and we have lot to learn. Even the term, as you use it, is poorly understood. You and I know, for example, that an embryonic cells from an early stage can be grown to make a full human. The capacities of cell from adults, even with reprogramming, are still being learned.
I support ethical concern in this matter.. but ethics must be based on knowledge and most of those who oppose stem cell research seem to me to not really know much about the science.
In your own case, can you tell me why it would be worse to clone a replacement marrow from an early embryonic stem cell than from as adult?
@7 Ken Howard
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. My point has nothing t do with Left vs Right or the freedom of divers beliefs, I am simply stating some facts:
a. capital will flow where its owners can make the best profit. That may not mean the US,
b. Our workers either compete globally or someone needs to subsidize their wages or let them become unemployed. The conservative POV should be to compete globally. If a union wishes to oppose this we, as a society need to ask where is the subsidy coming from?
c. The wage disparity in the US is no more sensible than overpaying or featherbedding is at the worker level. A 1000 spwnt on exec, salary is still 1000. Moreover, the cash flow form the rich is necessarily lower than from the poor so society benefits less from high pay to execs than it does to working class. This is esp so since pay to execs may end upo being invested overseas.
d, the inefficiency of the health care system adds hugely to the US cost of busimess,