October 30, 2009
Labor's Loss: What roles will unions play in Seattle?
- 5 Comments |
- E-mail |
NWjobs
It's now been more than two days since Boeing's momentous announcement that the second 787 line will fly south to North Charleston, S.C., instead of Everett. Last time I looked out the window, the sky had not fallen and lights were still on in Seattle. Yet the vitriol still seems to be raining down in torrents.
Not to make light of how our struggling employment market lost a chance to secure 3,800 jobs over the next seven years, but judging by the angry responses I've read by many in the blogosphere, one would think people are packed up their SUVs and evacuating the city. Fact is, Chicago-based Boeing is still one of the top players in the Puget Sound area, with more than 75,000 workers. More importantly, Seattle is no longer a one-industry town, like it was in the 1970s. It's now has vibrant IT, biotechnology and international trade sectors that have helped cushion the blows from Boeing's various rounds of layoffs (one of which was announced today).
What really struck me has been the intensity of the anti-union rhetoric in recent days. Clearly, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) made a grave miscalculation when it decided to wage its seven-week strike last year, right when Boeing was feeling pressure about two years of delays in the 787 program and the country in economic free-fall. Anyone who follows Boeing should not be surprised they chose a right-to-work Southern state with cheaper labor to expand the troubled 787 line. Still, the glee that many readers have expressed in various forums about the IAM's misfortune and the call to abolish labor unions seems over the top--and more than a little misguided.
For those who have cheered Boeing's run toward cheap, non-union labor, what's to stop Boeing from continuing right past Charleston and heading overseas to other countries? Can even the nimble, globally savvy, non-union manufacturers in Seattle resist the lure to set up shop overseas? Sure, swapping $28 per hour union jobs for more complacent, $14 per hour labor may seem like smart business move to be applauded, but that's nothing compared to the deals that can be made in Asia. Will those who are jeering the union now still be laughing when their employers follow this same logic and move their own jobs to China or India?
Many critics also blame the state of Washington's tax and regulatory structure for being patently unfriendly to business and thus a killer of local jobs. Really? Why, then, did Forbes.com last month rank the People's Republic of Washington as the No. 2 best state in the country in which to do business for 2009 (just behind Virginia)? According to the survey, Washington ranked among the top five states in terms of labor force, regulatory environment, economic climate and growth prospects. With a performance like that, plus our lack of a state income tax, it's hard to keep up the argument that Washington is driving away companies any more than other states.
We can argue and point fingers forever about how this particular assembly line was lost, but I'm concerned most about what this development means for skilled labor in Seattle and the role that unions will play in the region's future. Union bashing has been in vogue for many years now, with howls of complaint about corrupt bosses, lazy workers and profit-killing entitlements. Yet for every story about union's alleged bullying tactics, there are at least a dozen or more stories about the ruthlessness of corporations that lay off thousands of workers to please shareholders and then pocket astronomical bonuses.
So where do we go from here? Have labor unions simply outlived their utility in the 21st century? Or are there ways that local corporations can still negotiate in good faith with its educated work force and still compete with cheap labor overseas? I'd like to hear from those readers in other unionized industries, too. Has the union helped or hindered you in your career? If ever there was a time to have a rational dialogue on this topic, it's now.
Randy Woods writes about job-search tools, networking techniques and other tips to help you land your dream job.
- 5 Comments |
- E-mail |
Read more
5 Comments
Leave a comment

- Dressing up for Halloween at the office -- yea or nay?
- Events to help you 'fall back' into good job-search habits

Karen Burns is the author of The Amazing Adventures of Working Girl, a career guide based on her 59 jobs over 40 years in 22 cities.
Lisa Quast is a certified career coach, mentor, business consultant, former corporate executive and author based in the Seattle area.
Randy Woods writes about job-search tools, networking techniques and other tips to help you land your dream job.
Former contributors
Matt Youngquist is the president of Career Horizons, a career counseling firm.
Natalie Singer is a Seattle writer, editor and small-business owner.
Michelle Goodman is the author of "My So-Called Freelance Life" and "The Anti 9-to-5 Guide."
Paul Anderson helps professionals in transition find their desired employment.
- career profile (155)
- cool jobs (51)
- education and training (57)
- entry level (66)
- etiquette (95)
- events (70)
- featured (323)
- finding your passion (89)
- health care (70)
- interviewing (76)
- job fairs (54)
- management (72)
- market trends (89)
- networking (261)
- resumes (93)
- salary (80)
- social media (79)
- technology (103)
- unemployment (53)
- work/life balance (85)








mike morris on October 30, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply
In my Washington union experience, working in hospitals, the management are best buds with the union representatives. This leaves the worker no place to go when management becomes abusive. And yes, hospital management is often abusive. I have seen workers go directly to the state labor board with out a thought of checking in with the union. Except for the Boeing union, unions in this state are just a sham for management to legitimize it’s practices. No one is watching union and management collusion. Just more of my money going down a rat hole.
Robley Evans on October 31, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply
I am a IAM union worker at Boeing. The union has been the BEST thing ever for my economic well being.The Boeing company never negotiates in good faith NEVER. They have forced us out on strike with takeaway contract offers every time. A two year delay on the 787 did not happen because of a 2 month strike. South Carolina will never make a 787 unless we fly down hundreds of workers to help them FACT. We have been flying boeing workers to that factory for 2 years now and we are just getting started. If Boeing was non union I would not work there no way in Hell.
JTHC on November 2, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply
Well, Robley, the "BEST thing ever for [your] economic well being" is now driving your employer out of the state. You know, your employer, the one who actually signs your paychecks, as opposed to your union, which gives you a 2 month vacation for chump change and then threatens your long term employment.
I'm sure SC will be just fine making airplanes in a few years, and then you and your unemployed union buddies can take a lifelong vacation and muse about those good old days when you felt like Boeing owed you something.
Robley Evans on November 2, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply
Well JTHC, A few facts just for you although I am sure you know everything. Boeing is spending 2 billion dollars in SC to save 10 million in wages here.Any idea how long it will take the Boeing company to break even on this poor investment? In 2015 they will build 5 planes a month in SC we will build 40 per month in the Puget sound region. The Boeing company made 8 billion dollars in profit between 2005 and 2008 then wanted takeaways in our contract. I am sure you think that's a fair deal but we did not. I own stock in the boeing company "alot" as do my union brothers and sisters. We are the Boeing company. Also for your information the union only does what the membership tells them to do. There is not one person on the board of directors for the boeing company from the Boeing company.When the share holders get tired of the bad decisions there will be a change. When the Boeing company merged with McDonald Douglas we were taken over by a company that was going under. MD way of building airplanes is how we are building the 787. I am sure that you think the 787 is going great but its a mess for sure. In closing: Unions made the middle class in this country and you, JTHC and you family have benefited from the hard struggle of organized labor. Myself and my union buddies will be just fine.
Robley Evans on November 2, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply
By T.M. Sell
Boeing’s decision to place a second 787 production line has launched the usual squadron of handwringing, blame-laying and introspection. Handwringing, as in Boeing is going! The sky is falling! Sound the alarm! Blame–laying, as in Democrats/liberals/unions, etc., have made this such a horrific place to do business that Boeing had no choice — no choice I tell you! — but to move to the welcoming arms of the business-friendly south. And introspection, as in “What else could we have done? Where did we go wrong?”
Here’s what I’ve learned from the whole misadventure:
First, McBoeing’s board of directors remains rather short-sighted.
Next, some people in South Carolina are a bit insecure. In a TV interview Wednesday I said that Boeing was essentially assigning production of its most technologically advanced jetliner to “the functional equivalent of Wal-Mart greeters.” Some folks down there took that personally, judging by the e-mails I’m getting. They needn’t have. I don’t have anything against South Carolina or its people; I was talking about the relative wages that will be paid.
Boeing will pay workers around $14 an hour to a do job that pays more than $26 here. Think about your job: If they cut the pay for your position by almost half, what level of talent would your employer attract? As it turns out, the starting machinist's wage here for a comparable position is only $15; the $26-an-hour figure is for someone with 20 years of experience.
So here's the problem with moving to South Carolina, now. Having essentially junked the careful, collaborative process that made the 777 such a success, Boeing has collected a fleet of trouble trying to sort out the problems of the even-more complicated 787. So the answer is opening up a second production line for a jet that still isn’t ready to fly? And staffing it with new hires? In a state where you’ve already had considerable production problems, problems so bad, your evil, unionized Washington workers have had to fix them?
It’s not about the quality of workers in South Carolina. Frankly, it wasn’t fair from the start to ask a lot of recently trained workers to put out parts of the precision and quality required for jetliners.
Yes, they make BMWs in South Carolina, and they’re just dandy. But automobiles are not airliners. (As one aerospace CEO once told me: “Sure, we could build dashboards [instead of composite parts]. But it would be more dashboard than you’d ever need.”) Automobiles never run the risk of just falling out of the sky.
So getting a second line up and running in South Carolina seems like a potentially expensive gamble for Boeing, at a time when they’re still trying to fix the original product.
As for who to blame, there’s only person: Phil Condit. Condit was CEO when Boeing made the unfortunate decision to become McBoeing by merging with McDonnell Douglas, which had essentially failed at the commercial aerospace business. It was McDonnell Douglas holdovers who managed to bungle the Air Force tanker contract; it was McDonnell Douglas holdovers who managed to lose the Joint Strike Fighter competition.
And it is, to some extent, McDD holdovers on the board who have brought in the General Electric style of management, in which workers are interchangeable parts of no particular value. They let Alan Mulally escape to rescue Ford without federal bail-out dollars, and brought in Jim NcNerney. This is now a company with a short-term focus in a long-term business. They’re about to spend around $900 million to save $9 million a year in labor costs. Condit, who was plenty smart, should have smelled a lemon and walked away when McDonnell Douglas offered itself up for sale. Boeing hasn’t been the same since.
Don’t blame the unions. McBoeing clearly had no interest in negotiating, only using the machinists to pry a better deal out of South Carolina. The union offered what Boeing wanted, but asked for something in return.
Don’t blame state government, unless you think Washington can become a state with taxes so low we have to be bailed out by the feds. Because that’s where South Carolina is. Its unemployment taxes (a frequent complaint of McBoeing’s with regard to Washington) are so low that their unemployment fund went bankrupt last year, and had to be bailed out by the feds.
The final irony here is that your federal tax dollars are effectively subsidizing McBoeing’s move to South Carolina.
The question shouldn’t be what could have done? The right question is what should we do now? If Boeing is going (and I don’t want to chase them out the door), let’s go after somebody else — Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer. We have the talent and infrastructure for world-class aerospace work. Let’s use it