Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing workers vote to strike

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 578 posts

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#41

Post by darby_nine »

JackYoustra wrote: post #27
toomuchtodo wrote: post #2

Boeing spent $43B on stock buybacks between 2013 and 2019 while paying their CEO ~$30M/year. > To support its share price, the company under McNerney poured billions into stock buybacks instead of investing profits into the kind of research and development needed to stay competitive. McNerney decided not to spend billions of dollars building a new plane to replace the 737. Instead, Boeing tweaked and updated the exis…

It's kinda fun, right? The whole point of tying executive compensation to share price was to have them have some rough stake in the business, but even that didn't prove enough: there's always a longer term, and doing a visible, clear NPV boost is usually accretive to market cap even if it introduces long-term risk, because the long term risks are usually hidden from public eye and very mushy. Ironically, I think the…

We all know boeing won't be "wrecked"; they're too critical for state interests to be allowed to fail. If they're smart they'll either nationalize the company to remove the profit inefficiency or force the company to split to remove the profit inefficiency. Either way, the profit motive and lack of any competition is clearly a national security risk.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#42

Post by metaphor »

sofixa wrote: post #34
JackYoustra wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kinda fun, right? The whole point of tying executive compensation to share price was to have them have some rough stake in the business, but even that didn't prove enough: there's always a longer term, and doing a visible, clear NPV boost is usually accretive to market cap even if it introduces long-term risk, because the long term risks are usually hidden from public eye and very mushy. Ironically, I think the…

> But at some level, it was just bad people making bad calls. I don't think McNerney thought that this would wreck Boeing, he was just wrong. Well, he was stupid not to - there's no way he didn't know thay focusing on the short term stock price won't have negative effects on the quality and future of an engineering organisation whose main business, building and selling airplanes, is extremely capital intensive. He ca…

> [McNerney] came from McDonnell Douglas...

Cite? Wiki[1] appears to suggest otherwise.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McNerney#Career_path

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#43

Post by sofixa »

beaglesss wrote: post #37
hungie wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand who made the max and why it failed.

Sure it's failed from the floor workers because they forgot the plug door needs bolted. It's failed other ways due to the other (SPEEA) union botching the MCAS. Sometimes it's easy to lose track of how basically all the Washington unions are so broken in their homicidal negligence while begging for more money to fail miserably.

The MCAS failure was a multilayered one. The engineers who designed it, software engineers who developed it, QA, testing, pilots, managers who approved, managers who instilled that work culture, etc etc are all responsible and should all have been fired and sentenced to prison for their negligence and dereliction of duty.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#44

Post by Simon_ORourke »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #2

Boeing spent $43B on stock buybacks between 2013 and 2019 while paying their CEO ~$30M/year. > To support its share price, the company under McNerney poured billions into stock buybacks instead of investing profits into the kind of research and development needed to stay competitive. McNerney decided not to spend billions of dollars building a new plane to replace the 737. Instead, Boeing tweaked and updated the exis…

> Muilenberg and McNerney “had personal reasons to emphasize productivity and cost-cutting” because their compensation was tied to share performance. Together they took $209 million in total pay over seven years.

Absolutely stunning - those guys will walk away from this mess with more money than God and American aviation will take a backwards step that may take decades to fix if at all... fuming here.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#45

Post by JumpCrisscross »

darby_nine wrote: post #41
JackYoustra wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kinda fun, right? The whole point of tying executive compensation to share price was to have them have some rough stake in the business, but even that didn't prove enough: there's always a longer term, and doing a visible, clear NPV boost is usually accretive to market cap even if it introduces long-term risk, because the long term risks are usually hidden from public eye and very mushy. Ironically, I think the…

We all know boeing won't be "wrecked"; they're too critical for state interests to be allowed to fail. If they're smart they'll either nationalize the company to remove the profit inefficiency or force the company to split to remove the profit inefficiency. Either way, the profit motive and lack of any competition is clearly a national security risk.

> We all know boeing won't be "wrecked"; they're too critical for state interests to be allowed to fail

People keep repeating this without context. The auto companies are strategically significant. That didn't prevent them from going bankrupt [1][2]. Wiping shareholders doesn't mean blowing up the factories.

I'm increasingly convinced Boeing needs to go bankrupt. It can then shed unprofitable units--through spin-offs, sales or liquidations--and restructure its obligations. I'm not convinced the union comes out of that better off than it is now. But America sure does.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Chapter_11_reorganiza...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor...

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#46

Post by dotancohen »

Incipient wrote: post #19
calcifer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe the union demands are reasonable, or maybe they're not. Give me specifics please! Would that really help, though? Do you have the industry know-how, expertise, and internal knowledge to assess whether the offer is reasonable or not?

That's an interesting point to make. If you can't make a informed opinion, should you have an opinion at all? What defines informed? How much information and experience does one need? I don't think that entirely detracts from the general premise of wanting to be given more information however.

The recent past had clearly shown that the most vocal about their opinions are very often the least informed.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#47

Post by JumpCrisscross »

beaglesss wrote: post #6

[flagged]

> Glad to see these guys out the job and production moving to the Carolinas

Here's an idea: let them compete. Seattle versus North Charleston. I quite literally don't know if I agree with your or not, but that's the point--none of you, I or a dickwad in Chicago or D.C. should be making that call unilaterally. The market should. Split them up and return us to the competition that built America's golden age of aviation.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#48

Post by anon7725 »

ikawe wrote: post #8
forrestthewoods wrote: post #5

It should be illegal* to post articles about strikes without including details on current deal, current offer, and union demands. All these pieces try to influence your opinion without providing any details! Maybe the union demands are reasonable, or maybe they're not. Give me specifics please! *obvious hyperbole

I’m going to assume the “illegal” is hyperbole, but yes I agree. Another pet peeve of mine is omitting the time frame for wage increases. A 25% raise today is not the same thing as a 25% raise over the course of 4 years.

> A 25% raise today is not the same thing as a 25% raise over the course of 4 years.

And is also different than 25% over 4 years while also removing a 4% per year annual bonus.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#49

Post by fyrn_ »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #33
hungie wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labor involved is highly skilled, and has seen extensive underpayment. When Boeing tried to ship manufacturing away from union shops, the quality and reliability of the planes plummeted, driving up costs for the company. As a frequent flier, I'd much rather be in a union plane than a "cheapest labor we could find" plane.

[flagged]

Union labor is only going to be better if the work is compensated enough that people stay around. Unions are not magic. Boeing has not been doing that.

They underestimate the value of retaining people who have actually seen a few full plane lines start. They are in a situation now where there are not enough senior personal to properly guide new hires as they rotate through every 1-2 years. You want good people, you have to pay for them.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#50

Post by mprovost »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #20

[flagged]

Unions aren't a monopoly they're a democracy. After a democratic vote, the minority has to accept what the majority wants. Yes, sometimes voters make poor choices. New workers know about the union before they join. You don't move to a new state and refuse to pay taxes because you didn't vote for them. Once you're there you get to vote in the next election. America is a democracy and you don't have to revert to feudalism when you step onto the factory floor.
Post reply on HN