Live data from Hacker News

Boeing workers vote to strike

washingtonpost.com

131–140 of 578 posts

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#131
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The auto companies are strategically significant. Not really, they're more politically significant than economically critical. I've certainly never owned an american car and never plan to. We'll be fine continuing to rely on foreign companies to produce our vehicles. Foreigners certainly don't want our cars (outside of maybe tesla in the nordics, i guess?). None of this is true for the plane market, or at least not…

The auto companies are strategically significant because war footing America will turn those F150 lines into tank lines in a matter of months instead of the years it would take to spin them up from scratch. IBM made machine guns on typewriter lines in WW2.

No it won't, because only about 30% of F150 parts are made in the US. The rest are made elsewhere - mostly China.

This is not 1940, and the US simply doesn't have the strategic industrial base it used to.

Off-shoring made some people a lot of money and lowered consumer costs (while simultaneously cutting consumer pay.)

But it was economically and strategically unwise. The US is set up to run small-scale wars against technologically inferior opponents. It has no ability to sustain a prolonged multi-year slug-fest against an opponent with a superior manufacturing base.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#132

[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 feudal…

Democracy is socialism is some ignorant circles.

Our betters know better. Don’t believe your lying eyes, listen to Elon. Lol. Clearly making airplanes with doors that fall off is fine, as long as we maximize shareholder value.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#133

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…

> Boeing spent $43B on stock buybacks

I am very sympathetic to this line of criticism but I also find that "stock buybacks" are misunderstood and, as a result, overly demonized. So I just want to explain a few things for anyone who reads this.

The question with a corporation is what to do with surplus profits. The first iteration of this was to pay dividends. These legally are paid equally among shareholders. If you distribute $1B in profits and have 100M shares issued then each share gets a $10 dividend. Simple. Additionally, dividends had to be profits so corporate taxes were paid on those.

So there are two problems here:

1. Not every shareholder may want a dividend; and

2. The US tax treatment of dividends is bad, specifically double-taxing. as an example, the company may pay 15% corporate tax, pay a dividend with the remaining 85% and then the individual may 50% federal and state taxes on that, leading marginal tax rates of upwards of 60%, possibly higher.

(2) has led to some screwy legislation (eg passthrough corporation discounts) so solve what is otherwise a simple problem. Australia has completely solved this problem with so-called "franking credits". This means that $1B of profit is made, 30% taxes are paid and $700M is distributed but it comes with $300M in tax credits. So if you get a $700 dividend, you also get $300 credit with the ATO. If your marginal tax rate is higher than 30% is higher, you may have to pay a little more. If it's lower, you'll get a refund.

Now you generally can't borrow to pay dividends until you historically pay dividends. There are a lot of rules around this.

Enter share buybacks. This is where the company buys back its own stock on the open market. This reduces supply and hopefully raises the price for remaining shareholders.

Some will argue this is market manipulation but it really isn't. It's just a different way of distributin gmoney to shareholders. Unlike dividends, you can choose to take it or not by selling or not.

A share buyback has none of the dividend tax problems but it's even better. If you've held for 12+ months you're paying the long-term capital gains tax rate, which can be substantially lower than the marginal income tax rate.

But here's the big problem: it's completely fine to borrow money for a share buyback. This loophole needs to be closed.

Prior to the IRA and Trump tax cuts, it would work like this: you would leave profits overseas so you wouldn't have to pay corporate tax on them. You'd then borrow money used those overseas profits as collateral and do a share buyback. This should've been illegal. Or, in the very least, any borrowing against foreign profits should be treated by the IRS as repatriation of profits and thus tax is owed.

The Trump tax cuts changed how foreign profits are treated. The IRA further changed this with the 15% minimum tax, which was a very good change and one that didn't get a lot of attention.

Should a company pay out shareholders or pay its workers more? I absolutely favor the latter. But we shouldn't focus solely on share buybacks because that's a small part of the problem. I'd say what we need is:

1. A higher corporate tax rate;

2. An end to passthrough corporations;

3. End the double-taxing of dividends. Just do what Australia does;

4. All share buybacks have to come from profits only; and

5. An aggressive attack on profit-shifting / transfer pricing to offshore profits.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#134

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…

[deleted]

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe had the company not prioritized greed and instead invested in itself they wouldn’t be in this mess. Don’t blame the workers for this and a company that depends so heavily on the government to keep it afloat shouldn’t be allowed to buyback stocks. Unions in a good place because Boeing isn’t going anywhere. Mismanagement allowed the greedy management to cash out already why not the workers.

I see this repeated often - blame placed entirely on management and not the workers. Why do you believe that? Do you honestly believe that they have not contributed at least partially to the decline of Boeing? That union protectionism has not affected productivity? That hostile bargaining and strikes hadn’t hurt their finances? Accusing the company of prioritizing greed and blaming the boogeyman of management sounds…

> I see this repeated often - blame placed entirely on management and not the workers. Why do you believe that?

Because it is management who hire and fire workers, who pays them salary, who says them what to do, who does the quality checks on the work done and so on. If management couldn't get their workers to do a quality work, it is the management's fault. In this case the management should be fired and the company better find more competent managers.

When you place blame, you need to do a causal analysis and ask the question: who could change the outcome and didn't? The workers? Don't make my slippers laugh, the workers could do nothing. While management had all the power, including the power to fire bad workers and to hire better ones. Including the power to force workers into compulsory training courses, including the power to create a system of incentives that would encourage good work, and so on.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#137
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The auto companies are strategically significant. Not really, they're more politically significant than economically critical. I've certainly never owned an american car and never plan to. We'll be fine continuing to rely on foreign companies to produce our vehicles. Foreigners certainly don't want our cars (outside of maybe tesla in the nordics, i guess?). None of this is true for the plane market, or at least not…

The auto companies are strategically significant because war footing America will turn those F150 lines into tank lines in a matter of months instead of the years it would take to spin them up from scratch. IBM made machine guns on typewriter lines in WW2.

[deleted]

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#138
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

> There are very few good stories with unions but most of them are tragic especially long-term. Since unions helped to end practices like child labor and what amounted to indentured service, I’m not sure you know what “tragic” or “long term” means. If what you mean is more like “what have they done for us lately”, you should probably just say it and start that conversation instead

That's taking something that happened about a century ago and using it as an argument for the current situation.

If you're looking for something much closer to home, look at how in the past half century unionized corporations were forced to take over pensions, and how they're doing now because of this. Pensions are a financial product, which should be paid for by each employee - quite likely with supervision and safety net from the state. Putting it on the employer's tab turned out to be more or less giving away the future of the company. And that's pretty much 100% on the unions.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The auto companies are strategically significant. Not really, they're more politically significant than economically critical. I've certainly never owned an american car and never plan to. We'll be fine continuing to rely on foreign companies to produce our vehicles. Foreigners certainly don't want our cars (outside of maybe tesla in the nordics, i guess?). None of this is true for the plane market, or at least not…

> Foreigners certainly don't want our cars (outside of maybe tesla in the nordics, The Nordics are not all the same, Norway is far ahead (20% of private cars already full EVs) of the rest with Denmark a distant second when it comes to electrification of transport. But also the Tesla Model Y was the best selling car in the WORLD in the last twelve months, not just Norway. Of course quite a few of those were built outs…

Norway is special. 94.3% of new cars sold last month were electric cars.

Actually, in the private marked it was 96.7% !

Links to info (in Norwegian)

- https://elbil.no/vi-kan-klare-hundre-prosent/

- https://ofv.no/aktuelt/2024/nybilsalget-i-august-h%C3%B8yest...

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#140
post #21

Good. Jim McNerney absolutely shredded the culture, and eroded decades of good will. It's far past time workers for Boeing pressed for things to go back to being an engineering and manufacturing led company. Striking is one way to get closer to that, good on them.

Reclaiming control from the beancounters and misers to rein in their destructive influence? I'm not optimistic.
Post reply on HN