Links to commercial press stories are functional at the date of posting.   In some cases, links "expire" when the source would like to begin charging you for old news. 

Search or browse the archives of WSLC Reports since 1997

Reports for Feb. 28-Mar. 3, 2000 

FRIDAY, March 3 -- Air Force: Boeing's engineer-benefits claim not true
In today's (Everett) Herald -- Boeing wines industry analysts in Napa 
In today's Seattle P-I -- Strike molds new breed of engineer (column) 
...and also -- California overtime law jolts tech firms 
In today's Washington Post -- Curbing corporate tax shelters (editorial) 

THURSDAY, March 2 -- 18,000 smart engineers can't be wrong 
In today's (Everett) Herald -- Boeing declares impasse, threatens to impose terms 
In today's (Tacoma) News-Tribune -- Boeing sued by female workers
In today's Roll Call -- China vote hits roadblock; Dems threaten Chamber 
In yesterday's Yahoo! News -- Farmers lukewarm to China trade
In today's Olympian -- Activists plead for insurance bill's end 

WEDNESDAY, March 1 -- AFL-CIO promises support for SPEEA strikers
In today's New York Times -- Gore delivers crushing blow to Bradley in Washington
In today's Seattle P-I -- AFL-CIO aids members in becoming homeowners 
...and also -- Microsoft will fight ruling on permatemps 
In today's (Everett) Herald) -- Laid-off Boeing workers get additional retraining benefits 
In today's Seattle Times -- Naval shipyard whistle-blower is suing unions 

TUESDAY, Feb. 29 -- 11th-hour attacks on ergonomics rule continue 
In today's Washington Post -- China in the WTO? A step backward... (an oped) 
In today's New York Times -- U.S. takes aim at corporate tax shelters 
In today's Seattle Times -- House GOP proposes to privatize prisons
In today's (Spokane) Spokesman-Review -- Kaiser earnings expected March 7 
In today's Olympian -- Landfill crews complain of work ailments 

MONDAY, Feb. 28 -- U.S. report: Human rights abuses on the increase in China 
In today's South County Journal -- Boeing strikers undeterred by setback 
In today's Spokesman-Review -- House GOP pumps up Nethercutt funds 
In Saturday's (Bremerton) Sun -- Ferry privatization bill sinks 

News from previous weeks:  Feb. 21-25 -- Feb. 14-18 -- Feb. 7-11  

FRIDAY, MARCH 3
Air Force: Boeing's engineer-benefits claim not true 

A Boeing management claim that the U.S. Air Force was among the company's customers exerting pressure to reduce employee benefit costs is not true, an Air Force spokesperson said Friday.

Boeing, which enters the 23rd day of a strike by some 18,000 members of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, continues to insist in its latest offer on phasing in 10 percent medical premiums for its engineers and technical workers.  In a story that appeared in Wednesday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jerry Calhoun, Boeing's vice president for employee and union relations, said the company is feeling pressure from customers, such as the U.S. Air Force, that charge that Boeing's benefit costs are too high. 

"The Air Force never made that comment," said U.S. Air Force spokesperson Gloria Cales.  "That does not represent the Air Force's position." 

Although the Air Force and the Department of Defense "do try to keep our costs down," Cales said, they would never get into specifics such as employee benefit costs with any of its contractors. 

She said the Air Force has received "a number of e-mails" from people regarding Calhoun's statement, and that they would be posting a response on their website some time Friday that clarifies their policy against becoming involved in labor disputes of any kind. 

Boeing spokesperson Peter Conte declined to comment on the Air Force's response. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 2
18,000 smart engineers can't be wrong 

The following oped, which appears in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, was written by Lynn Thompson, the wife of a Seattle Boeing engineer on strike with SPEEA (It's too good to simply create a link and risk having the posting disappear later): 

For many of the 18,000 engineers and professional workers who walked off their jobs three weeks ago, the strike against The Boeing Co. is not about money but about the soul of the company, its future and whether it will remain the world's pre-eminent manufacturer of commercial airplanes.

Last year, Airbus outpaced Boeing in the sale of new aircraft. This year, the early trend is the same. What many engineers see in this reversal is a company that has sacrificed the development of innovative designs and superior quality for short-term, bottom-line results.

What Boeing has also sacrificed, the engineers say, is respect for the technical workers who, during the past 84 years, helped build the company into the industry's undisputed leader.

No one has been more surprised at the success of the strike than the engineers themselves. As a group, engineers are typically conservative in politics and anti-big labor. The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, or SPEEA, represented only 40 percent of the eligible workers prior to Boeing's contract offer in December. Those numbers swelled to 60 percent by the time the strike was authorized, and nearly 80 percent of all eligible workers walked off the job.

Boeing's management seemed so confident that the strike would collapse that none of its executives even made a public statement until the fifth day of the strike. Last August, Boeing Chief Executive Officer Phil Condit personally intervened in negotiations with the machinists' union to announce what he said was the best contract in the industry. Boeing was making the offer, he said, because it wanted world-class workers to build its world-class planes.

When the top executives finally commented on the SPEEA strike, the remarks were of the bloodless "we feel this was a good offer" variety. Said one engineer: "Even a gesture on Condit's part, to say what we meant to the company, would have gone a long way."

But Boeing's responses throughout the negotiations have been remarkably tone-deaf.

For many engineers, it was Boeing's hard-line approach to the negotiations, and particularly its failure to offer even the smallest of concessions to a federal mediator brought in to avert the strike, that drove them onto the picket lines.

Many date Boeing's focus on the bottom line to the company's merger with McDonnell Douglas two years ago. The subsequent consolidation and reorganization shrunk profits at the same time production of new planes broke down. But in its rush to concentrate on efficiency, the company began a pattern, the engineers say, of shortsighted decision-making that ends up costing Boeing more in the end.

One engineer involved in airplane certification to the Federal Aviation Administration recalled how management overrode an engineering recommendation because of concern about short-term costs. When the plane failed the FAA tests in exactly the way the engineers had predicted, Boeing made the changes.

This engineer posed a hypothetical question to Boeing management: "Do you take the advice of your technical people?" Engineers have experience over time. But the pressure on management now seems to be to make light of problems.

Equally troubling to many engineers is Boeing's unwillingness to take risks in developing new planes. Innovations in lighter materials and computer avionics await a new generation of planes. If Boeing contents itself with making only derivatives of existing models, the technical work will become less interesting and less important, and Boeing will no longer be able to attract the highest quality engineers. One of the jokes on the Internet last week was a caption that read "Boeing 2016" -- the year of Boeing's centenary -- beneath a picture of Airbus' new superjumbo plane.

Many engineers chose to work at Boeing because of its reputation for building the best airplanes in the world. When politicians come to town and praise the Boeing jet that flies them around the country, the engineers don't see a blatant appeal to a special interest group; they roar out their approval. They're proud of the quality of their work, proud of Boeing's historical contribution to the defense of the country, proud of the safety record of their planes.

The engineers also are highly educated and skilled technical workers in a technology-driven economy. They live in the city where, more than two decades ago, Bill Gates introduced his own highly successful version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Boeing engineers with 15 to 20 years of experience typically see their salaries leveling off while the veterans of Microsoft and dozens of the other software companies and dot.coms in the region see their salaries go "nearly vertical," in the words of one former Boeing employee who now works for a small software firm.

The differences between old-school Boeing, with its military-modeled hierarchy, and the new high-tech firms is instructive. Microsoft has few levels of management between top and bottom. Executives are visible and accessible. At Boeing, even many first- and second-level managers share the engineers' frustration at trying to be heard by Boeing's upper echelons.

Although a strike is a blunt instrument, many engineers felt that it was the only way to give the company a wake-up call.

Among the many surprises, none may be more lasting than the engineers' discovery of their own unity and strength. SPEEA could not have orchestrated such a large strike without a deep discontent among the employees. Forced by management into an adversarial relationship almost none wanted, the engineers have vowed not to be the latest example of the company sacrificing long-term excellence for short-term savings. For the past three weeks, professionals with virtually no organizing experience have been staging spirited rallies, carrying placards and warming their hands over burning barrels. In the process, the self-described conservatives have had their world-view turned upside down.

Walt Conley, an acoustics engineer with 20 years experience at Boeing, admits that he's still a little uncomfortable "mixing it up with the machinists, the Teamsters, the Kaiser people." But he said the outpouring of support from them during the strike has changed his view of labor forever.

Flight controls analyst Barry Hance echoed Conley's conversion. "The company made a point of saying we're not family anymore. Well, when you're out on the picket line at 2 a.m. and the machinists come out to support you, you realize who your family really is. And that you can't replace family."

Welcome to the face of labor in the new millennium.

Lynn Thompson is a Seattle writer and the wife of a Boeing engineer.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1
AFL-CIO promises support for SPEEA strikers 

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney visited striking members of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE 2001 on the picket line Tuesday in Renton.  But more importantly, he committed to providing staff, expertise and money from the nation's largest labor organization to keep the strike going as long as it takes to get a fair contract. 

Sweeney said the fight is of particular importance to the national labor movement because the AFL-CIO has made organizing more white collar workers a priority, and views the Boeing strike as a catalyst in that effort. 

"The commitment of AFL-CIO resources should send a strong message to Boeing management, just as a similar commitment to striking Teamsters did at UPS a couple of years ago," said Rick Bender, President of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO.  "That message is that the entire labor movement, statewide and nationwide, is behind SPEEA's fight for a fair contract.  For the long haul, if necessary." 

Meanwhile, Boeing continues to insist its latest offer is the best it can do.  One sticking point is management's proposal to phase in 10 percent medical premiums.  In a Seattle Post-Intelligencer report today, Jerry Calhoun, Boeing's vice president for employee and union relations, said the company is feeling pressure from customers, such as the U.S. Air Force, that charge that Boeing's benefit costs are too high. 

CAN THIS BE TRUE?  Is OUR U.S. Air Force actually telling its contractors to cut the benefits of its employees?  Why not find out?  E-mail Dr. Lawrence J. Delaney, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (and also the Air Force's Chief Information Officer), at afcio@pentagon.af.mil and ask him why Boeing says YOUR tax dollars are being spent lobbying them to cut their workers' benefits.  And while you're at it, send a copy of your message to U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), who is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee and its Subcommittees – Defense, Interior and Military Construction.  Rep. Dicks' Legislative Director Pete Modaff will be happy to hear from you at pete.modaff@mail.house.gov. 

SPEEA says the company's medical premium demands essentially erase the small raises the company has offered. 

"If you compare the medical premiums to the guaranteed salary increases offered by the company, the employees would realize a net loss," said SPEEA Executive Director leader Charles Bofferding.  He says Boeing is addressing health care issues the wrong way.  "There are better ways than premiums," Bofferding said. "It's not cost containing; it's cost shifting to employees." 

For more information about what YOU can do to show solidarity with SPEEA members who've been on strike since Feb. 9, click here. 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29
11th-hour attacks on ergonomics rule continue 

The new No. 1 legislative priority for business lobbyists in Olympia is becoming increasingly clear: Delay or prevent implementation of the Department of Labor and Industries' proposed ergonomic rule. 

On Monday, an extraordinary hearing was held on a bill to stop the rule that was introduced only Friday. The measure was heard in the Senate Ways and Means Committee, bypassing the Labor and Workforce Development Committee, whose chair opposes the measure and where cutoff has passed for "policy" bills. 

SB6859 would delay or altogether prevent implementation of the rule by requiring the state to try out the rule on its own agencies before requiring businesses to comply.  Sponsored by State Sen. Tim Sheldon (D-35th), the bill was timed to coincide with a new "study" released by the Association of Washington Business that predicts a dramatic $725 million price tag for the new rule, almost 10 times the cost predicted by L&I and ignoring the expected savings that will result from the rule. 

"The AWB and anti-worker lawmakers have opposed this rule every step of the way for more than 10 years now," said Randy Loomans, WSLC Education and Safety Director.  "It's not surprising that they are still trying to scare business owners by plucking numbers out of the sky like this. They have misrepresented this rule and its requirements from the start." 

More than a dozen representatives of unions, stunned at legislators' receptiveness to the business-backed end-around, offered inspired testimony Monday in opposition to the bill, as did L&I Director Garry Moore and other L&I representatives.  Business lobbyists supported their bill. 

A motion was made to pass the bill from the Democrat-controlled committee pending the collection of signatures from supporting members, but only eight would sign in support, effectively killing the bill in Ways and Means.  However, the bill can be resurrected by a floor vote or by its inclusion in the budget, which could happen right up until the final hour of the session. 

This critical effort to protect the health and safety of Washington workers from the leading cause of workplace injury is in the homestretch now, but it looks like we need to give it one last push.  Please take a moment to call the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000, or send an e-mail to your State Senator and your State Representatives, and tell them to "STAY OUT OF THE WAY and allow implementation of L&I ergonomic rule."  

Ergonomics is fitting the job to the needs and limits of the human body with the goal of protecting workers from repetitive motion, strains and sprains.  L&I's proposed rule, which would be phased in over the next six years, requires that employers, with the assistance of their employees, find and fix workplace hazards with the goal of preventing these injuries before they happen. 

The rule recently concluded the public hearing and comment phase of its implementation.  At statewide hearings held in January around the state, testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of the proposed standard. 

Every year in our state more than 50,000 workers suffer these preventable injuries.  More than one-third of workers’ compensation claims are musculoskeletal-related, costing the system $340 million annually. 

But no statistics can adequately describe the human suffering caused by carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis and back injuries, which literally change people’s lives forever.  Lost workdays and productivity may quantify these costs for employers and government agencies, but try putting a price on not being able to hold your children. 

After more than a decade of "voluntary" efforts and pilot projects to get Washington business to study and address ergonomic hazards at their worksites, the majority of businesses still ignore the problem. And this latest effort to actively ignore the problem, SB6859, would restrict application of the ergonomic rule to state agencies where just one-half of one percent of these injuries are occurring. 

We must not allow big business to convince OUR elected officials to ignore the problem any longer.  Please call your Senator and Representatives TODAY! 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28
U.S. report: Human rights abuses on the increase in China 

Amid little (no) fanfare, the U.S. State Department on Friday released its Report on Human Rights Practices in China and other countries -- and apparently with good reason.  As Corporate America continues the full court press to grant China permanent Normal Trading Relations status (with President Clinton's support), the State Department quietly acknowledges that the authoritarian country's human rights record "has deteriorated markedly" through 1999. 

As reported last week in Will Congress nix planned China-NTR (WTO) vote?, that effort has hit a number of stumbling blocks of late, and NOW is the time for union members and their families to weigh in with their U.S. Representatives on the issue. 

"The (Chinese) Government's poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent," the report reads.  "By year's end (1999), almost all of the key leaders of the China Democracy Party (CDP) were serving long prison terms or were in custody without formal charges, and only a handful of dissidents nationwide dared to remain active publicly." 

The report adds: "The Government continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms.... Abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, lengthy incommunicado detention, and denial of due process. 

"The Government continued to restrict tightly worker rights, and forced labor in prison facilities remains a serious problem. Child labor persists. Particularly serious human rights abuses persisted in some minority areas, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang, where restrictions on religion and other fundamental freedoms intensified." 

At a news conference Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledged the controversy surrounding the apparent contradiction between worsening human rights violations in China and the Clinton Administration's effort to reward the rogue nation with permanent NTR status and admit it to the World Trade Organization. 

"The administration has negotiated an agreement with Beijing on China's accession to the WTO," Albright said.  "That agreement will benefit both countries economically, but it will also require China to follow international trading rules, open its regulations to public scrutiny, and reduce the role of state-owned enterprises. This should expand the rule of law and hasten the development of a more open society." 

But as the report itself indicates, it's a wildly optimistic assessment indeed to suggest China will adhere to this agreement's rules:  "The (Chinese) Constitution and laws provide for fundamental human rights; however, these protections often are ignored in practice." 

The AFL-CIO and other critics of permanent NTR for China have suggested that no such reward should be granted to China until it demonstrates it is playing by the rules of current trade agreements.  There is plenty of evidence that it has not. 

If you have news items regarding unions or workplace issues in Washington state that you would like to see posted here, please submit them via e-mail to David Groves or via fax  to 206-285-5805.

Copyright © 2000  Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO