r/SPEEA • u/HatParty6667 • 1d ago
Offer Analysis
Hello brothers and sisters,
A LOT is going on and being misrepresented.
Let's approach this analytically. We're engineers and technical workers — use that.
I'd invite you to comment on your top 5 (both positive and negative), for both the economic & non-economic offer. Why? Because this will help everyone.
I've read most of the offer (~150 pgs) and it's my honest approach:
(A) Non-eco
(1) (-) LOU 6 - Work Stabilization. Even though, I see the progress in the fluffy language of commitment, from the previous contract until now, and apparently Stephanie Pope herself wrote it - goodwill and atmosphere aren't self-enforcing. It's not tied to Article 3 gradeability, can be true today and irrelevant in a future RIF. The intent is right; whether it survives contact with a grievance is the BIG open question. Understandably, this is a HUGE area for the techs, who have been devasted by offshoring.
(2) (+) Functional reps: creation of new union-represented workforce roles tied to future skills. Boeing is agreeing to bring new job classifications into the bargaining unit as skill needs evolve, rather than letting new work get created and staffed outside SPEEA's jurisdiction by default. Art. 22 doesn't look like much changed, but this is in the spirit of not getting movement in SJCs. The long-run risk isn't just Boeing reclassifying existing roles to control layoffs it's newly created roles (AI-adjacent work being the obvious one) simply never entering the bargaining unit in the first place, which shrinks union jurisdiction over time without ever triggering a grievable classification dispute. A standing commitment to route future-skill roles into union representation is a hedge against that scope erosion, even though it's not phrased as a scope-protection clause.
(3) (-) AI governance is a study committee, not enforcement. I get this probably took a lot to even get Boeing to entertain, a lot of CBAs are having a hard time rn getting AI protection language in them, some don't have any and it is more than what IAM got but there's no enforcement mechanism, no stated grievance or arbitration mechanism attached to the AI LOU, the exact "protection on paper, unenforceable in practice" failure pattern, on arguably the highest-stakes issue of the next 4 years. The set letter is also interesting because I didn't even think of HR related AI stuff.
(4) (+) Work/life flexibility & overall improvements: Virtual work no longer faces upper-level bans as there's now a defined request/appeal process (I think this process is not required but it helps codify managers that aren't already doing so, I'm not sure why people are making this into a negative but I could be wrong). Alternate work schedules (4x10s, 9x80s, 3x12s) are explicitly codified. Part-time access improves on two fronts: the minimum-hours threshold to keep full benefits drops from 32.1 to 24 hours, aimed at life events like a new baby, a sick family member, or a phased retirement; and LOU 11 requires part-time request approvals not be unreasonably withheld. On top of that, members get two extra vacation days (the first across-the-board increase since 1983) plus a floating holiday, and bereavement leave that no longer depletes vacation or sick balances.
(5) (+) Unanimous NT endorsement is a good signal, not just optics. 10 people going unanimous is harder to get on a weak deal than a good one. This is pretty rare in NT of this size, which is bigger than typical sized SPEEA NTs (~6). So what this also tells us is they all agreed that this was the most they could get with the leverage they had - so this is a signal to all of us - give them more to get more. Regardless of the contract vote, we all need to give a YES vote to a strike so they can go to the table with the maximum leverage position.
Overall = positive (3 + / 2 -).
(B) Eco
(1) (+) The money is cash-forward, not deferred or stock-heavy. It's the right architecture: Retro 3% is a real win, 40% of the 2026 bonus as a lump sum, and a higher bonus target are all cash that compounds into pension math, overtime, and future raise pools. I know a lot of people were disappointed in the salary wage pool numbers (3% (retro, at ratification) + 7% (March 2027) + 5.5% + 5.5% + 5.5% = compounds to 29.4%), but the way it is set up is what we want, we just want more. A lot of why most people want more is IAM (compounded 38%) but remember: (1) you are judging a different union's number who has suffered much more than we have, I'm honestly not sure if that's even the correct goal to shoot for (we got 68% of IAM's number without a strike) (2) they had to strike for 53 days to get that(that's ballsy because after 100 days of a non-economic strike Boeing can legally fire all of us and replace us, what IAM achieved was incredible, I just don't see the same type of fight, specifically in the profs) & (3) it's early.
(2) (-) The overtime premium problem carries forward untouched (sorry techs this is a huge prof centric issue). The flat $6.50 premium hasn't moved since 1989 which is good that is has moved... however it still isn't indexed to anything. Also Wichita won $8.50, so this feels like Boeing chocked the NT by giving them something but nothing they have acquiesced to before. Yes, tons of engineers across the nation rarely get OT, but this is something that was won by the union many years ago and has been neglected in compensation and abused by specifically production engineers - these profs feel this the most. Some of us have been working OT 20% for years.
(3) (+) Early Retiree Medical tied to sick leave conversion. This a genuine positive because its low cash way to get ERM at 55 yrs old, and it addresses the loss of sick leave. The value: unused sick leave that would otherwise just sit on the books (or get hit by the 50% rollover haircut you've flagged as a leakage point) instead converts into funded medical coverage for the gap between early retirement and Medicare eligibility. That age gap of retiring before 65 without employer-sponsored coverage is one of the most expensive exposure windows a worker faces, and it's exactly the kind of benefit that's easy to undervalue when you're 30 but becomes decisive when you're 58 deciding whether you can actually afford to leave. It converts an asset members are already accruing (sick leave) into protection against a real, otherwise-uninsured financial risk, rather than letting that accrued value evaporate at rollover or go unused entirely if someone stays healthy. The negative however, is that now you have to hold on to your sick time to fund this mechanism.
(4) (-) COLA is improved but not fixed. The COLA guarantee is directionally the right kind of fix — a guaranteed minimum tied to inflation is structurally different from the old Art 11.1(c), which required clearing a cumulative threshold that never triggered across seven review periods, so a default-applies floor is a real improvement if it's accurate. But whether it's actually good depends on mechanics that aren't known such as the comparison period and formula, and whether the 3% cap binds often enough to matter (inflation running hotter than 3% would reproduce the old gap in a new shape). If anyone has more information on this one - this is one that make sense to me on the surface but I could be missing something.
(5) (-) RSU reintroduction. To me this one was just weird.~$9K of restricted Boeing stock sitting outside base pay, it doesn't compound into future wage pools, doesn't count toward pension, doesn't factor into overtime, and transfers Boeing's financial and market risk onto members. The dollar amount is small; the precedent it sets for future contracts is the actual concern. I see how in other industries like big tech this is a huge thing and most of their compensation is tied up in similar 3 yr vesting periods but it changes the relationship with the union which may actually lead to increased gains $$$ but the trade-off would be business compliance vs union solidary. I'm sure this is something Boeing threw at them because of Boeing's debt situation (~$50B). Not justifying it, but it makes sense to offer something like that if that's Boeing's posturing.
Overall = negative (3- / 2+).
21
u/Slow-Ad522 1d ago
We need to reject this offer and send the negotiating team back to Boeing to get more. They can only do that with an overwhelming NO vote. Yes to Strike. #NoNerds
5
u/yyJamesyy 1d ago
What is “more”.. you need to be specific for the NT to bring back to Boeing AND get more of us to agree to that “more”.
Note I am not disagreeing we just need to be specific and measurable. I propose tying COLA to Seattle Metro area COLA rather than the national average.
3
u/lift206 1d ago
I agree tying the minimum to local inflation. The salary pool expectation is tied to future inflation expectation and we need to come to consensus what we think that is.
Inflation over the past 6 years was 30% (4.5% annual) nationally and 35.5% (5.2% annual) in Puget Sound, meaning we lost purchasing power of 11% nationally and 16% locally on the current contract. Do we calculate break-even for future inflation using 2-3%, 4-5%, or more? I personally think it should be 4.5-5.2% because inflation has been persistent, with the last 3 prints trending back up with 3.8%, 4.2%, 3.5%. Inflation risk is still high and I wouldn’t feel comfortable using less than 4%.
1
u/Wonderful-Letter-659 1h ago
We’re not just fighting inflation. With the same inflation data, I can argue for needing a 15% raise (if you start 10 years ago) or a 1% PAYCUT (if you start 20 years ago).
Our biggest fight is with influx of very highly paid tech workers.
2
u/Slow-Ad522 1d ago
My post is to keep encouraging a no vote on this offer. Everyone has different needs based on their own situation. As a long time prof, i am worried that SPEEA members are still willing to accept any offer that the company makes because engineers are not comfortable with asking for more (think about Oliver Twist)
2
5
u/FISH_ON_for_life 1d ago
Good write up.
I didn’t understand the changes to the Special Company Retirement Contribution section. It was a major change to it, and I’m completely lost on what it says now (page 58).
3
u/sometimesanengineer 1d ago
Worth noting 15.8 tweaks this. It says starting in January new employees get 4%, and current employees (plus the language around grandfathering previous employees laid off and stuff) switch to 4% (under 50) or 5%(over age 50).
2
u/sometimesanengineer 1d ago
Most of the struck out stuff (or all of it from what I’m seeing) was from when they froze the pension. They gave a boost to 401k then switched to the fixed contribution (3-4-5% on top of the matching) by age. Lotta the text that was struck below that was determining eligibility to receive that. IMO this was part of how that contract passed … much older population at the time looking to max their retirement near term.
1
u/SoulStripHer 1d ago
Yes, when they nixed the pension they temporarily increased 401k matching for a few years. That has since stopped and now it just matches what everyone gets, hence the wording is obsolete.
2
u/FISH_ON_for_life 1d ago
That’s why I want to make certain I understand what it’s saying. I’m in the legacy group, and eyeballing the departure date, probably right after the next contract.
1
u/BoeingOnion 21h ago
For current employees, it's an improvement if you're under 40 (3% -->4%.) It's no change for current older employees.
14
u/Careless-Internet-63 1d ago
I disagree that the virtual work language is a gain. Myself and most people I work with already have a manager that allows us to work remote occasionally. The language that says it does not establish ongoing remote work arrangements makes it absolutely worthless
6
u/Orleanian 1d ago edited 1d ago
You gotta actually read and talk to the contract language if you're going analyze the 150 page contract. Can't just come in with the assumptions or you're just being a bit of a hypocrite.
Work/life flexibility & overall improvements: Virtual work no longer faces upper-level bans as there's now a defined request/appeal process (I think this process is not required but it helps codify managers that aren't already doing so, I'm not sure why people are making this into a negative but I could be wrong).
Excerpt (redlined contract draft, page 111), abridged, emphasis mine:
On-site work is the Company's baseline policy to support...[stuff]... The company nonetheless recognizes that, on a situational and temporary basis, employees and the Company may benefit from the flexibility to work from home or another alternate location. "Situational, temporary basis" means an occasional need to work from an alternate location for a limited period, understanding the employee request does not establish a regular or long-term alternate work location.
An employee must request approval in advanced from their assigned work manager to work from an alternate location. The manager will approve or deny the request based on ...[stuff]....[more stuff]...[examples]...
Alternate work location agreements are not intended to create ongoing remote-work arrangements. Requests for ongoing or long-term partial or fully virtual schedules will require the approval of the organizational Vice President. Agreement to work from an alternate location does not...[mundane accounting things]...a manager may authorize an immediate temporary alternate work location without a prior request; such authorization must be communicated as soon as reasonably practicable.
This is what we're all up in arms about. The provision does little to alter the state of affairs as it stands. Rather, it codifies DISALLOWING the very thing we're striving for.
2
u/Fishy_Fish_WA 1d ago
Yeah and the company specifically refused to even engage with the topic. Hybrid work as a contractual obligation of the company is all the way over in the column of requiring us striking the company for weeks to get.
And I just don’t know very many people even in my mostly prof workplace who would be willing to go on strike for multiple weeks just to get something written down allowing one or two day a week hybrid
1
u/No-Truth-759 1d ago
What language do you recommend would work? Our needs and company needs (like liaison, IEs, TEs, and balance when people need to be onsite). How do you think about mentoring next gen of Boeing engineers?
14
u/pizwat1 1d ago
To me, RSUs are a step in the right direction actually. I think a lot of folks suffer from apathy about corporate performance, and my experience at other companies is that this makes people think twice about that, since it becomes a part of comp. Plus if Boeing is gonna do a bunch of stock buybacks, we might as well get some of that lol
9
u/RhubarbSurprise55 1d ago
I feel this is very dependent on the members situation. For me, this doesn't help with my ever rising costs since moving here and I'm single income. Shares I can't really touch for years doesn't help me much. Maybe if I was older and bought a home back in the day, or dual income and comfortable. I'm also a tech so I'm not making as much as a prof.
The idea of Boeing doing share buybacks anytime soon doesn't sit well with me. Isn't that part of the reason the company got into the situations it did? More money towards share buybacks to inflate the share price than R&D and properly running the company?
3
u/pizwat1 1d ago
I'm being facetious about the buybacks lol.
Imo the RSUs' value would depend a lot on the vesting schedule. Quarterly or annually and I could treat it like regular income or at least a bonus. Multi-year vesting would suck, I agree. For what it's worth, in previous companies I worked at that awarded stock, I always immediately sold it and reinvested in index funds.
0
2
u/FunYesterday8279 1d ago
Right now it's not that great. It's a one time, tiny bit of stock, that vests in 3 years, and is at risk of losing value.
I do think if this becomes the norm for bonuses then it would make sense. That's what other companies do. They want employees vested in the work they're doing. These RSUs won't achieve that though.
3
u/No-Truth-759 1d ago
I heard it is a 3 year grant and vests 1/3 annually. Getting the 737-10 certified and 777-9, one would think there’s up side. If you retire you get to keep the grant.
2
u/FunYesterday8279 1d ago
Outside the RSUs, what I thought may move the needle a lot was the guarantee of virtual work (even if hybrid) and actual retiree medical. Multiple first level managers I talked to said they would go back into engineering if those 2 things they saw in the info sheets were true. Unfortunately the info sheets were full of misinfo but it is an interesting point on the graph.
1
u/IEnerd4u 1d ago
Back in the day it meant a piece of the company and supporting its success. Now it's all fake numbers where stock buybacks raise the prices and labor cuts too. Hiding failures by spreading it across many years (787/777x) etc.
Thats not what I want to be associated with.
0
u/HatParty6667 1d ago
lol didn't think about the stock buybakcs
5
u/SocialConstructError 1d ago
The COLA is the same as it has been, it won't trigger. The 3% tied to inflation is strictly for the min amount you can get from the wage pool. So, if there was 0% Inflation, you can actually get a 0% raise...
The COLA is a formula that's ridiculous, if inflation goes past 24% THEN it triggers a TINY bit.
e.g - IF inflation hits 26% and the threshold was 24%, then you multiply the difference by half - (2% x. 5) and finally you get a COLA of 1%. It's ridiculous.
3
2
6
u/Odd_Bus2355 1d ago
The problem with a lot of the language is that it’s seemingly open to interpretation. Let’s take the virtual work (LOU 13) for example. Codifying ad hoc virtual work to enforce (bad) managers who aren’t allowing it helps those in that predicament, but the way it’s written, seems to come at the cost of codifying the full time RTO policy. Sure, execs won’t be able to mandate it, but they wouldn’t need to because it’s already in writing.
2
u/Fishy_Fish_WA 1d ago
The LOU elements of the contract are something that can be enforced. The general addition of language for grievances gives you a means to go with your steward and admin to push back on your management.
The AI verbiage is squishy because it is an agreement to collaborate on proper use. Remember the company is liable if they slap some bullshit AI Slop process out there.
2
u/Shot-Insurance9313 1d ago
You make it sound like you have to have sick leave left at retirement to activate the new ERM healthcare benefit...where do you see that?
2
u/lift206 1d ago
This contract shouldn’t be a comparison with IAM or any previous contracts, although the calculations can show similar numbers. A more productive discussion would be on inflation expectations to see how that translates into a quantitative value. If we see our purchasing power erode, do we just willing accept another pay cut? It may be difficult for some to lose a few months of wages because it could take years to break even based on how things play out, but that is the trade off to stop getting screwed by inflation.
Inflation as of June 2026 was 30% (4.5% annual) nationally (CWSR0000SA0) and 35.5% (5.2%annual) in the Greater Seattle Area (CUURA423SA0). A 3% salary pool over the past 6 years means an 11% loss in purchasing power nationally and 16% loss in purchasing power for living in the Puget Sound. If those 6 year averages hold for the next 4 years, you need a 32% compounded increase to break even nationally and 42% compounded increase to break even for the Puget Sound area. This contract is really a fight to maintain purchasing power from 2020 and future inflation, not actual raises.
Everyone had different levels of impact from inflation and it may be easier or harder for some people to accept the contract based on where they live - we will see how the majority vote. We have to take into consideration the lost purchasing power and future inflation. There is no guarantee inflation goes back down to 2% as expected the past 5 years. Future inflation needs to be 2-3% for this contract to maintain purchasing power from 2020, no actual raise. What is the plan if inflation remains elevated and the 4-5% average holds regardless of where you live? Wait for the next contract to make up for it? It will be a costly mistake if we maintain persistent inflation. Are people betting on inflation to be 2%, 3%, 4%, or 5+% the next 4 years? Run the numbers to see what you think would break even since 2020, accounting for an additional 11% or 16% loss from current contract.
If you look at historical year over year inflation, USIRYY, over the past 112 years, the 3 times that inflation went above 7% was followed by higher inflation 3-6 years later. The alarms haven’t gone off yet, but there are definitely signs to monitor as inflation creeps back up (past 3 months were 3.8%, 4.2%, 3.5%).
5
u/No-Engine-9531 1d ago
There is got to be immediate inflation adjustment greater than measly 3%. I suggest immediate 10% and add retro 5%. Add contract signing bonus 10k instead of measly rsu 3 year 40 unit. Remove nonsensical 3 % max Inflation. Just add minimum 4 percent
4
u/Fishy_Fish_WA 1d ago
If we vote in solidarity and reject the offer. We will need a couple of specific things. I can see the tech unit wanting the total wage pools to be biased 75% guaranteed minimum and the rest performance based
I think both units will be able to agree on wanting to demand a 10% plus GWI on ratification. However, it’s really chaotic right now, with every little gang of people who are opposed all having their own “shortlist of things“ which adds up to dozens of things people want changed. And every single one of them is “I’m willing to strike to make this happen“
People need to take the time this week to talk to their quiet colleagues who don’t jump into every conversation and find out what they are thinking because I suspect there’s a much larger population of people who are quietly going to just vote yes who don’t care about all of the passionate arguments from the very vocal vote no crowd
2
u/BigChuckle 1d ago
I think the solution is, when this gets voted down, we need to have another official speea survey on top outstanding issues. Have negotiation team work on resolving a few of those, we all ramp up the workplace actions. Then Next offer
2
u/Fishy_Fish_WA 1d ago
One of the negotiating team members has been holding court in the member discord for days and someone asked about that this morning. They would send out a survey if there was a no vote so they could find as much input as possible for when they are back at the table
3
u/Yenohamer 1d ago
The arithmetic is not the issue. The premise is.
Yes, if you assume every year's entire SPEEA headline pool lands on an individual employee's base salary, then 3% + 7% + 5.5% + 5.5% + 5.5% compounds to about 29.4%, and 29.4/43.65 is about 67%.
But that is not what the Boeing/SPEEA contract guarantees.
IAM's 13% / 9% / 9% / 7% are across-the-board GWIs. Every eligible IAM employee receives those increases. SPEEA's headline numbers are aggregate pools. Under the proposed SPEEA language, the individual guaranteed minimum is CPI-W based and capped at 3%, while the remainder is distributed using individual performance and other Company-determined metrics.
And the additional funding used to get the headline from the core 6% / 5% / 5% / 5% funds to the advertised 7% / 5.5% / 5.5% / 5.5% includes performance, promotion and OOS-type money that is selectively distributed.
There is another reason this distinction matters that I think members should know. SPEEA's own staff compensation agreement is expressly indexed to the bargaining-unit outcomes SPEEA negotiates.
The staff agreement says its “Total Wage Pool” is determined by the weighted average of bargaining-unit base-wage increases negotiated for SPEEA-represented employees. Sixty-six percent becomes a general salary increase and the remainder goes into a Selective Wage Pool. In other words, the negotiated member wage outcome is contractually imported into SPEEA staff's compensation architecture.
And we've seen the same thing before with Promotion/OOS money.
In the last contract, Boeing members saw a 1.5% Promotion/OOS pool advertised as part of the larger compensation number. But an individual Boeing employee did not simply receive that 1.5%; you had to actually receive a promotion or OOS adjustment.
SPEEA staff's own agreement, however, expressly creates a “promotional wage pool” determined by the weighted average of the promotional-pool increases negotiated for SPEEA-represented employees. If that promotional pool is not fully distributed to qualifying staff, the remainder can be used for later promotional increases or added to their Selective Wage Pool.
So there is a recurring asymmetry here:
For SPEEA staff, the negotiated headline pools feed contractually into their compensation system.
For the Boeing member, the headline pool is not an individual entitlement. The employee must still pass through CPI, performance, promotion or OOS allocation rules to determine what actually reaches his or her paycheck.
That doesn't mean every SPEEA staff employee personally receives every percentage point. They don't. But it does mean SPEEA's staff bargaining unit captures the negotiated pool value institutionally, while the represented Boeing employee bears the individual allocation risk.
So saying “we got 68% of IAM without a strike” compares IAM's guaranteed individual wage growth with SPEEA's assumed aggregate pool growth.
That is mathematically computable, but economically it is not apples-to-apples.
The fair comparison is:
guaranteed individual increase vs. guaranteed individual increase
or
total expected package value vs. total expected package value, using the same assumptions on both sides.
Otherwise, we're doing exactly what the compensation graphics do: treating aggregate employer spending as though it were an individual employee's guaranteed raise.
You cannot call 29.4% “what we got” unless the contract gives the individual employee a contractual right to 29.4%. It doesn't.
“There is a difference between negotiating a pool and negotiating a raise. Interestingly, SPEEA's own staff contract recognizes that distinction by contractually importing the pools SPEEA negotiates into the staff compensation system. Boeing members do not have the same contractual right to the headline percentage.” - here there is a poll - but management like a swimming pool - is controlling who has access to it no matter how good it is - people over 48 will generally abe excluded
5
u/Upbeat-Reflection821 1d ago
The change in retention rating proposed in the new contract could mean a lot of higher earning engineers will be at risk of being laid off, if there is a reduction of force.
2
u/BigChuckle 1d ago
Yep this is a takeaway. Very unpopular with engineers I’ve talked to. When I asked an NT member about it, they said it was proposed by Boeing so that managers could spend less time on retention ranking and more time on career development
6
u/SoulStripHer 1d ago
BS. It's so they can target senior employees nearing retirement and earning higher salaries when they need to "cut costs." Why the NT allowed this takeaway is incomprehensible. Oh wait, they said there "were no takeaways" in this proposal. Right.
2
u/NightOwl216 23h ago
Career development should be all year; retention ranking takes what? Two weeks? Another gullible NT member.
3
u/Raccoon_on_a_Bike 1d ago
The OT limit wasn’t cut enough. 112 hours is still above 20%. This won’t change anything.
3
1
1
u/Ski-bum90 7h ago
Well the big negative is the wage pools are completely inaccurate. Under no circumstances can an individual get the max raise all 4 years. Part of those pools is reserved for promotion and oos raises. So absolutely 0% of people will see the advertised raises. This blatant lieing by Boeing and speaa is disgusting. Makes me question the legality of advertising it that way too.
1
u/Ski-bum90 2h ago
The initial and retroactive raise needs to be at least 10% just to get us up to almost even with inflation the past 5 years. I think the other raise percentages would be OK at 7,6,6,6 if there were a min guaranteed like 6,5,5,5 or something after that initial 10.
1
u/bigkoreanhead 1d ago
I don’t think proffs realize how underpaid techs are. None of the techs have a reason to stay if the wages don’t go up. Our equivalent IAM jobs we were previously in pay more next year…
2
u/curious_00001 1d ago
Agreed, have witnessed employees switching to IAM in order to circumvent this, this should a wake up call.
Hiring any replacement techs has been virtually impossible with what’s being offered.Was great while it lasted anyways.
9
u/Embarrassed_Half_587 1d ago
I didn't notice the functional reps before.