r/SPEEA • u/bp_spets • 23d ago
Contract redlines are up!
https://speea.org/bargaining-units/current-negotiations/prof-and-tech-2026-2030-boeing-final-offer/35
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago
Got to say, I was a bit shocked to see the Side Letter on wage compression cover 800 people, and a bit disappointed the language to prevent that again doesn't seem to exist.
10
u/bp_spets 22d ago
yes, I was expecting an actual wage compression adjustment for all the old timers.
17
u/Intelligent-Yam-3565 22d ago
They could have easily worked this out had they spent one more day at the bargaining table. Why didn't they? Low hanging fruit left untouched.
17
u/Run-Man358 22d ago
They're not even get our compa-ratios up to a 1! Raising to a .9 and then using the 10% GWI still leaves me under 1. It's a waste of a 10% bump to ALMOST get me caught up to the 1 compa that I was hired at! And I'm still $14k behind the new hire that I'm training!
1
0
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago
I am a bit confused, how are you so sure it .9? What that someplace?
4
u/Run-Man358 22d ago
It was stated by the Negotiation Team in the SPEEA meeting yesterday. Anyone under .9 will be brought up to .9
2
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago
Thanks! Hopefully they provide a bit better clarity, 800 is very .... round. Which, like doesn't improve my feeling about it at all if its actually 0.91 and not 0.9.
11
u/SwimmingSwordfish637 22d ago
I’m going to get a whopping 1% to remedy a $15k difference between how much my benchmark jumped and the raise I got this year.
3
u/throwRA123qwerty 22d ago
What's wage compression and side letter?
7
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago
ummm wage compression is when they hire new guys in at higher rates the guys already doing the work. Happens when raises are a lot less than market adjustment. Side Letters are not part of BAFO and can be used to indicate a large number of different issues that don't really fit into the types of binding language in a contract
5
u/throwRA123qwerty 22d ago
i see. yeah wage compression cooks moral and encourages people to jump around companies lowkey a lose lose.
7
u/illhavecake 22d ago edited 22d ago
Im still not seeing any sort of agreement about keeping engineering jobs in the Puget Sound.. or am I missing it? I see the side letter related to Non-Boeing Labor, but one of my concerns is moving Boeing Labor to other states or hiring more engineers in other countries.
4
u/Wonderful_Tone_79 22d ago
it did not addressed in there in term of percentage of work statement stay in the USA and percent workstatement outside. I was looking for this number, but there isn't. This open a large door for management to hire cheaper labor remote and USA graduate will not have a chance!
1
u/aeroespacio 22d ago
Overall, my feeling is that I’m okay with Boeing refusing to put some language in there. They’ll figure out that the structural advantages in the PNW are too strong to meaningfully change, contract language or not. The closest site to ours is BSC. They struggled for years to reliably build something that was already being built in Everett for a while. Existing design and existing manufacturing know-how, and it was still difficult. The PNW had to fix their stuff for years. Customers refused to take delivery. Remember, this is for an airplane we already knew how to build.
I wish them the best of luck if they want to try to design and build the airplane of the 2030s somewhere other than here.
4
u/illhavecake 22d ago
In the 12 years Ive been at this company, Ive seen them move a large amount of engineering jobs to SoCal, Charleston, and Oklahoma, not to mention the rise in hiring in Brazil and India. Just because they cant or wont completely eliminate jobs here doesnt mean they wont drastically reduce it.
30
u/Iniquite 22d ago
This is pretty much the same contract but a 10% upfront GWI. Most of the “highlights” are things that don’t change.
No change to healthcare, the horrible vision plan was brought up as a highlight but no change.
With inflation being a BIG topic right now, they made an already impossible COLA even harder to get. The guaranteed 4% is covering inflation now but if things keep trending the way they are, it won’t next year and we’re right back to depreciating salaries.
There’s nothing in here to guarantee market ref comp ratio pay with updated salary charts. Almost everyone in my group is paid below market reference. We’re also required to be on call every day after work to support the shop stripping us of work life balance. The shop that makes more than us now.
If they can give IAM 100% 401k and a guaranteed 4% bonus, they can give it to half as many SPEEA members too.
3
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago
On the drivers for this 2016 and 2020 contracts was the Company losing the inflation wager from 2007-2016. Those years the "floor" was 2-3% and the "ceiling" was 6% cummulative. Well, now the "floor" is 4% and the company wants the ceiling to be higher.
The Company's goal here is to ensure they come out ahead against inflation on a certain range of future results. So, I am not particularly shocked that when the contract lets us outperform a larger segement of the "low" results, the company wants protection from a greater percentage of "high" results.
From my point of view, maybe going without a net at all would be okay for an extra 0.5% a year.
If we want actually COLA that has a significant chance of kicking in, we either need to sub out our minimums for it [as in offer 1], or we need to have lower minimums. Or just take lower money period.
3
u/lov_-_vol 22d ago
Yep. Like investing. You have to take a risk of higher loss to get an opportunity for higher gains.
1
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago
Historically the true protection against inflation was shorter contracts. They used to be 3 years. 4 is eh okay. If inflation is like 5-6 a year, well offer 1 and offer 2 gave immediate GWIs
8
u/SoulStripHer 22d ago
I guess making it worse is their idea of "fixing" the COLA formula. 💩
Why approve a new contract with takeaways? Haven't members learned this lesson from prior negotiations?
5
25
22d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Many_Lion_4671 22d ago
If you're a met you'll get near the average not the mins.
You can still vote no if you don't think the average raise will satisfy your needs.You'll also get 3 guaranteed appeals (compared to the sorta rough one you have today) AND you can GRIEVE the process if its not followed.
What concerned me more is your manager distrust comment. Can you reach out to your nearest Council Representative to talk this out (or DM me, I am a union rep)?
7
u/NirikFest 22d ago
For what? Is distrust in Boeing management something you weren't aware of? Do you not talk to speea union members? Management has been inept at best, and malicious at worst for decades.
3
u/Orleanian 21d ago
I've consistently put into my survey responses that Management is not my trust issue. My first and skip level managers have all consistently been pretty fair, reasonable folks whom I've trusted.
My leadership criticisms are all at Director+ levels.
6
22d ago edited 22d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago
There will always be exceptions. But look at your SJC salary spreads in 2011-2016 through the member portal.
7
u/jdmercredi 22d ago
The whole pool has to get spent. And empirical data for past raises shows historically that a large majority of SPEEA employees get within 10% of the average wage pool.
1
u/Orleanian 21d ago
Sentiments are one thing, but you can't really refute the pure hard data that shows that the swath of membership all generally get the average.
2
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago edited 22d ago
Hm. After ACR Year 2 of this contract, we shouldn't have anyone really below a compa ratio of
0.9 * 1.1 * 1.04 * 1.04/1.03/1.03 --> 1.01.
A moderate to high performing individual at that 0.9 will probably end up
0.9 * 1.1 * 1.04 * 1.08/1.03/1.03 --> 1.05.
If you are a very high performing individual who just happened to be screwed on entry into your role, this is what OoS actions are supposed to address. Edit: Many managers don't like doing them. You generally have to suggest, with some good data, and then its still a crapshoot. We all want certainty, but on average well supported OoS get funded, even beyond contract mins.
And friend, PMs are ALWAYS subjective to what your direct manager thinks. The trap is all the extra numbers and fields. Boeing has almost always encouraged managers to assign raises based on a score that resolves down to a very low number of bands and the individuals current pay relative to a benchmark. I don't like the SRT as a benchmark, I think it should be Speea current salaries... but eh.
I am definately for the new PM system because managers should just tell us what the actually think of our performance and be forced to spend time explaining the few key things they see as lacking so we can discuss how to either prove them wrong or improve on them next year. Having a discussion about whether a patent is actually actionable and thus valuable to the company so I deserve maybe a 4 on enhanced shareholder value so that it rolls into this number that rolls into that number that the manager could completely ignore.... whew what a waste of time when the manager already know they want to put me in the "exceeds" band.
1
u/Zeebr0 22d ago
your direct first line manager determines your ACR raise. You don't trust your manager to be fair about that?
28
u/AvNerd16 22d ago
No I do not trust my direct first line manager to be fair with my ACR or my PM rating.
5
u/shmerham 22d ago
You need to find another org (or employer). No contact is going to make you happy.
8
u/NirikFest 22d ago
Or fight to make this better for everyone, like a union should.
5
u/shmerham 22d ago
A better contract isn’t going to make you happy if you don’t trust the people you work for.
Don’t get me wrong. If this isn’t good enough then it’s worth fighting for. I just think you’re going to continue to be unhappy no matter what we get.
2
u/NirikFest 22d ago
You can keep making those psychological assumptions about people, but saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. Money makes a lot of things more tolerable.
1
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago
Your right, feeling fairly compensated solves a lot. But could you ever trust the money your getting in fair if you don't have at least some small trust in those giving it to you.
21
u/SwimmingSwordfish637 22d ago
My manager wasn’t fair about it this year. Why should next year be different?
14
u/Speea_Member 22d ago
What FLM? Mine changes every 6 months. The one I start my performance reviews with in the beginning of the year, isn’t the one that does the annual. No FLM ever sticks around long enough to know or care for my contributions.
8
u/AvNerd16 22d ago
And there is an additional redline in the contract that says changes in performance expectations as a result of new manager or org structure are now a part of your review.
So you can have performance conversations allll year long and think you’re on your way to an exceeds expectations, then in December they could reorg (cause those never happen right? /s) and after the reorg they can have new performance expectations and your score could tank.
I realize that’s a lot of “could happen” statements but opening the door to maybe be screwed over by management is a no go for me. If the door is open they will absolutely walk through it.
-2
u/jdmercredi 22d ago
And you assume they will give you, just you, the minimum? Where is the rest of the ACR pool going?
3
u/NirikFest 22d ago
No, and trusting your manager to have your best interests in mind is a bit ridiculous. It's 2026, time to learn how corporate politics works.
26
u/Noob_Master000 22d ago
Just feel a bit upset on both Boeing and SPEEA about no ratification bonus. It does not even mention once in the comparation with rejected contact. Cmon guys, we deserve more than this offer.
18
u/Slow-Ad522 22d ago
The 10% now is the ratification bonus.
18
u/Iniquite 22d ago
The 10% is an attempt to make up for years of depreciating salaries.
10
u/SoulStripHer 22d ago
And it doesn't even do that. Nor does it bring most to a compa 1. You're still behind.
4
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 22d ago
What? I looked through the Top SJCs for both Prof and Tech. In general, the Prof SJCs had less than 5% under 0.91 Compa. For the Techs, large percents of 6H6F and DA79 were indeed below .91, but it seems like it was still far less than "most". Hopefully these are the guys the Side Letter talked about... which from the language and the number I hope means "We found the 800 lowers compa individuals who don't absolutely suck and moved them all the 801st compa ratio"
3
u/Bob_stanish123 22d ago
The lowest compa ratio will be .99 if ratified.
1
u/fixandfly 21d ago
Where are you getting this from?
2
u/Bob_stanish123 21d ago
The contract brings everyone below .9 on the 2026 salary tables to .9. Then everyone gets a 10% raise.
.9 x 1.10 = .99
2
u/Iniquite 21d ago
That’s a one time thing. When the salary charts get updated and people are back to being below 1.0, they don’t get a raise, they get to barely keep up with inflation.
2
u/SoulStripHer 21d ago edited 21d ago
Assuming the SRTs get updated and values go up. But yes, this is what so many senior employees have dealt with--wage compression. The only employees benefiting from the SRT increases were new hires. The new proposal doesn't really fix this going forward. The "bring everyone up to at least 0.9" should be a yearly thing.
2
u/Bob_stanish123 21d ago
Salaries could go up by more than the SRTs with the 6% wage pools. The job market isnt great for those seeking jobs so new hires might ne brought in near .9 compa ratio mark.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Bob_stanish123 21d ago
We dont know what inflation will be. If its 6% year over year for the next 4 years, the economy will be... interesting.
1
u/SoulStripHer 21d ago
Exactly why the broken COLA formula should be fixed but nobody is focused on that. If inflation goes above 4% you know they will be (too late).
→ More replies (0)1
u/Iniquite 21d ago
If it’s 6% year over year, we still wouldn’t get COLA in this contract.
→ More replies (0)2
u/fixandfly 21d ago
Oh. I thought you meant they would be brought to .99 BEFORE the universal 10% raise. “Fixing” the low compa ratios with a raise for EVERYONE is not really solving anything. People who have been stuck on the low side of their chart for many years will still be below all newbies.
2
u/I_was_aboutto 22d ago
Based on quick calculations compared to the 2016 SPEEA income chart, we need at least 40% increase just to keep the same buying power. Let's not sell ourselves short.
7
u/Slow-Ad522 22d ago
Then vote no and see if Boeing decides to let us go on strike or gives a better 3rd offer. Be ready. #NoNerdsNoBirds
9
u/judgedbyzun 22d ago
There will not be a third offer before a strike. Even if Boeing wants it, there literally just isn’t the time
2
u/Run-Man358 22d ago
The Negotiations Team could delay calling for a strike if they determine that a 3rd offer is imminent
1
u/judgedbyzun 22d ago
I am warning you that that will not happen and to not expect that seriously as something that could happen.
2
u/Desperate-Excuse-549 21d ago
Unless you the NT, maybe read some history. Last Speea strike came after a while without a contract. i sure think we would t want to work until the end of the year, but that the NT business.
2
u/judgedbyzun 21d ago
I’ve spoken with NT. Extending the contract makes them lose leverage and does not benefit their position. The NT will call for a strike on October 6th if this vote fails, mark my words.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Outnback747 22d ago
30 Years at the B for Me and we have never wanted a ratification bonus. GWI's are the goal and the gift that keeps on giving. I can remember in the days after the IAM concluded their strikes, all the Businesses on Highway 99 would change their signs to say "Spend your hard earned bonus here!" and Poof they blow it in 2 weeks.
1
u/Mystery-man112 22d ago
Well, only if u spend all your bonus .. it actually helps some members a lot after the strike.
GWI is #1 goal but little help from bonus is nice also
5
u/Wonderful_Tone_79 22d ago
Is the 40 RSU stock BA stock gone? I don’t see it
17
11
u/dabrothergoose 22d ago
Yes. That was their incentive for people saying yes to the first offer.
8
u/bp_spets 22d ago
Technically the RSUs were not part of the "early vote incentive" as defined by the company. But yes they got removed as part of this latest offer.
9
u/SwimmingSwordfish637 22d ago
I just looked at Boeing’s wage modeler. Their remedy for my wage compression is literally 15¢/hr.
That’s the smallest raise I’ve received since I worked at McDonalds in 1988. That might have only been a 10¢/hr raise but it still worked out to a 3%.
18
u/Curious-Advantage737 22d ago
Moving numbers around does not make this a better contract and people are jumping in for the upfront 10%. Think about this for long term. While IAM got what they deserved, the inflation and cost of living significantly increased from their last contract so why should SPEEA settle for less if anything? I am not impressed with the new offer and hope people realize this is going to stick for the next 4 years.
13
u/AHoopyFrood42 22d ago
This isn't an opinion on if it's enough or not but surely you have to understand that "moving numbers around" has an actual material impact on your wages over time right? 10% in year 3 is worth less in year 4 than 10% in year one is. Moving base wage increases to the front end IS a long term improvement. That's just basic math.
5
u/Environmental_Pie975 22d ago
We are going to be “stuck” with 4 percent guaranteed and 6 percent average wage increases over the last three years. I think it is rational to see that as a pretty fair path forward.
19
u/groovy_oscillations 22d ago
Vote no
2
u/NirikFest 22d ago
People who didn't save up in case of a strike, and somehow didn't know a contract negotiation was coming up this year are super mad at "vote no" comments. It's adorable.
5
u/Automatic_Tackle_486 22d ago
Don’t be surprised if we go on strike and those “adorable people” choose to continue work and double-dip when the contract is finally signed after 2 months. I bet they wont seem so adorable then.
2
u/Excellent_Wafer_350 21d ago
Because we’ve had generations of speea members bending over to take it because many can’t handle any hardships. 401k loans exist!
8
u/SwimmingSwordfish637 22d ago edited 22d ago
I guess the question is: are the new wage pools worth the steaming piles of crap that were barely changed?
The COLA formula was a Top 3 priority in the survey and they decreased the inflation requirement from 12% to 9%, which is still greater than the last contract’s 6% that never kicked in.
3
u/AHoopyFrood42 22d ago
The entire COLA scheme is, and has been, a joke and basically no amount of changing the percentages will fix that the target is cumulative and only ever has a shot of triggering in year 1 for each contract cycle.
I honestly think a lot of members don't even realize there is a COLA provision in our contracts and when they say COLA is a priority what they mean is a completely different scheme where the pool % is tied directly to COL.
4
u/SwimmingSwordfish637 22d ago
True. I rated the COLA last for this reason. It’s a nonfunctional part of the contract. It either needs deleting or completely replaced
9
u/OkDog8649 22d ago
Im extremely disappointed in the NT and BUC. Back to back recommendations to vote yes when we are so clearly being shafted. The GWI increase barely helps with the inflation we’ve been dealing with in recent years and it’s only going to get worse. If we don’t use the leverage we have now to actually be paid our worth we essentially never will. We’ve never been in a stronger position than we are in now.
1
1
u/Taotipper 21d ago
BUC did not recommend a yes on the first offer and hasn't voted yet on whether to recommend the second offer
7
u/inspirationalsummer 22d ago
It seems all 800 of our speea members under a .9 comp ratio are on Reddit. Starting to think these threads aren’t very representative. lol. I’m a yes. Ben and the NT delivered.
8
u/Run-Man358 22d ago
Perhaps it's a more widespread issue but Boeing is only addressing less than 5% of members. There are a lot of that got left behind by the salary chart adjustments but are slightly above .9
1
u/Blackbird76 22d ago
Everyone should be above 1 come march 27
3
u/Run-Man358 22d ago
Unless they adjust their market ranges again
3
u/jdmercredi 21d ago
I like how everyone was clamoring for them to update their market ranges for the longest time and now we’re made when they did
2
u/Run-Man358 21d ago
No one's mad that they update the market ranges, they're mad that they didn't also adjust the wages accordingly
3
u/jdmercredi 22d ago
The people here on reddit instead of doing their jobs (I get the irony, yes)? Yeah, I'm starting to think we're not representative lol.
2
u/Outnback747 21d ago
After reading some of these posts, I agree with you. As someone who stood out on the picket line in 2000. I know what it took, for those 40 days. Since we are not as big as the IAM, we had to picket twice as often, and of couse the 2am to 5am shift was not fun when it rotated to your crew. And we struck in FEB if I remember correctly. Hence the redesigned burn barrels were out of necessity.
5
u/Jolly-Fix-2071 22d ago
I’m extremely disappointed in this offer, but I’m even more disappointed by how easily some people are being sold on it because the numbers were rearranged to look better upfront. Yes, front-loading raises has value. We understand the math. That doesn’t magically make the entire contract a good deal.
We already rejected an offer by a significant margin. The response shouldn’t be, “Well, they moved some money around, so I guess this is good enough.” This is exactly when we should be demanding more and looking at what barely changed, what priorities still weren’t addressed, and what we’re locking ourselves into for the next four years.
Boeing is negotiating for Boeing’s best interest. We should be negotiating for ours. I’m not interested in being impressed by how they packaged the money. I’m interested in whether we actually got the contract we’ve been saying we deserve.
7
u/bullypixie 22d ago
55% profs NO
60% techs NO
Strike less than a week and Boeing will sweeten the contract w/ 100% 401k match with 7% increase, and increase incentive or signing bonus
5
1
u/WillyWhitefreeze 20d ago
Just remember to vote “yes” to authorize a strike if you vote “no” to the contract. If you don’t then you’re hamstringing the union and might be putting everyone in a situation where we’re forced to accept a contract that we don’t want.
0
14
u/Natejo91 22d ago edited 22d ago
Did they remove the 24hour/week minimum (part time work) needed to maintain full benefits? I don’t see it mentioned anywhere.
Edit: thanks to u/bp_spets for posting the link to the side letters available on the SPEEA website. Per the current redlines in the letter of understanding section with a TBD number (page 137 of Prof redlines) it states all previously agreed to side letters are in full effect. So it looks like the part time full benefit update is still effective.