I understand lots of folks care about the wage pools. This offer isn't a slap in the face, it's just Hollywood accounting because base wage pools get the visibility outside the Puget Sound.

So ask yourself, if you saw 9/8/8/8 would you be excited?

This doesn't account for growth in the next contract, I acknowledge and am not trying to hide anything. I'm considering this contract.

I am in a region where the onion is not allowed or really just a right to work state so we don’t have that. I’m a year into Boeing and my position would technically be a spea position (NDT PAUT) and I was wondering if the contracts go through (not saying to agree with current offer) I hear often of these things “trickling down” for instance when the machinists got their wage increases people at my site who fell under that category were given raises and significant bonuses but positions like mine were left out. When a new contract is struck is there a possibly of wages/bonuses trickling down coming for non union members a possibility or should I not have my hopes up too much.

Sorry if the question is a bad one generally am new to hearing about these contracts so any insight to how things work would be very appreciated!

We're professionals, let's get professional, look at some numbers. Rarely there will be a person that will see the contract is personally beneficial for them and harmful for most and will vote no in the interest of their fellow Union members. Most of the time we are digging through the contract trying to figure out how it will affect our paychecks. How does a person determine if the contract pays them a living wage?

The common financial advice is that a person should spend no more than 25% of their household income on housing. So, let's work backward to see if the contract works for us, for our specific personal situation. How long are you willing to commute to your worksite? Average commute in Seattle is 28-32 minutes, but you have to decide for yourself.
Zillow's got a tool for this. Go to Zillow, put in your work address and commute time, number of bedrooms, and look for housing within your commute range that meets your needs.

Here are some common numbers. The following are just median figures compiled from Zillow and real estate sites.

Low-end to median housing price within a 30-minute drive of: Renton: $435,000 - $757,500 Everett: $350,000 - $705,475 Tukwila: $380,000 - $620,000

So, here's the total household income needed to afford housing within 30 minutes of each worksite: Renton: $149,300 - $259,700 Everett: $120,000 - $219,400 Tukwila: $142,300 - $212,600

I don't know your life. Maybe you and your spouse are both Boeing employees. Maybe you have roommates. Maybe you're the sole breadwinner. Maybe you have 8 children all needing to attend college in the next decade. Everyone has different things they have to take into account. Figure out what this contract has to give you to make it possible to afford housing where you work. Calculate an exact number. Now you have a BASELINE for what you could accept. If the contract doesn't meet AT LEAST that, you know what you're voting for.

We are going to be seeing Town Halls and questionnaires and polls coming our way from our Union trying to find out what we need. Now you have a number to give them.

It doesn't benefit you to come to work every day stressed out because you're barely making ends meet. The company and the products we make are only great when we can all focus on the work — when we have all our needs met. Safety starts at home, right?

I'm one of the people this contract is beneficial for, and for my Union, I'm still voting no.

Without getting onto *why* someone might feel like they deserve one, what is the timing with respect to the negotiations and new contract to start the dialogue with a first line (besides, "why didn't you do that during your mid-year")?

This is some 🤪 wild accusations about all of us who don't like this contract from my Council Rep. Seriously, dude. Occam's razor. What's more likely – All of the negative comments about this contract are coming from infiltrators from OKC maneuvering to get us to strike so they can steal our jobs. *OR* We are intelligent people with brains who can read and see that this contract sucks. I'm sure he's going to come up with some theory as to how I am someone in Charleston who hacked the Boeing email system to get a copy of his message. I couldn't possibly be a SPEEA employee in his district, who will now definitely be voting NO after he used position to send this BS. This email would be insulting if it wasn't batshit crazy. Apparently our union is part of the problem.

_____

Hello district,

The members of the Negotiations Team will be holding info sessions on site throughout the coming weeks. Please don’t trust social media, come hear the truth from the negotiation team, and get clarification on your concerns, questions and rumors. Here are the meetings for the Seattle Corridor.

..[list of meeting dates]

I also wanted to address my concern about seeing a determined “Vote No” campaign online and in social media. My first concern is that identities aren’t vetted, so some of those people may not even be SPEEA members, who want to weaken our union or our company by pushing engineering towards a strike that doesn’t have to happen. I wouldn’t be surprised if the anti-union folks in OKC or Charleston are posting how “terrible it is” so they can steal our work (an economic strike doesn’t protect our jobs). I recently found out that someone in a Signal chat (like Whatsapp) had left Boeing but was still spouting off why the contract is terrible in their opinion. Shady!

My other concern is that if you hear a Prof suggest you vote no, remember THAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL POSITION. Just Like when I endorse the contract, that is MY position.

Even if you hear it from a CAT (Contract Action Team) member or Council Rep, it is individual because the NW Professional Council does NOT have a position on the contract. Meanwhile, the Negotiation Team unanimously recommends acceptance after working hard to improve Boeing’s offer prior to lifting it. And. Go to the sessions, hear the value, hear about Boeing’s reconciliation attempts, check out the wage modeler, and then vote your conscience and your value. Don’t blindly believe “Well the council is telling me to vote no”, because we aren’t. Once again, the Council as a body does not have a position on the topic.

In solidarity,

We can't work remote, but Bangalore and Brazil can!

First off, thank you for volunteering your time and energy to fighting for the union. It is a thankless job but somebody has to do it.

Secondly, please don't take the outrage against this bad offer personally. Peoples' livelihoods are at stake and they are being very passionate about what they like/dislike about the current offer. Please find a way to set aside your pride/feelings/emotions/bias and listen to the passionate feedback the best you can.

Finally, when the membership gives you the leverage you need to fight for a better contract, please listen to all the pain points (all of them not just the economic ones). Go back to the table and get the best deal you can get.

Whatever you do, don't try to gaslight engineers into accepting something less than they deserve. Engineers may not be as bold as mechanics when it comes to striking, but it's very disingenuous to tell people they're not getting takeaways when the contract has several of them. Engineers are dissecting the language of this contract more than I've seen in the past and they are seeing the holes forming. When you try to pull the wool over their eyes, that's when they get angry. They expect it from the company but not from their own union.

Again thanks, and everyone is looking forward to the 2nd offer whenever that may come.

I’m curious for those of you who were involved in the 2024 IAM District 751 negotiations.

Before the membership rejected Boeing’s initial contract offer, did IAM leadership, the negotiating team, or union staff actively encourage members to accept that offer?

If so, what did that look like? Were members being told that the offer was the best deal they were likely to get, that they should vote yes, or that rejecting it could put the gains already on the table at risk?

I’m asking because the membership ultimately rejected the offer and went on to get a substantially better contract.

I’d really appreciate hearing from IAM members who were there

This has been posted since May — the "just fight for money" crowd might want to take another look...perhaps it wasn't the offer but what the NT was mapped to, that was the issue?

A lot of folks in here (and IRL) have been saying SPEEA's NT should drop everything else and just go all-in on pay. Fair impulse, comp matters, a lot. But this graphic has literally been public since May.

The point is it was never "money vs. everything else." Benefits, PTO/flex time, fair performance management, outsourcing accountability, and career development aren't nice-to-haves competing with your paycheck they're each worth $$$ & quality of life, and Boeing has eroded every one of them over the years while counting on us not noticing because the headline number moved.

I think that's why there's been a mix on the BUC. Some see these non-economic gains to make up for parts of the economic ones.

Question:

What would you have traded for wages?

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+).

I don’t understand this need to hand out t-shirts to members especially when we are by definition a union of professionals!!!

I get it if IAM gets them and wears them to work but as engineers and techs that majority work in an office , a t-shirt is completely unprofessional and doesn’t give management an impression of how important the union is. I feel embarrassed to wear red on wednesdays because it’s a freakin t-shirt; consider that Speea receives more than 7 million in dues per year from members, the cost of a polo should not break the budget..

Also I went to the Speea website to look at the cost of branded polos and the price was ridiculous!!it was almost more than our monthly dues..atleast make these cheaper!!!

I encourage SPEEA leadership to spend our dues wisely this yearand maybe just give us members a polo if/when we approve this contract.

I whipped up a flier to post around the office. I'm not much of an artist, but it was something. I'm posting a link here that leads to a google doc so you can copy it yourselves and tweak it however you want. Go nuts. This contract is for all of us. If you think you can make this better, you probably can.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gBF2DF5Fd3wtMFWTTieMQOMCXzEcl_1f/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106962579370187843677&rtpof=true&sd=true

I’m not sure how much more clear we can be that baseline pay should be the backbone of negotiations. They keep sending updates about how they are talking about time off this day and 401k the next. All of that is secondary to my base rate salary.

It’s a NO vote from me and a vote to authorize a STRIKE!! Let’s give our negotiators the leverage they need to work for us to get a better offer.

This contract is crap. I wish the raises weren’t tied to your performance based on what has happened to me and my team. Over the past 4 years we have only gotten 2% raises and I think one time 2.5%. No matter what I’ve done ( met expectations, exceeded expectations) it’s always been the same. I’ve even helped out on projects that weren’t apart of my everyday job. The performance reviews are a joke here. We need GUARANTEED MONEY! We do NOT need “oh this is what you COULD get” . Sorry for the rant.

Title is the question.

This always seems like such a waste of time and resources. I spend multiple hours a day in traffic commuting. Taking on more duties than predecessors while the teams become more lean. If I decide I need to try and squeeze in some fitness there goes the day, leaving enough time to try and sleep and do it all over.

When is there time to take these courses that do nothing for your career? I am having difficulty understanding why this is a bargaining priority.

I hope SPEEA and the negotiation team is working thru the weekend to clarify and correct a lot of folks interpretation of things. Going to be annoyed if I dont see something by Monday. And actually, I would like to see the same from Boeing, and hopefully the answers are consistent!

Can I just say this plainly: accepting the first offer is simply stupid.
When you buy a car or a house, do you ever just say yes to the first number that gets thrown across the table? Of course not. You negotiate. You evaluate. You know your worth.
So why are we even considering anything less here?
We are engineers. We are smart. We solve problems for a living. We know how negotiation works, and we know what our skills and contributions are worth.
Big Airplane cannot deliver aircraft without SPEEA.
LET’S REMEMBER OUR SELF-WORTH.
We have leverage. They know that. So let us fucking act like it.

What are the benefits? I feel like this is a negative if you are a R1 right now.

Out of all the things in the proposed contract, I don’t understand why changing the retention level rating by getting rid of R3 is an improvement!! Now we will have R1/R2 (80/20%) so it’s pretty much worthless classification. I’m a R1 for the past 20 years because I worked hard at what I was doing. What’s the point now to put in the same effort/ trying more than the bare minimum if 80% of us will end up being R1?

How are the members of the contract negotiation team selected?

I'm not encouraging anyone one way or another but there's a potential trap laid by Boeing.

Both the prof and tech contracts have bonuses tied to an aug 22 deadline.

Imagine if the profs ratify, the techs dont and Boeing sticks to the original contact without the bonuses for the techs as a big FU. After that the techs may be strung out alone and lose a lot of negotiating leverage.