FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Wholesale Attack on Our Union

by JASON REDRUP

Jason Redrup, Elected Business Representative, IAM District 751, in Everett, Wash.

[Note: Following is a statement by Jason Redrup, an elected Business Representative in IAM District 751 at Boeing. He represents 2,500 workers on the 787 line at the Everett facility. Brother Redrup is currently one of the candidates for vice president of the International union on the IAM Reform slate headed by Jay Cronk.]

Earlier this year, members at District 751 endured a devastating loss to our solidarity and the benefits we had fought decades to secure because of the actions of our International leadership. If what happened at 751 goes unchallenged, it will set a dangerous pattern for other contracts across the country. My goal is to ensure what happened in Seattle, doesn’t happen to another group of Machinists.

Even though we had a contract in place through 2016 and our District strongly objected, our International ordered a vote on a concessionary offer be held on Jan. 3rd knowing thousands of union members would be on vacation and unable to vote. This vote was ordered after many members had already begun their holidays, and the International refused to move the vote just one
business day. With nearly 8,000 members not voting, we are now forced to live under a contract that eliminated pensions for all, more than doubles health care costs, slows wage growth by 75 percent and keeps us from returning to the bargaining table until 2024. This came not when Boeing was hurting, but enjoying record profits and backlogs.

To fully understand what happened, you need to hear the whole story. The Jan. 3rd revote was imposed on us by our International leadership. After the first vote on November 13, when the workers at Boeing rejected the contract by a two-thirds majority, we were called back to have conversations with the company. But we were brought back under false pretenses.

Initially we were told that the company wanted to hear why workers rejected the contract, but it turned out that there was a bigger agenda. Later that evening, Rich Michalski (Tom Buffenbarger’s selected lead negotiator who retired from the IAM in July 2013 and was hired through his new firm Certus Capitol Consulting) indicated Boeing had retreated on the pension issue and wanted the union to make a new offer the next day. 751 reps returned to meet with Boeing only to learn that pension was not off the table. Boeing rejected any union proposal that contained pensions. Rich Michalski insisted we give Boeing 24 hours to produce another offer, which they did.

The company’s new offer did not move in any substantial way from the first offer rejected on Nov. 13. There were just minor changes — a second bonus 6 years from now and a $500 more in dental 6 years from now with another $500 10 years from now. But really, in the opinion of the leadership of our local union, there were no real changes to the offer that the members had already rejected.

Tom Wroblewski, our District 751 president, told our members that we’re not going to vote on an offer that did not significantly improve upon what we had already turned down. After we went back and forth a few times with the company on this matter, we both realized we had no agreement. We shook hands, and that was that. The last question we asked the company was, Did they expect us to vote on the new offer? Ray Conner, the company’s CEO, said no, not unless we were willing to endorse and sell their latest offer. We were unanimous in our rejection of it. We left that room thinking we were done.

Less than 30 minutes after we left this meeting, we read in the Seattle Times that there was going to be a new vote on the last Boeing offer. This had been announced by Rich Michalski, the representative of IAM President Tom Buffenbarger.

A day or two before the Christmas shutdown of the plant — on Saturday, December 21 — we were told that the re-vote date had been set for January 3 – again announced in the Seattle Times by Rich Michalski, which Buffenbarger confirmed.

Despite our strong objections to voting again and after making numerous requests to our International leadership to move the vote date by one business day from Friday the 3rd of January to Monday the 6th, we were ordered to keep the vote on Jan. 3rd. We knew that between 2,500 and 3,000 union members were still on vacation and would not be back at work till that Monday.

Our International leadership insisted the vote date had to be on January 3 because in the middle of the following week Boeing would be making a big announcement.
The problem with the 3rd of January is that those 2,500 to 3,000 union members who were on vacation also happened to be, by and large, the members who had more time with the union, a lot of seniority, understood the pension issue, had been on strike numerous times, and knew what was at stake with the new supposedly improved contract. Because of the date the International selected, those union members were not given the opportunity to vote. A very high percentage of these members would have voted against the contract. With their participation, the contract would most likely have been defeated.

Keep in mind that the outcome of the vote itself was extremely close, with 51% of those who voted supporting the contract proposal (because nearly 8,000 didn’t vote – in reality 38 percent accepted the concessions we have to live with for the next 10 years).

The turnaround from the November 13 vote was the result of both the exclusion of a significant number of our members from the contract vote, but also of the campaign led by our International union of misinformation, extortion and threats (that airplane production was going to leave Puget Sound forever). The company, the politicians, the media and our International union put the full-court press on the membership to vote in support of the contract. Yet despite all these pressures, what’s amazing is how close the vote was.

A lot of our members did change their vote, but we had thousands of members who weren’t allowed to vote. Again, I believe the outcome would have been different had the vote been held on the date we proposed.

In the end, this was a very destructive contract. It set us back 75 years in our collective bargaining, eliminating our pensions, more than doubling our medical costs, freezing the starting wages at Boeing to what in eight or nine years will be a minimum wage, and more. And we will not have the ability to negotiate a starting wage for the four lowest grades; they will be frozen for almost a decade. For an airline worker — which is supposed to be a highly skilled job — this is outrageous.

One last thing about the vote on January 3. I have heard it said that the vote was democratic because the International made a concession to us when they allowed workers on vacation to vote by absentee ballot, something we had never done. Details of this process were not even announced until December 26, when many were already out of town. Again, despite our strong opposition to the January 3 vote, we had made this proposal in an attempt to give those members who were not in the area a chance to weigh in.

But this did not work. Putting aside the fact that by casting an absentee ballot workers were not able to discuss collectively in a union setting or on the shop floor the details of the new proposal by the company, the fact is that only a very small number of members sent in their votes.

People on vacation were not necessarily near a computer and therefore were not notified that a new vote was scheduled on January 3. Also, because this was a totally new voting process, many people were suspicious of it. For example, you had to scan your photo ID, meaning your driver’s license, and people said, “Hey, I’m not giving my personal information out on a computer!”

The claim that everyone was notified and had the right to cast their vote is blatantly and demonstrably false. Our members have raised this matter in numerous National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaints. If this is allowed to stand, it’s a dagger against every union contract in this country.

Of course, you cannot separate the undemocratic character of the vote from the concessionary character of the contract. Our International union insisted that this was not a concessionary deal; they said that with the changes made by the company in December this was now an “industry-leading” contract.

This is also blatantly false. It is so beyond the pale.

Over the extended period of this new contract, our members will be effectively experiencing a pay cut. Our members will not have income security in their retirement. There will be fewer workers in the plant at the end of the contract, as the new contract introduces provisions to allow for outsourcing our jobs. To say this is a good contract is just simply a lie.

It’s important for the labor movement across the country to understand that this Boeing contract in Washington state is detrimental to all of labor. Our contracts up here have been the bellwether to measure others against. Our members have fought very hard and struck — in 2005 and 2008 — for pensions and for rights benefiting people who don’t even work here.

Now the road is clear for the bosses to get rid of pensions for public and private sector unions nationwide. When you go out and try to organize a new shop, you’ll be told, “Hey, the Machinists gave up their pensions, why do you want to fight for pensions?” We are not just talking pensions for new hires, but giving up pensions for all Machinists under this Boeing contract in 2016.

Also, keep in mind that this is not a company that was going bankrupt; it’s a company that’s extremely profitable, with record sales and profits.

And there’s another thing: Re-opening the contract as they did is another dagger at the heart of the labor movement. We are still under contract till 2016. By reopening the contract, the company took away our ability to strike the company if we disagreed with the contract. They literally put a gun to our heads, and we had no way to fight back.

Our membership was put in an unbearable situation with their threats — either you vote for this, or you’re all going to lose your jobs. What company in the United States would not love to do this to any and all organized workers?

We’ve got to wage a fight to nullify the January 3 contract and to defeat this contract in a new vote. This wholesale attack on our union, on the labor movement as a whole, cannot stand.

Jason Redrup is an elected Business Representative in IAM District 751 at Boeing. He represents 2,500 workers on the 787 line at the Everett facility. Redrup is currently one of the candidates for vice president of the International union on the IAM Reform slate headed by Jay Cronk.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

June 27, 2017
Jim Kavanagh
California Scheming: Democrats Betray Single-Payer Again
Jonathan Cook
Hersh’s New Syria Revelations Buried From View
Edward Hunt
Excessive and Avoidable Harm in Yemen
Howard Lisnoff
The Death of Democracy Both Here and Abroad and All Those Colorful Sneakers
Gary Leupp
Immanuel Kant on Electoral Interference
Kenneth Surin
Theresa May and the Tories are in Freefall
Slavoj Zizek
Get the Left
Robert Fisk
Saudi Arabia Wants to Reduce Qatar to a Vassal State
Ralph Nader
Driverless Cars: Hype, Hubris and Distractions
Rima Najjar
Palestinians Are Seeking Justice in Jerusalem – Not an Abusive Life-Long Mate
Norman Solomon
Is ‘Russiagate’ Collapsing as a Political Strategy?
Binoy Kampmark
In the Twitter Building: Tech Incubators and Altering Perceptions
Dean Baker
Uber’s Repudiation is the Moment for the U.S. to Finally Start Regulating the So-called Sharing Economy
Rob Seimetz
What I Saw From The Law
George Wuerthner
The Causes of Forest Fires: Climate vs. Logging
June 26, 2017
William Hawes – Jason Holland
Lies That Capitalists Tell Us
Chairman Brandon Sazue
Out of the Shadow of Custer: Zinke Proves He’s No “Champion” of Indian Country With his Grizzly Lies
Patrick Cockburn
Grenfell Tower: the Tragic Price of the Rolled-Back Stat
Joseph Mangano
Tritium: Toxic Tip of the Nuclear Iceberg
Ray McGovern
Hersh’s Big Scoop: Bad Intel Behind Trump’s Syria Attack
Roy Eidelson
Heart of Darkness: Observations on a Torture Notebook
Geoff Beckman
Why Democrats Lose: the Case of Jon Ossoff
Matthew Stevenson
Travels Around Trump’s America
David Macaray
Law Enforcement’s Dirty Little Secret
Colin Todhunter
Future Shock: Imagining India
Yoav Litvin
Animals at the Roger Waters Concert
Binoy Kampmark
Pride in San Francisco
Stansfield Smith
North Koreans in South Korea Face Imprisonment for Wanting to Return Home
Hamid Yazdan Panah
Remembering Native American Civil Rights Pioneer, Lehman Brightman
James Porteous
Seventeen-Year-Old Nabra Hassanen Was Murdered
Weekend Edition
June 23, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Democrats in the Dead Zone
Gary Leupp
Trump, Qatar and the Danger of Total Confusion
Andrew Levine
The “Democracies” We Deserve
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
The FBI’s “Operation Backfire” and the Case of Briana Waters
Rob Urie
Cannibal Corpse
Joseph G. Ramsey
Savage Calculations: On the Exoneration of Philando Castile’s Killer
John Wight
Trump’s Attack on Cuba
Dave Lindorff
We Need a Mass Movement to Demand Radical Progressive Change
Brian Cloughley
Moving Closer to Doom
David Rosen
The Sex Offender: the 21st Century Witch
John Feffer
All Signs Point to Trump’s Coming War With Iran
Jennifer L. Lieberman
What’s Really New About the Gig Economy?
Pete Dolack
Analyzing the Failures of Syriza
Vijay Prashad
The Russian Nexus
Mike Whitney
Putin Tries to Avoid a Wider War With the US
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail