> the workers are loosing money since Boeing is refusing to come up with an acceptable deal
Right, I believe that is what I said: both Boeing and the machinists are losing money because both Boeing and the machinists are refusing to come up with a mutually acceptable deal.
> I'm genuinely curious what they even want, aside from the pension plan they obviously won't get.
TLDR from the initial demands
I know what the initial demands of both Boeing and the machinists were, and now that they've both announced their initial demands, we move on to both parties compromising.
Surely neither party thinks they'll get everything they want at the expense of the other party? That's no recipe for a working compromise. Like do the machinists actually think companies can afford pension plans for everybody? Have the machinists done the math on that?
Honestly, it feels weird asking 1 former employer to take on the responsibility for guaranteeing a decades-long retirement. That responsibility should fall to individuals and/or governments. I view the role of employers as paying workers to work, with both parties being able to terminate the deal by leaving, and with both parties keeping what they accrued during the deal.
> Right, I believe that is what I said: both Boeing and the machinists are losing money because both Boeing and the machinists are refusing to come up with a mutually acceptable deal.
What I'm trying to say:
- If there was no strike, the workers would continue to lose money, this was the status quo before the strike
- If there is a strike with no resolution, both Boeing and workers lose money, but workers would lose them anyways (see the line item above)
- If there is a strike with a resolution favoring Boeing, workers continue to lose money, Boeing stops losing money
- If there is a strike with a resolution favoring the workers, workers stop losing money, Boeing stops losing money
To me, the ideal situation (for the human individuals involved) seems pretty clear.
> Like do the machinists actually think companies can afford pension plans for everybody? Have the machinists done the math on that?
Isn't the free market supposed to magically work this out somehow? The workers and the union made the calculations on how much they need to be able to have a reasonable salary. If Boeing can't pay that, Boeing is doing business wrong somehow. At least this is the common "free market" Americans like to throw around.
To clarify, these are the elaborated, corrected points:
- If there was no strike, the workers would continue to make money (albeit less than they would like), and Boeing would continue to lose money, this was the status quo before the strike
- If there is a strike with no resolution, both Boeing and workers lose money, but Boeing would lose anyways (see the line item above)
- If there is a strike with a resolution favoring Boeing, workers continue to make money (albeit less than they would like), Boeing would probably keep losing money
- If there is a strike with a resolution favoring the workers, workers continue to make money (albeit less than they would like), Boeing continues losing money
> Isn't the free market supposed to magically work this out somehow? The workers and the union made the calculations on how much they need to be able to have a reasonable salary. If Boeing can't pay that, Boeing is doing business wrong somehow.
Boeing and the workers both calculated what they each want. If you believe that a failure to come to a negotiated agreement constitutes "doing business wrong", then both parties are guilty of "doing business wrong". Personally, I don't.
Right, I believe that is what I said: both Boeing and the machinists are losing money because both Boeing and the machinists are refusing to come up with a mutually acceptable deal.
> I'm genuinely curious what they even want, aside from the pension plan they obviously won't get.
TLDR from the initial demands
I know what the initial demands of both Boeing and the machinists were, and now that they've both announced their initial demands, we move on to both parties compromising.
Surely neither party thinks they'll get everything they want at the expense of the other party? That's no recipe for a working compromise. Like do the machinists actually think companies can afford pension plans for everybody? Have the machinists done the math on that?
Honestly, it feels weird asking 1 former employer to take on the responsibility for guaranteeing a decades-long retirement. That responsibility should fall to individuals and/or governments. I view the role of employers as paying workers to work, with both parties being able to terminate the deal by leaving, and with both parties keeping what they accrued during the deal.