Cog in the machine...

I'm in that 49-55 age bracket, so I'm one of those workers whose retirement plans have been threatened by the Wichita divestiture. Unlike my coworkers over 55 (who can finally use Boeing's "early retiree" benefits), I don't yet know what my legal rights are regarding the early retiree benefits Boeing's been promising me for the past 25 years, having claimed it one of those intangible assets that offset our below-market wage.

I assume a great number of Wichita's "average early-50s" workforce have based some "life decisions" on Boeing's promise of early-retiree medical and pension. Desiring to escape the daily grind, a great number of my coworkers have passed on buying that stereotypical JetSki and Harley, pumping a bit more into their 401(k). Many have tried to get as big a raise as possible every cycle, going for increasing their salary for that "last 60 months" pension calculation. In any event, many of my coworkers have been planning to bail just as soon as possible after they turn 55 and can collectthat promised early retirement.

But the grapevine and, now, IAM President Rooney's message about their negotiations seem to be saying that the early retiree benefits Boeing's been dangling out in front of us for all these years are soon to be yanked from our outstretched hands, replaced with a management laugh and a sneered "Sucker!"

What's up wit' dat chit?!


-- Bill,who thinks Onex may be buying us with our own (pension) money...

There's an IRS statement posted online that provides some information about the puchase of BCA-Wichita and it seems to indicate that Onex can void its "Asset Purchase Agreement" for one of three reasons

1. All required governmental and third-party consents to transfer have been obtained. Best I can tell, this refers to the fact that Boeing and Onex have to get approval from any number state and federal agencies before the sale can occur. From what I've read, however, TurnerCo is well on its way to meeting this requirement.

   
   

2. Midwestern "receives the proceeds of debt financing in substantially the amount and form described. I've got no freakin' idea what this clause means, unless it has to do with the $500 million in tax relief that the State of Kansas offered Boeing, in order to build parts of the 787 in Kansas. Best I can tell from what I've read, there are some legislators willing to grant this to Onex this break, without even reviewing the negative impacts to our communities. I'd suggest you contact your elected representatives and give 'em a piece of your mind on the subject of the proposed wage and benefit cuts that TurnerCo wants us to accept.

   
   

3. They complete "successful negotiation of collective bargaining agreements.You've probably read of the IAM's belief that they can disrupt the deal by not coming to an agreement for contracted wages, hours, and working conditions. As Mr.Rooney implies, while Onex is allowed to scuttle the sale if they don't come to agreements with our unions, nothing mandates that they have to walk away from the sale if they can't come to an agreement on the unions contracts. So, if they want to start operations on Day One with all their workers on strike, they still have the option to do so. One can only hope they wouldn't be so foolish...

-- Bill, who hopes Pete's been wrong and the New Boss ain't really the same as the Old Boss...

The other part of the IRS financial statement I find fascinating is in the introduction, where it says that "Mid-Western Aircraft Systems, Inc [is] an indirect, majority-owned subisidiary of Onex Partners LP." What I find fascinating is the complete lack of discussion anywhere in the Media about the identities of the remaining "minority" owners of the new company.

Now, I assume these minority owners are the four Boeing Commercial VPs in Wichita -- Jeff Turner, Ron Brunton, Vernell Jackson, and Bob Waner -- but this is only assumption and I was wondering why Molly McMillin and the Wichita Eagle ain't been reporting on anything regarding this part of the "sale" story.


-- Bill, who wonders why other Wichita employees weren't allowed to invest in the NewCo...

Needless to say, the confusion surrounding the potential sale to Onex has raised many unanswered questions and concerns. Here's one sent to Debbie Logsdon, who chairs SPEEA's Midwest Region:

Debbie the news clip that I was talking about is dated 3/3/05 and titled "Boeing Machinists expect pink slips." And the last paragraph in question is " Onex must keep the unions, but it has the power to renegotiate the contracts, or even impose employment conditions" It is the last part of this that has raised a flag...

There's nothing here over which to panic, because this pretty much describes our current relationship with Boeing.

1) Onex must keep the unions. Yes, that's true. As I recall the ballot from the WTPU election a few years back, the vote was "For purposes of collective bargaining, I wish to be represented by: SPEEA or No Union." The employer -- whichever Employer that may be -- must recognize that we are protected by a union contract and must negotiate with our respective unions as our contract bargaining agent.

2) Onex has the power to renegotiate the contracts. Big deal... so do the unions. This is a contract between two parties and when one party -- the Boeing Employer in this case -- no longer exists, we'll need a new contract with the next Employer party. The unions could demand renegotiation just as easily as can the proposed Employer.

3) Onex can even impose employment conditions." Well, yes and no. It would depend upon their legal status as a "perfectly clear" successor: if the majority of employees the successor has working on Day One weren't represented by a union at the previous employer, they may be allowed to "impose employment conditions" on Day One But they still must sit down and do some "good faith" bargaining with the unions and try to negotiate a contract. And then, much like with Boeing now, the TurnerCo can implement all, parts, or none of their last Best And Final Offer when we strike for what we deserve. On Day One, if necessary (now rumored to be the middle of April, regardless of what my WARN may say).

The overlooked part in this "what Onex can do" story is that Onex also had the power to assume the current contracts, whole, protecting current compensation and its multiplier effect through the local economy. So why isn't the local press asking "why not?"


-- Bill, who'd think the So-Called Liberal Media should be all over this story, writing nothing but praise for unions and The Worker, to help their comrades in Organized Labor...

Best I can tell, the purpose of the "Consent to Release Personnel Information" is three-fold:

1. It allows Boeing to give "job application" information from our Personnel files to Onex . Management has gone out of their way to say that they believe the waiver indicates our intent to apply for a job with their company. With this "application" Onex-TurnerCo can now give us a formal "offer." Of course, by asking for an offer, we've given up any right to a severance package, even if we eventually decline Mr Turner's reduced-salary offer to join his NewCompany.


2. It allows Management to threaten our jobs. My favorite line in the entire release form is the one that closes the first paragraph: "I understand that a potential consequence of my not authorizing Boeing to furnish information to Buyer is that I will not receive an offer from Buyer."

   I was confused by this, so I sent a note to both Boeing-Wichita's and SPEEA's Distinguished General Counsels, which asked one question: "If I don't sign the release, does that mean that I _don't_ understand the potential consequence?" (I expect no response, but one replies "You're a funny guy")

   Which brings to question why that statement is in the release form: if I don't sign the release, the threat means nothing, and if I do sign the release, the threat means nothing. Except, of course, to imply that our jobs are in jeopardy. Of course, that's not much of a surprise as we're going into contract negotiations and management always uses "layoff scare" as its primary pre-negotiation tactic.



3. Finally, it allows Boeing to avoid responsibility from any liability of "real loss" we might suffer, should (a) they accidently send Onex something that might cost us our future job or (b) if Onex then sells our personal information to telemarketers, to try to recoup some of the cost of the purchase of the Wichita Division... especially if it subsequently fails.

-- Bill, who doesn't need to make stuff up when the the truth is strange enough...

I walked into one of my favorite Boss' office the other day as he was on the phone. I mime an apology for the interruption and start backing away slowly. The Boss hand-gestures for me to come in and sit down.

I plop down in one of his chairs and it becomes immediately apparent, from one-side of a conversation, that a subordinate is reaming him out for something. Shortly thereafter, I start smirking because I realize it's one of The Boss' unrepresented employees on the other end of the line, who just found out that he ain't getting the raise Boeing promised. And he's none too pleased.

I lean forward and laugh to the Boss, "tell him to take comfort in that one-time EIP bonus...."



-- Bill, who'll take long-term protection over short-term gain...

And here we find yet another website dedicated to the serious issues surrounding the Onex-TurnerCo divestiture in Wichita.


-- Bill, who needs to start hanging some visual art around this place...

There's a story in the Lawrence Journal-World discussing the half [pinky finger to lips] BILLION dollars in bonds the state granted to Boeing a couple years back.

The short version of the story is that some Legislator from Lansing seems to think that the tax break should be granted, outright, to Onex, ignoring that (1) Onex hasn't asked for the bonds and (2) perhaps the State House should first have some discussion about the effects the sale is going to have on the local and state economies.

Sure, the first point is moot. While the story quite plainly states that Onex hasn't expressed a desire for the bonds -- "'Onex is aware that that offer exists ["that offer" meaning the bond deal] but we have no further comment aboot it," Dan Wilinsky, [Onex spokesman] said." -- they'd be foolish to not try to get this kinda tax break. As their recent successes seem to indicate that they're not foolish, I must assume that they'd be quite desirous of the bond deal. So if they haven't yet asked for it, they're bound to, sometime in the near future.

The second point, however, is hardly "moot"... as my pal Hoyt says in the story, there really needs to be some oversight about the economic fallout from this sale.

First off, the primary provision of the bond deal is that Boeing's payments to the state will be offset by income taxes paid by future employees. Well, I certainly hope the reported 4000 "new hires" required is over and above those management plans to layoff in the immediate future.

More importantly, the rumored cuts to retirement benefits and compensation will ripple through the Wichita economy and need to be mitigated. Boeing workers won't be retiring as early as they might, freeing up those high-paying jobs for the young adults in our community. Wage freezes will stop Wichita from growing; wage cuts will mean layoffs for local small businesses, as Boeing employees cut back on our purchases, fearing we will soon be unemployed.

It's imperative that the legislators we've elected do their job and protect us and our community from the corporation's unreasonable desire for unlimited profit. Please contact our legislators and tell them your opinion on just how much you and your family, their constituents, should be required to pay for this sale of Boeing-Wichita.

Senator Sam Brownback
Senator Pat Roberts
Congressman Todd Tiahrt
Congressman Jerry Moran

Kansas Legislators
- Sedgwick County
- Butler County
- Harvey County
- Reno County
- Kingman County
- Sumner County
- Cowley County


-- Bill, who'd suggest phone calls work better than e-mail, but do what you can...

I get in this morning and start up the PC and go in to the Boss' office to see if there's anything "hot" from Friday (my NonStandard Rest Day) that needs to be worked. He looks up from his e-mail with this exaggerated shocked expression and informs me that Harry's resigned, effective immediately. I laugh and demand another fairy tale. Then he turns his laptop to show me the message from Mr Platt we got this morning, telling us that the Board demanded Harry's resignation because of a "relationship" he had with a subordinate.

"Guess you think he could use some union help, huh" the Boss grins, to SPEEA's Midwest VP. And the one-liners just kept on coming, all day long, from just about everyone I see.

"Looks like another round of Ethics training... this time from Dr. Ruth!"

"Harry's been *bleeping* employees for years; what's so special about this one?"

"Gimme that Employee Survey! Boeing's finally making appropriate changes to the business"

" Harry's already got another job: replacing Bob Dole as the spokesman for Viagra."

"Someone's resume now says 'served in various positions under Boeing's CEO'"


Later, after the laughter had subsided and my cynicism regained control, I marveled at the situation. I mean, I'm pretty sure that other employees who violate our Ethics code -- and I'm pretty sure everyone can see the ethics problems with this kind of supervisor-subordinate relationship -- ... ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE would've been "terminated for cause" rather than allowing them to retire at full benefits.

I guess it's good ta be da King.


-- Bill, who, as Harry's CR, would be questioning past practice in this reinstatement case...

SPEEA's Midwest Council met in "Emergency Session" a week or so back, but it really wasn't all that much of an "emergency." All it was was the kickoff meeting we'd been planning to have once the divestiture was announced. So we sat there, in (hopefully) rapt attention, while Debbie and Bob walked us through the short-term game plan again and Charlie and I had our usual bantering discussion about strategies to get to our goals and we all verified our service at employee entrance gates the next morning and... well, I digress from the story I really wanted to tell here, which was me tweaking my friend, Shane Michael, WEU Chair.

Shane's been leading the drive for an employee ownership plan for BCA-Wichita and when he came in and sat down just two seats away from me, I knew what I had to do: Shane's been fighting Harry and the Board's continued reluctance to so much as entertain the idea of selling our Division to the employees and I just got news that will set him off in a righteous, justifiable tirade, much to the entertainment of the rest of the Council.

"Yo, Shane!" I yell, like an offensive lineman in The Replacements, "I guess Boeing doesn't mind selling Commercial to employees, just as long as they're management employees"

"What the heck are you babbling about now, Bill," Shane asks, knowing how often I spout little more than gibberish.

"Didn't you see that Onex press release, where they say Boeing sold the company to local management, as well as Onex?" I reply.

TORONTO -Onex Corporation (TSX: OCX.SV) announced today it has agreed to acquire the Wichita/Tulsa Division of Boeing Commercial Airplanes in a transaction valued at $1.5 billion, consisting of approximately $1.1 billion in cash and the assumption of certain liabilities. Senior management of the business will be investors and owners along with Onex...

Rather than getting righteously angry, as Shane has every reason to, it appears I've sucker-punched him in the solar plexus, knocking the breath from him. He just sits there, shocked at the betrayal.

Not me, of course.

"WTF?!..." I yell, much like upon my first reading. "Just who the heck is this 'senior management'?

"Pleeeeeeease," I whine, "Don't tell me that Mr Turner and the other Wichita VPs are going to try to fatten their wallets at our expense, by picking my pocket in the effort 'to implement market-driven wages and benefits' in their upcoming contract offer."

Then the Council Reps around me start to growl...


-- Bill, who bets he can get more than 149 friends to vote against this one, if it's as bad as it sounds like it's gonna be...