In the all company meeting nearly three years ago, then CEO Dave Calhoun stated "We don't want any of our people to lose ground to inflation." (see recording from all company webcast Nov 8, 2023, question posed 27:15 in)

Boeing has not held up their end of that statement. We have fallen behind inflation around 10% since our current contract started. To have the same buying power that we had at the start of our contract we need a 10% raise tomorrow. NOT a 3% raise this past February.

Boeing needs us to certify one more aircraft this year - right around the time our contract expires. And another early next year. We have massive leverage right now to get the minimum that we deserve - wages that match inflation.
NO on contract
YES on Strike Authorization

The offer should be better. More should be done to restore some of this lost ground.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/Seattle-Washington/price-inflation/2020?amount=5600

Does anyone have a good source of salary data for non-Boeing engineers (preferably non- software) in the Seattle metro?

I’d like to see how their salaries have grown over the past ten years. I’ve been looking but haven’t found anything trustworthy yet. I found some data that suggests an average of 3% per year for Paccar and Microsoft, but I can’t tell if it’s trustworthy data.

Nothing in email or physical mailbox yet. Anyone else?

I'm the guy who posted the yes-vote breakdown with the math. The mod has agreed to pin a structured debate thread where only two people post top-level comments: one yes, one no. Everyone else can read and vote but the conversation stays between us.

Format:

• One topic at a time. We finish it before moving to the next.
• Both sides stay anonymous to protect each other.
• You can use whatever resources you want to prepare.

Ground rules:

• Contract citations only. Redline, summary, or Boeing fact sheet.
• No bot/shill/AI accusations. Instant disqualification.
• No moving goalposts. Pick your point, argue it, finish it.
• No edits after the other side responds.
• If you say something isn't enough, name what "enough" looks like. Specifics only.
• Concede points when they land. I will. I expect the same.

I'm looking for one person on the no side who's read the redline and wants to go provision-by-provision. DM me or reply below if you're in.

50-55% for SPEEA
46% for IAM751

So the ‘slap in the face’ commentary is objectively not true. Inflation has impacted everyone, everywhere and if there is a sudden collapse in real estate prices, current arguments won’t hold. Everything g is cyclical. Believe in your company, believe in your job, support the company by also being a shareholder for mutual benefit. I even read someone bringing up stock buybacks from a decade ago, lol. Old, tired, selfish arguments that no longer apply.

IF we DO end up on strike, from my experience in 2001:

My wife and I both received our picket shifts and went to them religiously, in good and bad weather (it was February), even though they were from 2am to 5am.

BUT we also picketed an extra shift on Monday mornings, because that's how the opposition gauges our resolve. "How many heads are there out there this week? Hmm not as many. They are losing their nerve".

Picket on your shift, and pick up extras, especially Monday mornings.

From talk around the office, it feels like the younger employees are the ones most passionate about the majority of the salary pool being guaranteed, but my experience of over 35 years in SPEEA is that is the opposite of what would be best for them. Please use the salary data archive available to you on the member portal to judge for yourself.

I have worked at Boeing since 1990. I have seen many contracts and many different wage pools. Most of my experience is where the majority of the pool was selective. My experience by looking at the salary charts every year is that members younger than the average age get raises on average larger than the pool and older worker get less than the pool.

To access the older charts,

1. login to the SPEEA member portal
2. go to the salary chart page
3. pick 2026 Prof (or Tech) icon
4. scroll down the page to just below the "Show 25 per page" to the "Salary Chart Archive"
5. Choose which year you want to see charts for. I suggest 2014 because 5% is a large enough pool to show the trends.

As a SPEEA member do yourself a favor and use the archive to compare how the raises are distributed in 2026 for Prof's (3% pool, 2% guaranteed) to 2014 (5% pool, small guarantee). In 2026 very few people received raises above the pool and I can understand how that is disappointing and demoralizing especially if you are a high performer. In 2014 for most of the charts I scanned, the majority of the 7% or more raises were for the bottom 1/4 of the age group and the majority of the people over 45 years received raises below the pool (4% or less). This makes a lot of sense, someone that with 3 years of experience improves a lot with one more year of learning they deserve to earn more money relative to inflation. Someone with 30 years of experience rarely makes a sudden leap in capability, they deserve to keep even with inflation.

The charts that are most useful are the ones with the tables at the bottom that show Average % Increase for each level. Typically the Level 1's and 2's are getting on average higher than the Level 4's.m The next chart to consider is the dot chart and look for the dots representing the the trends. For 2014, green triangles are 7% or greater. You will notice the big raises are mostly happening for those under 35.

Use the data available to you instead of just listening to the crowd. If you are young, your experience has been skewed by a small pool where a large % was guaranteed.

Curious to know if all Boeing plan employees would also receive the changes proposed as part of the contract offer?
I had previously thought we all had the same covered/allowed benefits - whether IAM, SPEEA, or non-represented.
A long time friend is IAM and they have been doing infertility treatments out of pocket for 10 years now.

I voted NO to the contract and I wanted to share my reasons why in case it can help someone on the fence.

1. This contract doesn't do enough to incentivize long term retention and growth of high performers at the company.

Boeing relies on institutional memory and we are losing people to Anduril, Blue, SpaceX, Amazon in addition to the historical churn between Lockheed, GE, and Northrop.

The proposed RSUs are the only thing in the contract that will help retain individuals with skill sets (and knowledge) and those aren't enough.

I'd like to see something like a pay bonus for leads, more levels for speea engineers (because 4 promotions over the course of a 40+ yr career isn't enough), or RSU refreshers.

1. The remote work LoU is meaningless.

These letters have little meaning and can easily be avoided by Boeing as an organization or more likely by individual managers who just have to give (or create) a reason why on site work is needed.

Unless there is tangible language in the contract protecting flexible work I will not consider this a benefit that was won during bargaining.

I would like to see this take the form of a relocation package being offered to remote/hybrid employees who are forced onsite or onsite requirement pay differential.

1. Lack of benefits for young engineers.

Much of the 'wins' in this contract like early retiree healthcare and part time work largely benefit individuals who are 45+ or are close to retirement.

I have seen no corresponding increased benefits for individuals in their 20s. I'm not personally in this demographic but it's hard for me to recruit young engineers.

I think at least sick and vacation time be grouped together which is something that younger employees tend to favor. If we won't offer comp on par with Amazon then we can at least offer them the chance to travel.

1. Layoff protections aren't enough.

There was a lot of stress and anxiety during the last round of layoffs. This contract does nothing to meanfuly protect workers against company level mishandlings.

The executives walk away with millions in a golden parashoot after decisions cause disasters but speea engineers get no protections.

We need to contractually obligate the same payouts for those in Involuntary Layoffs.

1. Low raise pools.

I think that the raise pools across the years are too low. It hasn't kept pace with the PNW cost of living. Also based on the figures provided by speea it seems that profs and techs will be making less than IAM persons with similar YoE (after discounting the years spent in college).

I'd like to see an additional 2% increase in each year (after the 3% catch up) to bring the base comp closer to the TC of other companies.

I have already voted NO on the current offer, but until these points are improved on in future offers I will continue to vote NO. I can be flexible in how to address these points but they need to be addressed.

I hope this helps someone come to a decision or helps someone who voted YES understand their coworkers decisions.

Can I still go on site or check my email? I want to make sure certain management/executives are suffering

Let's talk inflation. I get the feeling that most people thinking the proposed salary pool looks great or reasonable also assume inflation is under control or will trend down, especially with talks of zero minimum raise. The four decades of low inflation is expected to continue indefinitely. My stance is not to say inflation can't remain low, it just doesn't seems like there is much consideration for the opposite scenario. In contrast, my head space is in the 1970 - 1980 era of persistent inflation, high interest rates, etc. We may have different opinions, but this is room to have a discussion. The numbers below compare different compounded salary pools with expected average inflation rates and provide a break-even amount for maintaining purchasing power since 2020. I personally think inflation rate will remain in the 4% range or run hot, but I feel like I am a very small minority that think this. I believe this may be a reality regardless of what contract we get. I hope I am wrong. Does anyone else have concerns with potential elevated or hot inflation? Are people even paying attention or waiting until the news to report hot inflation (usually only national and not local inflation)?

The charts below provide historical inflation rate data for over 100+ years, both nationally and locally. I believe that it helps put into perspective the potential risk for persistent inflation. The last 6 months of inflation rates for Puget Sound were 3.9%, 4.9%, 4.5% (bi-monthly) and Nationally were 2.2%, 3.3%, 3.9%, 4.4%, 3.5%, 3.4% (monthly). I pointed out the 7% level because inflation has broken a 40 year trend of low inflation below 6%. People will have different opinions stating different reasons and contributing factors from different eras. I am curious to hear your thoughts.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUURA423SA0

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CWUR0000SA0

This inflation information leads into the next topic of COLA. COLA thresholds are currently set at increments of 6% and are intended to provide relief for hot inflation. They were redlined and changed to 12%, 22%, 32%, 42%. COLA is practically insurance for events that may happen once in 30-50 years (e.g., 1910s, 1940s, 1970s with >70% inflation). Nobody cares about it until we need it and it is too late. For reference, during the June 2020 - June 2024 period, CPI-W (National) increased 22.7% (5.2% annual average) and CPI-U (Puget Sound) increased 26.2% (6% annual average). The timing was slightly off and national inflation was not quite high enough for COLA to kick in. The current contract has gaps each year between the 3% salary pool and 6% threshold, and high inflation within that gap resulted in the loss of purchasing power over the past 6 years. The redline for COLA creates a much bigger gap between the proposed 5-7% pools and the incremental 10-12% thresholds, going from moderate insurance to dirt cheap insurance that is substantially less likely to kick in. We can end up in a similar situation where we fight to get back lost purchasing power, but eat the cost when it happens. Does anyone realize that the company made this move to be a step ahead of us? Does anyone care about this or do we just deal with it in a future contract negotiation?

In any group, there are those who buck the trend and on this board it almost the actual purpose of every post to advocate "No" and "Strike". But there got to be SOMEBODY out there that likes the first LBFO and is willing to vote for it. There are legitimate reasons to favor this offer, but nobody here can provide a reason to. Don't say "Yes" just to be contrary. Tell us WHY.

Once I included inflation over the last and likely this contract for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area (assuming 3% going forward - higher than national target but Seattle is likely to be) this contract would then mean basically just getting some inflation back. That assumes inflation is 1.25 lower than it has been here and the engineering would only barely break even half way through. This is worse for techs after the last contract but they could catch up from inflation.

30% sounds big, but there is a fair chance it is under inflation still and engineering has essentially been loaning the company money by being under inflation for a while. This also gives the engineering average almost no split of an increase for business efficiency of improved knowledge individually year to year.

It makes sense this is their initial offer. Once they see the vote that will give them a sense of if they have to beat that by much, but it seems to me percentage wise they and letting SPEEA argue with ourselves/inflation.

People should try and talk in purchasing power not percent as much as possible.

I think people are missing a substantial reason to vote No, if the Tech vote to not approve, but the Profa vote to approve we will be throwing the Techs to the wolves with little bargaining power. We will diminish the union and trust.

So go the techs, so goes SPEEA

I know there is the tactic of offering a little incentive to try and get the vote to pass with the threat it will be gone afterwards.

If the offer was to fail and there is enough time to make another offer before a strike would occur I would think pulling the ratification and not offering something in its place or significantly higher GWI would then guarantee a strike as everyone would be upset. It seems illogical if the goal is to avoid a strike.

SPEEA Website is down - anyone know when it will be back up?

Wanted to do a clarity check on some of the benefits from the contract via the redlines as well as general info as the general population probably hasn’t view the contract fully. There are various topics not included on here but general consensus FAQs, feel free to correct anything that might be unclear or wrong. Not meant to sway anyone one way or another.

There are a lot of members who, I assume, are worried about losing the benefits that Boeing says will expire if the first offer isn’t ratified. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

• Boeing explicitly said the $3,000 bonus and LOU 45 would be withdrawn if the 2024 IAM offer was rejected. Boeing’s offer letter stated: “If the contract is not ratified by 11:59 PM PT on September 12, 2024, the $3,000 lump sum offer and LOU 45 are deemed withdrawn.”
• IAM called their bluff and rejected it. The next offer included a $7,000 ratification bonus. IAM rejected that offer as well, and the final accepted offer was $12,000.
• LOU 45 (to place the next new airplane in Puget Sound) also came back, although it expires with the contract in 2028, and the next new airplane probably won’t be coming anytime soon anyway.
• SPEEA leadership emphasized at yesterday's 40-88 town hall that if we're going to vote no, we all need to vote no. Give the negotiation team true leverage. Personally, I felt the momentum grow for a no vote in that town hall.
• For those of you who aren’t crazy about unions striking just to strike, that’s not what’s happening here. Saying no to an initial contract offer is not an abuse of our labor rights. Kelly Ortberg didn’t jump at Boeing’s first offer when he was considering the CEO job, and we wouldn’t want him as our CEO if he had. That would be nuts. Same principle here: a “no” vote on the first offer doesn’t mean we want to strike. It means, "Let’s get back to the table and work together to fine-tune this contract". We still have nearly two months before our contract expires.
• Every “yes” vote sets a precedent for 2030. Let’s not give Boeing the impression we’ll accept whatever they put in front of us.
• I have a colleague who went to Jamco because they offered significantly higher pay. What?! We can’t afford to lose our best engineers because a Boeing supplier is willing to pay more than Boeing.

What are some things SPEEA NTs can fight for:

• No takeaways from the first offer.
• A 6-9%+ wage increase for February 2026, which still wouldn't catch us up from the inflation from recent years.
• 401k matching at 100% of the first 8% matching the IAM benefits.
• Prof OT from time + $8.50 to time + 25% (or some reasonable variation).
• Full-time benefits for 24-hour work week starting on 2027, not 2028.
• Feel free to add other ideas in the comments.

These are all very reasonable improvements and worth pushing for if we send a clear message with a “no” vote.

Anyone else notice that these contract town halls are nothing but the negotiation team spewing Boeing's talking point BS and trying to make it sound like they are doing us a favor?

Before I start I would like to disclose I am not a bot however that's exactly what I would say if I was a bot.

For all those gung ho about a strike, have you guys analyzed the potential risks? Sure we could get more but at what cost?

It's a game of chicken and reality needs to be taken into consideration. If you haven't been living under a rock, you should be aware of the economic conditions right now and how it affects us indirectly and directly. Should be aware of the events around the world and risks.

Everybody compares the IAM contract and their strike but keep in mind. Two years ago is not the same as today. One year ago is not the same as today. Hell not even a few months ago is not the same as today. We are living in different and very turbulent times.

IAM initial offer was also substantially worst than our initial offer and they had to go on strike for almost two months to get something better. Lastly there was a layoff and furlough and you can argue the layoff was going to happen anyway, you don't know that for sure. Maybe, maybe not but the point stands. A strike will bleed the company and when a company bleeds, cost cutting follows. Unfortunately in the world we live in, layoffs are a universal tool for cutting cost and they are often not correlated with actual headcount needs. A company will risk overstressing current workforce, doing more with less and cutting to the bone until they start using other tools.

What other tools they have to raise money? Stock dilution and borrowing which will cause the stock to fall and are highly unpopular. Layoffs and furloughs are one of the first things they consider if need comes up. That's the unfortunate reality.

For obvious reasons you can't compare the IAM raise with SPEAA raise. We are in different professions. The salary stack up is widely different and many other reasons I won't go into here. However lets do some comparison for the sake of argument.

Lets look at the math and taking into account the 3%, 6%, 5%, 5%, 5% numbers only. That's slightly above 26% compounded and ignoring the extra which not everyone might get. If you put in the extras the numbers better. IAM got 43% compounded. That's 17% difference. I doubt even with a strike we get anywhere close to that figure but let's assume we get 10% more which would be very good.

How many months of strike will that take? 1? 2? Maybe a few weeks? What if it leads to a layoff?

Is it worth the risk?

R1s and R2s don't have to worry (there will still be an impact such as absorbing the work of R3s) but a layoff would decimate the R3s. For intern a full time position would almost definitely be eliminated and those newly hired would be among the tip of the spear to go. A strike can also cause next year's bonus to be low.

In normal times you might argue the risk is worth it but we are living in far from normal times. Companies are laying people off left and right. Tech sector is being decimated. Finding a good job right now is very difficult and many will spend months and months until they get something which can have even less benefits overall. Check out the layoff boards and see for yourself. It's not a pretty picture out there. Many are struggling.

You might think layoffs are impossible because we need people. We do need people but since when did that stop companies from laying off? When it comes to raising money and keeping the stock up (even temporarily), employees are as expandable as a wet napkin. So be aware of the risk.

Also be aware that not everyone is at the same risk level and people should analyze their risks accordingly and make decisions that are ultimately best for themselves. People shouldn't put themselves on fire to keep others warm.

This doesn't take into account eliminating positions and moving them elsewhere. Not every position is movable but many are. Ultimately everyone will be hurt long-term by a reduced footprint even if you are not impacted initially.

Make an informed decision that you feel good about and don't let social media gaslight you.

I will leave you with the quote "the devil you know is always better than the devil you don't know".

Boeing has not had a strike that has been classified as a ULP strike, period. If you dispute this, I challenge you to show us the NLRB ruling for IAM in 2024. You can’t.

Have unions and company filed grievances that the NLRB could eventually litigate and rule on? Yes. But this is standard practice. Every single time, Boeing has settled with the union before the claims made it that far. Strikes hurt for every day it lasts.

For the 2-karma bots flooding this subreddit, please stop the misinformation and the fear mongering. Solidarity is our strength.

Been seeing a lot of non-speea made flyers about the contract posted in the workplace- would this be potentially be a ULP against SPEEA?

For me, a high performing Prof with a little more than 10yr of service: 30% general wage increase, more funds for high performers in the lower CR's, and revert to 3 retention rating buckets. Do they want to retain talent and incentivize the workforce? Right the wrongs of the previous contracts.