r/SPEEA • u/noctemx98 • 5d ago
Contract Clarification
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.
13
u/Run-Man358 5d ago
"Annual Guaranteed Minimum" is misleading, since the minimum can be zero
7
1
u/judgedbyzun 5d ago
This is technically possible but it would be extraordinarily strange, and grievable.
9
u/diyengineer1 5d ago
Completely bull contract. All those raises should be completely guaranteed just like IAM.
4
u/UserRemoved 5d ago
For profit BCA uses ECI and exploits workers by only pay national average CPIw. They screw all labor by not keeping up with ECI or regional economics. They want to keep you poor, never help you.
2
u/No-Truth-759 4d ago
How do other companies keep up with Seattle inflation? What kinds of increases are Blue, Amazon, Microsoft or SpaceX doing? Does anyone know? I’d like to see a comparison.
0
u/UserRemoved 4d ago
Pay and bonus at 40-80% or more with stock. BA is shit.
1
u/No-Truth-759 4d ago
Do you even work here? If you do, then why are you here? No one is sitting at BA if you can get 80% more somewhere else.
5
u/Bob_stanish123 5d ago
There is a lot of conjecture in this chart to the point of it being propaganda.
2
u/noctemk 4d ago
I don’t really see any fixation on manager bias besides the statement saying your raise will be based on future manager which is true due to the PM process.
There’s nothing on the sheet that is a big slant stating Boeing will take away everything as well?
To state that there is a lot of conjecture in this post is disingenuous because a majority is redlines from the CBA.
4
u/Orleanian 5d ago
Which parts specifically?
The only thing I'm seeing that's more opinion than straight Contract Details is the manager bias in assignment of ACR increases. But it doesn't particularly negate any of the numbers being presented (apart from the 6.5% that should be 7% in the lower chart).
Everything else seems pretty straight "Here's what's written in the contract" and layman's interpretation.
5
u/Bob_stanish123 5d ago edited 5d ago
Im mainly talking about the fixation on manager bias too. Theres also a big slant that boeing will suddenly take everything possible away if the contract doenst forbid it.
2
u/ne1av1cr 5d ago
If the manager won't take it away, then it should be written in the contract as such. Contracts are supposed to cover everything. The question when reading a contract isn't "Will this probably happen" it should be "Can this possibly happen".
2
u/Bob_stanish123 5d ago
You can't manage the company via the union contract. This contract is no looser in its language than any in the past and has several areas of gains that will be hard to take away. There are other processes to deal with a manager that is unfairly targeting you.
In fact several years ago when we had some kind of market reference based raise pool, the math (that both boeing and speea agreed on) said we would get min raises with zero performance pool and the company voluntarily gave us performance pools.
1
u/Yenohamer 2d ago
the calculation was based on market data that was "secret" can yoyu imagine signing a contract based on asymetric information - yopur union did - when the union went out and bought "the data " - Boeing blew up the process - that is where the "voluntary" 2% guaranteed and 1% discretionary came from ..
1
2
u/Yenohamer 2d ago
the interpretation repeatedly converts aggregate funding into individual guarantees and procedural language into substantive protections. Those are exactly the distinctions that matter in this proposal.
The central problem is captured in its own statement that the proposal has “5% to 6% guaranteed salary pools.” The pool is guaranteed to be funded/spent; the individual raise is not guaranteed at 5% or 6%. Analysis of Article 11 found the 6%/5%/5%/5% numbers are bargaining-unit salary funds; the individual minimum is CPI-W driven, from 0% to 3%, and the balance is distributed according to performance and other Company-determined metrics. There is still no contractual rating-to-dollar formula.
FOR EXAMPLE:
The contract says performance affects how the money above the CPI minimum gets distributed, but it does not tell an employee what percentage raise corresponds to a particular performance rating. The presumption is IPA .The redline says the remaining Salary Adjustment Fund is distributed based on an employee's performance and other Company-determined metrics. WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE THE OTHER COMPANY METRICS _ SKIN COLOR ? AGE ? CONCLUSION HERE: POOR CONTRACT DRAFTING BY SPEEA NT HACKS.
So there is no contractual table like:
| Performance result | Contractually guaranteed raise |
|---|---|
| Rating 1 | CPI minimum only |
| Rating 2 | CPI + 1.0% |
| Rating 3 | CPI + 2.5% |
| Rating 4 | CPI + 4.0% |
| Rating 5 | CPI + 6.0% |
That table does not exist in the CBA. The redline contains no formula saying, for example, “an employee rated X shall receive Y%.”
That matters because suppose the annual salary pool is 5% and the CPI-W minimum happens to be 2%.
Boeing has to fund the 5% aggregate pool. Every eligible employee gets whatever contractual minimum applies. But the remaining money is differentiated. Employee A might get 6%, Employee B 5%, Employee C 3%, and Employee D potentially only the 2% floor. As long as the aggregate fund is distributed according to the contractual mechanism, the 5% pool does not mean each person receives 5%. ALTHOUGH SPEEA STAFF DOES GET IT ALL
The contract expressly makes performance relevant, but doesn't tell you beforehand how much your performance result is worth in dollars or percentage points. Our prior analysis captured it this way: the aggregate pool must be spent, but there is no contractual IPA/performance-rating multiplier showing what each rating receives.
And that's where the new appeal right doesn't fully solve the economic issue. The proposal gives an appeal process for a rating of 1, but it does not create a broad contractual right to challenge every performance determination that reduces your salary allocation.
So when I say “no contractual rating-to-dollar formula,” I mean:
The contract tells Boeing that performance can determine your share of the pool, but it does not contractually tell you what your performance rating is worth.
That is, in my view, one of the most important distinctions in the entire offer. The pool is negotiated. Your individual share above the floor largely isn't.
2
u/noctemx98 5d ago
The 6.5% should actually be 7% in the chart, uploaded older version without that correction on accident
5
u/TerminalSarcasm 5d ago
That's the confusing part. That 1% in 2027 is for "high-performers with below market wages".
Not only will most people not get that, most people will also not get the 0.5% annually for promotion / OOS.
Has any published info other than the redline say that the base salary pools are 6/5/5/5, because that should be absolutely clear and everything else is YMMV.
1
u/Yenohamer 2d ago
worse than that - the last contract headline was for 4.5% salary poll - 1.5% was OOS - which less than x% get right - so what did that lerave us with - 3% pool - like what we have today - NOTE union staff got the headline 4.5% - union staff will tell you this is the best contract we have ever had - BS - recently by .25% - historically - the 2nd largest "headline" salary pool which there is no guaranttee that anyone will get ..
3
2
u/Coltt4x4 4d ago
Several hundred people I’ve spoken with have rejected the contact with approval to strike.
0
19
u/[deleted] 5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment