Boeing Revokes Health Benefits for Striking Workers

29 pointsposted 7 hours ago
by speckx
(commondreams.org)

28 Comments

keepamovin

7 hours ago

Why does it need to revoke health benefits? Surely there's a window they can throw them out of?

teom

7 hours ago

Not a fan of Boeing, but doesn't it make sense to not pay for the health insurance of employees refusing to work? If they are not fulfilling their obligations, why should Boeing fulfill theirs?

toomuchtodo

6 hours ago

Thank you for highlighting why employer provided healthcare is used to control workers. Universal healthcare would prevent this control. Is my Social Security tied to my employer? It is not, it is centrally, federally managed and provided for. Just like Medicare.

But to your specific point, yes, it makes sense for them to use worker's healthcare needs to attempt to force them to concede, from a cold game theory perspective. I hope folks will see workers in the same light if workers are able to find additional corporate weaknesses to exploit. Boeing is losing $100M-$150M/day until the strike abates and an agreement is reached.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41720658 ("HN: Why is US health care like this?")

(The purpose of a system is what it does)

quantified

5 hours ago

Boeing may not really strongly care as a bargaining chip, and just seek to reduce all employee-related expenses that it is on the hook for. Given chips, it may use them.

toomuchtodo

5 hours ago

Maybe! Regardless, it will be valuable evidence from a natural experiment for policy decisioning and implementation.

AnimalMuppet

5 hours ago

> Thank you for highlighting why employer provided healthcare is used to control workers.

Sure, but salary is also used to control workers - striking workers don't get paid, either. They probably don't get employer contributions to their 401k.

They aren't getting Social Security contributions during the strike, either.

Spartan-S63

2 hours ago

At least historically, unions would have strike funds to at least ease the burden of lost income. Collective bargaining agreements would surely include backpay for workers to return to work, as well.

truculent

7 hours ago

Sure, why give health insurance at all?

kjkjadksj

6 hours ago

Because then you effectively say those with chronic conditions cannot strike which seems illegal to me.

onemoresoop

7 hours ago

Is this even legal?

DavidPeiffer

7 hours ago

This happens very commonly. I haven't heard of any court cases challenging it with any traction. John Deere did the same a couple years ago.

Unfortunately we have a healthcare system that can easily bankrupt you if you don't have insurance, and that insurance is most commonly tied to employers.

Workers may be able to pay for COBRA coverage, but beyond simply being much more expensive (covering the employer portion plus up to a 2% admin fee), they would be paying with post-tax dollars. It's quite punitive to not participate through an employer.

jmclnx

7 hours ago

I do not know. But I wonder:

* If on strike can you apply for unemployment ? I do not think so, but IIRC the Union will pay you something if on strike. Maybe you can get food stamps ?

* With the ACA, you should be able to get health care while on strike. Maybe there are special laws for that.

DavidPeiffer

4 hours ago

Strike pay is often a part of union dues. It's typically paid out to workers who are on the picket line a given number of hours per week. Strike pay is not particularly lucrative. It looks like it's $500/week for the UAW.

Local communities will often come together to help out striking employees. A particular credit union near my former employer would pause mortgage payments during a strike for impacted workers.

https://uaw.org/strike-faq/

frankharv

7 hours ago

Should they be contributing to their 401K too???

Health Insurance is a benefit of employment.

You chose to unemploy yourself now go pay your own way.

What do you expect after they rejected a 30 percent raise.

They want their pension back and they ain't getting it.

triceratops

6 hours ago

> Health Insurance is a benefit of employment.

Work for whatever someone else decides is fair, die, or go bankrupt paying your bills. Sheesh.

> You chose to unemploy yourself now go pay your own way.

They didn't quit.

> What do you expect after they rejected a 30 percent raise.

Their job is to negotiate as much as they think they can get. It's not up to me or you (unless you're Boeing management) to pass judgement on those demands.

frankharv

4 hours ago

>They didn't quit.

Are they receiving a paycheck from Boeing?

If you go out on FMLA do you get Health Care Benefits? No because you are not currently an active employee.

Doesn't mean you quit or are terminated It just means you chose not to work.

Same thing with strike. You do not get benefits while away from job unless you take PTO. You can retain your healthcare plan but you must pay full amount. You are not an active employee at the moment.

Read the employee handbook. I betcha its covered. People like to complain.

Where is union strike fund to pay for these benefits? I bet they pay in but Union President doesn't even work there.

He is mafia like guy who has nothing to lose. Like the ILA prez. "I will cripple you." Its not a threat but a promise.

Unions had their day. Now they cover for people who should not have a job.

triceratops

4 hours ago

But they remain employed. They didn't "unemploy" themselves, as you said in your original comment.

> Read the employee handbook. I betcha its covered. People like to complain.

"Legal" and "looks good in the court of public opinion" are very different things. Both are fair game in a negotiation.

> Where is union strike fund to pay for these benefits?

How do you know it isn't paying? All we know is Boeing is not paying.

frankharv

4 hours ago

I am no fanboy of Boeing. I just think its absurd to expect benefits for no work.

Rietty

7 hours ago

Does striking mean you are unemployed, and if so, why? I mean I understand that you're not gonna get paid if you strike.. but feels weird to also have other things affected? Then again I don't know how the US works. (Genuine question)

linotype

7 hours ago

Rejecting a 30 percent raise was a great strategy for alienating them from the number of American workers who would have been happy to have gotten a raise at all over the last four years.

jmclnx

7 hours ago

Well that is the reason to join a Union, you can fight for better conditions. If where you work does not have a Union, work on creation one.

Do not say "I don't have mine, so you do not get to have it either". That is the problem with the US, if you see people working and fighting for their rights and you are not, who's fault is that.

But I remember correctly, the workers gave up a lot when they approved the last contract. I think part of this is to get what they gave up.

ajford

5 hours ago

Recently unionized at my workplace and the most vocal anti-union folks were high-level/long term employees that went "Well I have mine, I can negotiate my own wins", while saying they weren't willing to pay dues just because some folks couldn't negotiate on their own.

Ignoring that half the reason they can ask for whatever they want is that they are the last standing expert on some esoteric internal thing. Of course you get treated well! Too bad the rest of us don't have 15+ yrs here and practically own this or that piece code.

triceratops

6 hours ago

> the number of American workers who would have been happy to have gotten a raise at all over the last four years.

Sounds like those workers should've joined unions too

more_corn

7 hours ago

This situation just highlights that tying healthcare to work is the stupidest invention ever.

user

7 hours ago

[deleted]