u/Acrobatic-Teach-7768

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.

I'm a SPEEA Prof, two decades at Boeing. I've watched contracts get voted down and watched what came after. Sometimes it was worth it. Sometimes we burned months and ended up with the same deal minus the sweeteners. So I took the time to actually read this one, including the red-line CBA, run my own numbers, and pressure-test the objections I'm seeing online.

Here's what I keep hearing, and what I think:

"You never accept the first offer!"

This one comes up every single time, so let me address it head-on.

The logic behind "never accept a first offer" assumes the other side is lowballing. That they're holding back and will give more if you push. That makes sense when you're buying a car. It doesn't automatically apply here.

This isn't Boeing's opening gambit. SPEEA and Boeing have been at the table for months. What's in front of us is the product of actual bargaining between two parties. SPEEA's negotiating team agreed to bring this to a vote. They didn't have to. If it were garbage, they'd still be at the table. You can disagree with their judgment, but calling this a "first offer" misrepresents what happened before it reached us.

The early incentives create a real cost to waiting. The $32,678 in estimated average value per person (the retroactive 3% GWI compounded over the contract, the 2025 incentive bump, the 2026 target increase) explicitly disappears after August 22. Boeing stated they'll redirect that money to a contingency plan. So the question isn't "can we get more?" It's "can we get enough more to offset losing $32K per person right now?" That's a math problem, not a philosophy problem.

Think about history. The IAM machinists in 2024 rejected multiple offers, struck for weeks, and got a final deal. Was it dramatically better? Debatable. And it came at the cost of lost wages during the strike, months of uncertainty, and burned goodwill. SPEEA doesn't have the same strike leverage. Our work doesn't stop a production line in the same visible way. Our leverage is talent retention and institutional knowledge, which is real, but plays out over years, not weeks on a picket line.

And the substance matters: 28.5% in total wage funds with the opportunity for 31.9% compounded growth, the highest wage pools in over 40 years, RSUs, a pension increase, a new HRA, three additional paid days off. At some point the offer has to be evaluated on its merits, not on a bumper sticker. If "never accept the first offer" is a principle, what's the number that would be acceptable? Because I'm not sure what realistic outcome justifies gambling $32K to find out.

"The wage pools aren't guaranteed. It all goes through ACR and your manager decides."

The 3% GWI is guaranteed for everyone. Retroactive to February. The pools after that (7.5%, 6%, 6%, 6% including performance and promotional funds) are performance-based through ACR, same as every contract we've ever had. But here's what's different this time, and I confirmed it in the red-line contract language (Article 11.1(b)(1)):

The salary adjustment fund is now split into two components. First: a minimum salary increase for every eligible employee, determined by CPI-W (the year-over-year change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners, averaged over Q3), capped at 3%. Second: the remainder of the pool distributed based on individual performance through ACR. If CPI-W is flat or negative in a given year, the minimum is 0% and the entire pool goes to performance-based distribution.

That means in any year where inflation is running positive (which it has been consistently), every employee gets at least that CPI-W percentage as a guaranteed salary increase before performance differentiation kicks in. With current CPI-W above 2%, that's a meaningful minimum in practice. The mechanism itself, a guaranteed inflation-linked component within the pool separate from performance, didn't exist in the previous contract. The old contract had a flat 3% pool distributed entirely at management discretion with no structural minimum for any individual.

If your concern is "my manager might screw me on the performance portion," the answer is the revised PM process has no forced distribution, a defined appeal process (up to skill team level), and self-assessments and peer evaluations are voluntary. No one can use them against you. That's all new.

"40 RSUs is a joke compared to what non-union gets."

Non-union employees don't get guaranteed wage pools. They don't get a pension. They don't get the same layoff protections. The RSUs are additive. They don't replace anything in our existing comp structure. They don't change your base salary, incentive eligibility, or retirement calculations. And if you're 55+ with 10 years of service when you retire, they vest immediately. For me, that means I don't have to time my retirement around a vesting schedule. The comparison to non-union RSU grants is apples to oranges because the total comp structures are fundamentally different.

"The 401(k) change only helps young people."

If you're over 50, your total employer contribution is already 11%. That hasn't changed because it was already at the top. The increase targets people under 40, bringing them from 9% to 10% total. Over 7,800 people benefit. If the complaint is "I didn't get more," the answer is you were already getting the most. The structure didn't get worse for anyone.

"Four-year contract is too long. What if inflation spikes?"

The contract has a defined COLA mechanism in Article 11.1(c) tied to CPI-W with threshold percentages at 12%, 22%, 32%, and 42% cumulative from the 2025 base period. If inflation exceeds those thresholds, additional Cost of Living Adjustments kick in, calculated as 50% of the BLS Index increase that exceeds the threshold percentage for that year. This is separate from and on top of the salary adjustment funds.

Those thresholds are high. They're designed as protection against extreme inflation scenarios, not as annual raises. Under normal 2-3% annual inflation, they won't trigger. Your real year-to-year inflation protection comes from the CPI-W linked minimum within the salary pool (up to 3% annually). The COLA is the emergency backstop on top of that.

So you have two layers: (1) the CPI-W linked minimum within the salary pool for normal inflation, and (2) additional COLA adjustments for runaway inflation. A shorter contract means back to negotiations sooner, which also means uncertainty, potential work actions, and no guarantee of a better outcome.

"Remote work language is toothless. Managers can still say no."

Before this contract: upper-level mandates banning virtual work existed. After: the old Virtual Office/Telecommuting LOU is struck and replaced with a new LOU on Flexible Work Location and Virtual Work. The new language establishes a defined request process, requires manager approval or denial based on operational requirements, and includes a multi-step challenge process: first-line manager discussion, escalation to Senior Manager, then Senior Manager plus HR plus Union Representative meeting. If the Company doesn't follow the review steps, the union may file a grievance specifically with regard to the process.

Is it a guaranteed right to work from home? No. Is it a structural improvement from "blanket ban" to "defined process with documented challenge rights and a grievance-eligible process failure"? Yes. That's not nothing.

"The early vote deadline is a pressure tactic."

Sure. It's also $32,678 in estimated average value per person. That's the 3% compounded over the contract ($25,442), the retroactive 2025 incentive bump ($4,114), and the 2026 incentive increase ($3,122). Boeing said plainly that these incentives won't be available later. The money goes to funding a contingency plan instead. You can be annoyed by the pressure and still recognize that walking away from $32K to make a point is expensive.

"The IAM got $12K ratification bonuses. We got nothing."

We got something better. We got 3% added to base salary, retroactive to February, compounding for the life of the contract and beyond. The IAM got lump sums. $12K, $6K, whatever the number was. Those are one-time cash. They don't compound. They don't raise your base. They don't increase your pension calculation, your EIP payout, your overtime rate, your 401(k) contributions, or your salary for the next ACR cycle. They're gone the day after they hit your account.

Our 3% is permanent. It raises your base salary, which means every percentage-based calculation for the next four years, and every year after that until you retire, starts from a higher number. Boeing's own fact sheet calculates the compounded value of that 3% over the contract at $25,442 per person on average. That's not a lump sum you spend and forget. That's baked into your compensation structure forever.

We all went to engineering school. We did the math on compound interest, on time-value calculations, on recursive functions. Stop thinking in addition and subtraction. A 3% base increase that compounds over four years of 7.5%, 6%, 6%, 6% pools is worth dramatically more than a flat $12K check that doesn't touch your base rate. The IAM got a signing bonus. We got a permanent raise. Those aren't the same thing.

"The retention change to 80/20 hurts senior people."

I read the redline on this (Article 8.4). The old system was R1/R2/R3 at 38-42% / 38-42% / 18-22%. The new system is R1/R2 at 78-82% / 18-22%. The seniority bump for Profs is now at 20 years: if you're R2 with 20+ years of service, you get adjusted to R1. That's stronger than the old contract where the bump from R3 to R2 was at 20 years and R2 to R1 was at 30 years. Under the new structure, 20 years gets you adjusted straight to R1. For someone at my tenure, that's an improvement.

Also new: designated employees (those flagged as ineligible for priority recall) must now be identified by skill teams, not just individual managers. And the exception provision in 8.5(a)(1) now requires Skill Team oversight and approval. More guardrails than before.

"Purchased services language isn't strong enough."

The contract now requires purchased services in SPEEA skill codes to be released prior to layoffs of SPEEA employees. That's new enforceable language. There's also more rigorous SPEEA oversight built in. Is it a ban? No. But it's a contractual protection where before we had a side letter.

"The pension increase barely matters. $10/month per year of service."

For me at 20 years, that's $200/month more in retirement. Stack it with the new Retiree-Only HRA that matches the amount of your unused sick leave payout into a tax-free account for qualified medical expenses available for 20 years post-retirement, the RSU acceleration at qualifying retirement, and the new access-only retiree medical for post-2007 hires. The retirement package moved meaningfully. It just didn't move in one dramatic line item. It moved across five.

"No real COLA."

Article 11.1(c) defines additional Cost of Living Adjustments separate from the salary pools. The formula: 50% of the percentage increase in CPI-W from the 2025 base period (317.3) that exceeds the threshold percentage for each year (12% for 2027, 22% for 2028, 32% for 2029, 42% for 2030). Those thresholds are high. They're designed as protection against extreme inflation, not as annual raises. Under normal 2-3% inflation, they won't trigger. Your real year-to-year inflation protection comes from the CPI-W linked minimum within the salary pool (up to 3% annually). The COLA is the emergency backstop on top of that. Combined, it's the most inflation protection any SPEEA contract has included.

One more thing. About who negotiated this.

I want to say something about the people on both sides of this table, because I think it matters.

I can personally testify that Ben Nimmergut, David Loffing, Robert Joga, and Doug Ackerman on the Boeing side genuinely care about Boeing employees. These aren't the Jack Welch disciples. They aren't Jim McNerney. They aren't the Delaney era. Those leaders are gone. The people at this table now grew up inside Boeing watching what those previous regimes did to the workforce, to morale, to institutional trust. They understood the destructive nature of that leadership firsthand. They're a different generation.

Same is true on SPEEA's side. Kevin Boyd, Tristan Vogeler, Ben Merritt, Alex Phillips, Andrew Ferguson, and Debi Pennington care about the members. They didn't bring this to a vote because Boeing pressured them into it. They brought it because they believe, after months of bargaining, that this is a deal worth taking. You can disagree with that assessment. But questioning their motives or their commitment to the membership doesn't match what I've seen.

The cynicism that "both sides are screwing us" made sense in 2014. It made sense in 2008. I'm not sure it makes sense with the people sitting at this table in 2026. The offer reflects that shift. Not perfectly, but meaningfully.

I'm not telling anyone how to vote. But I am saying: read the actual offer, and the red-line if you can. Run your own numbers, and compare it to what we had. Not to some hypothetical contract that doesn't exist. The deadline is August 22. After that, the early incentives are gone.

I'm voting yes.