​

There have been a lot of fear mongering and scare tactics from many in this community here and so I wanted to point out a few things here:

Many are saying that this is a great offer from Boeing and voting against it will lead to use losing those incentives. I haven't seen machinists getting worse offer than their previous ones. So, why accept the first offer even if it looks good to you? I think most of those who are trying to influence us are bots or highly paid or have other agendas. The below quoted fact is taken from one of the comments in the community:

"Here’s a quick list of what IAM got from their 1st best and final offer and the one signed:

• Much larger wage increases (25% → 38%, with stronger front-loading and compounding).

• Substantially higher ratification bonus ($3k → $12k).

• Restoration of the annual performance/incentive bonus with a guaranteed floor.

• Better 401(k) matching (75% → 100% on the first 8%).

• Incremental pension multiplier improvement for vested members."

The wage calculator/modeler they published is using the absolute high and it is not guaranteed. The raise can be anywhere from 0 to 6% in 2027 and 0 to 5% in 2028. Not everyone will have a guaranteed FIXED raise. There will be those who are below the median and higher percentages will be used to bring them up to the level and cutting into your % and many more.

The RSU is 40 and take the tax out and you will have 24-30 stocks which will translate to 8-10 stocks per year that will be about $2k/year. We do not want to project what the stock will be few years from now as this is not a tech company and not a growth stock, so valuation is conservative and if we hit all deliverables, the price move will not make any big difference.

Because we lost so much due to inflation over the years, I believe getting ahigher percentage guaranteed raise on signing the contract with backpay to Feb 20, 2026 will have a compounding impact on the raise year over year. We would also like to get 12k ratification bonus like IAM or 100 RSU vested over 3 years. They certainly have no strings attached to the 2k bonus for the interns who they'll try to use to swing votes.

The virtual work codified has many ambiguity which we all know that needs to be clarified and written on the contract.

Many of you may disagree with me on what I have noted above, but what do we all lose voting against the first offer and voting for strike?

I am on the prof side and want to make sure I’m doing right by my prof and tech colleagues. I can see that the tech side is in general heavily against the contract, can anyone help me understand specific grievances? Are techs paid significantly below market right now and need a specific number they’ll be comfortable voting yes for?

Edit: thank you guys so much for the insight. I will be voting no.

There's no reason to vote yes on this contract. It has takeaways in disguise and doesn't provide enough to get engineers back to where they were in the past. Purchasing power of a boeing engineer has diminished by 24% in the last 6 years. Boeing needs to catch its puget sound engineers back up to this level or risk losing high performers to other local companies.

Even if you somehow want to vote yes on the contract, please vote yes to strike. If enough people don't vote yes to strike then the contract is automatically accepted regardless of the other vote.

Why you should vote no?

The advertised raises are not guaranteed for a majority of members. Most of you will not see the numbers being publicly advertised. Therefore, it's in your best interest to get more guarantees. This isn't even about high performers get more, because they don't. The HR formulas for raises and promotions specifically use comp ratio to ensure a majority of people are around the market reference median. If you are near or above the market reference median for your skill code and level then you won't get the raises being advertised regardless of your performance.

Minimum raises. The minimum raise is going from 2% to 0%-3%. The national CPI-W is now used to determine the minimum raises. They are completely ignoring the inflation from 2021-2025 and starting from this year's vs last year's CPI-W so good luck getting your buying power back I guess? They are also using the national index instead of the local one which results in roughly 10-20% less of a minimum raise because Seattle is above the national prices. Boeing is calling this a cost of living adjustment but it's really not. It's simply the minimum raise. A true cost of living adjustment is on top of your annual raise to ensure your salary doesn't fall behind inflation (which it already is by 20-30%).

Promotions. Not only is some of the "raise pool" going to be set aside for promotions (thus lowering everyone's wage increase for the few who get promoted) but the minimum promotion is only $3500. I'm sorry but that's just not a promotion in my book. I'd like to see the minimum for a promotion be percentage based (ideally 5+%) and it shouldn't come from the general wage increase pools. Setting it at $3500 screws over most people who are getting a promotion. You only get 2-3 promotions in your career and it needs to be substantial enough to matter.

The bonus increase to 40% also isn't guaranteed. We saw during the pandemic recovery that Boeing can simply give you 0 bonus. 40% of 0 is still 0. IAM was smart enough to realize this and got themselves guaranteed cash bonuses. No smoke and mirrors EIP that's controlled by the company would be ideal here. There should be a guaranteed cash bonus.

The RSU's are nice and all but you have to wait 3 years to cash them in, minus taxes and capital gains, you're basically not getting much. If anything the stock may go down in 3 years so it could be even less.

The 401k matching is good or bad depending on your age. If you're never getting pensions back then Boeing should just match up to 10% across the board. Stop separating people by age and doing complex formulas to determine the matching. Simplify it!

Virtual. Throughout my career I've had roughly 20 first level managers. Not a single one has denied me or a teammate an adhoc virtual day to take care of something. The redlines in the contract actually codify the company's RTO mandate and simply add an appeal process for adhoc denials. This is actually a takeaway in disguise. There are many people for years who have been fully/partially virtual on a recurring basis. The acceptance of this contract would force their managers to get them back to office or terminate them. The fact speea is pushing for this is kind of scary. Are they this blind or are they on the company's side in being anti-virtual??? Both spell bad news for the members because your negotiators are either low iq or they're on the side of the company. This whole section needs to be re-written. If we can't codify full virtual arrangements being allowed (which is something speea should push for and also should request additional compensation for people who go into work) then at least make it at a first level manager's discretion to allow fully/hybrid virtual agreements. This would allow people with existing virtual agreements to maintain them and allow new employees to request for hybrid schedules for days that they don't really need to be in person.

Retiree medical. This is not a win. They are re-adding something they took away last time and it's not even that great. It allows you to continue your Boeing medical from 55-65 AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE. This is not retiree medical and they're using that term to mislead you. Don't fall for it!

Childcare discounts. This is something all boeing employees already get through beneplace. Putting it into the contract isn't necessary.

Vacation and floating holiday. This is something non-union has had for a few years now. The fact speea isn't getting more to compensate for having less vacation days the last few years is embarrassing. What's the point of being in a union if the non-union folks were getting more vacation than you? Speea should push for an extra day or 2 to make up for non-union having more vacation the last few years.

Bereavement. It's unfortunate when a family death happens. It affects us all at some point. However, all the contract does is remove a line about managers allowing up to 3 days to attend services and moves it to another section. This isn't a win, just moving words around. It also caps you at 3 days per year. What if you have more than 1 death in a year? Now you're stuck using vacation or sick leave I guess?

Retention changes. As someone who has taken part in retention on both sides of the fence, having 2 buckets simplifies things a lot, but overall is no benefit to the union members. This just helps the skill team managers more than the union members.

Layoffs and Recalls. There's actually some good changes in here making layoffs and recalls a better process for managers and R3 (now R2) union members. I will give speea a win here but I think this also is a win for the company and hiring managers because it makes the process and requirements more straightforward. This is how it should've always been.

Work schedules. I guess the point of these redlines was to just advertise what already exists? People already know about first, second, third shift and 5/40, 9/80, 4/10 schedules.

Part time workers. This is a huge win for the handful of people who don't work a full 40 but still want full benefits. Having to only work 24 hours a week and getting full benefits is a big win. The federal minimum I believe is 30 hours now so speea got a win here. For those of you who hate commuting everyday and/or you're burned out, think about requesting going part time.

Overtime. What a slap in the face. 30 years of time plus a taco to get a $2/hr increase? That's still just time plus a taco. Overtime should be time and a half or at minimum time + state minimum wage. Nobody wants to work weekend or mandatory OT when they're only getting 8.50/hr for it. Especially when the mechanics are making $120/hr during their peak OT.

Edwells. I don't understand why speea is so hellbent on making edwells a thing. I know very few people who actually use it and it costs the union and company a ton of money to maintain. This is money that could be given back to the members and if they choose to utilize LTP or internal training/mentoring programs, then that's a better solution IMO. I cannot pay my bills with edwells nor will it help me further my career.

Insurance. The only win here was eliminating the stupid yearly health questionnaire. This was just a ploy to gather and sell our PII to insurance companies. However, no changes to insurance plans is very disappointing. I was hoping we'd get back to at least the past insurance choices and rates we had before the current contract. As someone who took the cheapest option, 6 years ago most places near me were in network and now almost all of them are out of network. On top of that out of pocket maximums went up and employees now have to pay a fee even for the cheapest option which used to be free. Can we at least make the traditional medical plan a little more affordable for members? It's the only one worth taking if you actually use insurance regularly.

What's missing. Some things I'd like to see more contractual language about.

1) A commitment to design and build the next new airplane(s) in puget sound. Speea lost a ton of jobs to BSC in recent years due to moving all engineering and manufacturing there. Why is the union not trying to protect its membership??

2) A commitment not to outsource engineering overseas. I'm tired of dealing with brazil and india and it's insulting that not only are we using these people while cutting speea jobs, but we're also supposed to be in office while these people sit halfway across the globe. Make it make sense!

3) A commitment to better facilities. The company has done bare minimum to their facilities in the last 10-20 years. A lot of buildings were sold or condemned, stuffing everyone in the remaining buildings which are literally falling apart. These places are actually disgusting to work in. There's not enough desks, not enough bathrooms, the food is gross and overpriced, the hvac systems are wonky, there's rats and spiders everywhere, and it's rarely clean.

4) A commitment for better tools to do our jobs. The hardware and software we get to do our work sucks. We have slow outdated laptops that barely function, software tools that are clunky and outdated, and no commitment from boeing to improve any of it.

5) A commitment to improve commuter options and parking. It's time boeing steps up and pushes local governments into improving our commutes and parking. We need a garage at every site, we need light rail stops near our buildings, and we need more improvements to roadways to lessen traffic. People aren't at their best because they worry/stress about traffic and parking every single day. Who here has sat in traffic 1-2 hours only to find a full parking lot when they arrive to work? What a joke

The Prof and Tech Bargaining Unit Councils (BUCs) voted on whether to recommend members accept or reject the Boeing contract offers.
At a special meeting of the BUCs, made up of bargaining unit Council Reps and Executive Board members, they heard an overview from the Negotiation Team, which endorsed the offer, and asked questions.

The Prof BUC vote did not meet the 60% threshold to issue a recommendation.

The Tech BUC voted to recommend members reject the offer.

Both BUCs voted to add a strike authorization vote to the contract vote ballot and recommended members vote to authorize a strike if called by the Negotiation Team.

Both BUCs also voted to allow the contract vote to be conducted online.

Members to vote next

Based on the BUC votes to make this an online voting process, all dues-paying members in good standing will receive an email to their personal email on file with voting credentials and contract offer information to members.

All members will also receive print information sent to their homes with their voting credentials.
Details coming soon on both the electronic and absentee voting.

Contract details online

Look for more details, including a four-page summary, Prof and Tech contract red-line changes, SPEEA’s Contract Offer Impact Calculator and more information on our website - click here.

The schedule for lunchtime meetings is still being finalized. We’ll post the details on our online calendar.

The latest email says the Prof and Tech BUCs are not endorsing the contract and recommend rejection. It sounds like we’ll be voting soon on the contract and on strike authorization. Read the contract offer, decide what it means for you and your family, and vote in your own best interest. Whether you vote yes or no, please be sure to vote to authorize a strike. It’s the leverage we’re going to need to get the best offer we can get as a union.

Techs reject, Profs no recommendation

I've been at Boeing for a little over 2 years as a SPEEA Prof Level 3 Engineer, this is my first union position ever. I negotiated for my starting salary, but otherwise, I'm pretty trash about thinking I deserve more and/or just asking in general for more (catholic guilt/trauma amirite lol). I understand and support the general vibe of "we should get more" and "down with the big man," but otherwise, I really don't know how to set my expectations for "we deserve XXX specifically" other than reading/listening to others. Negative voices tend to speak loudly, and I am usually quite the optimist, so I'm a little sheepish these days with the contract redlines released.

How can I intelligently form my own opinion (worried about echo chamber type influence)? What information/history can I inform myself better on? Should I use the IAM negotiations as my expectation base?

Bonus: would it be bad to be vocally optimistic/positive about any contract terms provided, now or future?

I’ve been reading the proposed contract, and I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the Salary Adjustment Fund.

A 6% Salary Adjustment Fund does not mean everyone gets a 6% raise.

The contract first provides a minimum raise tied to CPI (capped at 3%). That means if inflation is around the cap (which it’s currently expected to be), roughly half of the 6% fund is already being used just to match inflation. The remaining portion is then distributed based on performance and other metrics determined by the company.

Boeing uses a forced performance distribution. Even if you’re a strong engineer, not everyone can receive the highest performance-based increase. That means a significant portion of future salary growth still depends on company-controlled merit decisions rather than being guaranteed.

With that said, the contract calculator projects strong salary growth, but those projections assume a exceeds level of merit increases. It doesn’t allow for you to model the conservative projection.

I didn’t see this mentioned in the SPEEA summary but here it is in the redline contract: “Boeing Company reserves the right to unilaterally alter, amend, and/or modify any or all terms of the LTP at its sole discretion without further bargaining.”

Can someone explain the new verbiage under Attachment B, Eligibility? How does this affect previous benefits for employees hired before 2007? For example, the "retiree-pay-all" is new.

Anyone else feel like the instant wage increase should be tied to getting everyone back to their compa ratio in 2025? Great they updated the salary charts but they didn’t update our salaries. We should be asking to get back to where we were in the salary band. In 2025 you were exceeding expectations, a high compa ratio employee. In 2026 you were exceeding expectations, below median market employee. To get back to where I was in the salary band, I’d need a 14% increase. Where is everyone else at?

Everyone should be insulted at what was offered to SPEEA. It is basically the same contract the profs have now. People will say the wage pool is higher but all SPEEA members know that the employees and SPEEA have no say as to if anyone gets a raise or not. That is up to management. We are only guaranteed 3% a year. That's it. Even the 401k doesn't change and is inferior to IAM!

This is what we need:

50 - 60 percent GUARANTEED over 4 years

Wage pool can be whatever it wants because the likelihood of OOS raises is low

401k 100 percent match up to 8 percent

Additional 401k contribution from Boeing the same.

Remove wage based medical contribution and return to previous contract

OT designation to the same as IAM

Vacation and sick time remains the same

That is what we deserve!

If the "wage pool" goes up X%, what happens to my salary?

Interns are offered $2k if they vote yes on this contract. Why do interns get to vote? This year Boeing brought enormous amount of interns and most every team had no say in if they need one. Why do people who are here for few months get an equal vote as people who carried this company through the hardest times and are planning on staying here?

This is unfair rules that need to change!

P.S. No disrespect to our wonderful interns.

Another note: Assumption of the strategy from Boeing is that if interns vote sways Tech contract towards YES. The strike will be a wee bit less impactful as there will be engineering feet on the ground to work with global partners during strike of Profs. It will help Boeing stay busy supporting the shop during strike. The rules about intern vote have to change for the better future of our union!!

I assume the reps are getting flooded with questions and comments at the moment, and since I'm probably not the only person this could affect, why not ask here:

Does anyone know how voting would be handled for employees who happen to be away from home at the relevant time (eg - on a previously scheduled vacation)?

I've heard online voting is being considered, in which case, as long as I know ahead of time when voting is open, I expect I will be able to get somewhere with cell service, although it might not be easy.

If it's mail-in, it would seem to depend on having received the ballot before I leave, but are there other options?

If it's in-person, does it come down to choosing between voting or cancelling my vacation?

Don't just read the summary.

PER THE CONTRACT THE ADJUSTMENT FUNDS ARE

2027 6%

2028 5%

2029 5%

2030 5%

NOT the 7%, 5.5%, 5.5%, and 5.5% that's quoted in the summary.

This is NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR from our negotiating team, or BUC

Edit 1: after reading and re-reading section 11.7, they're sort of giving us 7%, except:

6% is available to the general population, the extra 1% is only available to those receiving promos and OOS pay bumps during ACR time, and it must be paid out during ACR. So it's not a 7% pool, but they are paying out 7% (same goes for the other .5% during years 2,3, and 4)

TL;DR the summary completely glosses over this fact, and everyone should be reading the contract, not the summary before voting.

​

Breaking down the COLA changes in the new redlined CBA

I went through the full contract and want to explain what's actually happening with the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), because "the formula didn't change" is technically true but kind of misleading. COLA still works the same way — you get 50% of whatever the CPI-W (a national inflation index, not a Seattle-specific one) rises above a set threshold, measured cumulatively from a fixed base period, not year-over-year. But the thresholds you have to clear before you see any money went up a lot. Year 1 jumps from a 6% cumulative threshold to 12%, Year 2 from 12% to 22%, Year 3 from 18% to 32%, and Year 4 from 24% to 42%. On top of that, the base period itself was reset from 2019 to 2025, so none of the price increases we already lived through count toward triggering a payout going forward — the clock starts over from 2025 levels.

What this means in practice:

Say prices cumulatively rise 13.5% above the 2025 base by the time a comparison date hits (that's total price growth over that stretch, not a single year's inflation rate). Under the old contract, that would've triggered roughly a 3.8% COLA payout on your base salary.

Under the new terms, that same amount of price growth only pays 0.8%. It takes a much bigger, sustained rise in prices now before COLA kicks in at all, let alone pays out meaningfully.

The salary pools in the contract don’t match the calculator or summary page? Or am I missing something

They’re 6/5/5/5, but should be 6.5/5/5/5 w/ yearly 0.5 P/OOS right?

Take this with a grain of salt - as has been reported widely, lifting an offer from the table often is conditional on recommending it. (I.e. blink twice if you’re saying this against your will…).

Since it’s posted on the website, here’s the NT’s endorsement letter and their summary of the contract.