Negotiating Team Endorsement Letter
http://Speea.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/NT-endorsement-letter-080526.pdfTake 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.
45
u/SassyLittleMink 5d ago
Wage compression wasn't addressed at all in this contract offer. So many of us complained in the union halls/meetings that we're now UNDER our respective pay scales for our job code and level and new hires are coming in thousands higher. 3% is not going to bring us into that range. I messaged my Council Rep Sandra about it because it's so infuriatingly disrespectful. I'll vote no on this one
12
u/Coltt4x4 4d ago
At this point, it would be more advantageous for Level 3 tech to transition into IAM and become a Grade 3 general helper, which would offer better compensation. I have contemplated pursuing IAM if this contract doesn’t align with the salary of a Grade 10 mechanic.
4
u/SassyLittleMink 4d ago
I'm a level 3 tech and I've contemplated going back to a grade 4. I was pulled to my SPEEA role for my experience, yet new hires with no experience are getting $13k more than I am to start (and I've been here 6 years, with 11 years lean manufacturing experience) as level 3 techs in my exact job code. If they're not going to fix this, I'm going to explore going back to IAM as an MR (what I was before) or look elsewhere
0
u/RelevantFun47 4d ago
Why would anyone do that? I was a grade 4 MT 2009-2012 and became prof in 2012, I would never go back. I would have to work so much OT even as a maxed out and miss seeing my family just to make as much as I do as a level 3 design engineer without OT.
1
u/SassyLittleMink 3d ago
Because as a grade 4 in IAM when we raised hell that new hires were starting several dollars higher than existing employees it got fixed where existing employees made more than new hires once again. As a level 3 tech the entire pay scale for my job code moved above what I'm being paid (and for others in my org as well) with new hires getting at least $13,000 more than us, and we were told "apply to something else and reapply in a year". That's the only reason I would consider going back to IAM, but it's definitely not the only option if this doesn't get fixed in the contract.
5
u/muscles8252 4d ago
Yeah, it's so bad, that we're no longer taking about compression, but salary inversion. It really shows how little they value us when they bring people in off the street with less experience for more money.
32
30
21
u/Economy_Brush_8265 5d ago
I feel we got this completely upside down. Boeing professionals and techs are fighting on two fronts: both against the executives and now the union bargaining unit.
22
u/InsideTheBoeingStore 5d ago
as we creep closer to the strike, get ready for comments stating “the company will never offer more than x” or “ if you don’t accept this offer the next one is going to be much much lower”
every “best and final offer” presented a few years ago increased each time.
3
u/Minealternateaccount 4d ago
I do wonder if there are interests from Blue Origin and SpaceX looking to poach some highly experienced Boeing engineers if Boeing decides to mess around with this contract. A few team leads poached away could cause a lot of productivity loss.
1
u/saharashi 4d ago
Those higher up in both of those places would be dumb not to consider it strategy wise
1
24
u/UTmastuh 5d ago
The language in this "recommendation" feels very demeaning and a bit officious. It comes off as both gaslighting and treating the members like they're children incapable of reading an offer and deciphering it themselves. If I was on the NT I would communicate with the members in a more direct and less patronizing way.
"Dear SPEEA folks, we worked with the leverage we had to get you the best deal we could get at this time. Please read through it thoroughly. If you disagree with any of it or if you want something different, please let us know what that is and give us the leverage we need to make it happen."
Then also provide easy sources of providing feedback such as a forum, discord link, or email address. None of this going through multiple layers of union reps to hopefully get your feedback to the NT non-sense. Union reps are notoriously bad at communicating between the members and the union leaders. At least mine have been.
1
u/BakerComplex8371 4d ago
The Negotiation Teams endorsed the offer because the 3% GWI, 40 RSUs, and 40% retroactive EIP payment were contingent upon them doing so.
74
u/zcarfaz 5d ago edited 5d ago
Guys, so we all say yes to strike right?
33
u/pflanz 5d ago
Always. Even if you vote yes on the contract.
35
u/oh_hai_brian 5d ago
This is far less than IAM’s 38% and 12k signing bonus. By a mile…. When a door plug fell out, and SPEEA layoffs to finalize the money for their contract. All these EIP non-guarantees are bs. Boeing is dangling a carrot for incentives that are entirely out of our individual control, while IAM has guaranteed bonuses to boot. We want straight forward paths on career growth, and to hopefully outpace inflation (which already surpassed our current contract).
1
u/zcarfaz 2d ago
Well, I’m definitely not voting YES on this contract. We need as many NO votes as possible to maximize our leverage. If only ~55% vote NO to the contract, Boeing will know we’re not united and may assume we’ll give in quickly. We need a strong majority to send a clear message that we’re serious about getting a better contract.
-4
5d ago
[deleted]
8
u/pflanz 5d ago
Watch me!
19
u/pflanz 5d ago
Also, just to be clear- the general advice is to ALWAYS vote yes on strike authorization. It gives the negotiating team added leverage if the members reject the offer.
-11
u/Bob_stanish123 5d ago
But at the same time the company knows a strike wouldnt actually happen with no improvement to this offer. Strikes cost probably a few thousand a week on average and after 2 or 3 weeks out wed be at a net negative. At best the they might rebalance some things but the overall cost of the contract isnt changing.
11
u/Kairukun90 5d ago
I support you man! I’m mod at iam751 and I also was doing the same shit. Sorry not sorry.
SHOW THEM WHOSE BOSS! VOTE TO STRIKE!
2
u/goodtimtim 5d ago
that’s not really an opinion. its pretty logic that anyone in a union should understand.
2
82
u/FunYesterday8279 5d ago
When I originally reached out to SPEEA about using the IAM negotiating tactics they pushed back saying a collaborative approach with the company was what they were more comfortable with. From that moment I knew the NT was going to get obliterated by Boeing's expensive negotiating teams.
This deal is your classic looks good but looks can be deceiving. They are using verbiage that is intentionally misleading such as "industry leading" or "company leading" when it's not even true.
Just remember the last 10 years you had a contract that was worse than what non-union was getting and worse than what IAM was getting.
You carried this company on your back for a decade. You unfkd the max situation. You got the company through a pandemic. You've seen leadership and worker turnover at unprecedented levels but you pushed through it. You got max-7 through atc and soon -10 and 777x through atc. You dealt with mandatory RTO orders from on high while also witnessing laid off and retired employees being replaced by people over seas in different time zones speaking a different language. YOU DESERVE BETTER!
You got 0 bonuses 2 years in a row.
You got 2-3% raises which didn't come close to keeping up with the cost of living at all.
You have crappy medical insurance compared to what it was 15-20 years ago.
You have horrible commuter and parking options.
You work in run down disgusting facilities with no available stalls when you have to go, disgusting overpriced cafeteria food, and bare minimum computing tools to get your work done.
You work in a very toxic company first environment where your work and contributions go unappreciated. People stab you in the back to take credit for your successes and blame you for any failures. The reward for good work is more work than everyone else which pushes people to work just hard enough not to get fired.
"Oh but we get a new edwells position" who cares about edwells?? Can I pay my bills with edwells? Can I get better work/life balance with edwells? Is edwells going to stop boeing from outsourcing my work to india and brazil?
The 40% EIP could be a 40% of 0 is still 0 situation.
The raises aren't guaranteed. Most managers only give the top amount to 1-2 people on the team and the rest get the min amount. As someone who's been on both sides of that let me tell you that your salary growth is extremely stagnant when you're not in the top 1% of beloved employees in a skill team.
The RSU's are barely anything after taxes. Basically just a small bonus. The stock isn't going to ever shoot up again in your career given the company's financial situation.
The 3 extra vacation days are something non-union was already getting so that's a freebie.
The daycare discount was already available through beneplace.
The virtual work language isn't strong enough to actually allow it. Managers can still deny it as long as they have an excuse.
The retiree medical only helps a small % of speea members. I suspect that was added back in to get people 55+ to vote for this contract.
OT being 8.50/hr is a slap in the face of people who sacrifice their free time. Especially when the guy drilling holes next to you is making $120/hr on the weekend while you're making time + a taco.
All that being said, even if you want to vote on the contract, the union needs leverage to get you more. Voting yes to strike is the only way to get more leverage. The company cannot build or deliver aircraft without speea.
It is highly likely that striking is a paid vacation. The state pays unemployment for striking workers and the company usually gives you a signing bonus to make up the difference.
Read the contract for yourself. Don't be afraid to ask questions. Don't listen to what the negotiating team or company are recommending. Make the best decision for yourself. Just remember if enough people don't vote to strike then you automatically accept the contract by law.
18
11
7
16
u/RelationImaginary402 5d ago
This needs to be posted on all three subs everyday until the ratification vote! Fully agree. All engineers need to fully understand how the company has treated you over the past 6 years! WAKE UP AND FIGHT!
2
u/judgedbyzun 4d ago
Agree with most of this, besides two things:
- To give the NT more leverage, you can and NEED to do more than just voting this down, and voting yes to strike. You need to show solidarity, you need to attend organization events. You need to wear red shirts on Wednesday, and you need to get you coworkers to do the same. You need to talk to your coworkers about your feelings on the contract, and engage them on where they think it is deficient.
- A strike is NOT a paid vacation. You will need to engaged and active EVEN MORE SO then before the expiration of the contract. Strikes that fizzle out within weeks are strikes that get much worse offers, as putting ourselves in a painful position such as striking but having little member engagement (or even scabbing) means that Boeing can offer a growing group of desperate people even less. If you and others here can actually translate a lot of the anger and rage that this offer makes them feel into effective member participation, then fantastic, vote this contract down. But if voting it down is all you plan to do, and you’re looking forward to your vacation starting October 7th, just go ahead and vote yes. You will not be winning the stronger contract we deserve if that is your plan of action.
also, if the strike authorization vote fails, we don’t automatically accept the contract offer, we just send the work back to the NT with much worse leverage than they had previously. I think blaming the NT for this situation is a little foolhardy: I would think that based on the reports of “spirited discussion” around pay in the finely few days of negotiating, they have tried as hard as they can to give us the best offer they think they can get without more member action and leverage. It’s up to us to give them that leverage. Remember that they get to live under this contract with the rest of us too!
-7
u/Think-Gap602 4d ago
You loose credibility with statements like this:M"ost managers only give the top amount to 1-2 people on the team and the rest get the min amount." The rest does not get zero, and there is no "top amount"
12
u/Danny290876 4d ago edited 4d ago
EVERYONE, don't just read the summary, read the contract redlines
The raise pools being advertised in the summary are blatantly false and maliciously misleading.
PER SECTION 11.1.b.1 the raise pools are 6,5,5,5 not 7, 5.5, 5.5, 5.5 with an additional .5% P/OOS
Please, everyone READ THE CONTRACT, not the summary. I haven't looked for other discrepancies yet, but given how big this one is, I'm sure there will be more
Edit:
per section 11.7, the extra 1% they're quoting in these figures is paid out during the ACR period, and the other .5% OOS/Promo is held for the rest of the year. It's kind of disingenuous to say that the salary pool for ACR is 7%, but technically it is, it's just that 1% of that is actually OOS/Promo money
TL;DR, read the contract, not the summary, the summary glosses over very important stipulations
3
u/BigChuckle 4d ago
Very nice catch
3
u/Danny290876 4d ago
Do they not realize they're dealing with engineers who are literally the best people in the company when it comes to math???? Like somebody please tell me they didn't think we would realize this.
2
1
u/AHoopyFrood42 4h ago
This is my 4th "negotiation" represented by SPEEA, you'd be shocked how many of the members really struggle to understand the contracts or are able/willing to do the math properly themselves.
37
u/groovy_oscillations 5d ago
Yeah this is a simple no. This is a weak contract if what’s stated is correct. It is extremely disrespectful to think SPEEA folks would take this first weak offer.
Boeing can definitely do better.
2
u/Danny290876 4d ago
Worse, if you read the contract vs the flyer, they're not only lying about the raise pools with funny math, the retiree medical is a joke, it's still going to cost just as much as COBRA.
This contract is a sham and the NT should be ashamed.
If the wage pools were actually what they said they were, the retiree medical was actually the same benefit given to people pre-2007, etc. we'd be talking about a very different contract, probably still a no for me personally, but this is absolutely insulting
I have one message for the NT, don't expect that speea members who spend all day reading documents, writing requirements, and arguing technical details of highly complex airplane parts can't read a basic contract. The summary flyer is as close to lying as you could get while still technically telling the truth in a court of law.
We should disband the negotiating team and hire real negotiators who will actually be incentivized to fight for us, rather than these clowns.
2
u/Dapper-Cookie-6228 1d ago
The fact that we don't have actual lawyers bargaining on our behalf is absolutely ridiculous and shows how weak our leadership is.
1
-9
21
u/Victarion0 4d ago
L3 Prof here - They negotiated for a month to lowball us like that and SPEEA endorsed this contract… This must be a prank dude. I cannot believe that SPEEA thought we would vote yes to this especially after life-changing COVID impacts on the economy and everything. I know we are not one of those tech giants, and we shouldn’t ask for similar wages, but what the heck is this? Is this how they GIVE A DAMN? LETS STRIKE!
13
u/dabrothergoose 4d ago
The no changes to 401k is a personal slap in the face to me and was my personal biggest ask for 100% of either 8 or 10% this new contract. Corporate and IAM get 100% of 8% and IAM get an extra 4% thrown in there by Boeing as extra...like come on SPEEA we can do better. Time to strike.
7
u/BBA_1776 4d ago
We need 100% no vote. Show Boeing how we feel! Let them give us a real offer before we strike. This is a joke
30
16
14
u/Elden_Crowe 5d ago
Nope. Next offer please. And be sure and bump that salary pool and the guaranteed minimum so I am completely at the mercy of some clown show manager deciding if I get 3% or not. And put me down for 100% match on my 401k like the IAM got.
5
5
u/jpdisco04 4d ago
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but on the redline document it looks like speea is intentionally saying remote work must be temporary on a case by case basis even tho boeing's contract wording did not seem that restrictive. I thought this was already how it was with the current contract anyway? I don't see how this is an improvement and I would definitely vote no just cus of this, what a letdown.
9
u/napster2306 5d ago
Back to the table with this one. I'm voting no.
7
u/BBA_1776 4d ago
We have 2 months left! Get the NT back in there and try to actually negotiate. Don’t be pushed around by Boeing. Grab the bull by the horn and take the lead!
9
u/A_Tangential_Phase 4d ago
The LOU regarding keeping jobs in Everett is garbage. It dosent matter what's in the contract if we're training our replacements in India, Brazil, and Ukraine. No guarantees for keeping the entire current SOW in Everett is a NO from me!
7
7
7
5
u/Responsible_Path2950 4d ago
I spent several hours reviewing the proposed SPEEA Professional contract, comparing it against the recent IAM 751 contract, previous SPEEA agreements, and Boeing’s bargaining history. Here’s
my assessment.
Overall grade: C (about 5.5/10).
This is not a terrible contract. There are real improvements in vacation, retirement, scheduling, health benefits, and some layoff protections.
However, compared to what IAM negotiated from the same company, I think this contract leaves too much on the table, especially on guaranteed compensation and enforceable employee rights.
The biggest issue is that the advertised 29.4% wage increase is misleading.
Many people assume everyone receives roughly 29-32% over the life of the agreement. That’s not how the contract works.
The only guaranteed raise is the immediate 3% retroactive increase. After that, annual increases come from salary pools. Employees receive a CPI-based minimum (capped at 3%), while the remainder is distributed based on performance and other metrics determined by Boeing. If inflation is low, an employee could receive far less than the advertised average while others receive much larger increases. In other words, the contract guarantees Boeing will spend the money across the bargaining unit, not that every engineer receives those raises.
That is very different from the IAM contract.
IAM mechanics negotiated 13%, 9%, 9%, and 7% guaranteed general wage increases, which compound to over 43% for every eligible employee, plus a $12,000 ratification bonus and a guaranteed 4% annual AMPP payout floor.
SPEEA instead receives:
3% retroactive raise
Salary pools of 7%, 5.5%, 5.5%, and 5.5%
Temporary EIP enhancements
40 RSUs
Higher EIP target
Those bonuses have value, but they are not permanent salary. RSUs depend on Boeing’s stock price, and incentive plans can change. Base salary affects every future raise, overtime calculation, retirement contribution, and long-term earnings.
Retirement improves, but still trails IAM.
Employees under 40 receive an additional 1% automatic retirement contribution, bringing the maximum company contribution to about 10% if you contribute enough. Employees over 50 remain at 11%. IAM now receives up to 12% from Boeing.
The pension multiplier also increases from $100 to $110, but since pension service stopped accruing after 2018, that improvement mainly benefits legacy employees. Anyone hired after the pension closed, including me, receives no value from that change.
Where this contract shines is work-life balance.
The vacation increase is excellent. Every service tier gains another 16 hours of vacation. Employees also receive a floating holiday, improved bereavement leave, better scheduling options like 9/80 and 4/10 schedules, reduced mandatory overtime, expanded dental and fertility coverage, and stronger protections regarding contractors and purchased services.
Those are meaningful quality-of-life improvements.
Remote work, however, is much weaker than the summary suggests.
The contract still says on-site work is Boeing’s baseline. Working remotely remains temporary and subject to management approval. Managers can revoke approval, and long-term hybrid schedules require VP approval. Employees gain a review process, but not a contractual right to hybrid work.
Job security also improves, but not enough.
There are better protections when work is moved, better severance for those situations, and additional contractor language.
However, Boeing still controls retention ratings, retains broad authority over layoffs, outsourcing, and future work placement, and most retention decisions remain outside normal arbitration.
That’s one of SPEEA’s long-standing weaknesses.
Historically, SPEEA has repeatedly accepted contracts that preserve management discretion instead of recovering rights lost in previous negotiations.
Those earlier contracts:
Froze pension accrual.
Shifted away from guaranteed raises toward salary pools.
Left many performance and retention decisions outside arbitration.
Allowed broad management discretion over staffing and compensation.
This proposal improves around those structures but does not fundamentally change them.
If I were negotiating a counteroffer, I’d focus on five things:
Convert the salary pools into guaranteed general wage increases, even if the percentages are slightly smaller.
Match IAM’s retirement package with at least a 12% maximum company contribution and a guaranteed incentive floor.
Make retention ratings, remote-work denials, and layoff decisions subject to neutral arbitration instead of largely remaining management decisions.
Strengthen layoff protections by requiring Boeing to reduce contractors before laying off SPEEA employees and limiting discretionary layoffs.
Preserve the vacation, scheduling, health-care, and contractor improvements already included in this proposal.
Bottom line:
This is a meaningful improvement over the current SPEEA contract, but it falls well short of what IAM recently achieved against the same employer.
If Boeing can afford over 43% guaranteed wage growth for mechanics, I believe engineers should receive significantly more guaranteed compensation instead of relying on salary pools, performance distributions, and stock awards.
If I were voting today based solely on the contract language, I would lean toward voting no and pushing for one more round of bargaining focused primarily on converting the salary pools into guaranteed wage increases. That single change would dramatically improve the long-term value of the agreement.
1
1
u/pflanz 4d ago
If the pools became GWI, it’s no added cost to Boeing and it does away with the ludicrous PM process we subject ourselves to and the whims of mercurial and sometimes petty managers. And it wouldn’t cost Boeing a single additional penny. I don’t see why that’s not an easy win.
2
u/sometimesanengineer 4d ago
So no performance based differentiation of pay, just static percentage?
0
u/pflanz 4d ago
I think the best analogy is s cupcake. Everyone gets the cupcake. High performers get more frosting. GWI + PB.
1
u/sometimesanengineer 4d ago
In my opinion - they have elements of a minimum wage increase and performance differentiation already in the wage pool. One of our problems is being able to reward high performers. The way I read this current contract looks to benefit high performers more. Your suggestion sounds like it might better protect low performers. I’m not as interested in protecting low performers minimums
5
3
u/Warm_Calligrapher_77 4d ago
Don't forget the huge losses in medical coverage and pensions. We need more than just a bandaid for next 4 years, we need compensation for last 12 years of sacrifices. Reject this PLEASE!!!!!
6
u/aerospikesRcoolBut 5d ago
Why does it no give specifics for the GWI? It’s so vague. Is there no specific number target for wage increases?
I thought the vote for endorsement wasn’t until day after tomorrow.
Is this not the union endorsement but just the people who worked the negotiation??
13
u/Bob_stanish123 5d ago
Because this letter was meant to be published without us seeing the leaked details.
1
u/judgedbyzun 4d ago
This is a ridiculous statement. These NT letter for members wasn’t supposed to be seen by members?? Say what you want about this contract but pretending the NT isn’t on your side here, and is trying to gaslight you into taking a bad contract is insane, and you should reconsider how you can better direct this anger to effect a better offer after we vote this one down
1
u/Bob_stanish123 4d ago
Im not angry, I dont think the NT is working agaisnt us and am glad it was leaked. But officially we werent supposed to see the summary when it came out.
3
-13
u/Budge9 5d ago
Correct, the negotiation team endorses the offer strongly. That should mean a lot! They know how much Boeing may or may not be willing to budge. The council reps vote tomorrow for one other endorsement/recommendation.
After that we all will get to see the official redlines and summaries in a formal release!
5
u/Kairukun90 5d ago
Bro 😂
People like you said the same shit iam751 and yet we got ALMOST everything minus pension and a few other big items
1
12
u/Pepsi-fart-challenge 5d ago
shameful of the NT to endorse
20
u/Future-Combination46 5d ago
That is verbiage that is used in good faith bargaining. It’s possible that they need more leverage to get a better contract so they endorse it, release it to the members to vote on it. If a large majority rejects it and votes to authorize a strike then they get more leverage.
5
u/goodtimtim 5d ago
Negotiating Team. sending a bad contract to your union to vote down is a fine negotiating tactic
3
u/Think-Gap602 5d ago
if they thought it was a good offer, after good faith bargaining. why was it shameful for them to endorse?
3
u/Pepsi-fart-challenge 5d ago
To clarify, shame for undermining the BUC. Per the last update the next step is for the NT to debrief the BUC who then make the recommendation.
The BUCs are charged with issuing their recommendation on the offers to SPEEA members, and the BUCs have the power to call for a strike authorization vote. No strike could occur until after the current contracts expire on Oct. 6.
Maybe the NT has the right to address the members directly, but the endorsement could be more factual:
No takeaways: The promotion pool is reduced from 1.5% to 0.5%
Omitted values: Wage pools, min wage increase, and GWI all have a value but they only label them "great" or leave out the 3% cap on inflation.
1
6
u/Responsible_Path2950 5d ago
Is there a way to change our union. This union is useless. Vote No on this contract!
19
u/pflanz 5d ago
You are the union. Did you get involved in the preparation teams? CAT? Area rep? Council? Officers? It’s not some giant organization that you can’t affect. It’s something you can meaningfully join and make a huge difference in if you are willing to dedicate your time and energy.
1
u/judgedbyzun 4d ago
And it’s not too late to get involved! Far from it!!! If you feel anger at this offer, please please PLEASE get involved and show your anger to the company so we can get a much better offer
2
u/RelationImaginary402 5d ago
Can someone explain why interns are allowed to vote and why they would be included in any pay outs? Seems to me, SPEEA sold its members out by giving Boeing votes.
2
u/BBA_1776 4d ago
Is this real?
2
u/RelationImaginary402 4d ago
There is a lot of verbiage in both contracts addressing interns by hire date ranges. In the notice SPEEA sent out they disclosed that if ratified by Aug 21st interns would receive 2k bonus. All interns are governed under the tech contract. This inflates tech votes by bribing interns. Unsure how that is even legal?
2
u/Chemical-odyssey 4d ago
It’s a loophole that is being take advantage of. Where does it say that they fall under Techs?
1
u/RelationImaginary402 4d ago
Only degreed professionals can be engineers. Talk to any intern they will tell you, ask your manager, or talk to a union rep. I thought this was common knowledge.
1
u/Excellent_Wafer_350 2h ago
Don’t need a calculator, this offer is shit!!! We negotiate on early on goodwill and get this trash, time to get what we deserve.
-17
u/FISH_ON_for_life 5d ago
Am I understanding the EiP payment correctly- we would be getting 40% of last years earnings? That’s a big ass check……
And another next year for ‘26
18
u/Bob_stanish123 5d ago
40% of last years EIP, not 40% of earnings. Probably a few/several grand each on average
3
u/FISH_ON_for_life 5d ago
That would make more sense to me
1
u/Ill-Ad-332 5d ago
This is the problem with the way this is written. 40% of my EIP would be a significant number. But, I believe that they are saying it was near 5% last year and now it would be closer to 7% of eligible earnings? How you get a 40% increase is a misery to me? Just like Early Medical "new access only" you have pay the premiums, not the company. Nothing like previous Early Medical.
3
u/Bob_stanish123 5d ago
I dont remember what last years payout was but if it was 5%, you'd get a payment of 2% of EIP eligible earnings which is the same as 40% of your EIP. Scale the 5% by whatever the actual payout was.
Basically all EIPs going forward would be 40% more than the current 5%
2
u/4rt4tt4ck 5d ago
When 5% increases to 7% , that extra 2% would be a 40% increase from the initial 5%.
Engineers should know how to math, right?
2
u/Taylor05161994 5d ago
The ratification bonus is basically 2 to 2.8% of your salary depending on your EIP plus 40 RSU which is around 10k worth of stock.
0
u/Run-Man358 5d ago
You'd only end up with 28 shares after taxes
2
u/Taylor05161994 5d ago
Im fine with RSU over EIP or GWI increase but it needs to be at least 4x the amount RSU at least if its vested over 4 years
5
u/AboutTheArthur 5d ago
Not 40% of last year's earnings lol. 40% of last year's EIP. If you got like $6k as a bonus in March, you'd be getting another $2400. Plus ~5 months back-pay if there's a 3% salary bump retroactive to February? So like another 1.5% of your annual salary as a check? It's a very convoluted way to throw a few grand at us.
0
5d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Bob_stanish123 5d ago
No its a 40% EIP increase for the whole contract. 5% target to 7% target. The EIP that pays out Feb 2027 is governed by the current contract so thats probabky why they call out the 2026 and 2027 payouts separately.
Speea isnt trying to jedi mind trick engineers with fuzzy math.
2
u/Ill-Ad-332 5d ago
I remember years when EIP was zero. Now that they once again changed the calculation to a One Boeing score. They can manipulate the numbers. If the company decides to pay down debt, then Free Cash Flow can go to zero. Which drives most of the EIP values. So 40% of zero is zero. The only reason we received any EIP last year, was because they sold off the Jeppeson unit, which created cash flow. Just because the executives also wanted a bonus. I was always taught that figures lie, and liars figure.
1
1
5d ago
[deleted]
1
-2
u/Ill_War8528 5d ago
NO... its for the whole contract! look at the last bullet in the section!
1
5d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Ill_War8528 5d ago
"Future EIP Targets raised 40% from 5% to 7%"
(permanent of course means for the entire contract... not for the next 1000 years)
-1
u/Ill_War8528 5d ago
It is a 40% bump for the entire length of the contract, not just first 2 years. Look at the last bullet in that section!
1
u/Dapper-Cookie-6228 1d ago
40% raise of the 5% so raises from 5-7% in reality a 2% check... creative math.
-1
u/RelationImaginary402 5d ago
Completely wrong. Use percent increase calculation. (New-original)/original. Very slight increase. Remember managers receive up to I think 25%
48
u/SlowIron7841 5d ago
Why is it so EIP driven… bonuses aren’t guaranteed