Laid-off Boeing workers get much more help than others

[unhappycamper]

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/08/03/2711784/laid-off-boeing-workers-get-much.html

Laid-off Boeing workers get much more help than others
By DOMINIC GATES — The Seattle Times
Published: August 3, 2013

Thanks to a federal program lined up by their unions, local workers laid off during the current dip in employment at Boeing Commercial Airplanes will enjoy a financial cushion that’s much, much plumper than what the average unemployed state resident gets.

“Compared to what Joe Worker gets when they get laid off, our members have a pretty extensive safety net,” said Connie Kelliher, spokeswoman for the International Association of Machinists (IAM).

The U.S. Department of Labor has approved Boeing workers — union or nonunion, production workers or engineers — laid off between April 2012 and June 2015 for a package of benefits that includes drawing unemployment pay for up to 21/2 years, rather than the regular six months.

The Labor Department ruling also means that if laid-off Boeing workers need to travel, say to California, for a job interview, the government will reimburse 90 percent of the costs.

[Niceguy1]

1. sounds like they have a good union.

.

[ceonupe]

2. Or the union traded support for

Co opting parts of our governments labor boards.

While I am happy for the workers I can't see this as right or very "American" or even fair.


These kinds of deals for certain groups are just wrong. What about the guy that works for a Boeing supplier that also got laid off? Or the lady who delivered flowers to the plant who got laid off. Or the cook in that closed resturant near the plant.

Screw them all but thank god for the union I guess.

This long term does less for the unions position as its clear they have undue influence in DC. Had they supported changes for all workers maybe I would feel different but to me it just looks like another special intrest group.

[Koios]

3. Unions obviously do more for workers ... as they should

Frankly I'm astonished. Why shouldn't union workers, who pay into it, get benefits of membership? It's the core goal of unionization.

And as an aside, unions are needed because we as a society are not doing our job: mandating a wage-minimum that's sufficient to growing demand to level needed to create jobs for all or nearly all who need them.

So if we're slacking off on our duty as citizens, griping about unions doing the job for us seems rather absurd, IMO.

-K