Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boeing South Carolina machinists earn $20.59/hr (just under $43,000 per year). While this is about $10/hr less than their counterparts in Washington state earn, do keep in mind that the cost of living (including housing, taxes, etc.) is less in South Carolina than it is in Washington State. Of course, when you factor in medical/dental benefits and incentive pay, that number goes up. More importantly, you cannot fairly compare the salaries between the two locations as Boeing South Carolina's workers are far more junior to their Washington state counterparts; hence, just from an annual salary increase perspective, the longevity of Washington state's team would mean that they would be making more than South Carolina's team, even if both started out earning the same salary when they first got to the company. Boeing, union in battle of numbers | Business | postandcourier.com
Depending on the number of dependents, the SC machinist could qualify for the EITC and maybe SNAP.
Boeing competes against Airbus. That's it. Period. Airbus mostly uses European labor. There is no other competition for the type of airliner built in Charleston.
Airbus has been in Alabama for 10 years assembling commercial airliners mostly for US commercial airlines.
Their workforce is comprised of US labor.
Last edited by middle-aged mom; 02-14-2017 at 09:13 PM..
Living here, I would say it is pretty dubious that the union will win. One thing is for sure, the dueling ad campaigns on local radio and TV are annoying as sh*t. So far I would say that the anti side has greater add saturation, and it is South Carolina... but Charleston is one of the few blue counties in the state so who knows for sure.
I'm guessing it's the national headquarters of the union pushing this. I wonder how the workers like being a pawn in the middle of this struggle?
Can someone explain to me why the same people who support right to work and lower wages are also the same people who are now against companies moving jobs overseas? Don't they see that jobs moving from union states with high wages and benefits to low wage states like SC is bad in the long run? First they move to states like SC so they can make bigger profits while paying lower wages and benefits and then the next stage is when they realize that they can pay EVEN LOWER wages in China or Latin America. That's exactly what happened with the textile and furniture industries. It's a race to the bottom. Instead of trying to attract big companies using the carrot of lower wages, states like SC should invest in education and infrastructure so their natives can create their own companies that pay high wages and provide high benefits.
We did. That's how we got Boeing.
Regardless if the plane is built in a union or right to work state, the American economy is the benefactor, vs no benefit by making them out of the country.
You're entitled to your opinion but I reject it, I don't believe it's irrelevant at all.
I see nothing 'snippy' about wondering if management as well as labor compensation changes with geography.
So, wouldn't another of management's jobs also be controlling management costs to maximize profit? If labor costs are indexed to cost of living in the area, why shouldn't management costs also be? And the question doesn't change whether there's a union or not.
Most likely all management salaries are indexed to the local economy. Management doesn't unionize so it's irrelevant in the union vs right to work states arguments.
The cost of the plane remains the same as a car built in Mexico cost the same as a car built in the US.
Even if they vote for Union, the Union can't make the workers join who don't want to.
It effectively neuters the power of the Union.
Well now -- that sorta depends a lot on the Secretary of Labor and how they Department of Labor writes it's "rules". IF the Unions thought they were "neutered" by Right to Work Laws, then they would not be spending Millions to Unionize the S.C. Boeing Plant.
Well now -- that sorta depends a lot on the Secretary of Labor and how they Department of Labor writes it's "rules". IF the Unions thought they were "neutered" by Right to Work Laws, then they would not be spending Millions to Unionize the S.C. Boeing Plant.
The unions aren't "neutered," but just look at unionization rates in right to work states vs. in forced unionization states. The law is clear: states are free to pass right to work laws. Even if Boeing South Carolina unionized the fact would remain that workers would be free not to join the union/pay union dues. No Department of Labor rule would change this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
