"shakedown effort"?
Is every entity in this state that has a lobbyist, or goes to Olympia to testify for or against anything in the legislature, or is this a slant you save for large corporations?
Boeing might leave, SEIU is taking us to court, teachers in some districts might go on strike, all shakedown efforts?

Mr. Baker: Thanks for your continuing comments re my and other Crosscut contributors' pieces. Your comment is well taken.

Of course any company, union, trade association, consumer group or other entity has a perfect right to lobby for its interests at federal, state and local level. Yes, the SEIU is "taking us to court" and teachers' unions threaten strikes (and Boeing implies it will take major operations elsewhere). Those are other means of leverage, beyond lobbying, employed to help single-interest and single-issue entities get their way.

It thus in each case becomes the responsibility of elected officials, and the citizens they represent, to determine whether the objectives being sought--and the tactics being used--are or are not in the public interest. In Boeing's case a pattern of conduct has become clear. Should it be rewarded or resisted? Should Boeing be offered a half-loaf or none? Do the prospective public costs justify the prospective public benefits? It would be best if our public officials thought these matters through rather than, at last minute, feeling compelled to make whatever concessions Boeing seeks in order "to keep Boeing jobs in the region."

We can see what is coming. Our leaders should arrive at a strategy for meeting it.

If Boeing is willing to play hardball shouldn’t we? Shouldn’t our congressional delegation insist that Boeing agree to discontinue its efforts to relocate in exchange for our continued political support? Couldn’t Mr. Chop find a way to insert language into the bill appropriating money for the tanker contract to require that these planes be built with union labor? In the end it may all be futile as the geography of manufacturing is changing.

At some point we will have refocus our efforts on meeting the challenges of the future rather than accommodating the demands of cranky corporations. One wonders how many concessions Detroit made to the auto industry over the years. What did it get them? Certainly a more effective approach to economic development would involve training, education and transportation infrastructure. Reforming the tax code to favor small businesses and startups wouldn’t hurt either. What can’t be allowed to happen is the continued giveaways and buyouts of large dysfunctional companies, as such actions are inherently unfair to other companies who lack the ability to take part an extortion racket. Furthermore, these payoffs send the wrong signals about the health of our economy. Why should we pay companies to do business here? If things were functioning properly, wouldn’t we as a state be affording the sort of benefits which companies would pay a premium to receive?

The governor created the aerospace competitive council. Maybe they could be invited to express their opinion here, writing their own "guest" article.

The larger question becomes: what industry mix do we want, and when is an industry helpful, or not, on balance?
Are we actually "giving" away assets that would not exist if that industry, or business, were not here at all?

Its very disturbing to hear and read the local press coverage of this issue. Their tendency is to reduce a complex and difficult issue into a "big bad corporation versus tiny little labor groups and their neutered politicians". This approach is just a continuation of the old-timey liberalism of the early 20th century. It is dumb simple. It is not journalism.
US corporations of the 21st century have much bigger problems to address. Not the least of which is the ability of other companies and nations to develope and manufacture products themselves. If American labor costs can be moderated, if workplace rules can be adjusted to encourage efficiency, if employees at all levels of corporate production work as partners of the common good, then the corporation itself can concentrate attention and effort to maximize the value of our economic advantages.
We are not going to be a world leader in low labor costs (at least not yet). Our advantages are in finance, workforce flexibility in education and deployment, transportation, existing industrial infrastructure, and "highend" industrial capability. None of our current advantages are in ascendency.
Our politicians are incapable of bullying any large entity into submitting to the public will, if that submission will ultimately destroy the entity. By the same token, our public officials appear to be unable to gore the ox that elected tham, meaning that we will not see any significant improvements in the WA. State business climate. The education system will continue to be politically based. Transportation will continue to be cobbled together by special interests and the public relations benefiting politicians. Large new industrial infrastructure will be realized only in the event of "miracles", or dumb luck, depending on your religious point of view.
My only real hope is in young people who are capable of shutting out the babbling noise of their elders, and rethinking much of the old time assumptions behind the news and policies of our community. Some of them may, someday soon, toss off the status quo and be willing to generate some serious sacrifice for our common future.

Washington is not friendly to business. There seems to be little understanding amongst our "leaders" that someone has to make the money that they so aggressively tax in to and spend out of government. If there are folks out there who think that our governments can continue their extravagant ways without benefit of industries to tax, I'd like to know what kind of society they envision us living in once all the golden geese have flown the coop. Maybe we can all work for government, and spend our productive years simply issuing permits to each other and writing regulations to govern anything and everything. Only problem is: Who's going to pay for it?

This is a difficult situation for our state's political leaders, but the threat of Boeing leaving Washington is real. Should we acquiesce to all their demands? Of course not. But we can't lose sight of what Washington would be like without the company. Tens of thousands of jobs lost, and our state's largest employer on a slow trip out of state.

We all have a stake in keeping Boeing here. Join Boeing Works Here, the movement to keep the company and its jobs in Washington, where they belong. Our website is http://boeingworkshere.com/ and our Facebook page is http://www.facebook.com/BoeingWorksHere

The author cites the "bullying" by the Defense Department however, most of us not living in Washington and with no axe to grind recently saw the Washington bullies kocking the heck out the State of Alabama upon Alabama receiving a certain large Defense Contract.

Your Machinists Union has been the problem and your workers have held Boeing hostage during their sales battle with the French and now they've had enough. Who except Washingtonians can blame them?

The International Machinists and Aerospace Workers are also involved in a battle in Fond Du Lac Wisconsin with Mercury Marine. Mercury Marine who is suffering in worldwide sales told them they were moving unless the lowered their wages and the union voted no last Sunday...so 1800 plus jobs may go South? The average hourly (production workers) is about $20 and the company wants the workers to cut to @ $14 and you guys are complaning? Just a sidenote: Mercury Marine is owned by Brunswick out of Chicago.

Here are responses to some of the most relevant points raised.

I am sure David Brewster of Crosscut would be pleased to consider any piece submitted by someone associated with the Aerospace Competitive Council. The problem with such bodies, to begin with, is that they proceed from the question: How can we keep giving Boeing things that it says it needs? They do not address such questions as: What management, engineering, production and marketing improvements must Boeing undertake in order to remain competitive?

An e-mailer, outside this Crosscut dialogue, has compared Washington's efforts to give Boeing what it seeks to Michigan's long efforts to bring similar help to its auto companies.

Companies in trouble habitually reach for public help---subsidies, tax abatements, credits, targeted programs---rather than taking tough internal decisions to regain their edge.

Some of the comments go to the final point I made in my piece. Boeing is not alone in Washington in seeking and getting tax breaks and other subsidies. The list is long. Each company or sector getting such breaks
can make a case that it creates jobs or tax revenues. But there are many other companies and sectors---especially in small business---which get no such help. The best business climate is created by a tax code which is pro-investment, is consistent, has low rates, and is "neutral." That is,
it applies equally to all so that states and localities are not in the business of picking economic winners and losers. Strong, well managed business will rise in such an environment, poorly managed business will fade.

Seattle and the Puget Sound region are no longer as dependent on Boeing as they once were. Moreover, Boeing has in recent years spread its operations all over the country and internationally. It has a skilled labor force and existing facilities at its command here. However, all indications point to continuing efforts by the company to move operations to locations which lack unions or which will give them special new inducements. Should we thus deunionize here or offer fresh subsidies to Boeing to satisfy the company until its next round of demands? We are long overdue in making a serious assessment of costs and benefits associated with these tradeoffs.

You have just about every view on this blog. Some don't care if Boeing leaves...some say enough is enough.....some say keeping Boeing is #1 and another said something about shutting the babbling sounds of the elders,
whatever the heck that means?

The WTO should announce their long awaited ruling on the U.S. claim against Airbus and Airbus's counter claim within weeks. If the ruling is not a 100% victory for Boeing (some say they will prevail) tomorrow may present strong head winds for Boeing. For if the WTO says Boeing is being subsidized by U.S. military contracts...big problems tomorrow for Boeing.

Boeing must make money for it's stockholders and it's fighting against a multi government subsidized company. They will continue to ask for more perks and more concessions. If you value the 100,000 or so jobs affected you will continue to give them what they need however, if their comes a time you don't value Boeing and you think you can do better...let them go. They have a right to ask and you have a right to say no. If you think today is competitive, wait till the Chinese and Japanese get into it.

Ted, my suggestion was a counter opinion to your bias, if the Aerospace Competitive Council ihas a problem because they would "How can we keep giving Boeing things that it says it needs?"
I suggest that you start out you editorial with the question: How can we actively say no to anything Boeing has to say, reasonable or not?
If bias on the part of the Aerospace Competitive Council is an assumed problem for the Crosscut Publisher, is suggest that the bias Crosscuts both ways.

This online publication is called Crosscut, true?

Frankly, I agree with Van Dyk. Boeing's own analysis projects the 787 will not break even until the delivery of the 1000th plane. Boeing has to cut costs. It's Dixie Capitalism.

Seattle: a tax system encouraging investment and economic growth--partial credit for moderate tax subsidies; honest and efficient government (partial credit for the honesty part); a modern transportation system (partial credit for WSDOT's recent projects to increase capacity and the decades-belated liftoff of light rail; gridlock is temporarily dampened by the recession and bus service will soon be cut); general liveability, including supply of affordable housing and range of leisure-time activity (bonus points for scenery and leisure opportunities; D for affordability); and a temperate climate (heavenly summers + brutishly depressing winters, but at least, unlike Charleston, we're not in Hurricane Alley and six feet above sea level).

I honestly don't know enough about Charleston to rate it, but I do know that it will be likely be underwater by the early part of the next century due to sea level rise. By then all the cheap oil will be gone and the world will be so chaotic due to multiple climatic upheavals that feeding people and fending off exotic new diseases will be seen as much more important than building airplanes. Such concerns are not even a small blip on the radar for Boeing's strategic planners, given their long held view that the physical environment is nothing more than a small, slightly annoying fly buzzing around around in the corporate boardroom--nothing that a little squirt of Raid can't take care of.

P.S. That rumbling sound in the background is Old Man Boeing rolling around in his grave.

I appreciate Ted Van Dyk's clear statement of the cost and terms of Boeing's $3.2 M 2003 tax break for retaining 1,000 jobs. This is by far the largest corporate tax break in history--and they're asking again?? What Speaker Chopp needs to do is lead a reform of the way the legislature deals with tax breaks. Why doesn't a tax break carry a fiscal note and show up on a budget analysis, the same as an expenditure? Why is every state contract tracked for outcomes when Boeing can make promises to retain 1,000 jobs for 20 years with no accountability? Why aren't tax breaks written as contracts that will be reviewed every 5 or 10 years and eliminated if promised jobs are not produced/retained? What is a reasonable price for taxpayers to pay for the creation of a job? Is it $320,000 too much to pay for a job? Shouldn't there be a lid?? If Boeing promised jobs for 20 years, why can't we revoke the tax break if they move the Dreamliner line? These are important issues for Speaker Chopp and Sen. Lisa Brown to address.
--Sarajane46th

Anyone who works in the business knows that building and selling airplanes revolves around politics. Boeing has for years needed to place work in countries in order to make a sale to that country's national airline. So is it any surprise that politics plays a role in when and how an airplane is built? It shouldn't. Playing one state off another is just part of the global business environment.

One shouldn't confuse the competition for work between states with the issue of a unionized or non-unionized workforce. The real issue with the IAM is exactly as Scott Carson states in that the IAM has created an environment where there is no certainty for an airline that delivery commitments will be met. The cost in good will and lost sales which results from strikes outweighs the hourly costs from a unionized workforce. Remember that Scott Carson was an airplane salesman before he was the head of Commercial Airplanes.

The elephant in the room which no one will talk about is the cost of healthcare. A unionized workforce like the IAM is able to keep its high cost comprehensive health insurance whose costs have been increasing at double-digit rates. There is more flexibility with a non-unionized workforce where costs can be passed on to the workforce or coverage limited. This is exactly where European companies see a competitive advantage due to a government healthcare system financed by general taxes. If there was a single-payer system, there would be less reason for IAM and Boeing to strike at the time contracts expired.

Political LEADERS would be working to set up a system of fair rules across the country, and then globally, so that companies would have to focus on making better products, AND optimizing the competing demands of customers, employees and owners -- instead of making JUNK, and making money from financial shenagians, and making money from blackmail to the bottom.

Instead, our politically incompetent and or pathetic sell outs who call themselves 'leaders', wring their hands and accept arguements that pin all the blame on working stiffs.

to all you NON board of director la-la land libertarians and sold-down-the-river republicans - there are about 5.1/6.4 billion people in the world living on 10 bucks a day, or less. there are about 3.1 /6.4 billion living on less than $2.50 a day. How many of those people buy airplane tickets, cars, $25 or $75 shoes, plumbing fixtures, bathroom towels, roofing shingles, new tires, new car batteries ...?

Your tired old arguements about the-rigged-for-the-wealthy (ha ha ha) 'free' markets are ridiculous lies. However, the lie arguements ARE effective, because your opponents are either politically incompetent, sold out, or a mix of both.

LET BOEING AND GM AND THE FORTUNE 1000 LEAVE. Go to ... the E.U.? China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, Russia...? They just can't sell their made-by slave labor stuff here. Let 'em sell their slave labor stuff to their slaves!! The execs and boards of directors and senior managers can live - NOT in the USA - but in in their gated communities with multiple armed guards for each friend and family member, BECAUSE, the COST of extreme poverty in a 'society' is NO safety for the rich!

keep blaming the working stiffs for the last 30 years of depradations by the wealthy! the powerful need thugs and doormats.

rmm.

Here's some more dirty math.
$ 3.2 million tax break ?
1,000 jobs
average total compensation per job, low estimate $60,000 / year
total compensation for 1,000 jobs = $60,000,000
WA sales tax (rounded) 10%
Question to answer ............

How long will it take for the State to recoup its investment ? If you factor in the multiplyer effect, how much sooner ? What is the annual return on the investment ? Is there anyone with a 401K who will not trade investments for that kind of return ? !!!!!!!!!! I doubt it.
Yeah, BIG BAD CORPORATIONS !

BTW,
who is paying for all the landscaping (and maintenance) around the labor union office on Airport Road ? It looks like the land has somehow been made into "Parks Department" property. I look forward to seeing a homeless camp set up there.

James