Builders of Boeing weapons and fighter jets go on strike
The strike began Monday at Boeing facilities in St Louis and St Charles, Missouri, as well as Mascoutah, Illinois, after failed negotiations over wage increases and other provisions of a new contract.
About 3,200 local members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers voted Sunday to reject a modified four-year labour agreement, the union said.
'IAM District 837 members build the aircraft and defense systems that keep our country safe,' Sam Cicinelli, the general vice president of the union's Midwest division, said in a statement. 'They deserve nothing less than a contract that keeps their families secure and recognizes their unmatched expertise.'
The vote followed a weeklong cooling-off period after the workers rejected an earlier proposed contract, which included a 20 percent wage increase over four years and $5,000 ratification bonuses.
Boeing warned over the weekend that it anticipated the strike after workers rejected its latest offer, which did not further boost the proposed wage hike. However, the proposal removed a scheduling provision that would have affected workers' ability to earn overtime pay.
'We're disappointed our employees rejected an offer that featured 40 percent average wage growth and resolved their primary issue on alternative work schedules,' said Dan Gillian, Boeing Air Dominance vice president and general manager, and senior St Louis site executive.
'We are prepared for a strike and have fully implemented our contingency plan to ensure our non-striking workforce can continue supporting our customers.'
Boeing's Defense, Space & Security business accounts for more than one-third of the company's revenue. But Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg told analysts last week that the impact from a strike by the machinists who build fighter jets, weapons systems and the US Navy's first carrier-based unmanned aircraft would be much less than a walkout last year by 33,000 workers who assemble the company's commercial jetliners.
'The order of magnitude of this is much, much less than what we saw last fall,' Ortberg said. 'So we'll manage through this. I wouldn't worry too much about the implications of the strike.'
The 2024 strike shut down Boeing's factories in Washington state for more than seven weeks at a bleak time for the company. Boeing came under several federal investigations last year after a door plug blew off a 737 Max plane during an Alaska Airlines flight in January.
The Federal Aviation Administration put limits on Boeing plane production that it said would last until the agency felt confident about manufacturing quality safeguards at the company. The door-plug incident renewed concerns about the safety of the 737 Max. Two of the planes crashed less than five months apart in 2018 and 2019, killing 346 people.
Ortberg told analysts that the company has slowly worked its way up to an FAA-set 737 Max production cap of 38 per month and expects to ask regulators later this year for permission to go beyond it.
Last week, Boeing reported that its second-quarter revenue had improved and its losses had narrowed. The company lost $611m in the second quarter, compared to a loss of $1.44bn during the same period last year.
Boeing's stock tumbled on the news of the strike. Trending downwards earlier in the day, it has since been trending upwards, but is still below the market open by 0.26 percent as of 12:30pm ET (16:30 GMT).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
40 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump accuses banks of discriminating against his supporters
United States President Donald Trump said he believes that banks discriminate against him and his supporters, adding that Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase had previously refused to accept his deposits. 'They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,' he told CNBC in an interview on Tuesday. 'I think the word might be Trump supporters more than conservatives.' Trump made the comments when asked about a report by the Wall Street Journal that said he planned to punish banks that discriminated against conservatives, but did not address the order specifically. The order instructs regulators to review banks for 'politicized or unlawful debanking' practices, according to a draft reviewed by the Reuters news agency. 'Well, they did discriminate,' Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan Chase after his first term in office. 'I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash … and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.'' Trump said, without providing evidence, that he believed that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former US President Joe Biden had encouraged banking regulators to 'destroy Trump'. Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with Bank of America and was also refused, and eventually split the cash among a number of smaller banks. 'The banks discriminated against me very badly,' he said. In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claim that it had discriminated against him. 'We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,' JPMorgan said. 'We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' Bank of America declined to comment. 'Reputational risk' During Biden's administration, regulators could have asked the banks why they were providing banking services to Trump because of the 'reputational risk' issue, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters news agency. Another source said that banks were under intense scrutiny and pressure with regards to what qualified as a reputational risk for banks and they needed to be careful due to Trump's legal entanglements. The source also added that at present JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back to years ago and that they also bank a number of campaign accounts related to Trump. After Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider 'reputational risk' when examining banks, scrapping a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. The Wall Street Journal reported late on Monday that the expected executive order would instruct regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions breach the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws by dropping customers for political reasons. It said the order could be signed as early as this week, authorising monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures against violators. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. Trump in January said the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America denied services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'This seems to be rhetoric that will likely be forgotten by lunchtime,' said David Wagner, head of equities at Aptus Capital Advisors. 'I don't see any material impact on banks, as there are many other drivers that will ultimately presage performance for banks, such as deregulation.' Both banks' stocks are taking a hit on Wall Street. As of 11am in New York (15:00 GMT), JP MorganChase is down 1.6 percent and Bank of America is down 1.4 percent. While Wells Fargo was not named in particular, the competing financial institution's stock is down 1.3 percent as well. Markets respond Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about 'debanking' should be aimed at regulators, as they argue that onerous rules and bank supervisors policing firms can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. 'The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,' the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. 'The banking agencies have already taken steps to address issues like reputational risk, and we're hopeful that any forthcoming executive order will reinforce this progress by directing regulators to confront the flawed regulatory framework that gave rise to these concerns in the first place.' In January, Trump claimed that Bank of America was debanking conservatives in a Q&A session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland with Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan. 'I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America,' Trump said at the time. Separately, in March, the Trump Organization, a holding company for the Trump family's business ventures, sued Capital One Financial for closing accounts for what the Trump Organization alleged were political reasons.
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
India accuses US, EU of Russia trade double standards: Who is right?
India on Monday hit back at the United States and European Union over sanctions, tariffs and threats that it has faced from them in recent days over its purchase of Russian oil amid the war on Ukraine. New Delhi accused the US and EU of themselves importing substantial volumes of goods – including energy in the case of Europe – from Russia, while punishing India. India's strongest pushback yet, against mounting pressure from Washington and Brussels on trade and its ties with Russia, came hours after US President Donald Trump threatened to significantly increase tariffs he had previously announced against Indian goods. Trump had last week imposed a 25 percent tariff on imports from India, which is expected to kick in from August 7. In a Monday social media post, however, he said he 'will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA' because of India's imports of Russian crude. In late July, the EU also slapped sanctions on Nayara, one of India's two big private oil refiners, which is Russian-majority owned. The bloc also banned the import of refined oil made from Russian crude, again hurting Indian refiners. Until Monday night, India's response had been muted. That has now changed. Two hours after Trump's latest announcement, New Delhi issued a statement accusing the US and EU of double standards and of, in fact, quietly encouraging India to buy Russian crude earlier. As India's relations with the West – otherwise warm and growing until recently – now fray over its purchase of Russian energy, how true are New Delhi's claims that the West is as guilty of enabling the Kremlin's war machine as those it blames? What did India say on Monday? After hesitating for days to publicly take on Washington and Brussels directly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government issued a terse statement on August 4, calling the targeting of India 'unjustified and unreasonable'. 'Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, in words that suggest New Delhi is in no mood to back down. But Jaiswal also directly pushed back against suggestions from the US and EU that India – in buying large volumes of Russian crude – had acted in a way that broke with the West's own behaviour. 'In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,' Jaiswal said, referring to Russia's full-fledged invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. 'The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets' stability,' he added. He said India's decision to import Russian oil was 'meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer'. 'However, it is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia,' he added. The EU, he said, had traded more with Russia in goods in 2024 than India had. 'European imports of LNG in 2024, in fact, reached a record 16.5 million tonnes, surpassing the last record of 15.21 million tonnes in 2022,' Jaiswal said. The US, meanwhile, 'continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers as well as chemicals,' the spokesperson said. India's response is not surprising, said Biswajit Dhar, a trade economist who has been involved with multiple Indian trade negotiations. 'The aggressiveness that the Trump administration has shown – there had to be some reaction from India,' he told Al Jazeera. 'For a sovereign country to hear this kind of a threat from another country is unacceptable.' How significant are the US, EU sanctions and tariffs against India? India's pushback reflects just how much is at stake for its economy. The US is India's largest export destination: Americans bought $87bn worth of Indian goods in 2024. By contrast, India imported $41bn worth of US goods last year, leading to a large $46bn trade deficit for the US. Trump's earlier threat of 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods was already threatening to dramatically disrupt that trade. His announcement of even higher tariffs could bleed India's export revenue further. Brussels' decision to bar the import of refined petroleum sourced from Russian crude could also batter the profits of Indian refineries. According to market intelligence firm S&P Global, Indian exports of petroleum products to Europe have jumped from $5.9bn in 2019 to $20.5bn, largely because of India's ability to buy subsidised Russian oil, refine it, and then sell it to the West. But stopping the purchase of Russian oil would come with its costs: After the US and Europe imposed tough sanctions on Moscow over its war on Ukraine, Russia offered discounted crude to India. The EU also introduced price caps on Russian oil shipped by European tankers. As a result, India saved billions of dollars, with Russia becoming its biggest source of imported crude. For India, say experts, it isn't just the economic calculations that make the recent threats and sanctions problematic. The West is 'just changing goalposts', Anil Trigunayat, a retired Indian diplomat, told Al Jazeera. 'So, India is just showing them the mirror with facts and figures now.' Did the US and EU encourage India to buy Russian oil until now? Trump, in his latest post targeting India, claimed that 'they don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine.' India is arguing that the same accusations levelled against it hold true against the US and EU – and that they actually acquiesced to New Delhi buying Russian oil when the West no longer wanted to. 'They (India) bought Russian oil because we wanted someone to buy Russian oil at a price cap – that was not a violation or anything, that was actually the design of the policy, because as a commodity, we did not want the price of oil to go up,' Eric Garcetti, the US ambassador to India under former President Joe Biden, said at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations in May 2024. 'They fulfilled that.' "India brought Russian Oil, because we wanted somebody to buy Russian oil…", says US ambassador Garcetti on India buying Russian oil ; Adds,'no Price Cap violation, we did not want oil prices to go up..' — Sidhant Sibal (@sidhant) May 11, 2024 The logic was simple: If no one had bought Russian oil, that would have shrunk the total available oil supply with the same global demand, driving up costs. As Garcetti pointed out, Indian purchases of Russian crude helped avoid that – while allowing the West to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. Until July, the EU, too, had not imposed any restrictions on the import of petroleum products sourced from Russian crude. Is the West trading more with Russia than India is? That's the other major claim from India. And the facts suggest that New Delhi is right. According to the EU, its total trade with Russia was worth 67.5 billion euros ($77.9 bn) in 2024. India's total trade with Russia in 2024-25 was worth $68.7bn. To be sure, Europe's trade with Russia has fallen sharply, from 257.5 billion euros in 2021, before the invasion of Ukraine, while India's trade with Russia has surged from about $10bn before the COVID-19 pandemic. But data shows that the bloc continues to buy Russian gas. Since the start of the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the grouping has paid Moscow $105.6bn for gas imports – an amount equivalent to 75 percent of Russia's 2024 military budget – according to the Finnish think-tank, Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, which has been tracking Russian energy trade through the war. In 2024, EU imports of Russian LNG rose 9 percent compared with the year before. Mineral fuels make up almost two-thirds of EU imports from Russia, followed by food, raw materials, machinery and transport equipment, according to the bloc. And the US does indeed still import a range of chemicals from Russia, as Jaiswal claimed. Total Russia-US trade in 2024 stood at $5.2bn, according to the US Trade Representative's office – though the numbers are down significantly from 2021, when their trade in goods stood at $36bn. Given this backdrop, the Indian foreign ministry was 'absolutely right to call out the US and EU', Jayati Ghosh, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Al Jazeera. 'They are still importing from Russia. They're allowed to do it, we are not. That's ridiculous.' Is this all a trade negotiating tactic? Some Indian experts believe that the threats and tariffs from Trump are bargaining measures aimed at securing a trade deal with India that is favourable to the US. The two countries have been locked in negotiations over a trade agreement to minimise Trump's tariffs but have yet to agree on a pact, even though India has cut tariffs on several US imports. A key sticking point is agriculture, where India has long imposed high tariffs to protect its farm sector, which represents about half of the country's population. 'The way the Trump administration has been demanding that India open its market to US agri-business – that's a no-go for India,' Dhar said. 'Our small farmers will face a serious adverse situation; so it's economically and politically completely unacceptable to India.' Ghosh echoed those sentiments. 'There's no question of giving in on agriculture,' she said. 'In India, you cannot give in and allow US heavily subsidised multinational conglomerates to invade our markets, when a majority of our population still depends on agriculture for a livelihood.' But in recent weeks, Trump has also tried to ramp up pressure on Russia to agree to a ceasefire deal with Ukraine, and choking Moscow's oil exports would make it harder for Russian President Vladimir Putin to sustain his economy. On Monday, Trump's Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller accused India of 'financing this (Russia's) war'.
Qatar Tribune
20 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Over 3,000 Boeing defense workers go on strike amid contract dispute
Agencies More than 3,200 workers of Boeing, who assemble its fighter jets in the St. Louis area and Illinois, went on strike on Monday after rejecting a second contract offer the previous day, dealing a fresh blow to the aviation giant after last year's strike. Boeing Defense said it was prepared for the work stoppage and would implement a contingency plan that utilizes non-labor personnel. According to the company, the rejected four-year contract would have increased the average wage by roughly 40% and included a 20% general wage increase, as well as a $5,000 ratification bonus. It also included increasing periodic raises, as well as more vacation time and sick leave. 'We're disappointed our employees in St. Louis rejected an offer that featured 40% average wage growth,' Dan Gillian, Boeing vice president and general manager of the St. Louis facilities, said in a statement. The offer was largely the same as the first one, which was overwhelmingly rejected just one week earlier. Members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers' (IAM) District 837 'deserve a contract that reflects their skill, dedication, and the critical role they play in our nation's defense,' District 837 head Tom Boelling said in a statement. Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg downplayed the impact of a strike when talking with analysts on Tuesday about second quarter earnings, noting that the company had weathered a seven-week strike last year by District 751 members, who build commercial jets in the Northwest and number 33,000. 'I wouldn't worry too much about the implications of the strike. We'll manage our way through that,' he said. District 837 workers assemble Boeing's F-15 and F/A-18 fighters, the T-7 trainer, and the MQ-25, an aerial refueling drone being developed for the U.S. Navy. Boeing's defense division is expanding its manufacturing facilities in the St. Louis area to support the new U.S. Air Force fighter jet, the F-47A, following its contract win this year. District 751's strike ended with approval of a four-year contract that included a 38% wage increase.
