Boeing workers vote on new contract that could end strike
ASON REDMOND/AFP via Getty Images
(SEATTLE) — Tens of thousands of striking Boeing machinists are casting ballots on Monday over whether to approve a contract offer that could end their work stoppage after seven weeks.
The new offer delivers higher pay increases and a bolstered ratification bonus that would deliver each worker $12,000 if the union approves the deal, according to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), the union representing 33,000 Boeing workers in Washington, Oregon and California.
The ongoing standoff has strained the finances of both sides. Union members have received $250 per week from a strike fund, beginning in the third week of the work stoppage. That compensation marks a major pay cut for many of the employees.
Boeing and its shareholders have lost about $5.5 billion since the strike began in September, according to an estimate last month from the Anderson Economic Group. Shares of Boeing have plummeted 40% this year but have ticked up slightly over the past month.
Union members resoundingly defeated two previous proposals from Boeing, but the latest offer marks the best deal the workforce is likely to receive, the union said in a public letter to membership on Saturday.
“This is truly the time to lock in these gains and work to build more in future negotiations,” IAM President Jon Holden and the union’s negotiating committee told members. “Allow yourself to capture this win and be proud of your sacrifice.”
The proposed contract would deliver a 38% raise over the four-year duration of the contract, upping the 35% cumulative raise provided in a previous offer overwhelmingly rejected by workers in a vote two weeks ago. Workers had initially sought a 40% cumulative pay increase.
The proposal also calls for hiking Boeing’s contribution to a 401(k) plan, but it declines to fulfill workers’ call for a reinstatement of the company’s defined pension. Workers lost a traditional pension plan in a contract ratified by the union in 2014.
Nearly two thirds of union members rejected the most recent contract offer in a vote last month. The outcome followed the overwhelming defeat of a previous proposal in September, which drew rebuke from more than 90% of union members.
“It’s time we all come back together and focus on rebuilding the business and delivering the world’s best airplanes,” Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg wrote in a memo to employees on Friday. “There are a lot of people depending on us.”
It will take a majority vote of union members to approve the contract offer. If workers ratify the deal, they can return to work as early as Wednesday, the union said.
“The decision to end this strike is right where it needs to be — in the membership’s hands,” Holden and the negotiating committee said in their public letter.
(NEW YORK) — 7-Eleven will close more than 400 of its “underperforming stores” across the U.S. and Canada in an effort to reduce costs and bolster earnings before the end of the year.
Seven & I Holdings, the Tokyo-based parent company of the convenience store chain, announced the news during an earnings call last week, saying 444 stores will be shuttered due to the cumulative factors of inflation, slower customer traffic, and declining cigarette sales.
“All of these have impacted our sales and merchandise gross profit,” the CEO and President Joe DePinto said on the call.
As a result of the “macroeconomic conditions and evolving industry trends,” DePinto added that the company has revised its earning guidance.
The company reported a 7.3% decline in store traffic back in August and and said during its latest earnings reporting that the pattern corresponds with the “pullback of the middle- and low-income consumer.”
The total number of closures accounts for just over 3% of the more than 13,000 7-Eleven stores in North America.
(WASHINGTON) — Tariff threats voiced by President-elect Donald Trump this week rippled through global stocks and triggered warnings from U.S. retail executives about the risk of higher prices.
Former President George W. Bush, who congratulated Trump a day after the election, has not commented on Trump’s remarks, in keeping with a low public profile. As recently as 2021, however, Bush criticized trade barriers, lamenting the GOP under Trump as “isolationist, protectionist.”
Trump’s support for tariffs and skepticism toward global trade departs from previous Republican presidents spanning the past four decades.
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and his father, George H.W. Bush, each venerated free trade, though in some cases they put forward policies similar to Trump’s protectionist proposals.
“Trump is not talking about free trade,” John Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior economist on the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan. “Trump’s rhetoric is completely different.”
In response to ABC News’ request for comment, the Trump transition team said his tariff plans would boost the U.S. economy.
“In his first term, President Trump instituted tariffs against China that created jobs, spurred investment, and resulted in no inflation. President Trump will work quickly to fix and restore an economy that puts American workers by re-shoring American jobs, lowering inflation, raising real wages, lowering taxes, cutting regulations, and unshackling American energy,” Trump transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said.
Trump late Monday said he would charge Mexico and Canada with a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States until action is taken by those countries to stem illegal immigration and the overflow of drugs across the border.
For China, Trump said that he’d impose an additional 10% tariff on products coming to the U.S.
The declarations of trade hostility echoed vows made by Trump on the campaign trail.
Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago in October, Trump called “tariff” the “most most beautiful word in the dictionary.”
Tariffs as high as 2,000% would safeguard key U.S. industries, such as auto manufacturing, Trump said. In the absence of tariffs, Trump added, it’s “going to be the end of Michigan.”
The favorable tone toward protectionist policies contrasts with rhetoric voiced by Trump’s Republican predecessors.
Reagan, who served in the latter years of the Cold War in the 1980s, invoked free trade as a weapon in the fight against authoritarian adversaries abroad and perceived demagogues at home.
“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies,” then-President Ronald Reagan said in 1988, after signing a free trade agreement with Canada.
“We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends — weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world — all while cynically waving the American flag,” Reagan added.
The elder Bush, who had served as Reagan’s vice president, adopted a similar posture toward trade.
As president, George H.W. Bush sought to improve trade ties with China, and he helped establish the World Trade Organization, an international body that aims to facilitate global trade through a shared set of regulations.
In the early 1990s, Bush negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, a trade pact between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
“Free trade throughout the Americas is an idea whose time has come,” Bush said at a ceremony promoting NAFTA in December 1992.
“This century’s epic struggle between totalitarianism and democracy is over. It’s dead. Democracy has prevailed,” he added. “Today, we see unfolding around the world a revolution of hope and courage, propelled by the aspiration of ordinary people for freedom and a better life.”
The deal was ratified under Bush’s successor, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
During his first presidential campaign in 2016, Trump sharply criticized NAFTA, which had drawn criticism for allowing manufacturers to relocate plants abroad and lay off U.S. workers.
Weeks before the 2016 presidential election, Trump described NAFTA as “the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.”
Like Reagan and his father, George W. Bush voiced support for free trade while in office. Since then, he has continued to back global commerce and oppose trade barriers.
“Since World War II, America has encouraged and benefited from the global advance of free markets, from the strength of democratic alliances, and from the advance of free societies,” George W. Bush said in 2017.
“Free nations are less likely to threaten and fight each other. And free trade helped make America into a global economic power,” George W. Bush added.
Despite their rhetoric, Trump’s predecessors within the Republican Party put forward some policies that resembled his proposals this week.
Reagan slapped 45% tariffs on Japanese motorcycles, and 100% tariffs on some Japanese electronics, seeking to counter that nation’s economic rise and bolster domestic industry. Reagan also placed an annual quota on the allowable number of imported Japanese cars.
“There was a huge gap between rhetoric and reality,” Hanke, the former Reagan administration economist, told ABC News.
For his part, George W. Bush attempted to protect the U.S. steel industry by placing tariffs on some steel imports. Facing pushback from the World Trade Organization and threats of retaliation from other countries, he removed the tariffs after 18 months.
(NEW YORK) — An escalation of conflicts in the Middle East in recent weeks has triggered a sharp increase in oil prices, raising uncertainty about where costs will head in the final weeks before Election Day.
Oil prices surged about 13% over an 11-day stretch ending on Monday. Prices fell markedly on Tuesday, however, as nearly a week passed without the onset of a widely anticipated Israeli counterattack on Iran.
The rise of oil prices carries potential implications for the presidential election next month. A hike in the cost of crude oil typically raises the price of gasoline, which holds substantial sway over general consumer attitudes, experts told ABC News.
For now, the recent increase in oil prices is not large enough to impact the election, experts said. However, they added, a further spike over the coming weeks could sour consumer sentiment and weaken approval of Vice President Kamala Harris, since her party occupies the White House.
“People use gasoline as a gauge of the economy and how they’re feeling about it,” Denton Cinquegrana, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, told ABC News.
“A small change in prices probably won’t move the needle. If the price of a gallon goes up 50 cents, then that gets people’s attention,” Cinquegrana added, noting that such an increase is possible, but unlikely.
At least one expert cast doubt over the impact of even a sharp hike in oil and gas prices, saying it is unclear whether voters would fault Harris for the price spike and, even if they did, whether the few weeks remaining in the campaign affords enough time for higher prices to register with voters.
“People look at the economy over the long term, not the last month,” Jon Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University who studies the relationship between gas prices and political perceptions, told ABC News.
In the aftermath of the Iranian attack on Israel last week, petroleum analysts told ABC News that the resulting spike in oil prices could push up gasoline prices between 10 and 15 cents per gallon. An increase of that magnitude would not affect the election, experts said, since the moderate uptick would do little to irk consumers and diminish their opinion about the nation’s economy.
“I do suspect that prices are going to continue to move higher, but I don’t think it will be significantly higher,” Cinquegrana said. “Unless something really goes haywire, I don’t expect prices to spike ahead of the election.”
A slight increase in gas prices may not matter much to consumers because costs at the pump have eased significantly over the past year, experts said.
Fuel prices have plummeted in recent months due to sluggish demand for gas as the busy summer traveling season has given way to an autumn slowdown. The average price of a gallon of gas is about 15% lower than where it stood a year ago, AAA data shows.
Despite its recent uptick, the price of oil has also fallen from a 2022 peak reached when the blazing-hot economic rebound from the pandemic collided with a supply shortage imposed by the Russia-Ukraine war.
A major escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran, however, could send oil and gas prices much higher, analysts said, pointing to potentially dire consequences of an anticipated retaliatory strike by Israel against Iran.
While sanctions have constrained Iranian oil output in recent years, the nation asserts control over the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a trading route that facilitates the transport of about 15% of global oil supply.
Intensification of the war could limit Iranian oil production or transport through the Strait of Hormuz, cutting global supply and sending prices upward, some experts said.
“The risk of a wider war in the Middle East has gone up,” Jim Burkhard, vice president and head of research for oil markets, energy and mobility at S&P Global, told ABC News. “There’s the risk of something happening that could lead to higher prices.”
A further surge in oil prices would send gas prices skyrocketing, which could damage Harris’ political fortunes if voters fault the Biden administration for the sudden increase in costs right before they cast their ballots, Carola Binder, an economics professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies the relationship between gas prices and consumer attitudes, told ABC News.
“If there was a huge increase in gas prices, I could imagine that hurting Harris’ chances,” Binder said. “Consumer sentiment does affect elections.”
Such a forecast drew sharp disagreement from Krosnick, even though his research helped establish an understanding of the political implications of rising gas prices.
Krosnick co-authored a 2016 study in the academic journal Political Psychology that examined the relationship between gas prices and presidential approval rating between the mid-1970s and mid-2000s. The study found that elevated gas prices drove a president’s approval downward. To be exact, each 10-cent increase in the gas price was associated with more than half a percentage point decline in presidential approval, the research showed.
The findings do not shed light on a scenario in which gas prices spike ahead of next month’s election, Krosnick said, noting that his research examined shifts in public opinion over a much longer period of time. Plus, he added, voters may not fault Harris for the Middle East conflict that would drive the potential price increase.
“There isn’t enough time for there to be a sustained change in prices,” Krosnick said. “It takes a while to ripple out to consumers.”
