Why we need the PRO Act to empower workers

Why we need the PRO Act to empower workers

The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act is currently working its way through Congress (H.R.842 and S.420).

Among other major labor law reforms, the PRO Act would strengthen workers’ rights to form a union without fear of employer retaliation.

When aerospace professionals in Southern California took their first initial steps to form California Region Engineers and Technical Employees (CREATE) in 2019, they faced a high-priced anti-union campaign that fostered a culture of fear and intimidation.

Former members of CREATE’s Organizing Committee shared why they believe the PRO Act would make a difference based on their experiences. All three took a voluntary layoff from Boeing in 2020. For more information, go to www.create-speea.org.

Efforts to create a better environment

By Luz Angel
Former Service-Related Problems (SRP) Leader

Working for Boeing was exciting because our jobs contribute to safely transporting people and products around the world – supporting a world culture and economy. Employees’ efforts make it possible to launch new products as well as maintain the airplanes in service.

While working at several Boeing sites, it was easy to see how the work environment differs between those who have a SPEEA contract and those without a union contract.

We launched our union effort, CREATE, to join with SPEEA to give the employees at Boeing Seal Beach a platform where employees and managers could collaborate to have a better working environment, and ultimately a better Boeing.

When we began getting signatures on union authorization cards that would lead to employees’ vote to certify CREATE-SPEEA, Boeing began posting 6-foot tall, colorful anti-union banners. We found out Boeing was paying big money to a consultant firm to try and bust our union before it could get to a vote.

Many of us felt if the company invested so much money into trying to keep us from organizing, they should have the money to give the employees a well-deserved raise or offset the insurance premiums, which had just gone up again.

If the employees could not talk about CREATE or issues at work, why would the company use its position to post these slick banners with anti-union messages? That seemed like the company was taking advantage of its powerful position.

If the PRO Act had been implemented, employees would have felt more empowered to discuss their issues. Employees should be able to decide if our union, CREATE, was something they needed and wanted without interference from their employer. Boeing’s blatant, anti-union campaign made it clear they were only interested in deciding for us.

Seeing the union difference

By Joseph Nguyen
Former Subject Matter Expert, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

I started my career at McDonnell Douglas in 1988. Back then, we had a different engineer’s union – Southern California Professional Engineering Association (SCPEA). I didn't see much need for a union since the SCPEA contract benefits were similar to those without a union.

In 2002, I had a chance to vote the union out. The company had me believe it would take care of us just fine whether there was a union or not. Since then, I saw our benefits reduced – overtime pay would be capped unless there was an approved waiver, green time (free labor time) was expected from employees and our health care costs went up significantly.

In 2018, I learned about CREATE’s efforts. By then, my view on union representation had changed. I was supportive. I joined the effort in the hope of getting the company to treat its employees like partners rather than human capital.

When CREATE was launched, the company engaged in a campaign of misinformation to the employees, making most of them scared of losing their job if a union formed. My colleagues were afraid to talk to me about forming a union, even though we talked during breaks or lunch or even during weekend home visits. Most employees were afraid they would personally lose their job or get penalized on their performance review and salary adjustments. That's when I realized it is very difficult to form a union in that climate.

Had the PRO Act been in place, there would not have been weeks of anti-union sessions at work. With the PRO Act in place, employees would stand a better chance of forming a union.

Disappointed by company’s response

By Randall Morgan
Former Modification Project Tech Specialist

As a 35-year employee of Boeing and its heritage companies, I have worked at a number of locations including Wichita, Kansas; Everett and Seattle, Washington; El Segundo, Palmdale, Canoga Park and Seal Beach, California. I was always glad to work for Boeing and enjoyed my work.

However, there was a definite difference in the work environment between locations where union representation was available and places where it was not. This is why I chose to give my support to help establish the CREATE union at Seal Beach.

It was gratifying to see the number of enthusiastic co-workers who participated in the efforts of CREATE, but I was disappointed by the company’s response:

Anti-union meetings – There were a number of informational meetings on company time where anti-union speakers tried to convince employees there would be no advantage to having a union at Seal Beach. I was glad my previous SPEEA experience enabled me to respond to their misleading claims and blatant false statements.
Anti-leafletting – When we were handing out informational literature at the job site in accordance with federal law, armed security officers prevented our efforts. Meanwhile misleading anti-union banners and literature appeared throughout our workplace.
Anti-union email – To share our concerns about unfair and illegal company tactics, we scheduled and held a meeting with upper management. The meeting was pleasant and non-confrontational. Then, after the meeting the company sent out a site-wide email claiming to have been blindsided by CREATE.

In many ways, I think Boeing is a great company, but the attitude and actions interfering with employees communicating the benefits of a defined agreement between boss and worker does not serve anyone well.