Dear Yvonne and Deb,

 Please accept this message as SPEEA’s “vote” on the company’s proposed change to the 6G5E-636 (“Technical Design”) SMC, pursuant to Article 22.4 of the SPEEA-Boeing Technical Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 SPEEA votes “no” on this proposed change.

 After carefully considering all of the information provided by the Company, as well as input from the SPEEA membership, we do not believe that the supposed benefits of this change outweigh the instability and changes to members’ working conditions that this change would entail. 

 Here are some of the main concerns about this change.

• Impacts to Retention Ratings.

Our members are very concerned about how splitting the 636 SMC into four separate SMCs will impact retention ratings.  As you know, the new SMCs will constitute new, different retention groups.  The employees currently in the 636 SMC have found themselves assigned R1, R2 or R3 in the 636 SMC, based on the expectations of their managers there, the generalist competencies of the 636 SMC, the contractual 40%/40%/20% split being applied to that large group, and competition among employees in the 636 skill code.  The retention ratings assigned next year will be based on specialized competencies that the employees were not subject to during most of 2015.  Because of the new retention groupings, many of these employees will likely see their retention ratings change because of this reorganization, rather than because of any change to their performance or competency.  The majority of our members in the 636 SMC have told us loud and clear that they prefer the stability of their current retention group in the 636 SMC, and they do not see that the supposed benefits of this change justify this destabilization. 

• Impacts to Vulnerability for Layoff.

Similarly, one of the main concerns we are hearing from members is how this change will impact employees’ vulnerability to layoff.  This is in addition to the vulnerability to layoff that instability in the retention process, as described above, will create.  Presently, the employees seem to feel some relative security in their current larger SMC.  Employees currently have the expectation that if there is surplus activity in the Technical Designer skill, the company will follow its normal practices and start with the lowest retention rated employees at the lowest level of the 636 SMC, and work through the lower levels and retention ratings before moving up, etc.  Employees with higher levels or retention ratings whose statement of work is surplused may have contractual rights to “bump” others in the 636 SMC.  Our members are concerned that splitting up the Technical Designer skill into four separate SMCs will allow the company to target one or more of the new specific skills for layoffs, and insulate others from layoff.  The members do not know which of the new SMCs will be likely to face surplus first, so there is widespread concern about this issue.  For example, some employees are concerned that after this change is implemented, the company may declare a surplus in the “Payloads” skill.  The employees who are now in the payloads skill and facing surplus were previously in the generalist 636 SMC and may have previously had extra buffers of lower level or lower retention ratings between themselves and layoff.  With this SMC split, the company could outsource and entirely deplete the Payloads SMC and lay off all R3, R2s and R1s, while not laying off a single R3 in the other three SMCs.  The R1s and R2s in Payloads would have no ability to “bump” lower level employees in the other SMCs (who were previously in their same SMC and were subject to “bumping”).  The members do not see benefits to this change that would justify these uncertain impacts to layoff vulnerability. 

• Impacts to Career Development. 

Our members have expressed concern that this change may detrimentally impact their career development.  Our members have reported that under a single Technical Designer SMC, it is easier for employees to rotate or transfer among the different skill areas to gain knowledge and experience.  The employees believe that it will be much more difficult to transfer among the skill areas with the Technical Designer skill areas divided into separate SMCs.  The employees have been told that if they want to transfer among the new SMCs, they will now have to utilize Careers@Boeing.  Besides having issues with the numerous difficulties and glitches that employees have reported with Careers@Boeing, being told they are “welcome to apply” for other Technical Designer skills is not very encouraging to employees. 

• Impacts to salary growth.

Similarly, employees have expressed concern at how the breaking down of the Technical Designer work will impact salary growth.  Although the company has stated that it does not foresee impacts to salaries for now, employees are concerned that once the Technical Designer SMC is divided, the company will determine that there are new and different job markets for these more specialized jobs.  The employees are concerned that new market references will lead to smaller salary increases, which, when coupled with the new burdens on transfers, will seriously impact their career development and overall livelihood. 

• The Change Does Not Reflect The Diverse Experience of Employees.

Many members have expressed concern to us that being pigeon-holed into of the new SMCs employees doesn’t reflect the diverse career paths of existing employees.  Many employees have reported to us that throughout their careers as Technical Designers they have moved throughout the different skill areas as their interests, skills, and the company’s needs have evolved.  These employees are concerned that they are now going to be “locked in” to whatever skill area they currently happen to be in, and that this pigeon-holing does not reflect their broad and diverse experiences, nor does it allow them to continue developing their careers as they had hoped. 

• The Change Does Not Reflect The Mixed Skills and Work of Some Employees. 

Some of our members have expressed that they feel their current job mixes or transcends the four skill areas by which the 636 SMC will be divided.  These employees feel that being put in one skill-specific SMC will complicate the mixed statement of work they currently perform.  There are also concerns that because the new specialist SMCs don’t really reflect their mixed statement of work, these “generalist” employees will be at an unfair disadvantage when competing against their peers who truly may be specialists at retention rating time.   Still other employees believe that they work in a Technical Designer skill area that does not fit with any of the four new SMC skill areas, for example, “process.”  We have heard that some of the current 636 Technical Designers who perform “process” work have been told that there is no SPEEA represented code for them to be placed in after this proposed change is implemented.  A manager apparently told them that in order to stay in the organization and continue doing their work, they would have to leave the SPEEA bargaining unit.  If they want to stay in SPEEA they need to find a different job.  Obviously SPEEA will have objections if the Company tries to take work that has historically been performed by SPEEA members out of the unit.  We have asked the Company to explain what is going on with the “process” work and we have not received an explanation yet.  However, this issue highlights some of the concerns we have been hearing with this particular change – the work that the employees do does not always fit neatly into one of the four skill areas upon which the 636 SMC is being divided. 

We hope that you will take these issues into consideration and come to the conclusion that our members, your employees, are hoping for: The potential benefits of this change do not outweigh the drawbacks and uncertainties it creates, and the interests of a stable workforce and employee morale should compel the company to hold off on this change. 

Although we are providing this vote and explanation as an attempt to serve the interests of our members, we continue to object to the process the Boeing company used regarding this matter.  We disagree with the company’s position that SPEEA has no role or voice in decisions about changes to members’ jobs, and that SPEEA only has a right to input on the “implementation.”  We continue to assert that the contract gives SPEEA and its members a voice in these decisions themselves – that is, whether the changes should be made at all – and not just in how the changes will be implemented.   

 Thank you for your consideration. 

 Sincerely,

Sean Leonard
SPEEA Contract Administrator