I’m not an expert, but I’d like to know more. To me it’s interesting to know what the workers are concerned about specifically.

Otherwise it just reads like “lots of people are mad”. Well about what exactly?

It’s fine for a headline, but not very impressive reporting.

This union last initiated a strike in 2008 just as the financial crisis hit. They were in a weak position and didn’t get a good deal.

In 2009 Boeing decided to build the 787 in a non-union factory in SC instead of in Washington.

A few years later (can’t recall exactly - it was around 10 years ago), Boeing cut the pensions for new workers. The union was not in a strike position at the time.

In the last 5 years the company has pushed forward with the 737 Max program with all of its problems that you’ve likely heard of.

There was a leadership crisis and a new CEO is starting. They’ve made a big show about recommitting to Washington.

The contract that was voted on this week included a headline raise of 25% over 4 years, but buried in the details was the elimination of a 4% annual bonus.

Sounds like there is a generation’s worth of grievance to sort out, and this being a fraught moment for the company, the union has decided to press their advantage. More power to them. This could have been avoided if the company leadership had a long-term approach to management and employee relations.

That much I agree with. I'd like to know more too, but I won't pretend it would be because I'd like to judge it for reasonableness :)

That's the whole point of journalism. Right now, they gave neither the facts that the GP wanted, nor the context and understanding that you may need to be comfortable enough to judge it's reasonableness within the context of the strike/industry/company.

It's like a BS meeting by a BS manager that he holds for "stakeholders" where he just throws a bunch of facts on the table, and then proceeds to do nothing to guide the decision making process. And then during the whole meeting we all run around like headless chickens trying to find out more info and context, all half-arguing with one another because we all have different pieces of the puzzle.

</rant> Sorry had one of these just yesterday, and no matter how delicately I phrased or insinuated-it the person with the most info/context just did not offer up guidance and direction (ironically it's the same person that organized the meeting). Then at the end they gave praise to all those that contributed and then said they'll schedule another meeting to discuss the outcomes because we "couldn't reach consensus" or "decide on the next course of action".

That's an interesting point to make. If you can't make a informed opinion, should you have an opinion at all? What defines informed? How much information and experience does one need?

I don't think that entirely detracts from the general premise of wanting to be given more information however.

The recent past had clearly shown that the most vocal about their opinions are very often the least informed.

Does it matter? These puff pieces exist solely to influence public opinion. That's true whether I have internal knowledge or not!

We live in an era where a lot of media types actively push pro-unionization ideas. It'd be helpful to present facts and details alongside union efforts! I personally assume that if details are withheld it's because they'd be damaging to their argument. YMMV.

I hope you are this critical not only when an article goes against your own personal stance.

This is true but the media is usually anti-union, because, you know, shareholders vote for who has editorial control.