Download the Union Label Newsletter, "Label Letter."  Information on union made products including the "Do Buy" list as well as the National Boycott List.  Includes an article on the Boeing Air Force Tanker Deal.  Click on the link below. http://unionlabel.org   Obama Picks Up New Space/Tech Endorsements (Source: WIRED) The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, an AFL-CIO affiliated labor union whose membership includes engineers, scientists and technicians at the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, NASA and Boeing, has endorsed Barack Obama. The 85,000-member organization, represented by its Executive Council voted without opposition to endorse the Senator. In Obama's response to the endorsement he said, "I’ll support vigorous reinvestment in our federal research and development agencies, including NASA, to maintain America’s leadership in Science and Technology and to foster economic competitiveness." Obama also picked up an endorsement today from Super Delegate and Congressman David Wu (D-OR). Wu represents the "Silicon Forest" area (which includes the southwest part of Portland) and is the Chair of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee as well as a member of the Space Subcommittee of the House of Representative. This puts Obama at 240 Super Delegates and 291 delegates away from capturing the democratic nomination. Many people in the space community are still concerned about Obama's statements about delaying NASA's Constellation program five years (sending humans to the moon), a move that could have serious consequences for the future of human space exploration. Perhaps getting more people supporting the Obama campaign who support human space exploration will bring in some new thinking on how the United States can use its human spaceflight program to support education, the economy, the environment and help foster international cooperation.     How Clinton, Obama and McCain Could Change U.S. Space Policy: Geek the Vote Guest Analysis By Rand Simberg Popular Mechanics Published on: April 23, 2008   In her speech last night after claiming enough votes—electronic and otherwise—to win the Pennsylvania primary, Senator Hillary Clinton said the United States needed to “end the war on science.” Supporters roared in Philadelphia, but there’s a quieter battle floating under the political radar as the high-tech 2008 campaign presses on: space policy. With key constituencies in Florida, Texas and the Southwest, all three presidential contenders have now laid out official platforms on the next giant leap (or step back) for American space exploration—and none of them bode well for NASA’s existing plans toward the moon and beyond. The post-Bush breaking point seems simple enough: A new administration will either support the current direction of NASA or strike out on a new path. But with the space shuttle’s retirement set to free up funding in two years for the already complex Ares and Orion shots at manned orbit and lunar landing—not to mention the expanding private-space industry and struggling economy—our next decade in space remains decidedly undecided. What are the chances that a President McCain, Clinton or Obama will support NASA’s plan as is? Based on an evaluation of campaign talk thus far, the smart money is on a delay, at best. Here’s a closer look: John McCain The Rhetoric “He is proud to have sponsored legislation authorizing funding consistent with the President’s vision for the space program, which includes a return of astronauts to the Moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars. He believes support for a continued US presence in space is of major importance to America’s future innovation and security. He has also been a staunch advocate for ensuring that NASA funding is accompanied by proper management and oversight to ensure that the taxpayers receive the maximum return on their investment.” (johnmccain.com) The Reality Sounds good, right? Well, there are a couple of things the senator leaves open-ended. It could very well be that upon gaining office, McCain will determine that taxpayers haven’t been receiving that “maximum return.” That’s certainly the opinion of many in the space community—that NASA’s program is too expensive for too little return, with many billions to be spent over the next few years for nothing more than a repeat of the Apollo program. If so, it could result in a major restructuring of the agency. What should be of even more concern for those who favor NASA’s current plans is the senator’s recent pledge to freeze all domestic discretionary spending as part of an effort to reduce the federal budget deficit. “Every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever,” McCain said in a speech about the economy in Pittsburgh last week. “My administration will change that way of thinking.” Along with that goal comes a one-year, approximately $460 billion freeze on discretionary agencies and operations—NASA included. If a potential President McCain remained true to his budgetary pledge, he would have to offer NASA a waiver, or the agency would need to make a change in direction. But these two compounding factors—taxpayer satisfaction and domestic cutbacks—make it highly unlikely that NASA will hit all of its planned targets in a McCain administration. Hillary Clinton The Rhetoric “Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the ‘brain drain’ that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.” (hillaryclinton.com) The Reality Robust human spaceflight sounds good, and, indeed, Clinton has been perhaps the candidate most vocal about manned missions. Note, however, that there is a certain vagueness in the language above. Clinton’s policy acknowledges “later human missions” after completion of the International Space Station, but nowhere do the words “moon” or “Mars” appear. And there is no mention—let alone an endorsement—of President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration.” Clinton does want to replace the shuttle, but the concern among some in the space community is that she will do this by continuing Ares 1 and Orion—just not for the moon. This suggests that NASA would remain the primary carrier of passengers to the ISS for its astronauts, depriving the private space transportation sector of a potential market. In addition, it’s clear from Clinton’s other policy statements at the same Web site that she would prefer to reorient the program toward more Earth observation and aeronautics (not that these areas aren’t worthy of additional funding). So it’s not at all clear quite yet whether a second Clinton presidency would bring any lasting advances in space, or simply maintain the status quo. Unfortunately, the space policies of her husband’s administration don't exactly provide much encouragement. Barack Obama The Rhetoric “The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 will leave the United States without manned spaceflight capability until the introduction of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) carried by the Ares I Launch Vehicle. As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States’ reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being designed with technology that is already proven and available.” (PDF download via barackobama.com) The Reality Senator Obama has already declared himself a fan of space: “I grew up on Star Trek,” Obama said, quite famously, in Wyoming last month. “I believe in the final frontier.” But he has also made it clear that he does not agree with the way the space program is now being run, saying as recently as last week in Indiana that NASA “needs to be redefined,” with looming decisions between manned launches and “unmanned probes which are oftentimes cheaper and less dangerous.” That doesn’t sound like a candidate who is going to stick with the status quo. But how important does Obama really think that fixing the program is? Earlier in the campaign, his Web site had no explicit space policy other than a plan to pay for an early education program with a delay of NASA’s Constellation program (click here to download PDF). It was unclear why he chose that particular pot of money for such a seemingly unrelated item, or how he would maintain NASA’s team for half a decade when it would presumably need to continue to bringing home a paycheck. In January, Obama released the space policy pamphlet excerpt above. Like Senator Clinton, he claims to support the development of Ares 1 to replace the Shuttle—but also makes no mention of the moon or Mars, at least in terms of sending humans there. How Obama proposes to square the circle of replacing the shuttle with a new vehicle whose development he initially planned to delay appears to be officially unexplained. But in that same Indiana forum last week he called for a national debate about space if he becomes president. Hey, if we’re going to talk it out, doesn’t it make more sense to lay all the policies on the table now, when we’re deciding who’s headed to the White House? The Bottom Line For voters already behind NASA’s targeted human spaceflight, don’t get your hopes up—none of the three major candidates are likely to fund the current plan, because they’ll all face the budgetary pressures implied by an aging population and a burgeoning federal deficit. So perhaps the real question to ask McCain, Clinton and Obama is not what they’re going to do for NASA, but whether they’re going to come up with a more innovative federal space policy overall. Could America’s future in space extend beyond simply giving NASA money to build its own rockets and send a few astronauts to the moon at billions of dollars per flight? Instead, could we encourage private enterprise to come up with solutions that enable far more pioneers to reach orbit? Does the next president have any interest in a space program for the rest of us—one that’s affordable and sustainable? While Clinton and Obama battle it out, the candidates still have plenty of time to tell us. PopularMechanics.com contributing columnist Rand Simberg is a self-described "recovering aerospace engineer" and the brains behind space blog Transterrestrial Musings.     Support for Extended Unemployment Insurance Benefits Growing   Over the last six months, more than 200,000 California families reached the end of their six months of unemployment benefits. Another quarter million California families are expected to run out of benefits in the next six months.   The past two weeks have brought new support for extending unemployment benefits. Last week, Assemblymember Sandré Swanson (D-Oakland) introduced a resolution in the state legislature calling on Congress to extend benefits. On Monday, Governor Schwarzenegger sent a letter to Congressional leaders asking for action and just this morning, the Los Angeles Times published a supportive editorial. Read the LA Times editorial at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-employment25apr25,0,6055990.story The governor’s letter can be found at http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/9380/   Tax Day gifts for the rich by Holly Sklar When it comes to cutting taxes for the wealthy, President Bush can truly say, "Mission accomplished." The richest 1 percent of Americans received about $491 billion in tax breaks between 2001 and 2008. That's nearly the same amount as U.S. debt held by China -- $493 billion -- in the form of Treasury securities. Do you want our government to mortgage more of our nation's future to finance tax breaks for the rich? Tax cuts have already helped the richest 1 percent -- whose annual incomes average about $1.5 million -- increase their share of the nation's income to a higher level than any year since 1928 on the eve of the Great Depression. Wall Street's five biggest firms paid "a record $39 billion in bonuses for 2007, a year when three of the companies suffered the worst quarterly losses in their history" and are eliminating thousands of jobs as losses mount from the subprime mortgage market collapse, reports Bloomberg. The International Monetary Fund says the United States is in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Yet, we are borrowing money with interest to finance tax cuts for Wall Street executives. For Americans below the top 1 percent, the tax cuts have been a giant swindle. The bottom 99 percent of taxpayers were left with a bill of $3.74 in debt for every $1 in federal tax cuts from 2001 to 2006, reports Citizens for Tax Justice. Only the top 1 percent came out ahead. Meanwhile, the federal budgets for environmental protection and housing for the elderly have been slashed more than 20 percent since 2001, adjusted for inflation, the Community Development Block Grant budget is down 32 percent, and the lack of health insurance is an epidemic. Most households aren't even earning as much as they did in 1999, adjusting for inflation. But the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes doubled their incomes between 2002 and 2005. According to the latest IRS data, which excludes tax-exempt interest income from state and local government bonds, the richest 400 taxpayers reported an average $214 million each on their federal income tax returns in 2005 -- up from $104 million in 2002. As the Wall Street Journal observed, "It's also important to remember that these figures don't represent wealth or even lifetime earnings -- merely income for a single year." Thanks to tax cuts, it's now common for the nation's richest bosses to pay taxes at a lower rate than workers. The 400 richest taxpayers paid only 18 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2005 --- down from 30 percent in 1995. "The drop in effective tax rates for the top 400 filers," the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, "worked out to a tax reduction of $25 million per filer in 2005." It would take 673 average workers earning $37,149 a year to reach $25 million today. While tax cuts help the superrich compete over who has the biggest submarine-carrying superyacht, Katrina survivors are being hit with foreclosures, and neglected levees and bridges around the country are a disaster waiting to happen. Most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. President Bush wants to make them permanent. The richest 1 percent of households would receive nearly $1.2 trillion in tax cuts from 2009 through 2018, reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. How much is $1.2 trillion? More than all the debt accumulated in the nearly 200 years from George Washington through Ronald Reagan's first two years in office. That's before adding interest payments on the borrowed $1.2 trillion. Tax cuts for the wealthy fuel rising inequality along with rising debt and neglect. Taxpayers with annual incomes above $1 million in fiscal year 2012, for example, would increase their after-tax income by 7.5 percent thanks to an average tax cut of $162,000. The poorest 20 percent of taxpayers would get an average tax cut of $45 -- and decaying public services. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama promise to end the tax breaks for the wealthy. Republican candidate John McCain wants to extend them. What do you want? Holly Sklar is co-author of "Raise the Floor: Wages and Policies That Work for All of Us" and "A Just Minimum Wage: Good for Workers, Business and Our Future." Copyright (c) 2008 Holly Sklar   * * * * 2008 Executive PayWatch Home > Corporate Watch > Executive PayWatch  The chief executive of a Standard & Poor's 500 company made, on average, $14.2 million in total compensation in 2007, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library. Problems with executive compensation came to a head in 2007 with large severance packages given to CEOs of companies at the center of the mortgage crisis. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the financial turmoil set off by the collapse of the mortgage market could total nearly $1 trillion. Yet, chief executive officers of the firms most responsible for causing the crisis collected hundreds of millions of dollars in pay last year. This highlights the need for further reform to protect companies and their investors. 2007 Trends in CEO Pay Find out what's behind the growing CEO pay.         Why the Mortgage Credit Crisis Matters Read about the link between CEO pay and the mortgage crisis.         Case Studies  Read case studies about CEOs at Bear Stearns Cos. Inc., Citigroup, Countrywide Financial Corp., Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Morgan Stanley, Wachovia Corp. and Washington Mutual Inc.         CEO Pay Database Check the Executive PayWatch database for new 2007 CEO pay data. See how your wage compares with major CEOs' wages and learn how to track down executive pay.          What You Can Do Tell Congress to deal with the mortgage meltdown. And urge your senators to support Sen. Barack Obama’s executive pay bill.   California Labor Federation Endorses Candidates For June 2008 Primary This week, more than 400 union delegates from across the state came together to vote on labor's official endorsements for state legislators, U.S. representatives, and statewide ballot measures for the upcoming primary election on June 3rd. The convention provided union members with the opportunity to weigh in on this year's important political races. All union members and allies are encouraged to consider these endorsements before heading to the polls in June. The full list of endorsements can be found at http://www.calaborfed.org/political/june_08.html _______________________________________________________________________________

Copyright 2008 Business Wire, Inc.

Business Wire

April 9, 2008 Wednesday 6:27 PM GMT

Business Editors; Labor Writers

584 words

SPEEA Says Latest 787 Slide Shows Failure of Boeing's Global Supply Plan

SEATTLE SPEEA

As The Boeing Company today issued another six-month delay for the 787 Dreamliner, the union representing engineers and technical workers called on the aerospace giant's Chicago-based leaders to correct what the union says is a flawed reliance on global partners and bring the work back while the company still has the in-house experience to do it right.

Relying on a network that brings wings from Japan, fuselage sections from Italy, rudders from China and thousands of other parts from around the globe is a failure, according to the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001.

"Boeing outsourced everything it could to lower costs and it's hurting this program and the company," said Ray Goforth, executive director of SPEEA. "Employees are performing heroic efforts to get the 787 back on track and they are getting no help from corporate leaders in Chicago who consistently ignored the truth coming from employees in engineering offices and factory floor."

The technical workers' union predicted the failure in 2002 in a report prepared by SPEEA Researcher Stan Sorscher, Ph.D. The 12-page document "Challenge in Aerospace Leadership" describes how Boeing's emphasis on "large-scale systems integration" would fail because it put more value on snapping a plane together than on the expertise needed to design, engineer and manufacture a highly complex aircraft. Visit the SPEEA website atwww.speea.org to download the report.

According to the union, while the 787 is the latest and most prominent failure of the Boeing business model, it is not the first. The 767 tanker, Joint Strike Fighter, Future Combat Systems and the Wedgetail were all heavily outsourced programs that are now major disappointments for Boeing.

"We have to go back to the 777 to find a program that met or exceeded customers' expectations," Sorscher said. "The challenge going forward is formidable for Boeing. In the next 10 years a large number of engineers and technical workers will be eligible to retire."

Now more than 18 months behind schedule, Boeing must rely on its own experienced workforce to rescue the 787. That's a workforce that is fast approaching retirement. The average age of a Boeing engineer is now 46 and technical workers average age is 49 years. Bringing the work back today taps into that experience and will serve as a training ground for the next generation of aerospace workers.

"The time to pull this work back is today," said Goforth. "Sending engineers around the world to help suppliers simply transfers all the aerospace knowledge to other companies in other countries. Today, Boeing still has that knowledge. But if the company doesn't correct the error of their business model, the core knowledge will soon be gone and we won't be able to get it back."

In October, SPEEA begins main table negotiations with Boeing for 21,000 employees in Washington, Kansas, Oregon, Utah and California. Negotiations begin in May for 3,000 represented employees at Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. in Wichita, Kansas.

A local of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), SPEEA represents more than 24,000 aerospace professionals at Boeing, Spirit, Triumph Composite Systems, Inc., in Spokane, Wash., and at BAE Systems, Inc., in Irving, Texas.



CONTACT: SPEEA
Ray Goforth, Executive Director, 206-433-0991
or
Stan Sorscher, Ph.D., Researcher - Labor Representative
206-433-0991
or
Bill Dugovich, Communications Director
206-433-0991 or 206-683-9857 (cell)

http://www.businesswire.com

April 10, 2008