Why Boeing Needs a Union

In this day and age, does Boeing need a union? Thats the question top management at the largest commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world, as well as governors of states like South Carolina, would like to ask folks in the Puget Sound region.

Usually, debates about unions are framed around issues like fair pay, workers rights or safety conditions. As a friend once said, Just because a horse is dead doesnt mean you cant beat it. But Id like to interject a new angle into the debate about whether Boeing should try so hard to prevent unionization.

The design and production of commercial aircraft demand unionization, and not for the typical reasons. While commercial aircraft may be sourced from parts made around the world, the bulk of the design work and construction occur in a handful of countries: the United States, France, Germany, Canada and Brazil. Others want to enter this club. China has long desired a commercial aircraft business. Since the mid-90s, it has been making parts for Boeing aircraft in Xian. Even Japan, known for making everything from high-tech cameras to cars, cant pull off a home-grown commercial aerospace sector.

People around the world seem to have no problem making fighter jets, Its relatively easy to design a plane that flies for an hour and then requires 40 person-hours of support to get it flying again. The real rub is getting three million parts to fly in formation for 15 hours, then land, get back in the air and do it again without ever crashing.

Doing this bigger job requires a next level of information coherence in the design and manufacture of such a device. Reaching that level isnt just a function of using the latest computer-aided three-dimensional interactive-application software. It has to be keyed into the social and relational structure of the organization because to make sure you drive those error rates to zero in design or manufacture, you need an organization that houses those people and lets them talk back up the chain of command. Like it or not, thats a union.

And thats OK. In a business where no errors in design or manufacture are acceptable, management should really want to force workers to police their own, supported by the Federal Aviation Administration. If it costs a little more to make a plane, consider the cost of not having that zero error rate. Economies from outsourcing, as Boeing leadership found with the 787, are not as obvious when you get down to assembling one of these complex devices as it might be on the strategic accountants starting balance sheet.

Ive had students who have worked with Boeing as machinists. They told me stories about some 14 revisions that went into a typical part. Some might blanch at that number, but every revision coded more information into that part, and that information, while not easily represented on the balance sheet, is part of the reliability the world demands.

Wheres the future? Advanced companies like Volkswagen, also making a complex, differentiated product, have found ways to move past impasses. Workers councils involve top-level labor in making major decisions and forming larger synergies that enable better, more reliable products. These sophisticated, empathetic relationships will be required for all products in the 21st century, because you have to be able to view the elephant or the 777X from the bottom as well as the top.

As Boeing continues to move to new paradigms of manufacturing, it will become even more important to empower that view from the bottom. Theres no way to manage the complexity crisis without it.

On the 787 program, because of top managements preoccupation with union busting, planes are losing money at the rate of tens of millions of dollars per unit. With CEO Jim McNerney exiting stage right, those of us whose livelihoods depend on the commercial aerospace sector have to hope this misguided fascination with a nonunion workforce stops. Managing the complexity crisis can really only happen with shared emphasis both from the top down and the bottom up. In commercial aerospace, its the only way to create planes that never fall out of the sky as well as a high-performance bottom line thats truly reliable.

Charles Pezeshki, Ph.D., is a professor of mechanical engineering at Washington State University in Pullman. He blogs about aerospace science, design practice and social theory at Its About Empathy Connection Ties Us Together (empathy.guru).