I realize the math is marginally inaccurate - precision wasn't really the goal of what I wrote. We're on the same page so far as the disingenuous headline goes.
Where we disagree I suppose is the contract being binding. You're right of course, from a legal perspective, a signed contract is an agreement that must be upheld. When I wrote that it was taking Boeing at its word, I was leaning more into a possibility of leadership changing their minds.
::: spoiler As a hypothetical example:
Two years down the line the executives decide to 'review' the contracts and determine an alternative understanding of the principles of the agreement which leads to them reverting to the previous payscale. Then the union threatens to strike again, legal action might ensue, maybe months go by of back and forth with the corporation dragging their metaphorical feet at every opportunity.
Eventually this ends up in court with Boeing being told to quit the shit and pay what they agreed, maybe plus 5% as a 'pemalty' for bad faith operation. Finally, the agreed upon payscale resumes with backpay, plus that 5%. Workers aren't exactly happy, but they aren't angry anymore.
All the while, those extra tens of millions were sitting somewhere, collecting interest for Boeing. By the time it all gets straightened out and they accept a fine, they've made an extra few million. At the end of the quarter, or the year, the executives that set out on this path take a generous bonus.
:::
All I was really getting at by commenting about the contract was that corporate greed exists - in Boeing of all places this is a certainty.
Giant companies pull these maneuvers all the time at the expense of the people they employ, their own customers, or both. I don't think most of what I wrote was wrong. Inaccurate maybe? I can live with that.
