davad
I think part of the issue is how business accounting practices work. When you buy a machine, you can call it a capital investment and count its value as an asset. When you hire a person and cultivate them for years, from an accounting perspective their salary is strictly a liability / expense. Even though that person is an asset in every other way, our standard accounting practices don’t reflect that.
Does anyone have concrete info on the offer and why it was rejected? Reading between the lines, it sounds like some of the issues were:
- 24% is a lot, but doesn’t bring them back to where they were 16 years ago when their last general wage deal happened
- Contract reduces or removes performance incentives, which might reduce take-home pay overall
- Some employees are mad that their pension was taken away a decade ago
- They don’t trust Boeing to keep it’s promise about building the next commercial jet in the region
Anything else?
I assume some variation of this exist for other jurisdictions, but in the US, some crimes require prosection to prove “intent” (mens rea) Depending on the crime, you might have to know that it’s illegal for mens rea.
In US Tax Court, there’s precedence that ignorance of tax code is a defense for criminal tax.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Ignorance_of_law_contrasted_with_mens_rea
I love the idea, but I don’t believe the timeline.