‘There Has to Be a Fight’: How Workers Can Start Winning the Class War in 2024 and Beyond / by Jon Queally

Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, speaks at The Sanders Institute Gathering in Burlington, Vermont on Saturday, June 1, 2024 | Photo: Will Allen / via The Sanders Institute

“Why are working class people apathetic about politics? Because politics is completely dominated by corporations.”

Reposted from Common Dreams


If there is a chicken-or-the-egg question as it regards working class politics in the year 2024 and beyond, some of the boldest labor leaders in the United States have a very unified response: organized workers come first and then—and only then—can the progressive vision of a healthier democracy and more equal nation that meets the material needs of all its people finally come to pass.

“What we have to organize around,” says union leader Sara Nelson, “are the issues that really matter.”

President of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA), Nelson argues that what constitutes those specific “issues that really matter” has not changed very much since Franklin Delano Roosevelt promoted his Economic Bill of Rights nearly 80 years ago: a living wage and dignity at work, decent and affordable housing, universal healthcare, quality education for all, retirement security, and a life with recreation and leisure not just toil and labor.

“Stop doing bullshit applause lines and do real work on workers’ rights.” —AFA president Sara Nelson

While the Republican Party remains the chief political obstacle to achieving those goals, says Nelson—currently at the bargaining table representing her members in contract negotiations with several major airlines carriers—the Democrats also have a long way to go. Meanwhile, the corporate interests that pump massive amounts of money into both major parties can only be challenged by a more cohesive and strategically-minded working class.

“Democrats in general,” she says, “need to get back to talking about that Economic Bill of Rights fundamentally across the board. And that is what is going to attract people to the party—not just talking about it, but fighting for it and having actual demands.”

In a series of discussions during and after The Sanders Institute Gathering that took place in Burlington, Vermont on the first weekend of June, Nelson explained how being “pro-labor,” regardless of party affiliation, “has to be more than just not killing labor every single day.”

“It has to be more than that,” she told Common Dreams during a lengthy interview, “and it has to be more than politicians going to a rally and saying the same tired applause lines that they’ve been saying for 80 years—things like: ‘We like labor because you gave us the 8-hour work day.'”

“I promise you, politician,” she continued, “that the vast majority of people in the audience listening to you no longer have an eight hour day. Same with the line about the how it was labor who delivered the weekend. I promise you, the vast majority of people in the audience do not have their weekends off anymore. ‘Oh, labor that gave us sick leave and vacations!’ Same thing again. Stop doing bullshit applause lines and do real work on workers’ rights.”

In Vermont, Nelson explained to attendees at the Sanders Institute event that “the labor movement”—especially in a nation that is 90 percent non-unionized—”is the entire working class, not just people who currently have a union card.”

Saru Jayaraman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and president of the advocacy group One Fair Wage, which she co-founded, explained to those at the Gathering how the approximately 13 million restaurant and food service workers her group represents are on the front lines of a largely non-unionized worker movement focused like a laser on improving the material conditions of individual, families, and the wider working class.

During her earlier organizing with the Restaurant Opportunity Center (ROC) in the decade after Sept. 11, 2001, Jayaraman said that workers wherever she went—”from California, to the Deep South, to the Midwest, and to the Northeast”—would all say the same thing: “It’s my wages, it’s my wages, it’s my wages.”

With a new book, titled “One Fair Wage: Ending Subminimum Pay in America,” and state-level ballot fights for wage increases this election season in Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts, and elsewhere, Jayaraman says the organizing of workers making less than $15 in real wages is vital within the nation’s “absolute largest” private employer sector, the restaurant and food service industry.

Saru Jayaraman, co-founder and president of One Fair Wage, speaking during the Gathering in Burlington, Vermont on Saturday, June 1, 2024. (Photo: Will Allen / via The Sanders Institute)

Saru Jayaraman, co-founder and president of One Fair Wage, speaking during the Gathering in Burlington, Vermont on Saturday, June 1, 2024. (Photo: Will Allen / via The Sanders Institute)

After a show of hands from audience members in Burlington who had at one point worked in a restaurant, Jayaraman reminded them how “one in two Americans has worked in the industry at some point in their lives.”

“It is the largest private sector employer of women. It is the largest private sector of young people,” she said. “It’s the largest private sector employer of immigrants, formerly incarcerated individuals, people of color—pretty much everybody—but it is the absolute lowest-paying employer in the United States of America.”

With the lobbying power of the National Restaurant Association, founded in 1919—”we call it the other NRA,” Jayaraman noted—owners and investors in the food industry have generated massive profits for themselves by paying poverty wages and forcing tipped wages on their employees “for generations.”

What this “other NRA” has been able to achieve over the course of its existence, she said, is ensuring that millions of restaurant workers across the country are forbidden from earning more per hour than the $2.13 that such tipped worked currently receive.

In her book, Jayaraman writes, “Subminimum wages are subhuman. They are reflection of the value America has placed on the humanity of the people” who work in those sectors.

Those receiving this paltry hourly wage, still the law in 43 U.S. states, she said in Burlington, is “not some niche group. It’s where all of us worked, our kids work. It’s the largest employer in America, and it gets to pay $2 an hour because we’ve let it.”

And the current outrage among restaurant workers isn’t restricted to that. In context of the Covid-19 pandemic that shook the nation and the world in 2020, Jayaraman spoke with fury about the thousands of food industry workers who “died—no, the 12,000 workers who were murdered—because they were forced to go back to work before it was saved into an industry that the CDC named as the most dangerous place for adults to be during the pandemic.”

“They died because they were poor,” she roared. “For those that survived, 60% told us that tips went way down and the women, more than half of women told us harassment went way up. They said, I’m regularly asked, ‘Take off your mask so I can see how cute you are before I decide how much I want to tip you.'” Reports like that from workers, she said, are endless and continue to this day.

“The only way it’s going to work is that we are going to have this huge base, the ability to mobilize them, but it’s got to be a thousand flowers blooming.” —Saru Jayaraman, One Fair Wage

It’s for these reasons and more that tipped workers are fighting for the Raise the Wage Act, a bill which passed the U.S House in 2021 but failed in the U.S. Senate despite support from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other Democrats. After House Democrats lost their House majority in 2022, Sanders reintroduced the bill in the Senate last year, but it has no hope of passing until Republican opposition is vanquished.

Again, Jayaraman pointed to the restaurant industry lobby as the key villain in the workers fight.

“They’re the major opposition in every state,” she said. “They’re the major opposition at the federal level. And there can be no change at the federal level until we defeat the ‘other NRA’ and we are on our way.”

What she sees in her work among non-unionized restaurant workers fighting to destroy sub-minimum wages is that it’s workers that must lead.

“We are not trying to mobilize these hundreds of thousands of people in the same way,” Jayaraman told Common Dreams. “The only way it’s going to work is that we are going to have this huge base, the ability to mobilize them, but it’s got to be a thousand flowers blooming. That is how this moment of worker power has happened.”

It was workers on their own, she explained, who “started walking out of their restaurants and putting up signs saying: ‘We all left. The pay is too low.’ Nobody gave them a sign and trained them how to do that. There was a moment of power where they all collectively felt ‘I’m worth more’ and walked out.”

“There’s no humanity in capitalism, it’s only about extracting as much profit as possible from the entire machinery, which includes human beings.” —Sara Nelson

Like Jayaraman, Nelson spoke about the lessons she learned after seeing corporate bosses willing to sacrifice the safety, and even the lives, of workers at the altar of profit.

Speaking passionately about her career in the airline industry—including close colleagues killed on the hijacked planes used in the 9/11 attacks—Nelson describes the AFA as a union that centers the needs of its members, but also one that recognizes its role in the broader fight for economic equality and the common good.

In the years after 2001, she saw firsthand how the industry exploited the horrific tragedy of 9/11 to undermine worker power while protecting owners and investors through a bankruptcy process.

“For me, that was real people, those were my friends and it was my friends who died too,” she explained to Common Dreams. It was painful, she said, “coming to grips with the fact that there’s no sympathy, there’s no humanity in capitalism, it’s only about extracting as much profit as possible from the entire machinery, which includes human beings.”

While the union fought to protect their pensions during that time, executives were clamoring for unlimited compensation packages, Nelson recounted. It was during those battles, she said, “that I got a firsthand experience in the four D’s of union busting: divide, delay, distract, and demoralize. And I saw workers go through all of those very divisive tactics.”

“So the first question is, why aren’t we winning? And the answer is we don’t have a working class base.” —Les Leopold, Labor Institute

Joining Jayaraman and Nelson on the Sanders Institute panel focused on workers was Les Leopold, executive director of the Labor Institute and author of the new book, “Wall Street’s War on Workers: How Mass Layoffs and Greed Are Destroying the Working Class and What to Do About It.”

What Nelson, Jayaraman, and Leopold all argued in separate interviews with Common Dreams during and after the Gathering is that organized workers need to be at the center of fighting for their own economic wellbeing. A more unified and coordinated working class is also the key missing ingredient if the broader progressive agenda—from voting rights and democracy protection to the climate fight and economic battles over healthcare and housing—is ever to be won.

“There are all these organizations and we’re fighting all these good fights on all these issues,” Leopold said on the edge of the three-day event, referring to green groups, healthcare advocates, and organizers on a range of social justice issues gathered in Burlington. “So the first question is, why aren’t we winning? And the answer is we don’t have a working class base.”

Without workers in the fight in a deep and organized way, Leopold argued, progressives can’t win—”or can’t win substantially”—and that means new structures are needed to galvanize workers. In his book, Leopold identifies years of mass layoffs, driven in large part by stock buybacks and leveraged buyouts by private equity and other powerful investors, as evidence of the battering workers have taken from their corporate bosses and neoliberal capitalism.

The Labor Institute’s executive director Les Leopold addresses the audience in Burlington, as he called for a ban on compulsory mass layoffs for companies with federal government contracts. (Photo: Will Allen / via The Sanders Institute)

The Labor Institute’s executive director Les Leopold addresses the audience in Burlington, as he called for a ban on compulsory mass layoffs for companies with federal government contracts. (Photo: Will Allen / via The Sanders Institute)

“As Wall Street has routinized the financial strip-mining of productive enterprises,” Leopold writes in the book, “more than 30 million of us have experienced mass layoffs [over recent decades]. And even more have felt the pain and suffering as our family members lost jobs.”

Despite that, he says, the occurrence of mass layoffs has “become so commonplace, so normalized, so routinized, that for-profit and nonprofit executives alike do not hesitate to slash jobs whenever they feel it necessary.” But with a working class fractured and pummeled from the decades long corporate crusade against unionization, Leopold told Common Dreams in Burlington that he believes a fight against mass layoffs could be a way to help turn the tide.

“Why are working class people apathetic about politics?” asked Leopold. “Because politics is completely dominated by corporations and they’re totally alienated from that. We’ve got to fight the class war around politics. We have got to get working class control over politics.”

“The working class is going to save the working class. It’s never going to be a party.”

Nelson echoed that, saying the policies passed in Congress “are not going to be the policies we need until we extract money from our politics.”

Getting corporate money out of politics, can’t be won in Congress “because we don’t have the politicians in office that can vote it out because money is still controlling it,” Nelson said. “So the only way to get at it, the only way to change our politics is to have workers in a massive way organize their unions and take the money from capital so that they don’t have it to spend in our politics.”

In Leopold’s mind, a worker-centered politics and a “class war” framework is something “we can sell anywhere.” It can work with organized workers already with labor unions like Nelson’s AFA, the United Auto Workers (UAW), and other major trade unions. It can also be the linchpin for workers who are not yet organized within unions, like Jayaraman’s approach with One Fair Wage.

It can work for “Trump people” that have looked to the far-right because they saw Democrats year after year not fighting for their interests, he said, and it can work for “not Trump people,” who are simply looking for allies to stand with them in the demand for better wages, job security, healthcare, housing costs, and more.

Jane Sanders, Sara Nelson, Les Leopold, and Saru Jayaraman
(From left) Sanders Institute co-founder Jane O’Meara Sanders, AFA president Sara Nelson, the Labor Institute’s Les Leopold, and Saru Jayaraman of One Fair Wage pose for a picture together at the Gathering in Burlington, Vt. on Saturday, June 1, 2024. (Photo: Will Allen / via The Sanders Institute)

(From left) Sanders Institute co-founder Jane O’Meara Sanders, AFA president Sara Nelson, the Labor Institute’s Les Leopold, and Saru Jayaraman of One Fair Wage pose for a picture together at the Gathering in Burlington, Vt. on Saturday, June 1, 2024. (Photo: Will Allen / via The Sanders Institute)

Offering a concrete example for workers to rally around, Leopold proposed in Vermont—something he has written about extensively in recent months, including for Common Dreams—is the idea of putting a target on mass layoffs and stock buybacks by large employers to help galvanize working-class power.

What he’s calling for is a provision which would prohibit any company that receives a government contract from carrying out a compulsory mass layoff—defined as the termination of 50 jobs or more at one time.

“Think about how easy it is to add one sentence to a federal contract, which says: ‘If you take this contract, no compulsory layoffs, no stock buybacks,” Leopold told Common Dreams. Having calculated the amount of money flowing through such contracts for large corporations at about $700 billion, he admits it’s not clear exactly how many jobs that could save—but it would be a significant number.

“Well, $700 billion worth of no layoffs is a lot of no layoffs,” he said, but even more important is this: “It would be a fight.” And if the Democratic Party was willing to put such a proposal into its 2024 platform it would be a signal that the party was willing to go to bat for working people in ways it has not done in a very long time.

“If they fight for that plank, people will hear them,” said Leopold. “It would show there’s a fight going on in Democratic Party on behalf of the working class. Then labor can rally. Then progressive organizations can rally. But there has to be a fight.”

“You’re going to conduct a mass layoff or spend billions on stock buybacks while there’s layoffs, then you don’t get the federal contract. The federal government has a lot of power with the purse strings that they need to use.”

Last week, Leopold wrote an op-ed calling for President Joe Biden to intervene on behalf John Deere workers facing mass layoffs by the owners of the iconic tractor company. “Come on Joe, go to bat for these workers,” Leopold wrote. “Put the heat on John Deere and show the working class that you’re tougher than Trump when it comes to saving American jobs.”

And Nelson agrees that the onus is on the Democrats to be much bolder than they have been.

“The Democratic Party has to put working peoples central to its platform and put in its platform things like Les Leopold’s idea on mass layoffs,” she told Common Dreams.

“It’s a very simple idea,” Nelson continued, but it’s exactly on the right track. “You’re going to conduct a mass layoff or spend billions on stock buybacks while there’s layoffs, then you don’t get the federal contract. The federal government has a lot of power with the purse strings that they need to use.”

Despite the hopes for big labor’s abilities to get something dramatic accomplished in the coming months and years, both in their own contract fights and building up their own unions, Leopold said they also need to use their size and resources to help build “an organization for unorganized workers.”

Leopold happens to think the mass layoffs could be a vehicle for that, though he admits it’s not been tested and would need a much larger buy-in as a strategy before it could be proven effective. Jayaraman noted in her discussion with Common Dreams that low wages is a more likely issue for the broader working class to organize around.

“If we’re waiting for the law to change, we’re just going to keep waiting until we’re completely extinct.”

Nelson recognized the value of a number of approaches, and said unions and the unorganized workforce must go much further than they’ve gone since Reagan busted the PATCO strike in 1981.

“We have to organize like never before,” she said, noting how large established unions like the UAW have been putting resources and energy into helping non-unionized works in the south, including Tennessee and Alabama, win recognition. “That’s important,” Nelson explained, “but it’s also not enough if we’re really going to do the kind of organizing that can truly put a check on capital and change the political environment.”

When it comes to the Pro Act, or Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which would enhance workers rights and that Democrats tried but failed to pass during the first half of Biden’s term, Nelson said it is very much “a chicken and egg situation.” The legislation, she said, “is not going to come before we organize more workers” in order to tilt the political scales that would make passage possible.

“So if we’re waiting for the law to change,” she warned, “we’re just going to keep waiting until we’re completely extinct.”

Referencing an effort by United Auto Worker’s president Shawn Fain to align as many contract fights as possible around May 1, 2028 in an effort to further create broader worker solidarity and increase pressure across various trade and service union sectors and industries, Nelson expressed hope for Leopold’s mass layoff idea and what Fain has proposed.

Both show, she said, “the working class that there is a way to be strategic” and can wake people up to “the power we have in standing together,” whether it be on wages, firings, union card campaigns, or contract fights.

And it may not take as long as May of 2028, Nelson added. “The moment may come to us before then, but talking about and really defining the problems—which we’re doing over and over again—is key, showing that these are not isolated issues,” she said. “The issue with housing, the issue with gun violence, the issue with healthcare, the issue with education and debt—these are not isolated issues. The issue is pure and simple corporate greed, and that’s what we have to organize against.”

“The issue with housing, the issue with gun violence, the issue with healthcare, the issue with education and debt—these are not isolated issues. The issue is pure and simple corporate greed, and that’s what we have to organize against.”

“Solidarity is our power,” Nelson explained during her interview with Common Dreams. “And so the strike is not itself the most powerful weapon here. It is the consciousness of worker power and the threat of the strike that is going to make change in our economy and in people’s lives.”

In a podcast interview with Sen. Bernie Sanders earlier this week, Fain of the UAW spoke along similar lines.

“We have to harness that power” of working class power led by organized labor, Fain said to Sanders.

“Union or not, we have to bring workers together all over, not just in America, but all over the globe,” Fain continued. “We want to see working class people all over this globe come together. The only way we’re going to beat the corporate global fight is by standing together globally and fighting for better standards for everyone and standard wages for everyone. So we lift everyone up everywhere. And to a lot of people, that seems like a pipe dream. I don’t believe it is.”

It was during the panel discussion in Burlington that Nelson looked out at the audience where Sen. Sanders—”our organizer-in-chief,” she called him—was seated and thanked him for the leadership he showed in both 2016 and 2020 while seeking the Democratic nomination for president.

“We want to see working class people all over this globe come together.” —UAW president Shawn Fain

“One of the reasons that unions are one of the most popular ideas in this country is because Bernie Sanders went around this country telling people that the trade union movement is the only way for us to lift up the standards for the working class,” Nelson said. “It is the only way to get back to the issues that we were talking about a hundred years ago and pushing forward on them. It is the only way to build the power that we need to change our politics. It is the only way to give working people agency to feel the democracy is something that they own, not what the capital class does.”

While speaking of Trump—who “lives the very antithesis of what it means to be union”—and his Republican Party with outright contempt as enemies of working people everywhere, Nelson was clear that nobody should think the Democratic Party is riding courageously to the rescue of the tens of millions of workers who toil and sweat to provide themselves and their families a decent life.

“The working class is going to save the working class,” she said. “It’s never going to be a party. We are going to bring politics to us if we do our jobs right. It doesn’t happen the other way around.”


Jon Queally is managing editor of Common Dreams.

Before the Boeing Disaster, the Company Lobbied Lawmakers to Deregulate Airplane Safety / by Katya Schwenk, Freddy Brewster, and Lucy Dean Stockton

An Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX-9 aircraft grounded at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) in Seattle, Washington, on January 6, 2024 | David Ryder / Bloomberg via Getty Images

Despite allegations of “excessive” defects ahead of the recent Boeing disaster, the company and its parts supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, used their deep pockets to lobby Washington to reduce safety regulations.

Reposted from Jacobin


The manufacturers of the door plug that blew out of a jetliner last week have used their deep pockets and connections in Washington, DC, to reduce safety regulations, pressure federal officials, and boost production after two previous crashes and other safety incidents, records show.

The campaign donations, lobbying money, and regulatory waivers underscore critics’ assertions that Boeing and its long-time parts supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, have used their political influence in both parties to endanger air passengers.

Last week’s high-altitude debacle — in which a door plug manufactured by Spirit blew off an Alaska Airlines plane mid-flight over Portland, Oregon — followed two Boeing aircraft crashes in 2018 and 2019 that together killed 346 people, and another fatal incident in 2018 that saw a woman partially sucked out of a plane when a small engine explosion shattered a window.

On Monday, the Lever reported allegations from Spirit employees of “excessive” defects in the supplier’s manufacturing. According to court documents, the workers said they were instructed to conceal the problems. Some workers who spoke up were fired, according to allegations stemming from a new federal lawsuit.

While Spirit workers were allegedly being told to falsify inspection reports and ship out products to Boeing “as quickly as possible,” the company was doling out campaign cash to lawmakers who then fought for the company’s interests in Washington.

In one instance, Republican representative Ron Estes (KS) — one of the top recipients of Spirit-affiliated campaign cash — pressured the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over its previous grounding of the 737 MAX. As Spirit faced potential profit losses from the grounding, Estes insisted that the FAA’s extended process of recertifying the airplane after two crashes was resulting in “negative repercussions” and warned that “until recertification [of the Boeing 737 MAX] is complete,” Spirit and its workers would suffer.

In another instance, Democratic senator Maria Cantwell (WA) — who has received nearly $200,000 in contributions from Boeing’s political action committee and employees — pushed through legislation to exempt Boeing’s 737 MAX models from a looming safety deadline that would have required changes in their alerting systems. The move came despite concerns from the families of the passengers who died in the 2018 and 2019 crashes.

Over the last four years, Boeing and Spirit’s political action committees and employees have together reported spending more than $65 million on lobbying and federal campaign contributions. That includes Spirit donors spending $210,000 lobbying Congress on “advanced aviation manufacturing” and other issues in the first three quarters of 2023, disclosures show.

In the first three quarters of 2023, Boeing donors spent more than $10.6 million — the sixteenth most of any US company — lobbying the White House, lawmakers, the FAA, and other regulators on “Aviation safety,” certifications, and other issues. The company’s lobbying expenditures have ranged between $12.6 million and $15.2 million annually since 2018.

Of late, Boeing has been pressing regulators at the FAA to weaken safety standards for its new 737 MAX 7 models.

There’s mounting evidence that Boeing has known about myriad safety issues and critics say the company has done little to properly address them. Boeing officials were aware of the faulty safety sensors that led to crashes in 2018 and 2019.

In fact, messages sent between 2015 and 2018 among Boeing employees shows how they joked that the 737 MAX planes were “designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys.” Messages also show employees bragging about how they tricked a federal aviation regulator by “making them feel stupid” for trying to require additional training.

Boeing officials are also aware of potentially deadly side effects from an anti-ice system that can cause engine parts to overheat and break off mid-flight, but are seeking a safety exemption to allow the parts to be used.

“I think the culture that still prevails at the top management levels of Boeing is ‘We’re watching the stock price.’ Safety and quality are a secondary concern,” former representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), and former chair of the House Transportation Committee, told the Lever. “The FAA has to finally hold the line with Boeing. It’s time for that company to clean up their act.”

DeFazio added, “Do we want to put thousands of more planes in the air that have the same defect? How many years is that going to take [to fix]?”

Neither Boeing nor Spirit replied to the Lever’s requests for comment for this story.

In response to earlier questions related to the recent incident in Portland, a spokesperson from Spirit AeroSystems said over email, “A Spirit team is now supporting the [National Transportation Safety Board]’s investigation directly. As a company, we remain focused on the quality of each aircraft structure that leaves our facilities.”

Boeing CEO David Calhoun said the aircraft company needs to address the current near-catastrophe involving the door plug with “complete transparency.”

“We’re gonna approach it with 100 percent and complete transparency every step of the way,” Calhoun said at a town hall with Boeing employees on Tuesday. “We are going to work with the [National Transportation Safety Board], who is investigating the accident itself to find out what the cause is.”

“Do Everything Necessary to Get the 737 MAX Safely Back in the Air”

After the two devastating fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019, which involved faulty control systems that caused planes to nosedive, the FAA, following the lead of authorities around the world, in March 2019 grounded Boeing’s 737 MAX aircraft until it determined the planes could be flown safely and could recertify them for normal operation.

The delay in rolling out Boeing’s flagship new model represented a major financial blow for Boeing, but also for the airplane company’s suppliers, like Spirit, which makes the 737 MAX’s fuselages — the main body of the airplanes. Company executives have said that Spirit makes 70 percent of the 737 MAX’s structure.

Spirit was established in 2005 as a spinoff company from Boeing, and Boeing remains Spirit’s primary customer, representing as much as 60 percent of the company’s revenue, according to Spirit’s most recent annual report. After the 737 MAXs were grounded in 2019, the supplier’s revenue at one point plummeted by 58 percent year over year, executives told investors on an earnings call in November 2020.

By December 2019, with uncertainty hanging over the FAA’s recertification process for the 737 MAX, reports were circulating that Boeing planned to pause production of the plane entirely. In January 2020, Spirit AeroSystems — fearing the pause would send the company into a financial tailspin — announced it would lay off twenty-eight hundred workers.

In Washington, lawmakers, well funded by Spirit, stepped in.

On January 10, 2020, shortly after the layoffs were proposed, Senator Jerry Moran (KS) — the senior Republican on the Senate subcommittee overseeing aviation safety — issued a statement saying he had spoken with both Boeing’s then-brand-new CEO, former Blackstone exec Calhoun and the FAA administrator at the time, Stephen Dickson, urging them to “do everything necessary to get the 737 MAX safely back in the air.”

At the time, Spirit was — and remains — a top campaign contributor to Moran. Since 2019, the company has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Moran and political action committees working to reelect him, campaign finance data shows, making Spirit the number-two donor to Moran in recent years.

Asked about Moran’s relationship with Spirit, Tom Brandt, a spokesperson for the senator, pointed to a series of tweets Moran posted about the Alaska Airlines incident on Tuesday that did not mention the company.

“I am closely monitoring this investigation to ensure the safety of the flying public,” Moran wrote in one tweet. “For the thousands of Kansans who work in aviation, their jobs depend on the passengers feeling safe to fly.”

Another key recipient of Spirit cash is Estes, whose district includes Wichita, where Spirit is based. The aviation giant’s political action committee and employees are collectively Estes’s biggest career contributor. Four days after Moran’s statement, Estes, too, intervened.

On January 14, 2020, Estes wrote a letter to the FAA, which began by praising the agency for “its willingness to treat the ongoing Boeing 737 MAX situation with caution,” but then warned that Spirit, and its workers, were being “jeopardized” by pausing construction on the 737 MAX.

“I am concerned that the FAA is following a process for returning the 737 MAX to service that is not guided by a defined process with standards, expectations, and a schedule,” he wrote, saying that suppliers were “wondering what prerequisites the FAA will demand and for how long their livelihoods will be impacted.”

Estes did not respond to the Lever’s requests for comment.

Two weeks later, on January 30, 2020, Spirit announced that it had come to an agreement with Boeing to resume limited production of the 737 MAX, although the plane had not yet been recertified. Yet the pressure from lawmakers didn’t entirely ease.

“I look forward to Spirit’s ultimate return to robust production levels,” Moran wrote in a statement the same day.

With the onset of the pandemic, conditions worsened yet again for Spirit, as the aviation industry ground to a halt worldwide. The supplier went through additional rounds of layoffs — which former employees in the December 2023 lawsuit said impacted the quality of its manufacturing.

In September 2020, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, then cochaired by DeFazio, released a 238-page report on the Boeing 737 MAX crashes, detailing “a horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing’s engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing’s management, and grossly insufficient oversight by the FAA.”

Two months later, on November 18, 2020, Dickson, then the head of the FAA, signed an order that allowed for Boeing’s 737 MAX aircrafts to return to commercial operations after certain criteria were met, including design changes and updated training requirements.

The FAA said the planes were allowed to return to service after a twenty-month safety review process during which “FAA employees worked diligently to identify and address the safety issues that played a role in the tragic loss of 346 lives aboard Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.”

Moran and Estes both helped secure Spirit more than $75 million in federal COVID-19 relief dollars in September 2021 — the largest federal award at the time in the aviation industry.

The airline industry, which is considered essential to American travel and commerce, was given an enormous lifeline to avoid laying off workers and resume regular travel when it was designated safe. Instead, major carriers laid off workers anyway, rewarded executives with huge bonuses, and were ill-prepared for travel to resume despite receiving billions of dollars to retain workers.

Amid all the financial strain — both from the 737 MAX grounding and the pandemic — workers said in the federal lawsuit that Spirit cultivated a culture of production over quality, as it worked to ramp back up the production of Boeing’s 737 MAX, with support from lawmakers like Moran and Estes. (Spirit told the Lever Wednesday it “strongly disagrees” with the claims made in the lawsuit, but has not provided additional specifics.)

The company, one worker said, “just wanted to ship its completed products as quickly as possible.”

Ticket to Ride

Spirit’s political spending, however, pales in comparison to what Boeing spends to woo lawmakers in Washington.

Boeing has a history of lobbying lawmakers on safety regulations, dating back to at least 2017. Since 2020, Boeing has spent nearly $50 million lobbying Congress, the White House, the FAA, and a slew of other federal regulators on issues including aviation safety, aircraft certifications, COVID relief money, weapons sales, and space exploration, disclosures show.

Before two deadly crashes involving Boeing planes in 2018 and 2019, Boeing “helped craft” and “shap[ed] the language” of a bill that weakens the government’s ability to approve designs of new airplanes, the New York Times reported in 2019. That bill was passed into law in 2018, just weeks before a Boeing plane crashed in Indonesia.

Cantwell, chair of the Senate panel that oversees the airline industry, represents Washington State, where Boeing was founded. Boeing representatives also currently serve as members on a subcommittee for the FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), which is tasked with recommending airline industry regulations, including safety oversight.

In 2019, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called ARAC a “clandestine committee” that acts as a “proverbial blanket with their lack of transparency and the comfortable cover they provide for companies like Boeing.”

Schumer pushed for Boeing representatives to no longer be included as formal members of ARAC, a move that was seemingly granted — but the airline manufacturer currently has representatives on an ARAC subcommittee called the Transport Aircraft and Engines Subcommittee.

In Boeing’s recent troubles, its close connections to Washington have paid off. At the end of 2022, the company was facing a looming FAA deadline to update safety features for the cockpits on two versions of its 737 fleets — the MAX 7 and 10 — which it was set to miss.

Instead of complying with requirements for new and retrofitted technology, as other aviation manufacturers did, the company and its lobbyists descended on Washington, pushing for an exemption from lawmakers, claiming that its current model was safe and could still win FAA certification.

Key players in the negotiations had received big money from both Boeing and the aviation industry as a whole. One was Cantwell, who has received more than $90,000 from Boeing donors over the last two election cycles. According to OpenSecrets, she is among the top three recipients of aviation industry dollars in Congress, receiving $82,613 in the first three quarters of 2023 alone.

Other lawmakers pushed for an extension for Boeing with even fewer strings attached — including Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), who has received $57,000 from Boeing donors over the past several election cycles. Like Cantwell, Wicker serves on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Ultimately, after lawmakers proposed exemptions for Boeing in a defense spending bill that were nixed, Boeing managed to secure the waiver, which contained limited additional safety requirements, in a must-pass omnibus spending bill in December 2022. The move came despite the resolute opposition of the families of the victims of the 2018 and 2019 fatal 737 MAX crashes.

The whole saga was a “classic example,” said Ed Pierson, a former senior Boeing employee who now leads the nonprofit Foundation for Aviation Safety, of how Boeing has managed to successfully leverage its “lobbying horsepower” in Washington, even amid public outcry about safety. And it has continued to push for safety exemptions.

“This is going to require a lot of ongoing attention,” Pierson said of the systemic issues at Boeing. “The FAA is really asleep at the wheel. And they’ve been asleep at the wheel for a while.”

Boeing’s regulatory capture has been well-reported, in Seattle and in Washington, DC, the FAA had been considered the global aviation industry’s gold standard since it was established in 1958. But by 2006, the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog agency, was warning the FAA that their programs were becoming ineffective because of their tight relationships with and lax supervision of industry leaders like Boeing.

The FAA was one of the last regulators across the globe to ground the 737 MAX planes following the two crashes in 2018 and 2019.

Most recently, Boeing asked the FAA for an exemption for safety standards relating to anti-ice systems of its still-uncertified 737 MAX 7 plane. An anti-ice system failure caused the 2018 accident in which a passenger was partially sucked out of a shattered plane window and killed.

The Foundation for Aviation Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for additional oversight and safety regulation in the aviation industry, warned that if Boeing received the new exemptions, a defect in the system could lead to “a potentially catastrophic failure.”

Less than one month later, the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 took off from Portland.


Katya Schwenk is a journalist based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Freddy Brewster is a freelance reporter and has been published in the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, CalMatters, the Lost Coast Outpost, and other outlets across California.

Lucy Dean Stockton is the news editor at the Lever.