We are rapidly becoming LESS economically free than Communist China. If Obama wins this, Boeing needs to move headquarters and production off-shore, else it will become no more than a tool for its unions until it fails - at which time it will inevitably be bailed out and given to the unions.The basis for the NLRB position is that Boeing demonstrably used illegal threats as coercion when negotiating with the Union. It's one thing to build a factory wherever you want, another thing entirely to beat your contracted employees over the head with it when bargaining. That's illegal, rightfully so.
It was arrogant and stupid of Boeing management to do things that way, particularly when they have advanced degrees, additional training wrt labor relations, and an army of lawyers.
There have to be consequences for that, and Boeing having to build the second assy line in Washington is the consequence that the NLRB seeks. They haven't taken anything away from S Carolina other than a promise from Boeing. Their plant will continue to operate, if Boeing chooses to do so.
The basis for the NLRB position is that Boeing demonstrably used illegal threats as coercion when negotiating with the Union. It's one thing to build a factory wherever you want, another thing entirely to beat your contracted employees over the head with it when bargaining. That's illegal, rightfully so.
Illegal threats? Boeing said "if you go on strike and shut down our production, we'll build our new plant in a right to work state." Now the NLRB is saying Boeing can't do that, because it would deprive the Union's ability to extort Boeing...
That's pretty much the unions' position. You can expand your plant here, but we'll make sure it's not profitable.According to the NLRA (the law), its a threat. You can't threaten to close or move a plant because of protected union activity.
It would be like saying to someone, you can vote, but I'll shoot you in the head if you don't vote the way I tell you. It undermines the right.
Have you ever taken the ferry to Shelbyville?
According to the NLRA (the law), its a threat. You can't threaten to close or move a plant because of protected union activity.
Boeing isn't threatening to move or shut down anything. They want to build an additional plant. Having the additional plant in a right-to-work state would prevent the union from being able to threaten Boeing with a total production shutdown.
Why is it the union can threaten Boeing with a strike and using the iron first of government to force their demands, but Boeing isn't allowed to build a new plant wherever they choose because that would "threaten" the union's power?
We're living in Atlas Shrugged. I swear it's like the liberals read the book and thought it was a great idea and so now they are trying to emulate it.
Workers have a legal right to form a union. And any statement made by Boeing that suggests that having a union would make them less competetive is a violation of the Act. Any action to locate a plant to "avoid a union" is a violation of the Act.
The case law here is clear. The Labor Board is simply enforcing the Act.
Welcome to the new Amerika, where reality is against the law. Did you suggest that regularly refusing to build aircraft for months at a time might not make for the most competitive aircraft building company? Come along then. Time to furlough another murderer to make room to incarcerate your dangerous ass.Workers have a legal right to form a union. And any statement made by Boeing that suggests that having a union would make them less competetive is a violation of the Act. Any action to locate a plant to "avoid a union" is a violation of the Act.
The case law here is clear. The Labor Board is simply enforcing the Act.
How does having a second plant in a right-to-work state make the union less competitive, aside from lessening their ability to illegally extort Boeing?
It's like saying I'm violating the act by mowing my own lawn, because I didn't hire a unionized landscaper to do it, which makes them less competitive, and therefore it is illegal for me to mow my own lawn.
Shit, I better not give them any ideas. :hmm:
Illegal threats? Boeing said "if you go on strike and shut down our production, we'll build our new plant in a right to work state." Now the NLRB is saying Boeing can't do that, because it would deprive the Union's ability to extort Boeing...
Screw it, Boeing should just move the work overseas and fire the union workers.
The question is whether or not Obama will allow the plant to be built in South Carolina, or any right to work state.It would be better to move the work to NC then send it overseas.
Workers have a legal right to form a union. And any statement made by Boeing that suggests that having a union would make them less competetive is a violation of the Act. Any action to locate a plant to "avoid a union" is a violation of the Act.
The case law here is clear. The Labor Board is simply enforcing the Act.
The question is whether or not Obama will allow the plant to be built in South Carolina, or any right to work state.
There really needs to be a term for fascism in economics that does not have the loaded history of the Brown Shirts or Nazis. Economically this is pure fascism, with government dictating what one can manufacture and where one can manufacture it, but I hesitate to call it that simply because so much besides economics is tied up in the term.
Illegal threats? Boeing said "if you go on strike and shut down our production, we'll build our new plant in a right to work state." Now the NLRB is saying Boeing can't do that, because it would deprive the Union's ability to extort Boeing...
Those workers who work in non-union companies derive the benefit of having union workers benchmark their comparable industry wage line through their negotiating efforts.
If it weren't for unions bargaining for fair wages and benefits, all of which the negotiators for those companies fully agree to as being fair (which all of you union detractors always completely ignore), the wage/benefit packages for non-union workers wouldn't be anywhere near what they earn now.
Non-union workers know that every time a union of similar occupation fights for fair wages and benefits and get them, they will eventually benefit from it by seeing a similar rise in their pay/benefit packages. These non-union workers cheer on those unionized workers in silence for fear of retribution from management, something that unionized workers have protection from.
The unions created the middle class, and it's fair to say that as the unions go, so goes the middle class. The unions got what they now have through their bargaining for fair compensation. Every contract that gets negotiated between unions and companies must have the full blessing of the management negotiating team that sits at the bargaining table with them or there would be no agreement between the two. How that can be construed in any way as "union arm-twisting" and "thuggery" on the part of the unions is pure big business propagandized hubris and hyperbole.
Every non-union worker owes their unionized counterpart a debt of gratitude for risking life and limb in the earlier days of union activism and risking their livelihoods and future employability in the here and now. Like it or not, it's an undeniable fact of life.
To reiterate, the unions set the benchmark for the present day wages and benefits that their non-unionized counterparts now enjoy. This is why getting rid of the unions is of the highest priority for big business. They know it, the unions know it, but big business is doing its utmost best to hide this fact so as to make it so much easier to divide and conquer the middle class out of existence.
edit - As for this talk about the NLRB being pro-union, I, as well as any company official or petitioning employee will tell you that from long experience, especially at the local level, the NLRB is decidedly pro-business, no two ways about it.
My personal experience is that, like a lot of things in this country, the current individuals in union leadership roles are standing on the shoulders of previous great men and calling themselves tall. I worked for Verizon as a field tech in NYC, and after doing 8 repair jobs in one day (I could have done as many as 12 but I actually was taking it easy) I was physically confronted by the older workers and told, more or less, that I would do my 3-4 assigned daily jobs or get into an unfortunate accident. That was a nice touch. They could have just threatened to beat my ass rather than knock me off a telephone pole.
Long story short: unions are a great thing, but they also get bloated and greedy, like anything else.
Yeah, I should have said "finished", not "built".The plant is probably about 80% built already. I have lots of friends working there. Production has started...
TWA closed down the HUB in St. Louis, MO and moved it with no problem. This happens all the time. It is just a business decision. Maybe they should close their whole business and move to a right to work state.
Perhaps. It's also possible that Obama will send men with guns to shut down the South Carolina factory.an airline hub is not the same thing as a manufacturing facility. Airlines use hubs to facilitate passenger traffic. The airlines lease terminals from airport authorities and do not actually build airports. It is pretty easy to move an airplane operations from one airport to another.
Boeing is building a manufacturing facility.
If I were the CEO of Boeing, I would stay the course. My the time this made it to the supreme court.. Boeing would be making the 787 in South Carolina and a president with sense would be in office.
It started as bad blood between aerospace giant Boeing Co. and its unionized production workers.
But now a feud over Boeings decision to assemble some of its 787 jetliners at a new, non-union facility in South Carolina has mushroomed into a very public and highly political fight over outsourcing, right-to-work states and the future of the National Labor Relations Board.
The clash's outcome could hinge on whether Boeing executives publicly said more than they should have about their motivation for opening the new plant in South Carolina.
This is a unique case, said Ross Runkel, professor of law emeritus at Willamette University and an expert in labor law.
The battle centers around Boeings 2009 decision to build a second assembly line for its much-delayed 787 "Dreamliner" in North Charleston, S.C. Thats in addition to a 787 assembly line in Washington state, where Boeing also assembles its other commercial jets.
The new factory is set to open in July. But in April the NLRB, a government agency charged with safeguarding union rights, filed a complaint accusing Boeing of violating labor law in its motive for locating the work in South Carolina.
The NLRB isn't asking Boeing to close the new facility, but it does want the company to make a temporary production line in Washington state permanent.
An initial hearing is scheduled for June 14, but already the case is being discussed extensively in the court of public opinion.
Boeing has called the complaint an attack on its ability to do business freely, and Republicans are accusing the NLRB of having overstepped its bounds.
I do not believe unelected bureaucracies should be allowed to go down the road the NLRB is charting, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in a statement.
Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich even called for congressional Republicans to withdraw the NLRB's funding, at least temporarily.
Democrats have accused Republicans of meddling. Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada called their actions disgraceful and dangerous.
We wouldn't allow threats to prosecutors or U.S. attorneys, trying to stop them from moving forward with charges they see fit to bring to the courts. And we shouldn't stand for this, he said.
The verbal sparring has been so highly charged that the NLRB recently took the unusual step of defending bringing its complaint.
Contrary to certain public statements made in recent weeks, there is nothing remarkable or unprecedented about the complaint issued against the Boeing Company on April 20, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon said in a statement last month.
'Its really about the motive for the move'
The NLRB says it doesn't object to Boeing's decision to build a second assembly plant in South Carolina. The issue, it charges, is that company executives said publicly, and repeatedly, that a major factor in the decision was two recent strikes, in 2005 and 2008, by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the union representing Boeing production workers.
If they said, Were going to move this work to South Carolina because we cant afford to keep paying the wage in Washington, even, that would have been OK. But they cant say its because of a strike, because a strike is a legally protected activity, said Nancy Kleeland, a spokeswoman for the NLRB. Its really about the motive for the move, not the move itself.
Read the NLRB's complaint and Boeing's response
Boeing Chief Executive James McNerney thinks otherwise.
In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, he called the NLRBs complaint a fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago.
McNerney accused the NLRB of trying to create a world in which companies wouldnt be allowed to open factories in "right-to-work" states where union strength is generally much more limited and strikes less likely if they already had operations in unionized states.
McNerney even hinted that the NLRBs complaint could cause manufacturers to consider whether to build facilities domestically at all.
U.S. tax and regulatory policies already make it more attractive for many companies to build new manufacturing capacity overseas. That's something the administration has said it wants to change and is taking steps to address. It appears that message hasn't made it to the front offices of the NLRB, McNerney wrote.
Boeing spokesman Tim Neale said the editorial should not be read as a threat that Boeing, the nations largest exporter and a major domestic employer, will more operations overseas.
It was a general statement about American industry, he said.
Kleeland, the NLRB spokeswoman, said the agency is not asking Boeing to shut down the North Charleston facility. But it does want Boeing to keep open permanently a second, temporary production line the company set up in Everett, Wash., to handle some 787 production work while the North Charleston facility gets up to speed.
Neale said that making the temporary line permanent would be costly and impractical, and that if Boeing were forced to do so it would effectively shut down the North Charleston facility.
Despite the complaint, Neale said Boeing still plans to open the $1 billion North Charleston production facility in July as planned, because it is confident it will win the case. Boeing plans to deliver the first 787 to Japanese airline ANA in August or September, years behind schedule. The new model, intended to be more fuel-efficient than similar jets on the market, has been delayed repeatedly because of supply chain snafus and other problems.
Case is unusual for several reasons
Experts say it could take years for the complaint to wind its way through the court system, if the two sides cant settle before then.
Runkel, the law professor specializing in labor law, said this case is unusual in that Boeing didnt close a unionized facility to open the non-union one.
Boeing is not really talking about moving existing work that the union members are doing. Theyre talking about starting a new line for this airplane, Runkel said.
The company says it has added 2,000 unionized workers in Washington state since announcing the decision to open the South Carolina facility in October 2009, plus about 1,000 workers so far in South Carolina. Last week three Boeing employees in South Carolina asked to be part of the proceedings, arguing that they could lose their jobs if the NLRB prevails.
Runkel said its also an unusual case because the NLRB has so much documentation showing that Boeing executives cited previous strikes as a major reason in their decision to open the North Charleston facility.
Its one of those things that might be in somebodys mind, and the really smart people dont say it out loud, Runkel said.
Runkel expects those statements to become a critical focal point in the case.
Neale said the full context of the Boeing comments shows that executives were simply acknowledging that the economic effects of the strike were part of the reasoning, which the company believes is legal.
Officials with Machinists Local 751, the union that initially petitioned the NLRB to file a complaint, said they expected that the move wouldnt be popular with politicians such as South Carolinas Republican Gov. Nikki Haley. But a spokesman said they didnt foresee such a broad Republican attack on the NLRB itself.
I dont think anybody could have anticipated that, said Machinists spokesman Bryan Corliss.
But this is one of those situations where nobody "wins" the case.I can remember before Reagan was elected, 9 out of 10 cases before the Labor Board were won by labor. After Reagan was in for awhile, 9 out of 10 cases were won by management.
I guess what goes around, comes around.