Boeing the Union and politics.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Navy1960, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    "Mike Luttig, Boeing's GC (general counsel), called me at 2 p.m. He told me that he was 'miffed' that although he had done what I asked (REDACTED), I was still considering issuing complaint. I told him that the Machinists had proposed (REDACTED). He told me that rather than accept that offer, he thought that he would go to the Hill to prevent me from litigating the case."

    Boeing spokesman Tim Neale told IBD the conversation was part of the company's NLRB-facilitated discussions with the IAM.

    "The acting general counsel informed Boeing that he would not proceed with the complaint if Boeing committed not to lay off any IAM employees working on the 787 (airplane) through the remainder of Boeing's existing collective bargaining agreement with the IAM," Neale said.
    http://news.investors.com/Article/591247/201111101810/NLRB-Emails-Boeing-Labor-Union-Deal.htm

    While in I remain supportive of any American to work and have the opportunities to do so and that includes Union members, it does seem that in this case the IAM is shooting themselves in the foot as well as this nations economy in the foot by suggesting that Boeing is somehow using the 787's new line in S.C. as a means simply to get back at the Union. Forgive me but the 787 is one of the biggest selling new aircraft of all time and Boeing currently has 797 of them on order and with the recent annoucement of the UAE's purchase of 50 777's and the USAF contract for 100 Tankers it's not like the IAM won't be busy for some time to come. It would be a tragic mistake on the part of the NLRB to even suggest that the IAM should force Boeing to relocate the 2nd 787 plant to Washington given the delays the aircraft has suffered and the current economic situation. I tend to believe that the actions of the IAM were taken based on it's preception that given the current political climate the NLRB would simply tell 1100 people in S.C. to go on unemployment and delay the project even more to make a point. This is not good for this nations economy, nor is good for the IAM which should be concentrating on expanding its membership in the new location perhaps ?
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2011

Share This Page