The NLRB and Boeing

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wiseacre, Apr 21, 2011.

  1. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    The complaint described below will be heard by the NLRB in June. Since it tilts towards Big Labor now that a former SEIU lawyer (Craig Becker) is on the board, it's not hard to figure which way they'll vote. Don't know if this'll end up in court somewhere, but I hope so. Seems to me a company should have the right to locate future plants where ver it deems is best for them instead of the unions.

    According the an op-ed inthe WSJ today, when Boeing execs talked with the union about building the plant in Washington state at it's existing plant. But the union wanted a seat at the board and a promise that Boeing would build all future planes there. So, Boeing looked elsewhere and settled on South Carolina, which is a right to work state. Do you think unions should have veto power over management decisions such as this?

    BTW, it's from the NY Times, go figure

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21boeing.html?ref=todayspaper

    Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law
    By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
    In what may be the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, the agency filed a complaint Wednesday seeking to force Boeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in Washington State instead of moving the work to a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

    In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

    Read more at link.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2011
  2. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    This will be one to watch. Boeing's deicision is clearly business in nature, and the NLRB has shown nothing to prove otherwise. Their opinion on this decision is worthless is a court of law. I hope....

     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2011
  3. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    This is part of the Obama Administration's payback to the unions for getting them elected.
     
  4. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    Well, lets see, Boeing is expanding, like a good Corp. citizen they are building a plant here in the US, South Carolina to be exact, as they choose a place where they feel the climate, business wise etc. is friendlier.

    It is a RTW state.

    Uh oh.


    Naturally the Union appears to have an issue with that. Read the article,even after Mgt. tried to make it work in Wash.

    I cannot phantom any reasoning as to how the NLRB could even construct a logical case to be made before said judge asking for said injunction.

    Yes, by all means lets mess with the last top to bottom manufacturer that rules the global market from here in the US, what could go wrong? Madness.

    So, whats one reason co's move offshore again?



    The Death of Right to Work

    After 17 months and $2 billion, the NLRB sandbags Boeing.
    APRIL 21, 2011


    snip-
    In 2009 Boeing announced plans to build a new plant to meet demand for its new 787 Dreamliner. Though its union contract didn't require it, Boeing executives negotiated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to build the plane at its existing plant in Washington state. The talks broke down because the union wanted, among other things, a seat on Boeing's board and a promise that Boeing would build all future airplanes in Puget Sound.

    So Boeing management did what it judged to be best for its shareholders and customers and looked elsewhere. In October 2009, the company settled on South Carolina, which, like the 21 other right-to-work states, has friendlier labor laws than Washington. As Boeing chief Jim McNerney noted on a conference call at the time, the company couldn't have "strikes happening every three to four years." The union has shut down Boeing's commercial aircraft production line four times since 1989, and a 58-day strike in 2008 cost the company $1.8 billion.

    This reasonable business decision created more than 1,000 jobs and has brought around $2 billion of investment to South Carolina. The aerospace workers in Puget Sound remain among the best paid in America, but the union nonetheless asked the NLRB to stop Boeing's plans before the company starts to assemble planes in North Charleston this July.

    The NLRB obliged with its complaint yesterday asking an administrative law judge to stop Boeing's South Carolina production because its executives had cited the risk of strikes as a reason for the move. Boeing acted out of "anti-union animus," says the complaint by acting general counsel Lafe Solomon, and its decision to move had the effect of "discouraging membership in a labor organization" and thus violates federal law.

    It's hard to know which law he's referring to. There are plentiful legal precedents that give business the right to locate operations in right-to-work states. That right has created healthy competition among states and kept tens of millions of jobs in America rather than heading overseas.

    more at-

    Review & Outlook: The Death of Right to Work - WSJ.com
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2011
  5. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    And people (some) still wonder why unions are despised in this country today.
     
  6. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,166
    Thanks Received:
    10,168
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,732
    Unions are a pain in da ass aren't they?
     
  7. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    Ooops, sorry for doubling up the thread...wish the title were more descriptive though :(
    :lol:
     
  8. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    and I love how the NY Times puts this-

    New? new???:lol:.................hacks.


    go google Delta Airlines and Unionization and see what you find. The NLRB did everything but stand the ceo up against the wall and they still could not get all of Delta to unionize. ;)
     
  9. Granny
    Offline

    Granny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,131
    Thanks Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Rocky Top, TN
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    NLRB is the union(s) attorneys. They represent unions in employment matters. I truly don't know why anyone would want to be in a union of any kind in this day and age. They outlived their usefulness decades ago. Those who benefit most from union dues are the high paid union executives at the top of the ladder.
     
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    It seems the government can now tell companies which states they can be in. When did that happen, and how is it in any way even remotely constitutional? Is this under the general welfare, the commerce clause, or did I miss a unions clause when I read the Constitution?

    I really liked this part buried near the bottom of the story.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21boeing.html?_r=1
     

Share This Page