The NLRB and Boeing

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Apr 8, 2011
6,025
1,298
48
San Antonio, TX
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.
 
Last edited:
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....

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.
 
Last edited:
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:
and I love how the NY Times puts this-

the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board

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. ;)
 
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.
 
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?

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.
Although manufacturers have long moved plants to nonunion states, the board noted that Boeing officials had, in internal documents and news interviews, specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South Carolina.

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

Boeing said on Wednesday that none of the production jobs in South Carolina had come at the expense of jobs in Washington. It noted that its unionized employment in the Puget Sound area had increased by 2,000 since it announced its decision to expand in South Carolina.

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

Yup.

Lets not forget the millioins the Unions donate to Dems come election time.

A company should be able to build a plant in any location they wish to. The Labor board needs to fuck off.
 
Since when does a Labor board have the right to tell a company where or where not to build a plant?? That plant represents jobs in SC.

Talk about a bunch of BS.
 
Since when does a Labor board have the right to tell a company where or where not to build a plant??

They don't. The NLRB has grossly overstepped its authority and has turned itself into nothing more than a farce. This is just typical union thuggery.

No court will allow this decision to stand.
 
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.

Yup.

Lets not forget the millioins the Unions donate to Dems come election time.

A company should be able to build a plant in any location they wish to. The Labor board needs to fuck off.


Make that hundreds of millions. I can see giving worlers the irght to unionize if they want to, to get the best deal they can. But those workers should also have the right to refuse to join or pay dues and still keep their jobs. As well as the right to disband that union if they so desire.
 

Forum List

Back
Top