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.