PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Silence on Boeing Is Unacceptable



DarrinS
04-29-2011, 12:47 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778104576287290266016016.html





In October 2009, Boeing, long one of the best corporations in America, made an announcement that changed the economic outlook of South Carolina forever: The company's second line of 787 Dreamliners would be produced in North Charleston.

In choosing to manufacture in my state, Boeing was exercising its right as a free enterprise in a free nation to conduct business wherever it believed would best serve both the bottom line and the employees of its company. This is not a novel or complicated idea. It's called capitalism.

Boeing has since poured billions of dollars into a new, state-of-the art facility in South Carolina's picturesque Low Country along the Atlantic coast. It has created thousands of good jobs and joined the long tradition of distinguished and employee-friendly corporations that have found a home, and a partner, in the Palmetto State.

This a win-win for South Carolina, for Boeing, and for the global clients who will see Dreamliners rolling off the North Charleston line at the rate of 10 a month, starting with the first one next year. But, as is often the case, a win for people and businesses is a loss for the labor unions, which rely on coercion, bullying and undue political influence to stay afloat.

South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and we're proud that within our borders workers cannot be required to join a labor union as a condition of employment. We don't need unions playing middlemen between our companies and our employees. We don't want them forcefully inserted into our promising business climate. And we will not stand for them intimidating South Carolinians.

That is apparently too much for President Obama and his union-beholden appointees at the National Labor Relations Board, who have asked the courts to intervene and force Boeing to stop production in South Carolina. The NLRB wants Boeing to produce the planes only in Washington state, where its workers must belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Let's be clear: Boeing is a great corporate citizen in Washington and in South Carolina. The company chose to come to our state because the cost of doing business is low, our job training and work force are strong, and our ports are tremendous. The fact that we are a right-to-work state is an added bonus.

The actions by the NLRB are nothing less than a direct assault on the 22 right-to-work states across America. They are also an unprecedented attack on an iconic American company that is being told by the federal government—which seems to regard its authority as endless—where and how to build airplanes.

The president has been silent since his hand-selected NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon, who has not yet been confirmed by the United States Senate as required by law, chose to engage in economic warfare on behalf of the unions last week.

While silence in this case can be assumed to mean consent, President Obama's silence is not acceptable—not to me, and certainly not to the millions of South Carolinians who are rightly aghast at the thought of the greatest economic development success our state has seen in decades being ripped away by federal bureaucrats who appear to be little more than union puppets.

This is not just a South Carolina issue, and President Obama owes the people of our country a response. If they get away with this government-dictated economic larceny, the unions won't stop in our state.

The nation deserves an explanation as to why the president's appointees are doing the machinist union's dirty work on the backs of the businesses and workers of South Carolina.

Ms. Haley, a Republican, is governor of South Carolina.

clambake
04-29-2011, 12:52 PM
you don't like unions?

RandomGuy
04-29-2011, 12:57 PM
Boeing's labour problems: Moving factories to flee unions (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/boeings_labour_problems)


Anyway, here's the sentence I found most amusing in the WSJ's editorial: "Boeing management did what it judged to be best for its shareholders and customers and looked elsewhere." Boeing's motivation for shifting production to an anti-union state was not to benefit customers. If Boeing felt it could raise prices for the airplanes it builds without losing market share, it would do so in a second, regardless of whether that was "best for its customers". Companies try to lower operating costs in order to raise profits or cut prices and win market share, not out of a selfless desire to benefit customers.


But the more important flaw here is that the reason why Boeing might have judged its decision to move production to South Carolina "best for its shareholders" was that it didn't think it violated labour law to flee your union. If it did violate labour law, then Boeing made a bad decision and delivered negative value to its shareholders. ... There is simply no moral content to Boeing's decision to move production to South Carolina. Boeing doesn't get brownie points for engaging in regulatory arbitrage and stiffing its unions just because it judged that move to be best for shareholders. Congratulating Boeing for trying to deliver shareholder value is like congratulating it for building and selling airplanes. That's simply what the company does. Boeing's decision was a judgment about how to play, given its evaluation of the rules of the game. The question of whether companies should be allowed to flee their unions is a question about what the rules of the game ought to be, in order to deliver value to the economy and to society.


Now maybe unionised Boeing workers should be more worried about hurting the company's market share as it competes with EADS and with regional-jet builders like Embraer and Bombardier. It certainly sounds like the company has a strike problem. But EADS's labour force is hardly non-unionised. If Boeing is having more trouble with its unions than its competitors are, it's possible that the fault lies with the company, rather than with the unions. What's happening here is that anti-labour laws in certain states allow companies to shift investment to those states in order to get around their unions. And efforts by unions to block that manoeuvre can then be condemned as "restrictions on capital flow". The issue isn't freedom of capital. The issue is whether employers can use a threat to move production to a union-hostile state as a negotiating tactic in collective bargaining.

MaNuMaNiAc
04-29-2011, 12:59 PM
you don't like unions?

I fucking despise them. They're completely destroying my country (Argentina). Bunch of thugs who want to bully companies into paying without any regards for common sense or knowledge of how business works apparently. I'm not opposed to the idea of unions, I'm vehemently opposed to the reality of them.

George Gervin's Afro
04-29-2011, 01:24 PM
Now darrins promotes the president getting invloved in business/ labor disputes?

DarrinS
04-29-2011, 01:28 PM
Companies try to lower operating costs in order to raise profits or cut prices and win market share, not out of a selfless desire to benefit customers.



Fucking duh


Oh, and those higher operating costs are passed on to us, the consumers.

LnGrrrR
04-29-2011, 01:34 PM
If one doesn't take the OPs assertion that "silence=consent", the whole article falls apart.

Maybe the President doesn't feel it's appropriate to weigh in on the matter.

clambake
04-29-2011, 01:34 PM
depends on the business, darrin. oil companies are still getting subsidies AND record profits.

Winehole23
04-29-2011, 01:38 PM
If Obama broke his silence to take the side of the NLRB or the unions, Darrin's cries of "political interference" would be audible from the moon.

CosmicCowboy
04-29-2011, 02:04 PM
If one doesn't take the OPs assertion that "silence=consent", the whole article falls apart.

Maybe the President doesn't feel it's appropriate to weigh in on the matter.

Considering the president appointed the guy (most likely for his pro-labor views) I think it is a reasonable stretch to assume his silence condones the decision...

clambake
04-29-2011, 02:16 PM
Considering the president appointed the guy (most likely for his pro-labor views) I think it is a reasonable stretch to assume his silence condones the decision...

i think it'd be ok to put working stiffs ahead of increased profit.

we don't need to crush their jobs right now.

TeyshaBlue
04-29-2011, 02:19 PM
i think it'd be ok to put working stiffs ahead of increased profit.

we don't need to crush their jobs right now.

South Carolina on line 2. They don't sound happy.

CosmicCowboy
04-29-2011, 02:23 PM
i think it'd be ok to put working stiffs ahead of increased profit.

we don't need to crush their jobs right now.

What about the working stiffs in South Carolina? They don't count?

clambake
04-29-2011, 02:24 PM
South Carolina on line 2. They don't sound happy.

i'm sure they're not. and i'm sure that boeing isn't happy about the intrusive behavior into their exploitation.

clambake
04-29-2011, 02:25 PM
What about the working stiffs in South Carolina? They don't count?


i'm sure they're not. and i'm sure that boeing isn't happy about the intrusive behavior into their exploitation.

CosmicCowboy
04-29-2011, 02:28 PM
i'm sure they're not. and i'm sure that boeing isn't happy about the intrusive behavior into their exploitation.

So Boeing exploits workers? :lol

clambake
04-29-2011, 02:28 PM
i just dropped a bomb.

TeyshaBlue
04-29-2011, 02:28 PM
I was unaware that the workers of South Carolina were being exploited by Boeing.
Fascinating.

TeyshaBlue
04-29-2011, 02:29 PM
i just dropped a bomb.

Let's keep your personal life out of this, ok?:lol:lol

clambake
04-29-2011, 02:31 PM
So Boeing exploits workers? :lol

no, the gentle and pure executives of boeing are only concerned about staying competitive. lol

TeyshaBlue
04-29-2011, 02:32 PM
no, the gentle and pure executives of boeing are only concerned about staying competitive. lol

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/DaveBowman.jpg

CosmicCowboy
04-29-2011, 02:33 PM
no, the gentle and pure executives of boeing are only concerned about staying competitive. lol

Exploit is a pretty strong word. Checking, it looks like the very lowest paid worker starting at Boeing makes over $15 an hour.

http://www.ehow.com/info_7793400_average-income-boeing-employee.html

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Boeing_Company%2c_The/Hourly_Rate

boutons_deux
04-29-2011, 03:07 PM
15/hour = 30K/year. aka working poor. the avg wal-mart hourly is about $17, IIRC.

TeyshaBlue
04-29-2011, 03:11 PM
That 15/hour figure was the very lowest paid worker for Boeing. But go ahead and compare it to the aggregate avg. at Wal Mart.

MaNuMaNiAc
04-29-2011, 03:18 PM
no, the gentle and pure executives of boeing are only concerned about staying competitive. lol

yeah because corporations are inherently evil... give me a fucking break. Do you have any proof South Carolina's Boeing workers are being exploited?

clambake
04-29-2011, 04:16 PM
looks like you guys got hit with shrapnel.


your hearing will return shortly.

EVAY
04-29-2011, 06:27 PM
Two separate issues: one is whether or not Obama should weigh in publicly on an issue being contested in the NLRB.

I vote no he shouldn't.

The other issue is whether or not companies should be able to locate their factories wherever they want to, regardless of whether or not the unions that work in their factories in one state can control who works in the factories in another state.

Man, that one seems like a no brainer. If you believe in competition, let the workers in different states compete with one another. If workers in South Carolina are willing to work for lower wages than the workers in Washington State (who happen to belong to a Union), let them.


This is why car manufacturers have moved out of the union states. And the 'rust belt' states are suffering because of it.

EVAY
04-29-2011, 06:31 PM
Unions were an absolute necessity when they began. Unchecked capitalism was wreaking havoc with child labor and unsafe working conditions. Unions gave the workers necessary power to force improved working conditions.

The pendulum seems to have swung the other way now, and they (unions) can be as rigid as the companies with which they are in business.

Nbadan
04-29-2011, 06:46 PM
Who is Boeings only real competitor? Airbus? GMAFB....

Wild Cobra
04-29-2011, 10:20 PM
you don't like unions?
Collective bargaining takes away my individual bargaining. Those of us who are better than average usually don't care much for unions. Lowest common denominator people love unions.