Wall Street Journal -- The Death of Right to Work -- After 17 months and $2 billion, the NLRB sandbags Boeing.
APRIL 21, 2011
We knew that Big Labor had political pull at the Obama-era National Labor Relations Board, but yesterday's complaint against Boeing is one for the (dark) ages.
By challenging Boeing's right to build aircraft in South Carolina, labor's bureaucratic allies in Washington are threatening the ability of states to compete for new jobs and investment—and risking the economic recovery to boot.
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 compe ion among states and kept tens of millions of jobs in America rather than heading overseas.
Boeing has also expanded its operations in Puget Sound while building its South Carolina presence. Ultimately, the NLRB seems to be resting its complaint on the belief that Boeing spent nearly $2 billion out of spite, which sounds less like a matter of law than of campaign 2012 politics.
Boeing says it will challenge the complaint in an NLRB hearing in June, but Big Labor also has sway at the five-member board. Recall that President Obama gave a recess appointment last year to Craig Becker, a former lawyer for the Service Employees International Union who once wrote that the NLRB could impose "card check" rules for union organizing even without an act of Congress. Even a Democratic Senate refused to confirm him.
Beyond labor politics, the NLRB's ruling would set a terrible precedent for the flow of jobs and investment within the U.S. It would essentially give labor a veto over management decisions about where to build future plants. And it would undercut the right-to-work statutes in 22 American states—which is no doubt the main union goal here.
With a Republican House, Mr. Obama's union agenda is dead in Congress. But it looks like his appointees are determined to impose it by regulatory fiat—no matter the damage to investment and job creation.
Poor Boeing, I'm sure they have no pull with the government. They're being taken to the woodshed by those damn unions. When people actually pool their will together to make it at least approach that of the corporation they work for I just get sick to my stomach and when the government actually SIDES with them well then I just outright puke.
Don't you hate authoritarians?
The govt, the only power big enough, taking the side of Human-Americans against Corporate-Americans, is supportable, but a lost cause.
C'mon Manny...I expected Boutons to knee jerk but seriously...you think it's OK for the government to tell Boeing they can only build planes in Seattle?
Your forget. Manny loves authoritarians. He loves the government to be his nanny, and wants to share that with all of us.
...says the guy that lives on the nanny train.
Obama resembles his predecessor in this as well.
The style of brazenness Bush pioneered has become ordinary presidential preening and suntanning.
(Custom, put more quaintly.)
Depends on their agreements with the unions. I think its OK for the government to tell them they have to honor prior agreements. The day I weep for Boeing will be a cold day in , though.
he was for them before he was against them..
From the article that didn't appear to violate any agreements. They just told the union that if they insisted on striking they would consider building NEW plants in right to work states. At least they built it in the US and not China.
You'll have to pardon me if I don't accept an opinion piece written in that tone to be an accurate portrayal of what is actually happening. It might be, but I'm not going to bet on it.
A much more evenhanded account, IMO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/bu...ng.html?src=me
I will admit it strikes me as pretty flimsy grounds to stop a factory opening but I'm not an expert on labor law. There definitely is evidence that Boeing was making this move in retaliation to the strikes but I'm not sure what the legal ramifications of that are and I'm not sure what they should be.
A much more evenhanded account, IMO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/bu...ng.html?src=me
I will admit it strikes me as pretty flimsy grounds to stop a factory opening but I'm not an expert on labor law. There definitely is evidence that Boeing was making this move in retaliation to the strikes but I'm not sure what the legal ramifications of that are and I'm not sure what they should be.
Echo. Echo.
What else is there to say? This is ed up.
I think he was just commenting on my double post. You gotta understand that Viva isn't really capable of handling complex subjects and limits his responses because of that.
What, that administrative determinations have the force of law, or that unions -- just like corporations -- can spend unlimited funds right before the election to get their way?
Says the person who's ok with our government torturing suspected terrorists using info gained from widespread warrantless wiretapping.
Revolution within the form. Or, executive usurpation of legislative power.
Coercing someone to assemble is just as bad as denying their right to do so.
I guess you want all the corporations that pay high wage blue collar jobs to fail, huh?
No kidding. I wonder how long before unions and taxation makes Boeing decide to locate in some other country?
How about showing me a quote saying I agree with torture. That's a ing insult flyboy. Put up or shut the up.
Or, forcing a company to deal with an unreasonable union...go on strike because a company with worldwide sales wouldn't promise to never build a plant outside the Seattle area? Sounds pretty damn unreasonable to me...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
