Reply With Quote
you don't like unions?
you don't like unions?
Boeing's labour problems: Moving factories to flee unions
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 compe ors 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.
I ing 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.
Now darrins promotes the president getting invloved in business/ labor disputes?
ing duh
Oh, and those higher operating costs are passed on to us, the consumers.
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.
depends on the business, darrin. oil companies are still getting subsidies AND record profits.
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.
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.
South Carolina on line 2. They don't sound happy.
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.
So Boeing exploits workers?
i just dropped a bomb.
I was unaware that the workers of South Carolina were being exploited by Boeing.
Fascinating.
Let's keep your personal life out of this, ok?
no, the gentle and pure executives of boeing are only concerned about staying compe ive. lolSo Boeing exploits workers?
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_ave...-employee.html
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/...he/Hourly_Rate
15/hour = 30K/year. aka working poor. the avg wal-mart hourly is about $17, IIRC.
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.
yeah because corporations are inherently evil... give me a ing break. Do you have any proof South Carolina's Boeing workers are being exploited?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
