Obama sues Boeing, forgets that South Carolina is in the US

[crb]

Can anyone defend this action by Obama's labor-stuffed NLRB? I'm sure Tsa'aha'hanha will try, but I can't imagine anyone else will even attempt it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576315141682547796.html

Boeing is opening a new manufacturing plant and creating thousands of jobs in South Carolina (which is a right to work state). Obama's union thugs at the NLRB have decided that providing thousands of jobs in South Carolina is illegal retaliation against a union for striking in Washington.

If I were South Carolina, I don't know, this would make me want to secede. The Federal Government is literally suing a private company to get them to create jobs in Washington instead of South Carolina. WTF business does the federal government have in picking winners and losers between states?

If opening a new plant in South Carolina is "retaliation" I can't imagine what they would call actual retaliation. The government has no business telling a company which state they can manufacture in.

I kinda hope this case drags out though, they said it could be in court for years if the gov doesn't drop it. Just when Obama's approval ratings head back up, we get something like this. Too bad it is South Carolina though and not Ohio or Florida. Come on Obama, piss off more battleground states!

[Drew]

No one is discussing it but I think this could become one of the defining issues of his 2012 run if the NLRB rules against Boeing.

[Back]

I find the title of this thread disingenuous at best. Its actually outright misleading. If you have a point to make do so in an adult fashion and maybe adults will take it seriously.

PS. Crush the proletariat!

[Warriorbird]

South Carolina is part of the US?

[Tgo01]

Do you have an article that isn't an opinion piece from the CEO of Boeing? There has to be more to this, there just has to be.

[Beguiler]

South Carolina is part of the US?


^ Who knew?

[Drew]

Do you have an article that isn't an opinion piece from the CEO of Boeing? There has to be more to this, there just has to be.



Boeing is opening a new manufacturing plant and creating thousands of jobs in South Carolina (which is a right to work state). Obama's union thugs at the NLRB have decided that providing thousands of jobs in South Carolina is illegal retaliation against a union for striking in Washington.


That's actually a fairly accurate summary (ignoring the "thugs" bit). The Boeing union says Boeing can't open a factory to build Dreamliner 787s in South Carolina because they feel that Boeing is doing it to retaliate for their striking several times in the last 20 years. South Carolina workers aren't unionized and so they offer a much more attractive place for Boeing to build.

[Drew]

This is like getting bad customer service somewhere and then getting in trouble because you took your business to a store with quality service.

[Parkbandit]

Do you have an article that isn't an opinion piece from the CEO of Boeing? There has to be more to this, there just has to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21boeing.html?src=me

[TheEschaton]

The federal government has a right to regulate interstate commerce. And if Boeing can't show a reason why they're moving to SC besides to avoid striking workers, they're breaking federal union laws.

As much as it seems obvious to me, companies make obligations when they build a factory somewhere. It isn't a one-way relationship where the company gets everything they want or they leave. Boeing made its own bed when it set up shop in Washington, under what I assume were probably a myriad of tax breaks and other incentives. They can't simply walk away because their workers are striking under their laws, that's essentially breaking the strike, which is within their legal right.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

This is like getting bad customer service somewhere and then getting in trouble because you took your business to a store with quality service.

No, it's nothing like that, because Boeing isn't a customer of the state of Washington.

[Tgo01]

Well this is great then, perhaps next they can force my old employer to bring my job back from India.

[Latrinsorm]

Boeing Illegally Tries to Crush Organized Labor; Obama Defends Working Man

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/opinion/26tue2.html

The N.L.R.B.’s case rests on statements by Boeing officials that, it believes, prove retaliation. One Boeing executive told The Seattle Times that the main reason to put the new line in South Carolina was “that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.”

I'll admit that I'm not satisfied with the title. I feel like there's a lot more room for hyperbole, but it's already wordy.

[Parkbandit]

Even the NYTimes seems to question the legitimacy of the NLRB position in this case.

Good luck proving that Boeing moved business to the SC plant to retaliate against the union.. given all the evidence that it was simply a smart business move.

[Latrinsorm]

As much as it seems obvious to me, companies make obligations when they build a factory somewhere. It isn't a one-way relationship where the company gets everything they want or they leave.Unless they're an NBA team.

-Seattle

[TheEschaton]

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.

This paragraph seems to be bad for the federal government's case, to be honest. Oddly, though, the complaint is supposedly not to shut down the SC plant or move it back to Washington, in which case it seems rather a strange suit in general.

And Tgo1, your job moving to India is the result of a right wing (and the Third Way Democrats of the 90s, including Bill Clinton) desire for "free trade." I've always been a protectionist, and that includes internationally as well, and would love to curb the rampant abuses of globalization around the world. Of course, that would mean the U.S. not crying to the IMF/World Bank every time someone levied a tariff against us for flooding their markets and essentially taking over their economy, but hey, the American workers would have their jobs.

[AnticorRifling]

The federal government has a right to regulate interstate commerce. And if Boeing can't show a reason why they're moving to SC besides to avoid striking workers, they're breaking federal union laws.

As much as it seems obvious to me, companies make obligations when they build a factory somewhere. It isn't a one-way relationship where the company gets everything they want or they leave. Boeing made its own bed when it set up shop in Washington, under what I assume were probably a myriad of tax breaks and other incentives. They can't simply walk away because their workers are striking under their laws, that's essentially breaking the strike, which is within their legal right.

-TheE-

Except for the part where they aren't transferring the existing jobs out of state, they're creating new jobs in a new state.

[TheEschaton]

<cough> Posted that before you did, I was just responding to crb and Drew's initial idiotic comments.

[Parkbandit]

This paragraph seems to be bad for the federal government's case, to be honest. Oddly, though, the complaint is supposedly not to shut down the SC plant or move it back to Washington, in which case it seems rather a strange suit in general.

And Tgo1, your job moving to India is the result of a right wing (and the Third Way Democrats of the 90s, including Bill Clinton) desire for "free trade." I've always been a protectionist, and that includes internationally as well, and would love to curb the rampant abuses of globalization around the world. Of course, that would mean the U.S. not crying to the IMF/World Bank every time someone levied a tariff against us for flooding their markets and essentially taking over their economy, but hey, the American workers would have their jobs.

I thought the hopes and dreams of every socialist hippie was a New World Order, a global government, that forces evil rich countries to help the innocent victims of poor countries live in peace and harmony and social / fiscal equality?

Are you becoming an evil capitalist on us? This is a safe place... come out of the closet.. no one will tell :)

[TheEschaton]

(neg) Obama sues Boeing,... 05-11-2011 03:18 PM So idiotic that you had to say yourself that the lawsuit was pointless and illconceived.

CRB literally said in the first post that the suing was to create jobs in union Washington and take them away from nonunion SC. And then posted a hugely biased article from the WSJ written by Boeing's CEO. Drew said something retarded about how it would be a big political issue in 2012 because the government has no right to do that. That is what I responded to, because those sentiments are idiotic and wrong.

My point is the government DOES have a right to enforce federal union laws, but, upon reading the NYT piece which says they aren't moving jobs but simply creating more, I don't know what the basis for the federal suit is, as Washington workers aren't entitled to future job growth as a collective workers' right.

[TheEschaton]

I thought the hopes and dreams of every socialist hippie was a New World Order, a global government, that forces evil rich countries to help the innocent victims of poor countries live in peace and harmony and social / fiscal equality?

Are you becoming an evil capitalist on us? This is a safe place... come out of the closet.. no one will tell :)

While left wing economics would indeed push for better global working conditions and wages, I think you'd find trade protectionism falls squarely within our side of the political spectrum as well. Being for tariffs and protected economic zones is certainly not capitalist, mon ami, unless you misread me.

[Tgo01]

CRB literally said in the first post that the suing was to create jobs in union Washington and take them away from nonunion SC.


That is what I responded to, because those sentiments are idiotic and wrong.

From the NYT article:


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.

Isn't that exactly what the lawsuit is about?

[~Rocktar~]

I find the title of this thread disingenuous at best. Its actually outright misleading. If you have a point to make do so in an adult fashion and maybe adults will take it seriously.

PS. Crush the proletariat!

Pot meet kettle.

[Bothra]

If opening a new plant in South Carolina is "retaliation" I can't imagine what they would call actual retaliation. The government has no business telling a company which state they can manufacture in.

By actual retaliation I assume you mean just firing the workers for striking. The point is that by opening a factory to do the same work in another state, that may in fact effectively be what they are doing. I'm not saying that's what they did, but if it can be proven that this new factory was a punitive action taken against the union then it violates the federal union laws. I think it's an interesting issue because such a technique of "union busting" isn't feasible by most corporations. It's just that Boeing is so big that they can play this game.

[crb]

I thought the thread title was kinda funny. Some people have no sense of humor.

If you think this is okay, maybe you think we should have a centrally planned economy with, I don't know, a politbureau, telling companies where to locate and what make and how to make it.

I read a comment elsewhere that said this was straight out of Atlas Shrugged, and it is, hilariously so, considering the pseudointellectual left says that book has scenarios in it that would never happen.

If a company is not allowed to move to a new state to save money (And this isn't even a move, it is an expansion) how long until individuals aren't allowed to flee high tax New York for low tax Florida?

This is so going to blow up in Obama's face unless he orders his goons to kill it. The real losers here are creative marketing consultants for the GOP, with Obama continuing to write his own attack ads like this they'll be out of jobs.

[ClydeR]

According to the laws passed by Congress, it was only illegal to move the work to South Carolina if it was to coerce union members in Washington not to strike in the future or was in retaliation for past strikes. It will be nearly impossible for the government to prove that it was to coerce or retaliate, unless the Boeing executives were dumb enough to say that was the reason. That's why you never see cases like this.

[TheEschaton]

From the NYT article:



Isn't that exactly what the lawsuit is about?

The lawsuit is about retaliation against striking workers, but retaliation would require some loss to the workers. They're not guaranteed future job growth in their industry. The OP insinuated that those jobs were moving from Washington to SC (something the federal government would have basis to sue on), when, in fact, these are new jobs that are simply not going to be in Washington.

[Tgo01]

The lawsuit is about retaliation against striking workers, but retaliation would require some loss to the workers. They're not guaranteed future job growth in their industry. The OP insinuated that those jobs were moving from Washington to SC (something the federal government would have basis to sue on), when, in fact, these are new jobs that are simply not going to be in Washington.

Yes, the lawsuit is about retaliation but the goal of the lawsuit is indeed to force Boeing to move the jobs from SC to Washington.

Also where does the OP insinuate that the jobs were moving from Washington to SC?

[Back]

If a company is not allowed to move to a new state to save money (And this isn't even a move, it is an expansion) how long until individuals aren't allowed to flee high tax New York for low tax Florida?

People just really love NYC so they are willing to pay their way.

[Keller]

If


I thought the thread title was kinda funny.

is true, the only logical conclusion is that


Some people have no sense of humor.

Mark it down, I can unconditionally say crb is 100% correct.

[Latrinsorm]

I thought the thread title was kinda funny. Some people have no sense of humor.

If you think this is okay, maybe you think we should have a centrally planned economy with, I don't know, a politbureau, telling companies where to locate and what make and how to make it.

I read a comment elsewhere that said this was straight out of Atlas Shrugged, and it is, hilariously so, considering the pseudointellectual left says that book has scenarios in it that would never happen.

If a company is not allowed to move to a new state to save money (And this isn't even a move, it is an expansion) how long until individuals aren't allowed to flee high tax New York for low tax Florida?

This is so going to blow up in Obama's face unless he orders his goons to kill it. The real losers here are creative marketing consultants for the GOP, with Obama continuing to write his own attack ads like this they'll be out of jobs.Now, see? This is the kind of hyperbole I was going for. My hat's off to you.

[Ardwen]

whether its retaliation or not, its a very smart business move to go where employing a loabor force is cheaper, especially as much cheaper as this sounds. Its not like they are moving the factory to India or something, jobs in the US is better then somewhere that pays people 3 dollars a month.

[Parkbandit]

whether its retaliation or not, its a very smart business move to go where employing a loabor force is cheaper, especially as much cheaper as this sounds. Its not like they are moving the factory to India or something, jobs in the US is better then somewhere that pays people 3 dollars a month.

Racist.

[Ardwen]

I am a Nationist, I want my nation to flourish not the others

[4a6c1]

Boeing Illegally Tries to Crush Organized Labor; Obama Defends Working Man

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/opinion/26tue2.html

The N.L.R.B.’s case rests on statements by Boeing officials that, it believes, prove retaliation. One Boeing executive told The Seattle Times that the main reason to put the new line in South Carolina was “that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.”

I'll admit that I'm not satisfied with the title. I feel like there's a lot more room for hyperbole, but it's already wordy.

Absolutely, Definately, Not Wordy Enough

[Kembal]

NLRB will lose on this one. Badly.

However, Boeing's management should be fired....to some degree, this is an attempt to blame the 787 production delays on the workforce as opposed to their idiotic supply chain for the 787. I'd hate to be a Boeing stockholder right now.

[Warriorbird]

NLRB will lose on this one. Badly.

However, Boeing's management should be fired....to some degree, this is an attempt to blame the 787 production delays on the workforce as opposed to their idiotic supply chain for the 787. I'd hate to be a Boeing stockholder right now.

<3 Betting against America.

[Parkbandit]

<3 Betting against America.

What do you mean?

[Warriorbird]

What do you mean?

Let's see, within limits. Look for the equivalent of Visteon RE: airlines.

[Parkbandit]

Let's see, within limits. Look for the equivalent of Visteon RE: airlines.

Still not understanding what you are attempting to communicate.

[Parkbandit]

Congressional Republicans are demanding the National Labor Relations Board produce a raft of documents concerning the board’s complaint against Boeing Co. and other decisions the lawmakers say overstep the board’s authority.

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), along with several Republicans on the committee, wrote to NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon to demand documents linked to the Boeing complaint and union election laws in Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.

The NLRB’s Boeing complaint seeks to force the company to move its newly built production line in South Carolina to Washington state, a remedy pushed by union members who alleged Boeing built the nonunion plant in South Carolina in retaliation for their past strikes.

An NLRB suit against Arizona challenges the legality of a state constitutional amendment that requires secret-ballot elections before a company can be unionized, and claims the state can’t override a federal law that gives workers the option of the so-called card-check method of organizing, which unions prefer because of its ease. The NLRB has said it plans to file a similar suit against South Dakota, and has investigated union election laws elsewhere.

“In the current climate, every regulatory action is a potential parking brake on job creation and economic growth,” Mr. Issa said in the letter to the NLRB. He and his colleagues requested a long list of information by May 27, including call logs and emails between the general counsel, the NLRB, Boeing and the Machinists union as well as documents gathered in the probe of state union election laws.

Other requests for information are also pending.

Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R., Minn) and Mr. Issa, wrote to NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman earlier request documents in an NLRB case known as Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile and the United Steelworkers. The issue is whether a group limited to certified nursing assistants is an appropriate bargaining unit at the center.

Business groups and Republicans are concerned the board will rule for the union, and then apply the so-called mini-bargaining unit concept to other industries, making it easier for unions to organize.

On Friday, Republican members of the Education and the Workforce Committee wrote a letter to Mr. Solomon, saying: “Taken together, your actions threaten future economic growth and job creation and reflect an unsavory culture of union favoritism. We demand you cease your bureaucratic activism immediately and restore objectivity that is essential to the effectiveness and credibility of the General Counsel’s office.”

Democrats are fighting back. Rep. George Miller (D., Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and Workforce, Friday asked Mr. Kline to suspend his document request.

“The Board should be subjected to proper oversight. But the Committee must be careful not to misuse its oversight authority to influence, or risk the appearance of improperly influencing, the outcome of pending cases,” Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Kline.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/13/republicans-take-on-nlrb/

[Stanley Burrell]

Fire those teachers/unilaterally adjust their salaries.

...

We're destroying organized labor: Shun the institution.