Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Boeing can't open a new plant in "right to work" South Carolina because one thing they considered was the reduced chance of strikes. This has never been done before and will certainly end up in court. This is clearly an Obama sop to the unions that flooded him with money. I can't wait for this to get to the Supreme Court. Private business has a right to build it's plants whereever it wants. :crazy:

The Newest Labor War: Union, Feds Attack Boeing

By Tom Bevan

Welcome to South Carolina, the newest front in America's organized labor wars.
On Wednesday, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Boeing, seeking to prevent the aircraft manufacturer from opening a second production facility in Charleston, South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner.
The NLRB alleges that Boeing violated the law, opening the non-unionized South Carolina plant in retaliation against union workers for past strikes at its facility in Everett, Washington and also as part of an effort to discourage future strikes. The NLRB wants an administrative court to force Boeing to relocate its second production line back to a unionized plant in Washington.
Needless to say, with labor controversy still roiling some states across the country, particularly in Wisconsin, news of the story rang out like a shot at Fort Sumter.
South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint denounced the move as "nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama's reelection campaign." DeMint vowed to "use every tool at my disposal to stop the president from carrying out this malicious act."
His GOP colleague in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, called the NLRB's complaint "one of the worst cases of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I've ever seen."
On the other side, the International Association of Machinists District 571, which filed the grievance in March of last year, predictably hailed the filing as "a victory for all American workers."
At issue is not whether companies can retaliate against union workers - they can't - but whether they have the right to open new facilities (or relocate old ones) where they choose based on a variety of business factors, including the consideration of potential labor strikes in the future.
The IAM has had a collective bargaining agreement with Boeing since 1975, and in that time has led five strikes in the Seattle plants, two of them in the past six years. Boeing CEO Jim MnNerney has been open about his desire for "dual sourcing" capabilities so that the company can meet its obligations with "strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound."
The union contends that the opening of the new non-union facility in South Carolina amounts to intimidation, and that its workers will now be forced to either to accept employment concessions or face the prospect of seeing more and more production migrate from Everett to Charleston. Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon fully embraced with the union's novel legal theory, and stated in his Wednesday order that he will seek an order requiring Boeing to build the second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in Washington.
In response to the uproar Thursday spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland responded in an e-mail: "As Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon made clear in his statement yesterday, this is about the law. The right to strike is guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, and employers must stay within the law in making their business decisions."
Boeing's lawyers slammed that claim as "legally frivolous" and said the NLRB's effort to restrict the company's business represents a "radical departure" from precedent. They were quick to point out two 1965 Supreme Court cases affirming employers' right to consider potential strikes in making business decisions, and they refuted the union's claims of intimidation by pointing out that in the eighteen months since the announcement of the South Carolina plant, Boeing has added more than 2,000 union jobs in the Puget Sound area.
The NLRB's complaint is controversial because of its conspicuousness - labor experts can't seem to recall any similar complaints or comparable court cases - and also because of the board's inherently political nature. With Democrats taking control of the five-member board in 2008, the New York Times described the move against Boeing as "the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama."
The decision by the NLRB to go after Boeing is sure to resurrect tension among the President and the business community. During the first two years of his term, Obama had a testy relationship with many in the private sector and was viewed in some circles as anti-business.
Earlier this year Obama sought to smooth over his relations with the business community, giving a well received address to the Chamber of Commerce on February 7. But just one week later, Obama called Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's budget plan "an assault on unions," while his grassroots organization and political allies kicked off the fight on behalf of public unions which continues to rage today.
Unlike Wisconsin, however, the battle in South Carolina is unions and the federal government pitted against private business and "right to work" states. At stake is whether unions have the power to effectively veto companies' decisions about where they choose to do business.
Also unlike Wisconsin, South Carolina is a critical - some would even argue determinative - early primary state in the Republican presidential nominating process, which is just getting under way. Some, but not all, of the prospective Republican presidential hopefuls are scheduled be in South Carolina in less than two weeks for the first televised debate of the primary season, hosted by Fox News.
The subject of the NLRB's complaint will surely arise. This issue might even prompt candidates who hadn't figured on attending the South Carolina debate to tinker with their schedules. And because of South Carolina and Wisconsin, the war between the federal government and unions versus states and the private sector is sure to be a defining issue of next year's presidential race.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
You can take Obama's America and shove it :spanked:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,760 Posts
I don't know where exactly Obama fits into this but I do hope that Boeing wins and builds in SC. I certainly can see why the unions are fighting this move but then again it could be worse, Boeing could move all of it's plants to China. The NLRB better think about that when they persue this blockage. :crazy:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
I too.....fail to see how any of this has anything to do with Obama...

Or any other... legislative members.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
316 Posts
As a member of the IAM 751 Machinist Union and employee of the BOEING Corp. I can assure you that OBAMA had nothing to do with the decision to build in S.C.
The decision was made in prior to Obama taking office as a cost-cutting move due the Global Outsourcing of the 787 Dreamliner. Lets keep our facts straight.....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,823 Posts
If I were boeing, I would just say "hey, if you don't want us to build in SC we won't. We will build overseas instead."

Seriously, these union nuts seem to think they are entitled to these jobs. They are not entitled to ****. I hope they close the plants in WA just to spite you.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
316 Posts
Hardcore. I dont know you personally and you are entitled to your opinion as this is a free country as so let's keep to the facts and no personal attacks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Hardcore. I dont know you personally and you are entitled to your opinion as this is a free country as so let's keep to the facts and no personal attacks.
Did you see the Rammussen "i hope you union ****ers burn in hell" thread?
:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,476 Posts
Hardcore. I dont know you personally and you are entitled to your opinion as this is a free country as so let's keep to the facts and no personal attacks.
What personal attacks???? :crazy:

His comment was not directed at you.

Hardcore.... :agree: What right does the union have to demand where factories be built??? :crazy::laughing:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,823 Posts
What personal attacks???? :crazy:

His comment was not directed at you.

Hardcore.... :agree: What right does the union have to demand where factories be built??? :crazy::laughing:
sure,let them choose where it is built- as long as the union pays for it 100% themselves, and all the extra costs associated with it NOT being at the SC location.

Remember, the only thing that matters is that union power is maintained.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
316 Posts
The comment that Boeing should close up shop to spite me. Maybe I shouldn't take that as a attack. But I did.

I am just one member, I don't make the rules that the union makes up nor do I agree with everything that has been passed. However as a worker in a union and non-union shop I can appreciate all that I have gained thru union membership. I don't want to make this tit for tat issue. I'm just referring to the OP original statement
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,476 Posts
The comment that Boeing should close up shop to spite me. Maybe I shouldn't take that as a attack. But I did.

I am just one member, I don't make the rules that the union makes up nor do I agree with everything that has been passed. However as a worker in a union and non-union shop I can appreciate all that I have gained thru union membership. I don't want to make this tit for tat issue. I'm just referring to the OP original statement
He never said to spite "you". There was no personal attack.

Can you not separate yourself as an individual from the union and its activity?

Edit: I went back and re-read his comment. I now see the word "you", but did not read it as a comment directed at you personally. I read it as a comment toward the union dictators. Based on historical posts, this is the pattern. I'm sure it was not meant as a personal attack. :thumbsup:

Hardcore does not generally take that road.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,823 Posts
My comment was that as if I was speaking for boeing making a statement to the unions.

Unions are the problem. I cannot blame any individual for taking advantage of a system.

One thing that bothers me is the Borg mentality of the unions. They all seem to be brainwashed to hold the exact same opinion- anything directed at any union is directed at them as an individual. Another thing that bothers me is that to union members, the only thing important is the union- not the company. Boeing added 2,000 more union jobs to the WA plants while planning the SC plant. One would think an additional 2,000 union jobs would be enough....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
316 Posts
If I were boeing, I would just say "hey, if you don't want us to build in SC we won't. We will build overseas instead."

Seriously, these union nuts seem to think they are entitled to these jobs. They are not entitled to ****. I hope they close the plants in WA just to spite you.

Blksilver. Just read the comment carefully. I felt it was directed towards me. But I'm over it. Let's move on to the OP opening comments
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
One thing that bothers me is the Borg mentality of the unions. They all seem to be brainwashed to hold the exact same opinion- anything directed at any union is directed at them as an individual.
Unlike Army psycological training..... :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
Unlike Army psycological training..... :laughing:
His Army psycological training is what gives nasties like you the right to spew trash out that cock holster you call a mouth. :laughing: As for the OP, :WTF You tell me how in fook that this is possible. I hope it goes to the supreme court because this in total BS. Unmotherfoockingbeleivable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
I too.....fail to see how any of this has anything to do with Obama...

Or any other... legislative members.
Because the POTUS you are so proud of will Back this decision and so will his henchmen :crazy:

What company will our guberment not allow to move due to cost of union threats of striking or taxes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
Because the POTUS you are so proud of will Back this decision and so will his henchmen :crazy:

What company will our guberment not allow to move due to cost of union threats of striking or taxes?
Off the top of my head, the only one I can think of is GE...as they export more jobs with our tax dollars than any other corp...all with Obee's blessing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
As for the OP, :WTF You tell me how in fook that this is possible. I hope it goes to the supreme court because this in total BS. Unmotherfoockingbeleivable.
I do not support that union action, and I am not a union member, and never have been.

Boeing should be able to do whatever they want.


Somebody/person/people in the union at the top need their asses kicked for doing this.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top