White House Tells Boeing they can't have Plant in SC

Post Reply New Topic

Can federal bureaucrats tell a private company where to build a factory?
Members of President Obama's National Labor Relations Board think they can. In a decision that even the New York Times is describing as "highly unusual for the federal government," Lafe Solomon, who was appointed to the board by Obama, filed a complaint on behalf of the NLRB on Wednesday seeking to force the Boeing Co. to build an assembly line in Washington state instead of South Carolina. The NLRB action stems from Boeing's October 2009 decision to build a new factory for its new 787 Dreamliner airplane near Charleston, S.C. Boeing first sought to build the new plant near its existing facility in Puget Sound, but negotiations with the International Association of Machinists broke down when the union refused to agree to a long-term no-strike clause. The IAM had struck four times since 1989, costing Boeing at least $1.8 billion in revenue.

That's when Boeing chose South Carolina, a right-to-work state where, unlike Washington, workers are not forced to join unions. As a result of this policy, only 6.2 percent of South Carolinians belong to unions. Construction of Boeing's new Charleston factory is nearly complete, and the company has already hired more than 1,000 new employees, drawn mostly from within the immediate region. And back in Washington, Boeing has actually increased employment at its Puget Sound plant by 2,000 workers. But that isn't good enough for the IAM or the Obama White House. After suffering major defeats in Wisconsin and Ohio, the labor movement is looking for a scalp. Obama's NLRB is trying to turn Boeing into one.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2 ... z1KGrezbIE

While I doubt radical leftists see a problem with this, anyone with an understanding of the law knows this is a blatant abuse of power on the part of the Obama Administration, and Boeing should simply tell the Obama White House to shove it.

In principle, unions are needed to check the power of the capitalists. In the real world, however, unions in the USA have been responsible for a long line of outrages, from dirty strike tactics to bombings and even assassinations. The American unions have been quite successful in putting a gun with five bullets in a six bullet drum to their heads, and pulling the trigger. The end result is that nobody wants anything to do with them. Obama and his Big Labor buddies can't figure out why nobody wants to be a union member, so they do what comes naturally and try to FORCE Americans into unions, via strategies like card check. I'm still waiting to see what happens in May after the SEIU's massive mortgage and student loan debtor strikes fail to materialize.

Actually this just reminds me of typical Chicago politics.

I hope Boeing takes this all the way to the supreme court.

What is Obama going to do about this new Obamaboingate? This Kenian and his Chicago pro abortion anti good small business ideas.

I guess since Obama couldn't choke off the supply of new jobs by raising taxes, he's finding another way to do it.

Let us get this story right. The NLRB is bringing an action to prohibit Boeing from making planes in a "right to work" State on the grounds that this is intimidation of union members. This legal action will be rendered dead on arrival as soon as it is brought to court.

Do not worry about it.

ruveyn

Sure, probably it breaks the law for NLRTLR to command were Boeing builds plants. My point above is that it would be easier to take Inuyasha seriously in these actualy cases where a branch of government is breaking the law if he didn't act like a cartoon character all the time.



PS: How can a constitution allow states to ban unions in a country that takes pride of liking freedom and starred flags evades me.

IF the claims in the article are correct, I have a problem with it.

Some of us liberals are also business people and employees, able to see the need for a healthy balance of rights and obligations. IF the facts are correct, Boeing made a business choice, pure and simple. Not an abusive one, not an illegal one. That is what businesses do if they get backed too far into a corner. Should they have felt backed too far into a corner ... I can't say just from that article. But smart unions should know that there is always a breaking point, past which the employer finds it wiser to say "no."

Admitting that I've only read the summary and not the article, I have to say that I would be surprised if the president had anything at all to do with the action. This one should shall firmly into the "fully delegated to the commission" category.

Articles like this one should be part of the alert process. "Hey, look what your commission is doing! Aren't you going to stop them?" But that only happens if there is enough public outcry to move it onto the White House radar.

So, folks, here is your chance to make a difference. Be heard. Argue well and effectively, and be heard. I would guess that this action is subject to the political wind and CAN be changed.