Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21boeing.html?scp=2&sq=boeing&st=cse

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.
Add to Portfolio

* Boeing Company

Go to your Portfolio »

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

Although manufacturers have long moved plants to nonunion states, the board noted that Boeing officials had, in internal documents and news interviews, specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South Carolina.

Boeing said it would “vigorously contest” the labor board’s complaint. “This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both N.L.R.B. and Supreme Court precedent,” said J. Michael Luttig, a Boeing executive vice president and its general counsel. “Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region.”

It is highly unusual for the federal government to seek to reverse a corporate decision as important as the location of plant.

But ever since a Democratic majority took control of the five-member board after Mr. Obama’s election, the board has signaled that it would seek to adopt a more liberal, pro-union tilt after years of pro-employer decisions under President Bush.

Although the board has not yet issued many major decisions reversing Bush-era policies, it has proposed requiring private sector employers to post a notice about workers’ right to unionize, and Mr. Solomon has begun moving more aggressively to win reinstatement of union supporters fired illegally by management during unionization drives.

In a statement Wednesday, Mr. Solomon said: “A worker’s right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.”

South Carolina’s two senators, both Republicans, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, denounced the board’s move. “This is nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama’s re-election campaign,” Mr. DeMint said.

The labor board said that in 2007, Boeing announced plans to create a second production line that would make three 787 Dreamliner planes a month in the Puget Sound area to address a growing backlog of orders. That was to be in addition to a line already making seven Dreamliners a month there. In October 2009, Boeing said it would locate its second line at a new, nonunion plant in South Carolina.

The N.L.R.B. asserted that on numerous occasions Boeing officials had communicated an unlawful motive for transferring the production line, including an interview with The Seattle Times in which a Boeing executive said, “The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we’re paying today. It was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.”

Mr. Solomon brought the complaint after a union representing many of Boeing’s Washington workers, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, complained that Boeing had decided to move production to South Carolina largely in retaliation for a 58-day strike in 2008.

“Boeing’s decision to build a 787 assembly line in South Carolina sent a message that Boeing workers would suffer financial harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights,” said the union’s vice president, Rich Michalski.

Mr. Solomon said that if he failed to settle the dispute, an administrative judge would begin hearing the case on June 14 in Seattle. Mr. Solomon said he was not seeking to close the South Carolina factory or prohibit Boeing from assembling planes there.

Boeing criticized the timing of the N.L.R.B.’s complaint, saying it came when construction of the factory in North Charleston, S.C., was nearly complete and after 1,000 employees had already been hired there.

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.

The company also said it had decided to expand in South Carolina in part to protect business continuity and to reduce the damage to its finances and reputation from future work stoppages.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 22, 2011

An article on Thursday about a National Labor Relations Board complaint seeking to prevent Boeing from moving some airplane production to a nonunion plant in South Carolina misstated the status of a rule to require private sector employers to post a notice about workers’ right to unionize. An N.L.R.B. proposal for such a rule is pending; it has not been made final.

This sounds like it could be pretty big, since Boeing has already completed it's 2nd facility and hired a thousand workers there.

Pretty big indeed. Admin law is really really hazy for me, buit if it can Boeing, if it loses in admin court, will take this higher up and all the right to work states will line up on Boeing's side. The NLRB is effectively saying its illegal to move to a right to work state.

For those of us who don't know, what's these "right to work" states?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:For those of us who don't know, what's these "right to work" states?

Right to Work laws by state
A contrasting opinion

A right to work state is a category of states. Although it varies by state, it basically means:

1. The right of employment is untrammeled. Employees have a right not to have to join a union or pay union dues.

2. Employers are generally not limited in their ability to terminate employees except for employment contract or violations of applicabel state and federal labor laws. inversely employees are not bound by exterior entanglements. AKA they can fire me at any time and I can quit at any time.

EDIT: Zoinked by Biccat first. In consolation:

Is "Right To Work" generally seen as pro-company or pro-employee?

Cheers!

Back on topic: Are they really stupid enough to say "yes, we're breaking the law" just like that, whithout even trying to cover it up? Assuming that the claims in the article can be proven, is there even anything they can do to avoid having to apologize other than make it a drawn-out process where they eventually manage to sidestep the issue in some shady manner?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Cheers!

Back on topic: Are they really stupid enough to say "yes, we're breaking the law" just like that, whithout even trying to cover it up? Assuming that the claims in the article can be proven, is there even anything they can do to avoid having to apologize other than make it a drawn-out process where they eventually manage to sidestep the issue in some shady manner?

They didn't break the law, thats kind of the point.

Redbeard wrote:Is "Right To Work" generally seen as pro-company or pro-employee?

Pro-company is usually the perception, although in my opinion it's not really pro-either, it's just anti-union.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Back on topic: Are they really stupid enough to say "yes, we're breaking the law" just like that, whithout even trying to cover it up? Assuming that the claims in the article can be proven, is there even anything they can do to avoid having to apologize other than make it a drawn-out process where they eventually manage to sidestep the issue in some shady manner?

Hmm? Here's the Boeing press release on the issue. Here's the NLRB's press release.

It appears that Boeing is allowed (hah!) to open a new facility wherever they want for whatever reasons they want, but can't remove work from a union facility based on previous strikes. The NLRB argument appears to be directed not towards Boeing opening a new plant, but their transfer of work from the Washington plant in retaliation for strikes.

Note that I have no experience with NLRB actions, and am just picking this up from the opposing press releases.

The idea that a company can't move their manufacturing based on intentional work stoppages by union employees seems inappropriate.

Redbeard wrote:Is "Right To Work" generally seen as pro-company or pro-employee?

Depends on your point of view. If you're pro union this is the next thing to the antichrist and there for the sole benefit of evil imperialist dog international corporations. If you're antiunion this is the final defense against fatcatunions/mafia and protection for both company and employee.

I'm not sure I see the logic in that. If the 'Right to Work' basically says that you cannot force people to have to unionize, that would imply that being forced to unionize is a bad thing.

If unions are pro-worker, why do they need to be able to force people to join? If it was good for workers to be in a union, wouldn't they join them voluntarily?

(Not trying to be inflammatory or troll or anything, I really don't understand this issue at all)

Redbeard wrote:I'm not sure I see the logic in that. If the 'Right to Work' basically says that you cannot force people to have to unionize, that would imply that being forced to unionize is a bad thing.

If unions are pro-worker, why do they need to be able to force people to join? If it was good for workers to be in a union, wouldn't they join them voluntarily?

(Not trying to be inflammatory or troll or anything, I really don't understand this issue at all)

You're assuming unions are pro worker. Antiunionists would laugh at that statement.

I live in Chicago. I believe unions are pro-slacker. It doesn't take four guys to change a lightbulb... As such, it would appear that they're pro-worker, because they're certainly not pro-employer.

I had a co-worker who told me about a job he had previously. Working as a developer for a railroad infrastructure application, they had a situation where, in the past, one system would send a piece of paper with daily figures over, and someone would then enter those figures into another system. They were working to replace that system with computers, so now, a computer sent the data over. My co-worker wrote the software that accepted the data from system one and moved it into system two.

But there was a catch. The union had a clause somewhere that required that guy do the job. In spite of inefficiency and human error, they had to keep the guy who copied the numbers manually. The software guys devised a method where the system threw up a dummy screen, and allowed the guy to copy numbers from the left column to the right column and hit submit. Of course, that introduces possible error, so they then just ignored whatever he'd just done and did the transfer electronically anyway.

I can't see the union as anything but pro-worker. What is the anti-worker argument about unions?

Redbeard wrote:I'm not sure I see the logic in that. If the 'Right to Work' basically says that you cannot force people to have to unionize, that would imply that being forced to unionize is a bad thing.

If unions are pro-worker, why do they need to be able to force people to join? If it was good for workers to be in a union, wouldn't they join them voluntarily?

(Not trying to be inflammatory or troll or anything, I really don't understand this issue at all)

See the AFLCIO link above. They're pretty big hatin' on Right to Work. Unions don't (generally) force people to join, they force non-union members to pay dues like union members, based on the argument that the union is simply the mechanism by which working conditions are bettered, and everyone should have to pay for it.

Anyway, I think I'll try to stay out of this one from here on out.

I'm not a big fan of Boeing ever since they threw a hissy fit over a failed bid to make fighter jets for the US military.

A British company won the bid initially if I recall correctly.

If a company can’t compete on its own merits then tough rocks I say.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I'm not a big fan of Boeing ever since they threw a hissy fit over a failed bid to make fighter jets for the US military.

A British company won the bid initially if I recall correctly.

If a company can’t compete on its own merits then tough rocks I say.

Source?

Redbeard wrote:
I can't see the union as anything but pro-worker. What is the anti-worker argument about unions?

That compaies shut those ers down and move to where they can actually make money.

70 major companies have left California. Approx. 20% have moved to Texas.

The contrast is undeniable. Texas has added 165,000 jobs during the last three years while California has lost 1.2 million. California's jobless rate is 12% compared to 8% in Texas.

EDIT: corrected numbers per actual article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704570704576275051374356340.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

It may be just me being a die hard fiscal conservative, but I think this is ridiculous. If Boeing is really retaliating against the workers by moving work away from Seattle to SoCal, then the NLRB's actions are all fine and dandy. But as far as I can tell, the NLRB has no real evidence other than one interview, and their own assertions to this point.

I'd hold that a company has every right to move its production facilities to wherever it darn well please. That's part of the capitalist way. If you can't compete, you go out of business, and if you can be more competitive elsewhere, why on Earth should the federal government be allowd to tell you where you can and can not build factories?

Redbeard wrote:Is "Right To Work" generally seen as pro-company or pro-employee?

Depends whose perspective.

British experience shows that highly unionised companies offer employees wages on average 10% higher than similar non-unionised companies.

From that viewpoint, anything which reduces the workers' ability to organise is anti-employee as it will reduce their wages.

Some employees would say that their right not to join a union is an important personal freedom.