More favors for unions....

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21boeing.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

What am I missing here? If the plant in Puget Sound continues to run and operate the same as it has been, how is the expansion 'penalizing the workers for striking'? It does not appear that way to me.

Boeing has every right (IMO) to expand where ever they wish. In my opinion, the NLRB severely overstepped its bounds here. The South Carolina workers have just as much right to those new jobs as the workers in WA.

I think this is more a favor to unions as the article mentioned as it means they won't be getting an opportunity to have MORE union members. Again, I don't see how this is penalizing the workers for striking. It doesn't seem to effect the current work force at all.

Thoughts? Insights? Corrections?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

I think the above is the most telling part with regards to the motivation of the NLRB.

 

[Bonestorm]

According to the NLRB complaint, internal Boeing documents reflect that it moved work that was performed in the Seattle plant to the North Carolina plant because the Seattle plant workers went on strike and also threatened further loss of work at the plant because of the strikes. You can't do that. It's illegal.

And anyone that is stupid enough to actually write that down or say it out loud on a quarterly earnings conference call deserves whatever sanction the NLRB can obtain against them. It's mind-numbingly stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

According to the NLRB complaint, internal Boeing documents reflect that it moved work that was performed in the Seattle plant to the North Carolina plant because the Seattle plant workers went on strike and also threatened further loss of work at the plant because of the strikes. You can't do that. It's illegal.

And anyone that is stupid enough to actually write that down or say it out loud on a quarterly earnings conference call deserves whatever sanction the NLRB can obtain against them. It's mind-numbingly stupid.

1) Yet the plant in WA has not lost any work
2) The plant in WA has HIRED 2000 more union employees since the decision was made
3) The NLRB didn't decide to file a complaint until AFTER Boeing had built the plant and hired 1000 workers
4) There is NO detriment to the WA workers as they have not lost anything

 

[leaningright]

According to the NLRB complaint, internal Boeing documents reflect that it moved work that was performed in the Seattle plant to the North Carolina plant because the Seattle plant workers went on strike and also threatened further loss of work at the plant because of the strikes. You can't do that. It's illegal.

Why is it illegal?

 

[Bonestorm]

1) Yet the plant in WA has not lost any work

Says Boeing now. That's not what Boeing said previously.

2) The plant in WA has HIRED 2000 more union employees since the decision was made

And if Boeing didn't shift work from the WA plant to the NC plant maybe it would have 3,000 more employees.

3) The NLRB didn't decide to file a complaint until AFTER Boeing had built the plant and hired 1000 workers

Boeing was on notice of the investigation for more than a year. The timing of the filing of the actual complaint is irrelevant. Within months of Boeing's announcement to open a plant in NC, it was on notice of the NLRB investigation. That it elected to proceed notwithstanding the investigation is certainly it's right, but it did so with full knowledge of the risk of the NLRB investigation and possible complaint.

4) There is NO detriment to the WA workers as they have not lost anything

Again, that's what Boeing claims now, but that's not what it said previously.

 

[Bonestorm]

Why is it illegal?

A company cannot punish unionized employees (by moving their work to non-unionized plants) for exercising federally protected rights (the right to strike). It is a very easy prohibition to get around, though, and the fact that Boeing executives openly stated that their decision to move work from WA to NC because of the strikes it extremely stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Says Boeing now. That's not what Boeing said previously.

The FACT that they hired 2000 workers since then shows they haven't decreased work.

And if Boeing didn't shift work from the WA plant to the NC plant maybe it would have 3,000 more employees.

Which again doesn't penalize ANY of the union employees.... does it? They have EVERY right to put ADDITIONAL workers wherever they choose.

Boeing was on notice of the investigation for more than a year. The timing of the filing of the actual complaint is irrelevant. Within months of Boeing's announcement to open a plant in NC, it was on notice of the NLRB investigation. That it elected to proceed notwithstanding the investigation is certainly it's right, but it did so with full knowledge of the risk of the NLRB investigation and possible complaint.

Thank you for that correction, it wasn't clear from the article, but it is clear they were notified in early 2010 by the NLRB in the actual complaint.

Again, that's what Boeing claims now, but that's not what it said previously.

Again, the fact that they hired 2000 more union employees in WA proves it. Their threats were stupid to put in writing or on a quarterly (recorded) conference call, but the fact remains that they added on workers.... TWICE as many as they have hired in Carolina.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A company cannot punish unionized employees (by moving their work to non-unionized plants) for exercising federally protected rights (the right to strike). It is a very easy prohibition to get around, though, and the fact that Boeing executives openly stated that their decision to move work from WA to NC because of the strikes it extremely stupid.

Tell us... how were the CURRENT union employees 'punished'????

 

[Bonestorm]

The FACT that they hired 2000 workers since then shows they haven't decreased work.

No, it doesn't. You are focusing on the individual union employees, not the union itself and the bargaining unit as a whole. I used similar terminology ("a company cannot punish unionized employees") so it's a mistake I made as well. If you click through to the Complaint, it talks about "the Unit," which is what is alleged to have been harmed.

Which again doesn't penalize ANY of the union employees.... does it? They have EVERY right to put ADDITIONAL workers wherever they choose.

It punishes the bargaining unit as a whole and the union.

Thank you for that correction, it wasn't clear from the article, but it is clear they were notified in early 2010 by the NLRB in the actual complaint.

No problem.

Again, the fact that they hired 2000 more union employees in WA proves it. Their threats were stupid to put in writing or on a quarterly (recorded) conference call, but the fact remains that they added on workers.... TWICE as many as they have hired in Carolina.

But they may have added 3,000 workers to the bargaining unit.

 

[Bonestorm]

Tell us... how were the CURRENT union employees 'punished'????

See above re: "the Unit."

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, it doesn't. You are focusing on the individual union employees, not the union itself and the bargaining unit as a whole. I used similar terminology ("a company cannot punish unionized employees") so it's a mistake I made as well. If you click through to the Complaint, it talks about "the Unit," which is what is alleged to have been harmed.

Yet, the union (unit) has INCREASED membership over that time. So to claim they have been harmed is ridiculous at best. By the standard being used by the NLRB, Boeing would never be able to hire outside of WA again due to that same comment. The 'unit' could always claim the additional jobs be theirs and not another states. I see your point, but I think this is going to get knocked down in court.

The rest of your points all go back to the above.

 

[cawacko]

Yet, the union (unit) has INCREASED membership over that time. So to claim they have been harmed is ridiculous at best. By the standard being used by the NLRB, Boeing would never be able to hire outside of WA again due to that same comment. The 'unit' could always claim the additional jobs be theirs and not another states. I see your point, but I think this is going to get knocked down in court.

The rest of your points all go back to the above.

I'm sure I'm missing something here but in reading this exchange that was my thought as well. How would Boeing hire anyone anywhere else? Or is it once you set up a certain division from your company in an area you can't hire workers in that division elsewhere?

 

[Bonestorm]

Yet, the union (unit) has INCREASED membership over that time. So to claim they have been harmed is ridiculous at best. By the standard being used by the NLRB, Boeing would never be able to hire outside of WA again due to that same comment. The 'unit' could always claim the additional jobs be theirs and not another states. I see your point, but I think this is going to get knocked down in court.

The rest of your points all go back to the above.

Well, the thing is that Boeing planned to expand the WA plant and instead opened a plant in NC and said it was doing so because of the strikes. So it's not like Boeing expanded in NC for different work than that being performed in WA and said it was doing so for any of a host of non-problematic reasons.

It may get tossed. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, the thing is that Boeing planned to expand the WA plant and instead opened a plant in NC and said it was doing so because of the strikes. So it's not like Boeing expanded in NC for different work than that being performed in WA and said it was doing so for any of a host of non-problematic reasons.

It may get tossed. It wouldn't be the first time.

yeah, like I said, I do see your point. I just think that with the increase in union workers in WA, that is going to be a tough sell. Especially since the plant in Carolina also builds the same airliner.

 

[Bonestorm]

I'm sure I'm missing something here but in reading this exchange that was my thought as well. How would Boeing hire anyone anywhere else? Or is it once you set up a certain division from your company in an area you can't hire workers in that division elsewhere?

Well, the problem for Boeing here is the way it went down:

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.”

So it isn't as though they just opened up a new plant and said that there were various non-prohibited reasons. Instead, they changed from a WA plant to a NC plant and said that the main reason was a prohibited one.

 

[Liberty]

A company cannot punish unionized employees (by moving their work to non-unionized plants) for exercising federally protected rights (the right to strike). It is a very easy prohibition to get around, though, and the fact that Boeing executives openly stated that their decision to move work from WA to NC because of the strikes it extremely stupid.

If what you say is true, this would be another reason to outlaw unions. Public & privet.

These none union workers are another victim of the union monopoly.

I think the politicians are starting to get it. There's a lot more none union workers, and tax payers, than there are Union voters. And the none union workers, and tax payers are voting and sending their $ to politicians who seem to be listening.

At any rate, their voices are growing with rage as they watch the union members demand the right to other citizens property.

None union people are waking up. Thanks to the stupid unions, and stupid union protesters.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

boeing execs are idiots...they are going to lose

unions really don't have a monopoly....if we don't union powers then contact your congressperson and get them to amend the NLRA

 

[zappasguitar]

If what you say is true, this would be another reason to outlaw unions. Public & privet.

These none union workers are another victim of the union monopoly.

I think the politicians are starting to get it. There's a lot more none union workers, and tax payers, than there are Union voters. And the none union workers, and tax payers are voting and sending their $ to politicians who seem to be listening.

At any rate, their voices are growing with rage as they watch the union members demand the right to other citizens property.

None union people are waking up. Thanks to the stupid unions, and stupid union protesters.

Another post just dripping with envy and petty jealousy.

You do realize those "stupid union protesters" are citizens just like you and entitled to the same rights and benefits as you, right?

I thought all Libertarians were for "self-reliance" and "personal responsibility"?

Whining because someone else got himself a better deal than you is unbecoming you "personal responsibility" types.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

the underlying problem is that Boeing chose to locate the plant in a right to work state, because of the strikes in Washington.....this of course cannot be tolerated by the unions.....and therefore, Obama dares not tolerate it.....the question is, will voters tolerate the interference with the laws of the state of SC in becoming a right to work state.....what Boeing has done is perfectly legal and perfectly intolerable in the eyes of Obama's voter base.....it will be an interesting play to watch and likely a lose/lose situation for the Democrats.....union supporters will be pissed because they won't be able to do enough to stop it and non union supporters will be pissed because the government is taking steps to prevent job creation......