Regulation

A Labor Strike Against Economic Reality

The government's pro-union campaign against Boeing.

|

In 1977, Boeing was the target of a strike by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents its workers in Puget Sound, Wash. and Portland, Ore. The aircraft manufacturer had another strike in 1989. In 1995, workers went out for 69 days. In 2005, they struck again. In 2008 … well, you see the pattern.

Strikes are an expensive luxury. The last one, which went on for nearly two months, was estimated to cost Boeing more than $2 billion. "Based on previous strike experience," reported The Seattle Times, "Boeing will not recoup that money for many years."

At some point, a light bulb went on in the heads of those running the company: If we can't avoid union walkouts, we can't make aircraft deliveries. If we can't make aircraft deliveries, we don't get paid, we alienate customers, and we endanger our livelihood.

After the 2008 walkout, Virgin Atlantic founder Richard Branson voiced exasperation. "If union leaders and management can't get their act together to avoid strikes," he said, "we're not going to come back here again. We're already thinking, 'Would we ever risk putting another order with Boeing?' It's that serious."

Something had to be done. Boeing tried to address the problem with the machinists, asking for a long-term no-strike agreement, but the union showed no interest, and the idea died.

End of story? Not quite. In 2009, the company had to decide where to open a second production line for its 787 Dreamliner. It could have put it where labor troubles were practically guaranteed. Instead, it built a plant in South Carolina, which is scheduled to go on line this summer with 1,000 non-union workers.

The state offered tax incentives and a hospitable commercial environment. But a Boeing executive said at the time, "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."

That may strike you as a blinding flash of the obvious—not to mention a choice fully within the discretion of any company functioning in a competitive marketplace, which penalizes idleness. But apparently not.

Last month, the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency, filed a complaint arguing that Boeing broke the law by taking account of possible strikes in making its decision. This, it said, amounted to illegal retaliation against the machinists union.

It wants an NLRB administrative law judge to force the company to transfer the production back to Washington. And it may get its way.

No, you are not hallucinating. If the NLRB succeeds, a federal official will command a private corporation it may not produce in one place and must produce in another. Never mind what makes business sense.

This is a radical departure for the agency. "It is highly unusual," noted The New York Times, "for the federal government to seek to reverse a corporate decision as important as the location of a plant."

No kidding. It rests on the premise that this company is obligated to remain hostage to a contentious union. It assumes that government officials are entitled to dictate the choices of people whose capital is at risk. And you wonder why Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged is selling briskly?

Boeing adamantly denies moving production because of strikes or unions. But even if it was doing something so vicious as to protect itself against recurring labor disruptions, it ought to have that right.

William Gould, a Stanford law professor who was appointed to head the NLRB by President Bill Clinton, has his doubts about this complaint. "It's perfectly reasonable for a company to want to avoid strikes," he told me.

In his view, the board's general counsel "is wrong when he says the company can't divert work from a union facility when it can't get a no-strike clause, so long as it offers some other means to resolve differences. I don't infer from that anti-union animus, which is prohibited."

Boeing was merely recognizing economic rationality by locating where it can build planes without the burden of a militant union and frequent strikes. The NLRB may be wrong about some things, but it is right to believe that if the needs of labor unions are to be served, economic rationality will have to take a back seat.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Hard Traveling

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Boeing is America’s biggest exporting company. Let’s let the union vampire sink its teeth into it. That is a fucking great idea.

    1. The union vampire aleady has its fangs in Boeing, this is the law telling Boeing it cannot use a cross and garlic to resist.

      1. Hey heavy unionization worked so well for the Detroit auto industry. What could possibly go wrong?

        1. This is where we totally agree.

          1. Do we blame the oil companies or Bush?

            1. Global warming. That’s why the Dreamliner carries more people on less fuel – saves on them carbon feetprints.

  2. “If the NLRB succeeds, a federal official will command a private corporation it may not produce in one place and must produce in another.”

    This adminisration believes it can order the entire population to purchase a class of service just by reason of being alive. Why should it not believe it has the authority to dictate to a type of organization the administration has stated to believe posesses no rights?

    Furthermore, Obama has shown he is completely owned by Big Labor. A belief in almost unlimited power, and union money is recipe for this type of corruption.

    1. I don’t think Obama has any concept of how wealth is created. He comes from academia and Chicago where wealth is viewed as some kind of magical self creating elixir that can be stolen and redistributed without end or consequence.

      1. You forgot he is a fucking idiot!

        1. What do you really think?

  3. If union labor is so superior, the union should let the SC line get running and prove it. Unless they think otherwise…

    1. It isn’t about “superiority” in manufacturing skills. It’s about political power.

    2. You are talking logic here sage. If unionization were the way to prosperity, companies like Boeing would always choose to be in unionized states because the best qualified workers would be in those states. But it doesn’t work that way. The best qualified hardest working employees are in right to work states. Gee it almost makes you think that Unions don’t act in the best interests of their members.

    3. They don’t want to compete in the marketplace. They want to compete in the Beltway.

  4. I don’t think Obama has any concept of how wealth is created. He comes from academia

    The left wanted a president who was the product of govt, unsullied by contact w/ any private market ever, and they got one. You say “idiot”, they say “pure”.

    1. But Barry did briefly have a private-sector gig… remember, he referred to it as having worked behind enemy lines.

    2. Ok… I’ll compromise…..a pure idiot

  5. The Anti-Greed Act
    The Equalization of Opportunity Act
    The Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act

  6. Laboratories of democracy? Hell no! You know what laboratories lead to…disproving our assumptions. The State cannot allow such things.

    1. Just because a state like North Dakota, a barren wasteland with winters the rival Siberia is booming, and California, a state with a great climate and more natural resources than most countries is turning into Guatemala with a film industry doesn’t mean any liberal assumptions are wrong. It is just hoarders, speculators, and libertarian tax cutters who have ruined California.

      1. You left out wreckers. Wreckers got a lot of mileage from some other group of lefties.

      2. The problem is that you have to have some kind of work ethic to survive in inhospitable wastelands. Anyone can survive in paradise. But everyone’s vote counts the same…

  7. hoarders, speculators, and libertarian tax cutters

    You mean “Kulak Wreckers”.

    1. Counter revolutionaries are always frustrating the efforts of right thinking people.

    2. all power to the soviets!

  8. Yeah, sure, what the fuck. Just like the blatant lie that adding taxes to the oil companies, using the justification that not pulling a STEVE SMITH on them has been doing them a huge favor, and adding to the overall price of gasoline delivered to the pumps is going to lower high prices.

    It’s all about the Command and Control, baby. Top down is THE way to go. . .it’s the most direct line to the crash.

  9. It assumes that government officials are entitled to dictate the choices of people whose capital is at risk.

    According to Minge, the commerce clause allows them to dictate anything, because anything can have a substantial effect on commerce. Including not doing something.

    1. Freedom means being free from choice.
      That way you are not responsible for the consequences of your actions, because you did not make the choice.

      All the government is trying to do here is give Boeing more freedom by making choices for them.

      Total freedom would be nationalization.

      1. Kind of sucks for those whose job it is to make choices….

    2. “According to Minge, the commerce clause allows them to dictate anything, because anything can have a substantial effect on commerce.”

      I realize nuance is a very, very hard thing for conservatives to wrap their heads around but:

      1. I’ve consistently said I’m not sure that the substantial effects doctrine is a good one
      2. I’ve always said I agree with Lopez and Morrison which placed limits on the commerce clause even within the substantial effects caselaw

      1. You mean like your nuanced interpretation of the commerce clause to allow the government to regulate anything and everything including inactivity? That’s some tasty nuance you got there.

        1. The purpose of nuance is to take plain language like “Congress shall make no law” and say it means “Congress can make any law”.

          Nuance is a tool used by liars.

          1. “Nuance is a tool used by liars.”

            It’s spelled “l-a-w-y-e-r-s.”

      2. You’re “not sure the substantial effects doctrine is a good one”? Only an apologist for the Total State could not plainly see that it is evil.

        1. The problem is that with it you get a federal govt with little limits and without it you get a federal government with little power. Both can be bad things.

          1. Also, I’m a fucking moron.

            1. ah, the eloquence of those who argue against current interstate commerce law. Why are’nt more people convinced by such silver tongues?

          2. The federal government is *supposed to* have very limited power. If only there were some sort of list of things they were supposed to do…

            1. Let’s brainstorm! We could shift the paradigm…

          3. The problem is that with it you get a federal govt with little limits and without it you get a federal government with little power. Both can be bad things.

            Not everyone thinks the latter is a problem:

            “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

      3. “I realize nuance is a very, very hard thing for conservatives to wrap their heads around but:”
        It’s spelled Capitalist!!!!

      4. I realize nuance is a very, very hard thing for conservatives to wrap their heads around but

        Libertarians were bitching about the commerce clause before conservatives were….in fact there is at least one or two conservative supreme court justices who love the commerce clause to death and are very happy to put nuance on it.

        Anyway MNG you have been here a long time….how about you awaken to the nuance that libertarians are not conservatives….it is a subtle shade of difference i know….much like the difference between midnight and the surface of the sun.

        You jackass.

  10. Yes, yes, I see what you mean – choices and consequences would negatively effect the harmony of society and would be doubleplusungood.

  11. This has been badly reported everywhere.

    What the NLRB found to be a questionable labor practice was to threaten to open new plants in non-union areas in response to legal activity by the union. If Boeing had determined that S. Carolina was a great place for the new plant in a non-retaliatory way there would have been no problem, but they actually have internal documents, managerial statements, etc., explicitly stating the move was part of a retaliatory strategy on the part of the company.

    1. No, you are misreporting.

      Boeing is not running from unions per se. They are relocating operations from a location in which a specific union refused to agree to a long-term non strike clause, which would prevent disruptions in deliveries that were costing the company business. This is a good faith business rationale that undercuts any claim of anti-union animus.

      1. It is interesting that you seem not to know that doing this in retaliation to a specific union, namely the one they have a CBA with, is worse under the law than if they did it out of a general anti-union basis.

        1. Then the law is stupid.

          If the law prohibits Boeing from building a plant where a union that costs it billions of dollars cannot cost it billions of dollars, then the law is stupid.

          Defending a stupid law by begging the question and saying it is a good law because it is a law is also stupid.

          1. The law was meant to combat the terrible labor strife that was rampant before the law. By that respects it has largely been a huge success.

            1. Where is that “terrible labor strife” now?

              Will that “terrible labor strife” suddenly reappear in absence of these stupid laws?

              1. If the Boeing plant opens in SC, there will terrible labor strife. Because of union and management goons, or something.

              2. “Where is that “terrible labor strife” now?”

                That’t the point, the law was meant to rationalize labor relations.

            2. The law was meant to combat the terrible labor strife that was rampant before the law. By that respects it has largely been a huge success.
              Sure it has.

              1. If you want to argue we have labor strife on the scale we did back right before the NLRA passed, by all means proceed.

            3. terrible labor strife

              I hear in SC people are starving in the streets and Union members fill mass graves.

            4. The law was meant to combat the terrible labor strife that was rampant before the law. By that respects it has largely been a huge success.

              If by “reducing that strife” you mean “bankrupting most companies that have labor unions”, then yes.

      2. They are not relocating. They are opening a brand new facitlity and leaving the old one open.

        1. They are choosing to open the new plant in a non-union area rather than a union area which, in itself, is perfectly fine. But doing it in explicit retaliation for legal union activity is what is questionable legally.

          1. No, making it any of the government’s business is of questionable legality.

            1. I dunno, we don’t have national markets being constantly disrupted by gunfights between union and manangement goons and the National Guard much anymore so I’d say the law has done well.

              1. And I’m sure this law was the only solution.

              2. You mean the National Guard wasn’t part of the government and wasn’t making labor relations into government business?

                I didn’t know that.

              3. Those fights only happened because the unions refused to respect various rights. The factory is not the workers’ factory: they have no right to a sit-down strike. The scabs are human beings: the strikers have no rights to stop their working.

          2. So Boeing is guilty of a thoughtcrime?

            Weird.

            I hate Boeing with the fury of 1000 suns, but this seems absurd.

          3. So what if it is “retaliation”? Why should that be illegal?

          4. Where do you get this: ‘doing it in explicit retaliation for legal union activity’?

          5. What evidence do you have that the location is retaliation for past strikes, rather than a practical decision to avoid future ones?

    2. Exactly. It’s kind of like how divorce is OK unless it’s in retaliation for your husband beating you.

      1. Marriage is a good analogy, it would be like cheating on your wife because she didn’t make dinner last night.

        1. Exactly. And still none of the government’s business.

        2. I think Boeing has a long history of problems with its union. Frequent strikes are cited in the article. So it would be more like divorcing your wife because she sits around the house all day, doing half the work you do. But then a judge refuses to allow the divorce to go through because something something.

        3. But what if they have an open marriage?

          You said Boeing can do this, except that it’s not okay because of their motivation. If they were laying off all of the workers in the union plant, you might have an argument. They’re not. They chose to build their new capacity elsewhere. Did the union have a contract that required Boeing to open new facilities in closed shop states? Nope… too bad… too sad. Same thing I’m sure the unions said to Boeing when they asked for a no strike clause.

          If the union workers are so upset, why don’t they strike! That would show Boeing.

        4. “Marriage is a good analogy, it would be like cheating on your wife because she didn’t make dinner last night.”

          Only if it wasn’t the first time she didn’t make you dinner. And every time she didn’t make you dinner it cost you about $2 billion.

          1. +2 billion

    3. What the NLRB found to be a questionable labor practice was to threaten to open new plants in non-union areas in response to legal activity by the union.

      That’s why the NLRB is full of shit. It’s perfectly legal for the union to walk off the job if they want, and it would be perfectly stupid of Boeing management to just keep trying to build airplanes in the same place where that happens every couple of years.

      Any executive who wouldn’t move their production under that kind of repeated threat would be derelict in their fiduciary duty to the millions of people who own their shares.

      -jcr

      1. The entire purpose of the NLRA is to promote harmonious labor relations, something which of course is lost on you.

        1. And by harmonious labor relations you mean insuring that companies like Boeing get ass-raped by the unions with no recourse.

          1. There’s tons of legal recourses that the law allows, read the NLRA.

            1. As sarcasmic noted above:

              If the law prohibits Boeing from building a plant where a union that costs it billions of dollars cannot cost it billions of dollars, then the law is stupid.

              Defending a stupid law by begging the question and saying it is a good law because it is a law is also stupid.

        2. The entire purpose of the NLRA is to interfere in freedom of contract rights in favor of labor unions for purely political reasons.

          And, as usual, the federal government never had any legitimate authority whatsoever to enact any labor laws at all to begin with. That is not pursuant to any enumerated power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

          1. Would you like to argue the NLRA doesn’t put restrictions on unions as well as employers?

            Please argue that. Please.

            1. The NLRA does just what I said – it interferes in freedom of contract in favor of labor unions.

              You aren’t the least bit capable of proving the case is otherwise.

              1. If it restricts union activity as well then how can it just be a restriction in favor of unions?

                1. Because it places restrictions on freedom of contract and REQUIRES companies to deal with unions whether they wish to or not – as if you didn’t already know that.

                  Under pure freedom of contract, no company would HAVE to negotiate with any labor union at all if it did not wish to do so. It could simply fire all the workers trying to form a union and hire replacements.

                  1. It simply requires bargaining, they can deny all proposals from the union.

                    But it also denies unions from using tools that were very successful in the past, like wildcat strikes and secondary boycotts.

                    1. “It simply requires bargaining”

                      Like I said, it interferes in freedom of contract in favor or labor unions.

                2. What restrictions has the NLRB put on the Unions? the Uniosn can walk any time they want but Boeing can’t according to the NLRB. Heres a little lesson when a company can no longer do business in the U.S. as it pleases it leaves the country and since most of it’s buers are now outside of the U.S. it would not be a burden on the company. where would all those Union employees be then?

                  1. “But it also denies unions from using tools that were very successful in the past, like wildcat strikes and secondary boycotts.

                    Dude, try to keep up.

                    1. Companies are forced to negotiate by the NLRA. Isn’t a contract supposed to be freely negotiated? More like a shotgun wedding, with Uncle Sam holding the shotgun.

        3. Harmonious labor relations would be the union workers not walking out every couple of years.

          1. Yeah, they just walk out for the giggles of it.

            1. Oops, I meant:

              Yeah, they just walk out for the giggles greed of it.

            2. The union refusing to provide a workforce for the company when they disapprove of something is simply a retaliatory strategy on the part of the union. Perfectly legal.

              By contrast, the company refusing to provide employment opportunities for the people who regularly deprive them or a workforce as a retaliatory strategy is illegal.

              Right… Makes perfect sense to the unions, I’m sure.

              1. This.

        4. Good one man! harmonious labor relations. That is fucking hilarious.

        5. “harmonious labor relations” haha, now there’s something with an objective legal definition

          “In a controlled (or mixed) economy, a legislator’s [NLRB stooge’s] job consists in sacrificing some men to others. No matter what choice he makes, no choice of this kind can be morally justified (and never has been). Proceeding from an immoral base, no decision of his can be honest or dishonest, just or unjust?these concepts are inapplicable. He becomes, therefore, an easy target for the promptings of any pressure group, any lobbyist, any influence-peddler, any manipulator?he has no standards by which to judge or to resist them. You do not know what hidden powers drive him or what he is doing. Neither does he.” –Ayn Rand

    4. retaliatory strategy on the part of the company.

      In the same way that buying a hammer from Walmart is a retaliatory strategy against Ace Hardware.

    5. All nice and fluffy, MNG, but the facks is… the NLRB has too much power.

      1. Look up David van Os, a labor relations lawyer who works with the NLRB. When his office workers tried to unionize, he made sure the NRLB arbitrators decided the case against the union workers. This is a man who has filed tons of frivolous cases against companies who use non-union workers. Fucking pig.

  12. Hell, if I were a Boeing exec, I’d be looking into moving production to Korea or Poland.

    -jcr

    1. Proud American that you are.

      1. When a compnay operates more efficiently, everyone wins who deserves to win.

        1. By that logic if child labor or rampant polluting made a company operate more efficiently, then have at it?

          1. Is the child labor voluntary? Or are you pissed because it conflicts with compulsory education, a bullshit concept the federal government created with union help to manipulate the available workforce.

            Also, is the pollution impacting the property rights of someone else, or is he pollution contained to their own property? (Remember, every time you exhale, hoe emit a “pollutant,” according to the EPA, so tread carefully in your answer, lest your own ability to go outside for a jog be regulated.)

            1. Sure, it’s voluntary. Go ahead and argue for child labor.

              And yes the pollution harms others.

              1. I’m not arguing for child labor. I’m arguing for individual liberty and self-determination. You seem to believe personhood starts at age 18. If a company doesn’t want the stigma of hiring younger workers, then they can simply not hire them.

                Also, I think I made it clear that if the pollution harms nobody else’s property, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, “pollution” is all-too-often used to describe things that are not pollutants at all, and are used simply as buzzwords to enable more regulation of the use of private property.

          2. moving production to Korea or Poland.

            By that logic if child labor or rampant polluting

            I hear in Poland and Korea that the air is made of acid and they eat their own children.

          3. Libertarians also support the use of human blood to grease factory machinery. Efficiency and stuff.

          4. You’re on a comment board known to be filled with Libertarians. You can assume that we’re against violating the rights of others (such as damaging their property with pollution, or forcing children to work.)

      2. Companies should have no reason to hold loyalty to a state, especially if that state actively opposses the company’s stated goals of making products and selling them for a profit.

        1. “Companies should have no reason to hold loyalty to a state”

          Which is why we should not let them be too involved in our national politics and campaigns, right?

          1. Freedom of Speech be damned, right?

            1. So you think freedom of speech should be applied, say, to foriegn governments participating in our elections.

              Great.

              1. That’s some leap you made there…from publicly traded companies being able to voice their opinions on national politics to foreign governments participating in elections.

                Do you dress your strawmen up as chicks and pretend to go out on dates? Or do you construct a straw cock and dress it up as Uncle Sam so you can suck it’s dick?

              2. Uh, where exactly is the evidence in the wake of Citizens United that our elections are being influenced by foreign money, especially in a way that’s not offset by the gains to freedom of speech? Not innuendo about the Chamber of Commerce, but some real evidence that furriners tilted the scales enough that a politician antithetical to American interests was elected.

                Heck, money couldn’t buy Meg Whitman much.

      3. Proud American that you are.

        Our president is hell bent on raising opportunity costs here…

        What is there to be proud of?

  13. IS there a business that is less in bed with the government than Boeing? But go ahead and champion this hero of free enterprise.

    1. I’m more in bed with government than Boeing.
      I’ve got more government contracts and I don’t pay any taxes.
      Hell, I even got the government to outlaw the symbol for a good idea because I make more expensive substitutes!

      1. Fuck you, G.E. – we’re not only in bed, we’re taking it up the ass.

        1. Hey, big brother. Can I come, too?

      2. “Hell, I even got the government to outlaw the symbol for a good idea because I make more expensive substitutes!”

        That is all kinds of awesome.

    2. Boeing (or the owners thereof) have rights, or do you think the govt can just confiscate any company it does business with?

      1. or do you think the govt can just confiscate any company it does business with?

        According to Minge, Commerce Clause, bitchez!

    3. This is an important aspect; Boeing is second only to GE in rent seeking and state fellating. So how bad are the Washington unions that Boeing would be ready to come into conflict with its state/corporatist partners? They must have calculated a big premium to be ready to go head-to-head with the NLRB.

      On the other side of the conflict, the NLRB must be pretty ideologically driven to fuck with a corporatist Jabba like Boeing. That’s not the kind of harmonious corporatist relationship we’ve come to expect from the Obama regime. Maybe they’ll give Boeing a few billion borrowed dollars to smooth it all out.

      1. I doubt Boeing really expected the NLRB to get involved with this. Were there any indications back before Boeing made the decision?

  14. Thanks National Labor Relations Board!

  15. reduxnet:
    http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.44.html#subj9

    BTW, this late morning links situation is unacceptable. Think of the newfies!

    1. Also, Reuters reports security “experts” are skeptical that Stars is really the next stuxnet, or even that it exists.

  16. National Labor Relations Board!

    (this post is not spam, hopefully the filter will believe me this time)

    1. There’s supposed to be a ‘Thanks’ before National Labor Relations Board

      1. The squirells tried to help you, but you didn’t listen.

  17. The days where there are only Boeing and Airbus are vanishing. China has already started with their own aircrafts company, Brazil is also capable, I see India also joining the competition one day.

    The labour unions think that even if they turn Boeing into another GM that things will still be fine. Look at the latest propaganda, GM is flourishing according to them. The fact is that GM is still making utter crap cars, the airlines will not buy Boeings if there are better and cheaper alternatives, which will happen soon enough.

    1. As someone who was recently “removed” from the aircrafy industry (primarily due to Government interference), this statement rings very true.

      There is a large amount of competition that is brewing in the aircraft industry and the American Labor Unions that have lived fat off the land of “Big Air” are going to see themselves restructured out of jobs by the tens of thousands.

      Unlike past business cycles those jobs are not coming back. The aircraft industry is finally starting to modernize and that means less central labor at large plants and more diversified supply chains of small contractors and sub-assembly builders.

      Many of these changes could have happened in more labor friendly ways, but union opposition runs deep to any changes in the structure of the workforce, which often causes situations like this one with Boeing.

    2. Why do you hate repair shops?

  18. If the NLRB succeeds, a federal official will command a private corporation it may not produce in one place and must produce in another.

    Hey why not?

    This Government already feels it can tell me what items I have to purchase just for living. It’s not a big leap to assume it can tell businesses (or individuals) where they have to build (or live).

  19. Well, the NRLB can’t prevent Boeing from opening a plant in South Korea, so…that’s probably what’ll happen.

    Harmonious labor relations, bitches.

  20. http://www.creditwritedowns.co…..berty.html

    http://www.creditwritedowns.co…..berty.html

    Here’s a libertarian you should listen to. Corporations DO NOT have the same rights as individuals. So there!

    1. jesus christ on a stick, MNG. You’re finally getting that libertarian opinions are not homogenous. Unlike the quality of your assery.

      1. At least his opinions are well thought out and have some sort of moral structure, unlike yourself.

      2. Dude, it’s a childish spoof, probably Gobbyman.

        1. Ha! Stupid libertards! When confronted with a dissenting opinion from another libertarian, you whither and cower in fear! How disgusting!

          1. A corp is merely individuals working together voluntarily for commercial reasons. Why should these people not be permitted to speak with one voice, voluntarily?

    2. Most libertarians do not think that corporations are individuals, that is a standard left winger straw man. However most do believe that one can say what when they want, no matter what kind of organisation the are currently working in. That their money can be spent on any cause without government censorship.

      1. So you agree that the rights of corporations should be subservient to the rights of individuals?

        1. What you really want is that they are subservient to the rights of politicians. Who I invest my money in and who they support is my business, not yours.

    3. Well, okay, how about we put it this way: corporations have no rights at all, but individuals working for corporations have all the rights individuals have. So, freedom of contract, freedom of association, freedom of speech etc. In the link you’ve posted, it’s implied that there’s an individual right to do business with someone who doesn’t want to do business with you. There isn’t. So nobody’s rights are being violated when someone’s business is turned away for racist reasons, appalling though that might be.

      1. Sorry, I didn’t realise that the second link was different. I was only referring to the first in my previous post.

        1. Although, now having read the second link as well, I have to say I don’t think he’s thought it through. He’s right about one thing: corporations, as it stands, are artificial legal entities – there’s a way in which they can be seen as in contract with the government. However, even if we accept that view, such a contract may not be valid because the government’s end is held up, as ever, by thievery.
          My beef, though, is that this guy extends this view to all businesses. He gives an example of a shop which won’t allow black people to buy from there, and claims that a ‘corporatist’ would have the business’ right be seen as more important than the individuals rights. However, the individual has no right to do business with whoever he chooses, and what he calls business rights are in fact the rights of the business-owner to freedom of association.

    4. So why do unions have rights if the corporations that employ them don’t? Aren’t both groups of individuals that choose to voluntary associate for purposes of commerce?

  21. Wow OK man thats pretty messed up when you think about it.

    http://www.total-anon.us.tc

  22. There’s tons of legal recourses that the law allows, read the NLRA.

    And you’ll find that most of that recourse runs through the NLRB, which has been stacked by Obama.

    Color me unimpressed. Fortunately, Boeing has enough at stake here to fight this tooth and nail rather than roll over and let a precedent get established.

    Really, what the NLRB is going for here is a new rule that a company with plants in closed shop states cannot open any plants in right to work states. They can dress it up anyway they like, but the argument that any conflict with a union means that any right to work plant was built in retaliation is a particularly thin pretext.

  23. “And you’ll find that most of that recourse runs through the NLRB, which has been stacked by Obama.”

    Currently it is made up of a long time GOP official, two Obama recess apointees and a Clinton appointee that was reappointed by W Bush and then elevated to chair by Obama.

    ” what the NLRB is going for here is a new rule that a company with plants in closed shop states cannot open any plants in right to work states”

    Wrong. It’s a rule that they cannot do that in retaliation for legal union activity, and that ain’t a new rule.

  24. They can always export those jobs to China if the unions like.

  25. stating the move was part of a retaliatory strategy on the part of the company.

    And walking home from school a different way after the bully beats you up and steals your lunch money every day for a week is “retaliation” instead of “self-defense”.

    You’re pathetic.

    1. OMG, is the huge multi-national Boeing the kid getting bullied in this scenario?

      You’re hilarious.

      1. Because really, the US Government doesn’t really have the might to bully anyone, much less a corporation.

        1. Huh?

      2. It’s Big Government versus Small Airplane Maker, just like it was Big Government versus Small Tobacco.

        Never forget that Big Government is much, much bigger than all those businesses it’s trying to muck around in.

  26. The federal laws that support and protect unions should be eliminated. But as long as anybody can vote, everybody loses.

  27. The entire purpose of the NLRA is to promote harmonious labor relations

    *hits self repeatedly over head with Newspeak Dictionary*

  28. MNG|5.16.11 @ 8:08AM|#
    “This has been badly reported everywhere.”
    No, it hasn’t. As proof:

    “What the NLRB found to be a questionable labor practice was to threaten to open new plants in non-union areas in response to legal activity by the union. If Boeing had determined that S. Carolina was a great place for the new plant in a non-retaliatory way there would have been no problem,…”
    IOWs, it’s not the action, it’s the thought behind the action.
    There are other places where certain thoughts are illegal.

    1. I don’t know what to tell you, many actions can be legal or illegal depending solely on the mindset behind them. That’s hardly some recent socialist plot.

      1. We socialists have been pulling this thoughtcrime crap for a long time now.

      2. MNG|5.16.11 @ 11:09AM|#
        “I don’t know what to tell you, many actions can be legal or illegal depending solely on the mindset behind them.”
        Cite?

        1. Mental state is an essential element of most crimes. The state must often show that the criminal acted with purpose or knowledge. In the case of Boeing,I have no idea how one is supposed to distinguish between setting up the plant in SC because it’s cheaper and not setting it up in WA because the unions make it too expensive. The only solution for Boeing is to eventually eliminate all its union jobs, then it can’t possibly retaliate.

          1. hate to agree w/ MNG|5.16.11 @ 2:49PM|#
            “Mental state is an essential element of most crimes. The state must often show that the criminal acted with purpose or knowledge.”
            Cite?

            1. I believe the jargon is “Mens Rea” and it is an element of a lot of crimes.

              The interesting thing here is that trying desperately to avoid further “actions” by the union is defined as “retaliation”.

              In other words, the union not only “owns” all the jobs Boeing has on offer right now, they also “own” any more that might be generated in the future.

              1. ‘Course mens rea is generally a pretty weak conditions: things like “the defendant knew or should have known that the act was illegal”.

                1. EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|5.16.11 @ 8:41PM|#
                  …”should have known that the act was illegal”.

                  To repeat: “the ACT was illegal”.
                  Opening a new plant in a new location is *NOT* an illegal act.
                  So I ask once more; is there a single action that can be found illegal simply because someone had certain thoughts about that act?
                  I’ll yield this: That perjury *may* be found so, but it would take a hell of a finding.
                  And prostitution certainly, since we’ve all spent money on dates in the hopes…..

      3. many actions can be legal or illegal depending solely on the mindset behind them.

        MNG – Advocate for the thought police.

        1. I’m still waiting for the list of actions which are illegal if you think a certain way.
          Arms crossed, foot tapping.

          1. Why, hate crimes of course!

            But also things like murder. However, the important point is that intent merely magnifies the severity of the crime. Going to a business-friendly state to open a new factory shouldn’t be illegal in the first place.

            1. “Why, hate crimes of course!”
              I sorta figured MNG to hit on those, but as you mention, they don’t make an activity illegal, they merely increase the penalties.
              And, IMO, they should also be tossed out.

              1. Accidently running someone over isn’t necessarily illegal but intentionally running them over always is.

  29. I think this action by the NLRB is just a bargaining chip. Boeing has way too much invested in the new South Carolina facility to hold it up for any reason. I think this issue will go away with some sweetener to the union machinists.
    As for any union goons trying to disrupt the operations in South Carolina, the local folks would never tolerate any nonsense. Send some guys down from New Yuck or Washington to try to tell people in SC they can’t work? Yeah, let me know how well that works out.

  30. Ah, at long last P Brooks gets to the heart of the matter: the entire purpose of the NLRA (DOE/NEA/HUD/Obamacare/fillinyouracronymhere) is to provide cushy lifetime jobs to campaign supporters. Any semblance of work for the people is pure happenstance.

  31. Why get in a pissing match with MNG???

  32. Holy crap. I just saw a movie this past weekend where the government passed some law forbidding companies from moving across state lines. Atlas Shrugged I think it was called. Ever heard of it?

  33. Boeing should just shut the doors and move to Galt Gulch. Seriously, this is getting absurd.

  34. Wrong. It’s a rule that they cannot do that in retaliation for legal union activity, and that ain’t a new rule.

    Has the NLRB ever closed down a plant because it was in a right-to-work state?

    Has the NLRB ever defined “retaliation” to include building a new plant, while leaving the old plant open?

    These are major departures, not merely the routine application of a long-standing rule.

    What the NLRB is doing here is saying that no unionized company can open a new plant in a right to work state, because (a) those companies always have disputes of some kind with their union that (b) opening the new plant would be retaliation for.

  35. rc dean hit the nail on the head.
    i am sure mng wil be too busy from now on with other things to keep making his asinine arguments.

  36. I don’t see how what he’s doing is legal at all.

    http://www.intellectualtakeout…..orm-larson

  37. Repeal all laws regulating these things. Not only is it colossally detrimental to our, it’s morally indefensible and abominable.

    True American republic in our lifetime! */Pipe dream*

  38. Am I crazy or doesn’t Boeing just build its next plant in China, throwing thousands of Americans – whether unionized or not – out of work.

  39. If I were Boeing shareholders, vote to move production out of USA, maybe Canada.

  40. Supreme Court just voted 8-1 that it is OK for cops to break into a home without warrant as long as the police think there is something illegal happening inside. This is what the Nazis did. Getting my bags staged to leave the USA.

  41. Commence race to the bottom! Only when all American workers are working in sweatshops will the God of the Free Market be satisfied. Its those workers’ own faults if they aren’t bootstrappy entrepreneurs, right?

  42. 2009, the company had to decide where to open a second pro

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.