Obama's Pick for Commerce Secretary Criticizes Labor Case against Boeing
The aircraft manufacturer Boeing was hauled before a National Labor Relations Board judge last week on the dubious charge of anti-union practices after the company opened a new facility in business-friendly South Carolina rather than alongside an existing facility in union-friendly Washington state. If it gets it way, the NLRB would force Boeing to place the facility in Washington and shutter the South Carolina production line.
If that sounds like an example of prosecutorial overreach to you, you're not alone. As The Washington Post reports, even President Barack Obama's nominee to head up the Commerce Department, John Bryson, thinks the NLRB has gone too far. As the Post notes, the topic came up this week during Bryson's testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, and the would-be sectary of commerce did not hold his tongue:
Republicans asked Bryson about the National Labor Relations Board's suit against Boeing, which accuses the aircraft builder of opening a plant in South Carolina in retaliation against union workers in Washington state who went on strike in 2008. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the NLRB action was "an unprecedented violation of a company's ability" to locate its facilities where it wants to.
"I think it's not the right judgment," Bryson said of the NLRB suit. He said Boeing officials were surprised by the legal action and said they believed they were "doing the right thing for the country" by keeping jobs in the U.S. and not moving them abroad.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
....for Airbus.
http://www.reuters.com/article.....S220110621
LOL, I'll bet the Kos Kiddies are pissing themselves with rage.
Pissing themselves with rage, you say?
http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/12/rehab-for-all/
"The truth comes out eventually. I hadn't taken that into account." Um, so does that mean anything other than "I lied and thought I'd get away with it"?
In cases like this, you can either be malicious, or you can be stupid.
In Markos' case, as a rare exception, he might be able to plead that he was both.
A rare achievement.
...if they don't catch you.
fucking chickenshit sellout.
But I'm always one step ahead of them!
Look, if you know what's good for people more than they do, it's OK to lie and break a few eggs to achieve those ends.
ONLY for the greater good.
ALL of my ends are for the greater good. I'm much smarter than my supporters, remember?
I'll do your preening for you...
He hadn't taken the actual truth value of his claims into account before he started arguing for them. Sounds about right.
You should note that this is a spoof. Sometimes reality and parody get too close together.
Aw. I was really hoping there was a rehab for shamelessness.
I am SUCH a pussy.
It's "haled," not "hauled."
I thought it was heiled.
Do you know who else heiled?
Oh Heil no!
Heiling frequencies are open, Mein Fuhrer!
I did Nazi that coming!
Nobody expects the Fascist Inquisition!
If you want to burst through high prices and conquer your budget lighting fast check out Panzergruppeon.com and get some nice Jew for...er two for one deals!
What rarely gets brought up when people talk about this case is the reality that Boeing is dealing with when it comes to keeping its customers.
For example-
(http://www.thefreeenterprisenation.org/blog/FEN-Blog/June-2011/NLRB's-attack-on-Boeing-is-an-attack-on-free-enter.aspx)
The NLRB claims that Boeing has decided to open up its new facility in South Carolina as retaliation for previous strikes. In 2008, workers at the Washington Boeing facility went on strike for two months, costing the company tens of millions of dollars and delaying deliveries to other private companies waiting for their aircraft.
Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group, was very vocal about the inconvenience of the hold up. He was launching a new airline route from Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia, and lost an entire month of business due to the strike. "If people in Seattle build our planes and deliver them on time and, to be frank, don't go on strikes, then we'll continue to work with Boeing," Branson said. "It's just something we can't afford to have happen. The world is difficult enough without self-inflicted injuries."
So in order for Boeing to keep its customers it needs to build the Dreamliner in a place where they won't have to be worried about the entire production being stopped because the Union wants to go on strike. And not only that, but its customers are telling them "if you build this plane in Seattle, we will not be buying it because we can't depend on you to deliver the plane on time".
Boeing has no choice but to build the plane in SC, because it won't be able to sell them if it doesn't. The third option is Boeing packs up its shit and moves it to Canada or Mexico.
Well done, NLRB.
This is how the federal government creates jobs. It forbids the employer from creating new jobs. This way new private sector jobs are created. See?
Don't forget the feds are forcing the employer to lose customers too!
Thus the company is more profitable.
We should release all employers from all laws so they can create more jobs.
Not all laws, just stupid ones.
So you would prefer Boeing either move the jobs out of the country Minge?
They have been told straight up by their clients "if you build this plane in Seattle, we will not be buying it because we can't depend on you to deliver the plane on time". What the fuck are they supposed to do?
Let me ask you this: the law prohibits retaliatory action, there's credible evidence this is so motivated, the NLRB's job is to enforce the law. What should the NLRB do?
You don't get to answer a question with another question.
I'll answer yours after you answer mine.
You first.
What was Boeing supposed to do?
My answer: Treat their workers fairly and decently in the first place.
Your turn.
They are treating their employees fairly. That's why Boeing is keeping it's Seattle line, in addition to adding the SC plant.
No jobs are being lost as a result of the new plant.
Treat their workers fairly and decently in the first place.
They make $28/hour to make airplanes, and they get some of the best benefits in the industry. Fairly and decently was covered. In fact, the 2008 strike cost the union members an average of $7000.00 in base pay and cost the company $100 million per day in revenue and penalties with a postponement of the delivery of aircraft.
Fairly? Gimme a fucking break.
And even for you Minge, that was a lame answer.
Your turn tman, let's not puss out.
Ok Minge.
the law prohibits retaliatory action, there's credible evidence this is so motivated, the NLRB's job is to enforce the law. What should the NLRB do?
Retract the enforcement because Boeing will end up getting rid of even MORE jobs if they force it to close the plant in SC.
I can't imagine the end goal for the NLRB is for Boeing to lose more jobs, is it MNG?
The problem then is the law. The NLRB's job is to prohibit this kind of practice, it had to do something.
If Boeing were planning to build a plant and use child labor it might be good for their business too, but they would have to follow the law, even if it meant bad things for their bottom line.
But they aren't planning on using child labor laws. And they aren't getting rid of the current workers in Washington. the NLRB is perfectly capable is distinguishing the difference between the two.
You still haven't answered the business question though. They treat their workers fairly. But their customers are saying that they won't put in orders for the Dreamliner if they build it in Seattle because they can't depend on them.
What is Boeing supposed to do?
"They treat their workers fairly."
That's hardly been established by you listing the average pay.
Again, what if Boeing said "we're hurting, and only if we can hire little kids to clean the engines at below the minimum wage would be able to expand"? Should we bend the laws for them to do so? Both employing children, working people for less than minimum wage and retaliation for NLRA protected activity are all violations of federal law. Should there be a "creating jobs" exemption to the laws?
Again, what if Boeing said "we're hurting, and only if we can hire little kids to clean the engines at below the minimum wage would be able to expand"?
I'm not playing your strawmen games Minge. You do this with every fucking argument. You create a completely hypothetical situation in order to ignore and avoid the facts and realities surrounding the issue.
The Boeing employees aren't striking now, and are currently employed by one of the best companies in the US.
Resign. Dig their own graves in unconsecrated ground. Commit suicide.
You poked me in the eye. I'm going to leave this party because I don't want to get poked in the eye anymore. Doesn't really seem like retaliatory action, just common sense. Maybe the union will stop beating me if I just do what what it tells me too. I'm sure they really love me. As to what the NRLB should do? DIAFF.
-K
Yeah, the mean ol'union is beating the multinational billion dollar company...Won't somebody stop this?
multinational billion dollar companies don't continue to survive if they don't make sound decisions. Money to pay employees doesn't grow on trees and preventing a company from making sound decisions by force of law will eventually destroy the company. So you can snark about the poor poor multinational billion dollar company all you want as if it was actually some sort of logical argument rather than a petulant temper tantrum.
-K
"Yeah, the mean ol'union is beating the multinational billion dollar company"
Because everyone knows that a multinational billion dollar company is bigger and stronger than the federal government.
You are one stupid fucker.
OMG, his first attempt at a point!
Sadly we were talking about the relative strength of the company and the union (since the strikes we were talking about in this instance did not involve the federal government) but we're still proud of you for trying pippy.
"Sadly we were talking about the relative strength of the company and the union backed by the federal government's NLRB. The "N" in NLRB means somthing.
Lord you are retarded, the NLRB was not involved in the earlier strikes.
Why should the owners of a company not be allowed to fire or discipline striking or threatening-to-strike workers?
That's the thing, Boeing didn't even go that far. The SC plant isn't a replacement for the Seattle plant, it's a supplement. In fact, Boeing has even added jobs at the Seattle plant.
Yes, retaliation equals Boeing building a second factory SC, and continuing to employ their current, unionized employees in Seattle.
If, as much evidence seems to suggest, they originally planned to build it in Seattle but then reversed as retaliation, then it's not so hard to understand.
You seem to confuse the terms 'retaliate' and 'engage in a sound business decision given our need to fulfill contracts.'
I think you're confused. Retaliate means done in response to, and the board had credible evidence that the switch from building the plant in WA to SC was "done in response to" the protected activity.
'Done in response to' is not a synonym for 'retaliate'. If I stick my hand on the hot stove and get burned, and then refuse to stick my hand on the hot stove again, I did not 'retaliate' against the stove. You don't get to just make up definitions for words to suit your own agenda.
A+
retaliation - action taken in return for an injury or offense
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
If the move was action taken in return for the injury or offense of the strike...
If the move was action taken in return for the injury or offense of the strike...
Only if the action is a return of an injury in kind, so, no.
"Retaliate means done in response to"
You don't get to redine the meaning of "retaliate" any more than you do the meaing of "regulate" or "commerce".
---"Retaliate means done in response to'---
reatliate-v.---to return like for like, especially evil for evil: to retaliate for an injury.
How has Boeing returned injury for injury. They have added jobs in Washington. How is adding jobs evil (unless you are a large corporation?)
A) Maybe they reversed the decision to keep thier existing customers and reassure prospective ones. Thus creating and saving jobs at the same time.
B) Stick with the decision and...lose customers. Forcing the company to layoff workers - the very workers that drove customers into the arms of Airbus.
A seems preferable.
Do you think Airbus is not unionized and that France does not have even more union friendly laws in place? WTF?
That is spurious. Has Airbus recently gone on an extended strike that cost its customers millions of dollars? WTF back at you.
A seems preferable.
Shit. We went with B.
You're assuming that the union has a right to staff those jobs in the first place.
Who cares why they wanted to move the plant. They were under no obligation to build another plant in Seattle, and no one's job was threatened. Saying to workers "if you ever go on strike again, you will get to keep your job, but we aren't hiring any MORE employees". No rational person can consider this a threat.
"Let me ask you this: the law prohibits retaliatory action, there's credible evidence this is so motivated"
Nonsense.
If someone who went on strike did NOT lose their job, or have their benefits cut then there is no "retalation"
It's a retaliation agains the union itself if plan A was to build the plant and employ more union members in WA and they switched to plan B to go to a RTW state.
How is it retaliation?
Because they moved the plant from a place where according to the CBA between the company and union the employees would be union members to a place where that is barred. This is not rocket science.
---"they moved the plant from a place where according to the CBA between the company and union the employees would be union members to a place where that is barred"---
Is union membership and collective bargaining "barred" in S.C., or is it just that employees cannot be required to join the union? Serious question because I don't know.
It may not be rocket science but the twisting of definitions to suit a purpose is borderline insanity.
I get it. I understand that if Boeing decided to relocate the plant to get revenge on the union for blah blah blah then yes that is retaliation. However, if the company decided to build the plant in a different location becasue the workforce would be more reliable, or is more skilled, or whatever, then that doesn't seem to me to be actual retaliation, though I understand that it could be seen as.
How the fuck is it any of the government's or MNG's business? It's not.
This shit is just insane. I'd rather see Boeing close it's manufacturing plants in the U.S. than see it beaten down by the NLRB.
This is just further proof that the U.S. is officially batshit crazy.
"It's a retaliation agains the union itself if plan A was to build the plant and employ more union members in WA and they switched to plan B to go to a RTW state."
No it isn't.
It is ONLY retaliaton if someone who specifically went on strike specifically lost their job or had a benefit cut.
Refraining from adding MORE jobs for OTHER PEOPLE doesn't count.
Period.
If, in some investment committee meeting the proposal was made to move the plant to another location to "retaliate against the union for the strike" then yes it would be retaliation.
If the decision was made to move the plant site to a location with a more reliable labor force - then it is not retaliation.
It's a retaliation agains the union itself...
What is the union itself beyond its members? How do you retaliate against employees you never even had?
fuck off and die?
People, you're not going to get anywhere with MNG. It's pretty clear he's got the reasoning skills of a high schooler.
It's quite simple. Choosing to build the plant in SC rather than Seattle was not "retaliation," even if we accept your conspiracy theory Boeing was planning to build it in Seattle. That's like saying Walmart's decision not to set up a second retail store in a unionized region while adding more jobs to its existing retail store is a form of retaliation.
Boeing is just protecting themselves from future strikes which destroy jobs and hurt its credibility. The Machinists give a bad name to honest unionizers around the country. All they've done is demand more benefits and pay raises even during the recession. It's about time Boeing started looking out for itself.
I'm starting to think MNG is just some loser who got fired from a Boeing plant. Reminds me of Amy Grant's ex-husband who started patrolling any and all online forums that discussed his divorce. Both people are losers.
Oh shut the fuck up, bitch.
Pippy amost broke the six word barrier, we're so proud of you!
you could have made yours an even dozen if you had not employed that contraction.
He did it! Oh Pip, you've come so far!
Next, actual points and arguments!
Ad Hominem or Appeal to Authority? That's pretty much your bag of tricks.
I suggest a nice rest at a union-run asylum.
Ha! Well done, sir.
I can't believe you are actually willing to defend this idiocy.
strawman, much?
Burning straw.
Well done, government.
I think Boing should do the right thing for Boing.
Sadly because of how economy is run by the feds and state governments the best thing for Boing to do is to pack up and leave this country.
Looks like your 'e's have already unionized and gone on strike.
bryson should be sodmized during the waterboarding
The Obama Administration is using the NLRB to inflict its will on the economy, and it's ruling on any particular case isn't the only problem--he's fighting to broaden the NLRB's reach...
"The National Labor Relations Board Tuesday proposed the most sweeping changes to the federal rules governing union organizing elections since 1947, giving a boost to unions..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....ondStories
One of the things they're doing to help unions reunionize the American workforce?
"The NLRB said its proposed changes aim to curb unnecessary litigation; streamline procedures before and after elections; and enable the use of electronic communications, such as requiring employers to give union organizers access to electronic files containing workers' addresses..."
Because nothing makes an election on whether to unionize more fair and balanced than giving union thugs a list of employees' home addresses?!
It's amazing how deep the ignorance of labor law is in this nation.
The union seeks a list of the workers addresses because employers can restrict them from talking to the employees at the job site. Employers pushed for that and when they did they said "the unions can just contact these people off work." Now when the union loses on this issue and seeks the alternative the'yve been force to accept union haters like Ken run out and scream "look at them trying to get the addresses!"
It's like when card check was proposed and everyone ran around here screaming "OMG, they are going to gut the fair workplace election process for the unions!" nicely ignorant that certification via Gisell cards has been around for decades (but usually only when the employer asks for that method).
If that's all there is to it, why would anyone bother trying to enact card check?
Iirc Gisell cards are not preferred by courts when challenged, unless employers asked for the certification contest to be conducted that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
This explains it pretty good.
I'm glad you brought up card check. I meant to include that in my other reply. Card check combined with having the employees' home addresses seems like a REALLY bad idea. They'll know how you voted and they know where you sleep! Best to just go along with the union vote if you know what's good for you.
Yeah, but card check was an actually bad idea. Skip elections? What kinda stupid anti-democratic crap is that? Compared to that, recent changes seem positively unremarkable.
The argument is the election is not skipped, it is conducted via card solicitation instead of secret ballot. Both are democratic as you need majorities in each case.
Do I really need to actually point out that with card solicitation, there is much more of an opportunity for intimidation and pressure from either side, while with a secret ballot election nobody truly knows who voted what way?
There's a reason why all modern democracies use secret ballots. Call it a refinement, if you wish, but it's practically a prerequisite for the modern concept.
Certification elections are not much like political elections. If political elections were like certification election the Democratic Party could mandate upon pain of job loss that you attend Democratic rallies twice a day, put Hope and Change 2012 pamphlets in your work mailbox every day while barring the GOP from talking to you there at all.
---"Certification elections are not much like political elections"---
I have been through more than one certification election. You Sir, are speaking directly out of your ass.
Fuckin' A. The secret ballot is a staple of fair and democratic elections. Card check is a forced disclosure of which way you voted. Card check is not about worker rights, it's about union power.
Oh, so you want the elections to be more fair. So the unions should have equal access to the workers and information that the company does, right? And the company should not pressure the employers to attend anti-union rallies and such, right?
I mean, because you want it to be fair, right, you're not just hating on unions, right?
Can card check be used by management to decertify a union?
Decertification can be accomplished via majority signatures on a petition presented by management.
---"Decertification can be accomplished via majority signatures on a petition presented by management."---
I have also been part of de-cetification elections. The vote is prompted by petition from employees showing a certain percentage of employees (not sure of the exact number) desire a new vote. Management is prohibited by law from interfering in the election.
MNG, have you ever actually worked in a union environment? Have you ever had union reps come around and ask you to sign pledge cards. Most of the people I worked with signed the cards to make the reps leave them alone. and then voted by secret ballot on the issue. We had a union get about 85% of our workers to sign pledge cards, only to lose the election. Pledge cards mean nothing.
I refused to sign a pledge card till the pretty girl rep asked me too.
And she had to ask 3 times. Union lost the vote, I lost the job, and the owner lost the company. It's a Union Shop now. With over half the employee's temps.
Don't expect him to answer. Just expect some answer about children working or something.
It seems that paid union "protesters" keep showing up at politicians houses and harrassing them to try to get them to change their position. You don't see the potential for intimidation to vote for unionization?
He sees it, he just thinks it is a good thing.
The union seeks a list of the workers addresses because employers can restrict them from talking to the employees at the job site.
Because it's not like employees can give union reps their contact information on their own or anything. And it's not like union reps could hold meetings away from the job site. Nope, they need the names and addresses of the workers. It's only possible solution.
And maybe a list of nice things in their houses...you know, stuff that it would be a cryin' shame if it got broke all of a sudden.
I see, so you the defender of fair elections likes it so that the employer has the address of all the voters but the union does not. Gotcha.
If the union is targeting employees who aren't looking for a union--why is the NLRB forcing employees to pay attention?
Why should employees who aren't looking for a union be forced by the government to submit themselves--and their home addresses--to thuggish union persuasion?
"Thuggish union intimidation" is illegal, what is allowed is union organizing and conducting a certification election. This requires solicitation and since employers bar the union reps from doing so on the job site they do that by contacting them directly.
Thuggish union intimidation is illegal--and so is speeding on the freeways in Southern California.
Union intimidation is standard practice.
You'r full of shit and hasty generalizations.
Hasty generalization?!
I'm sure this was just another isolated incident...
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_.....assed.html
How funny can it be that when accused of a hasty generalization you point to an incident and imply it applies to all members of the similar class.
Dude, you can't even be caricatured.
"Since 1975, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research has collected more than 9,000 reports of union violence. These incidents are recorded and electronically maintained in the Institute's Violent Event Data File.
http://www.nilrr.org/node/54
Go ahead--search through the archive!
Why are labor unions so violent? Part of it has to do with an extremely bad court case decided in 1973...
"United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973) is a controversial U.S. Supreme Court case which held that violence, if carried out in furtherance of a labor union's objectives, does not violate the law according to the extortion and robbery provisions of the federal anti-Racketeering Act of 1934 or the Hobbs Act."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....._v._Enmons
I have no idea why anyone who believes in individual liberty would defend the practices of these thuggish labor unions--who are all about collectivism and the subversion of individual rights.
...through intimidation and violence.
Since 1975 9,000 REPORTS of union violence...Since that same time there have been tens of thousands of shootings by people who legally owned firearms, so I guess you conclude that individuals who own guns are violent. What, you mean reports of violence by union members means union members are thugs but confirmed shootings by gun owners does not mean gun owners are violent?
Welcome to Shultz's Wacky World of Shifting Logic!
Since that same time there have been tens of thousands of shootings by people who legally owned firearms, so I guess you conclude that individuals who own guns are violent. [citation needed]
And citation must be for unjustified shootings by legal firearm owners.
"What, you mean reports of violence by union members means union members are thugs but confirmed shootings by gun owners does not mean gun owners are violent?"
I'm really trying to understand here...
You think I'm saying that people shooting each other isn't violent?
Yes, I believe that people shooting each other is violent--and I believe that news reports of people shooting each other is indicative of violence.
I also believe that news reports of union violence are indicative of union violence.
Any more questions?
Just for the record, I'm not one of those gun rights guys who thinks that the easy availability of guns means that no one will ever use one to commit a crime. I'm one of those gun rights guys who thinks that even if the easy availability of guns does mean more gun crimes--I'm willing to accept the risk if it means I get more freedom.
If you're one of those people who thinks that union violence and intimidation is an acceptable risk because of the benefits unions bring? Then stand on your own two feet and make that case...
But, quite frankly, I don't think you have the stones for it--and that would be a pretty ridiculous position to take after you've already spent half this thread swearing that wide spread union thuggery was a figment of my imagination.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.....ments.html
""Thuggish union intimidation" is illegal,...""
"United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973) is a controversial U.S. Supreme Court case which held that violence, if carried out in furtherance of a labor union's objectives, does not violate the law according to the extortion and robbery provisions of the federal anti-Racketeering Act of 1934 or the Hobbs Act."
Which means that--no!
Unfortunately, "Thuggish union intimidation" is not necessarily illegal--according to the Supreme Court.
I'm just gonna tell it to you like this, mr. mng. My mother was a public kindergarten teacher for Kentucky. When a the reform act of 94 came into play, she was against it. Unions were for it (more money). Since my mother did not like it, she spoke out. And for that we had our tires slashed, our mailbox run over, cars parked outside our house, a confirmation of wiretapping of our phones, because my mother was so well resepcted in the county (she was the only kindergarted teacher) and didn't like the bill that unions did, she was harrassed until she had a police escort wherever she went. Death threats on the asnwer machine, etc, etc, etc. All from union people.
Ray,
I'm really sorry to hear that happened to your mom. Stuff like that shouldn't happen to anybody--and it certainly shouldn't happen to a kindergarten teacher!
I suspect MNG might rationalize that by saying that the union was protecting your mom from her evil employer--but it's hard to imagine an employer treating a kindergarten teacher worse than your mom's union did...
I don't know what MNG will say to that.
My guess is "nothing".
"This requires solicitation and since employers bar the union reps from doing so on the job site they do that by contacting them directly."
Why can't the unions get their members the same way employers get their employees?
Should there be a law mandating that we all submit our home addresses in case some employer somewhere wants to hire us?
See, people here scream about wanting fair elections, OMG you can't do card check what about the sancitity of the fair election? But they want to make sure the employer has many more resources of access than the unions. Yeah, fair.
Ever hear of a guy named George Meany?
"Meany was a great believer in cooperation of labor and capital. During his presidency, the AFL and then the AFL-CIO supported anticommunist policies. Trade-unions deemed leftist, including the United Electrical Workers and the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Employees of America, were dismissed from the CIO by the early 1950s. AFL-CIO unions then cooperated with employers to raid and decertify leftist unions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Meany
His efforts helped bring about our victory in the Cold War--ultimately spawning pro-American, free trade unions in Eastern Europe and elsewhere...
He was an enormous champion of free trade--seeing market barriers as an enormous threat to the well being and pay of American workers...
Oh, and he was the head of the AFL-CIO for 25 years!
It's a disgrace to see what the American labor movement has become. Where they used to be about elevating commerce and making sure labor got a fair shake--it's now about union thugs feeding off the labor of the uneducated and hurting the economy in the process...
Anybody who defends the union movement today should be ashamed of themselves.
You know, there are many other ways of contacting people directly without having access to their home address.
The unions preferred to contact them during breaks at work, employers went to the SCOTUS and a split court backed them saying the union would have to be satisfied with getting contact info from the employer and contacting them off work.
Put up billboards telling the workers how to contact the union.
What if the workers don't want to be contacted in the first place?
I would love to be able to solicit my side-business at work during lunch breaks as well, but you know the company has a "no soliciting" policy...Why should the union be exempt from that?
"You know, there are many other ways of contacting people directly without having access to their home address."
In fact? If people are really interested, they could probably find a way to contact the union!
That's unpossible. The employers don't pay them enough to afford a phone or phone service.
"Thuggish union intimidation" is illegal.
Now that is funny!
This whole got damn thing is thuggish union intimidation. You wanna make a plant where? Down there with those inbred fucking no-union having rednecks? Well, we know people. We'll get that place shut down, with the damn national guard if we have to!
The only reason the employer has their address in the first place is because government forces them to get the information. Otherwise, an employer would have no need, or desire as far as I could tell, to even possess the address of it's employees.
Right, in lieu of government regulations no employer would ask for such information as a condition of employment.
Have you ever worked in what is called a "job?"
I sure have, and it has been a rare occasion that any employer has required me to give my address on anything other than a W2 or an I9 form.*
*Both of those are required by the federal government and not by my employer.
Do you think employers kept the personal information of every person in their employ 80 years ago? I sincerely doubt it, so why is it necessary today?
Having work in IT for HR, the only reasons addresses are collected is:
To enter them into E-verify (government)
To fill out and keep on file an I-9 (government)
To collect their social security number via a W-9 (government)
To enrol them in benefit programs, or record voluntary refusal to enrol (government mandated to record)
To mail paycheques to employees who want neither to pick up their cheque when at work nor direct deposit (optional)
I, for one, am not interested in where someone lives as a condition of hiring them, nor being able to contact them at home, unless they were going to have a home office, in which case that's not really their "home address".
It helps to mail paychecks/paystubs, among other things.
I haven't received a traditional paycheck or paystub in years.
OT: What the hell Sloop? We were talking about you finding some rare beer for me on some trip you were going to take, then you vanish for a month.
I got sent to the jungle (literally) on very short notice. My internet access was rare to say the least so I couldn't post more than once in a blue moon over the past few weeks.
I'm heading to Paso Robles again in 2 weeks and will take care of you.
Sorry, dude.
Explanation accepted...this time.
As punishment, you will be required to obtain a bottle of said rare beer for Sudden as well (if you can grab the Firestone Lambic, that'd be sweet). Also, if you're in the mood for wine tasting while there and you like bold reds, check out Wild Coyote (its on the west side of the 46E offramp, heading towards Nacimiento). One of my favorite places (the B&B casitas there are like a home away from home).
I'll get there then. Next week I'll be in Napa, so if anyone has a need....now's the time to shoot me an e-mail.
I was just in Cleveland (go ahead, insert joke here but I love it there) and Great Lakes Brewing Co. makes some fine beer.
Ahh...Firestone Walker...
(directed to Sloopy's response to Jim)
It's not the necessarily the only reason, but it is the reason that's driving right now.
I see, so you the defender of fair elections likes it so that the employer has the address of all the voters but the union does not.
Who cares about fair? I think it is a good idea for Union elections to be secret simply because unions have a long history of corruption and violence.
Hell if i was a union member i would probably vote but not really think about it...i would not want to be caught off guard if my good faith vote happened to be against the guy who won the election....
Next thing I know I would find myself covered in concrete.
The idea is not for fair...the idea is to make it harder for Unions to kill and maim their members.
I think it is a good idea for gun laws to be strict simply because gun owners have a long history of violence.
Hasty generalization is fun!
They ARE strict, moron!
I have some fucking specifics for you.
I would equate your average union to the KKK. Both intimidate to gain their desired ends.
Why do you love the KKK so much, Minge?
I suppose as an employer I'm obligated to give out my employee's contact info to a third party other than the gov't?
That's pretty counter-intuitive to respecting the privacy of my employees and were it not involving a union, would be quite illegal.
Not just that, but also it raises the question of why the company is supposed to be the union's recruitment enabler.
I see, so you the defender of fair elections likes it so that the employer has the address of all the voters but the union does not.
If your employer doesn't have your address, where does he mail your paycheck to? Where does he mail your W-2?
A legitimate employer kind of needs your address unless you're employed under...other...arrangments.
If your employer doesn't have your address, where does he mail your paycheck to? Where does he mail your W-2?
A legitimate employer kind of needs your address unless you're employed under...other...arrangments.
Direct Deposit works pretty well. As does electronic accounting for the W2. Hell, you can get your W2 from the IRS any time you want (after Jan 31). The employer's only reason to have the info would be for an employee who elects to participate in their benefits program.
That said, I have never had a problem sharing the info with my employer. If I found out they gave the info to a third party, however, I'd go berserk.
I understand my employer asking for my address.
I don't understand the government forcing my employer to give my home address to unions I don't belong to.
Uh, most employees consent to having their employer have their address. If a union wants mine, it can ask for my consent, too. Why again do they have a right to my address?
Its for reasons like this that I never give my employer my real address.
I've never understood why they even bother to ask for it - you're not coming to my house and if you need to get ahold of me, well that's why Igave you my phone number.
So, if I'm an employee and don't want union thugs getting my home address--under any circumstances?
How do I put myself on the "Do Not Give My Address to Union Thugs List"?
Also, in the few instances where I had to fill out a job application, it plainly states that the information is confidential and the employer may not disclose the information to any outside party.
How the hell can a union require a company to break a policy that is certainly within the law?
The wonders of modern employment law
I would love for my employer to give my address out to a union organizer. The lawsuit will be epic.
Of course, I'm not now and probably never will be union eligible, so the possibility is remote, but it'd still be fun.
"The lawsuit will be epic."
If by epic you mean immediately dismissed, then yeah.
Keep thinking that, MNG. My in-house counsel seems to think there's a strong case on the merits if my employer gives my address out to anybody I don't explicitly authorize. I'll take her legal advice over yours, which in general is dubious and on legal matters even more so.
"It's amazing how deep the ignorance of labor law is in this nation."
I't amazing how deep the ignorance is of the fact that the federal government has never had any Constitutional authority to enact ANY labor laws in the first place.
Several major strikes had serious, definite impacts on interstate commerce pre-NLRA, hence the constitutional authority for the law.
Kommerz Klauz, Bitches!!!
yeah, we inexplicably included a single brief clause that completely invalidates the limitations placed on government by rest of the entire Constitution! Woohoo!
Eggzactly!! Ain't we fucking brilliant???
It's called the Gilbert Stuart code.
The government has no authority to regulate anything it merely claimed to "have an impact" on interstate commerce. It only has authority to regulate discrete interstate commerce transactions - and nothing else.
The supreme court told me otherwise 🙁
The Supreme Court makes kittens sad.
The Supreme Court makes my butt itch.
Thankfully, I have Preparation H.
and if *shock*, I don't want the union to have my private information or contact me at my home?
"I think it's not the right judgment," Bryson said of the NLRB suit.
Oh boy. Really emptied both barrels with that answer. That Bryson sure don't pull none of them there punches.
Chairman Mao would be proud!
It doesn't matter that much if the NLRB prevails or not. It matters for Boeing, sure, but the message has been sent loud and clear to anyone else who is thinking about setting up a manufacturing concern in the US: We can tie you up and cause you to lose millions if you don't play ball with our pals in the Amalgamated Brotherhood of Goons and Thugs.
So the factories go elsewhere...
The constant referring to unions as thugs demonstrates the fair and objective way that you guys view this debate...
Only when they (and their government toadies) behave like thugs - then it really seems appropriate to refer to them as thugs.
-K
It's a wonderful example of collectivization of guilt. Some union members in some unions have acted like thugs, therefore all unions and members are thugs and our laws must act upon that assumption.
I'd love to apply that to gun owners or corporations...
No, we're only referring to union thugs as union thugs. Or would you prefer ignorant assholes, like that AFl-CIO leader that went on a tirade calling Chris Christie a Nazi?
Of the ton of regular H&R commentators who call everyone to the left of them Nazis and Communists? Boy is your handle a misnomer.
Right, minge, because the words of a poster on an internet chat board carry the same weight and have the same influence as a Vice President of the AFL-CIO at a public event.
Moran!
Oh, so when important people do it they are ignorant assholes, when others do it it is ok.
Mighty fine logic you got there sloop!
Actually, no, shithead. I can link to a number of stories quoting the guy from the AFL-CIO. Pretty easy, actually.
Now, please show us the "Ton of regular H&R commentors who call everyone to the left of them Nazis and Communists."
I would ask for links to where I've referred to anyone as a nazi or commie in any way other than a joke.
The union bosses act like thugs, and the union employees allow them to represent them. Even if the employees aren't personally engaging in thug-like activity, they endorse the ones who do.
Any work place can vote to decertify their current union at any time. The don't have to go with the big, nationwide, mega-unions. They can certify anyone they want. If they don't support thuggery, don't elect thugs.
Not to defend unions, but by this logic, we're all guilty for allowing the government that we have to trample on our rights, because a majority continues to vote for it.
Well, sir, I'd say we are.
And you would be correct for making that analogy. That said, the smaller the organization, the easier it is to make change. In a unionized factory of 1000 people, it only requires convincing 500 other people to see things your way.
There is also the added benefit of being able to speak to everyone face to face, which is something you can do in a work environment, but would be impossible to do on the national level.
Then go ahead and do it. Make sure to list multiple examples of coercion, intimidation and suppression of rights as you do. I think it'll be a bit more difficult than you think.
You think I'll have a hard time making a list of corporations that have broke the law? Hell, the average corporation is a multi-convicted felon!
But the bar you are using is regular, since some unions have been involved in violence you want to presume all unions are involved in violence. By that logic since some gun owners regularly go on violent shooting sprees we should presume all gun owners are violent and make laws accordingly.
Hell, the average corporation is a multi-convicted felon! [citation please]
I want to know what corporations employed violence as a means to ...anything.
I also want to know what gun-owners group has used violence as a means to...anything.
You said you'd "love to apply that to gun owners or corporations," and I'm inviting you to do just that. Please, minge, enlighten us.
Umm....ahhh...umm....there once was...ummm...
Poor wittle minge. Him got's no argument so him's gotta move da goalposts. Yes he does! Yes he does!. Him's gotta move dem goalposts.
Here's my first example
Where's yours?
You want me to what, post every example of a person who owns a firearm shooting someone?
WTF dude, you are insanely pedantic.
If you want to go that way, labor is guilty every time someone punches a co-worker.
We have been discussing gun rights groups and comparing them to corporations and unions and you change it to individual gun owners now?
And you want to call me pedantic? What a fucking asshole.
Some gun owners are violent, therefore we should presume they all are.
Some union members are thugs, therefore we should presume they all are.
See?
You've never heard of a company with mob ties? Amazing.
And you've never heard of gun owning groups using violence, like militias and such or the Aryan nation? Hell, every week some individual gun owner runs out and shoots a bunch of people it seems like. If we are going to engage in hasty generalizations let's be good about it!
As far as I know, the Aryan Nation does not enjoy the legal protection of the federal government. Most of the time, it's quite the opposite.
You wanted the name of a "gun-owning group." The Aryan nation is a group no? Owns guns, no?
Someone owning a gun is a private action.
The government forcing another party to contract with a union is not a private action.
You wanted the name of a "gun-owning group." The Aryan nation is a group no? Owns guns, no?
Um, they may be a group that owns guns, but they have never advocated from a pro-gun position. Quite the opposite, actually. So, if anything, the Ayran Nation might be an example of a pro-gun control group using violence.
Oh, and every week a driver kills someone in an accident, so we should also condemn all AAA organizations as well as the filthy UAW that put these deathmobiles together.
There you go minge, arguing in bad faith and moving the goalposts again, as if on cue.
"they may be a group that owns guns, but they have never advocated from a pro-gun position."
Did someone mention moving the goal posts upthread?
"There you go minge, arguing in bad faith and moving the goalposts again"
In sloopy's Wacky World of Logic hasty generalizations are not arguing in bad faith, but exposing the fallacy of hasty generalization by analogy is.
This is how profoundly stupid you are: I'm not making the argument that we can conclude all corporations are criminals because many are or that all gun-owners are dangerously violent because some are, I'm pointing out that such thinking is WRONG and noting it is the same thinking behind saying all unions and members are thugs because some are.
You're more dense than some cosmological objects dude.
But you use the Ayran Nation as an example of "gun owners," and that's a bullshit position. Hell, may of them are automobile owners and homeowners. I would imagine quite a few are also pants-wearers and shampoo-users.
You conflate correlation with causation when they are, at best, barely connected. There is no comparison with their actions to those of unions, corporations or advocacy groups and to bring them into the discussion is idiotic.
Again, you are comparing apples to oranges, and when asked to give examples of union equivalent groups, such as gun advocacy organizations, you fail to list one example where coercion, intimidation or violence has been used by them, while myriad examples exist where those tactics have been employed by unions to further their goals.
Being called dense is a compliment coming from someone that is so lacking in density that they could almost be considered a non-entity.
You've never heard of a company with mob ties? Amazing.
I've never heard of one that wasn't heavily unionized.
MNG|6.23.11 @ 2:07PM|#
"You've never heard of a company with mob ties? Amazing."
Is there an answer in that question?
I heard there were Unions, guns owners and thugs messing with Corporate profits here.
I am available
You expect me to make a list when I have strawmwn to make?
Minge, you ignorant clod. Exactly how does one "regularly" go on shooting sprees?
depends on the weather.
I'm sure you'd love to but in the deepest pit of that tiny black heart of yours you know you can't. One of those things is fundamentally collectivist in its stated purpose and therefore not like the other.
Corporations are not collectivist?
See the logic-raping that goes with union hate? Makes me think of a hasty generalization of my own...
Slow down, Francis. Let's start with the firearm owners. How are they collectivist?
Many join into groups like hunt clubs or the NRA, but I was simply pointing out how you were at least wrong about the corporations in your initial post.
Minge, I defend you when I think you're right, even if it isn't popular. But you're dead fucking wrong on the NLRB question. This is domestic terrorism by the federal government.
MNG|6.23.11 @ 2:14PM|#
"Corporations are not collectivist?"
Care to define "collectivist"? Or are we to agree since you said so?
I'll do it for MNG. "Collectivist" means any group--like group, club, family. Anything more than two. Hell, I'm sure socks are collectivists in MNG's world.
"Corporations are not collectivist?"
No, they aren't.
^^this^^ have a nice day
If the shoe fits.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
The constant referring to unions as thugs demonstrates the fair and objective way that you guys view this debate...
No, it actually demonstrates more than a passing aquaintance with reality.
I've been fair and objective on this debate. Never mentioned thugs, etc....
So far, you have strived to put your answers to questions within the framework of existing employment law, right or not. I don't see where you have established what your true feelings on the subject are.
Please elaborate on how you think the situation should be resolved and why, not how you think the NLRB is legally justified to pursue Boeing.
"I've been fair and objective on this debate. Never mentioned thugs, etc"
I appreciate that, unlike some above i should not make a hasty generalization that everyone here does what some do.
"how you think the situation should be resolved"
It's a problem I think. On the one hand you don't want to take those jobs away or screw the company, on the other the law should be followed until changed. I'm not sure what I would recommend at this point, it's a tough one.
So you agree that there is a problem with the NLRB dictating to a company where they can build facilities. You just don't think that the NLRB can do otherwise given current employment law.
I think in this case it could be seen as resulting in something perverse, i.e., forcing a company to move jobs offshore.
What made you think I had to be fair?
Have you ever actually worked in a union shop MNG?
I have (several different ones in fact)...believe me there is much pressure, intimidation, and threatening that goes on to those who are not in the union. I mean it's not like I had hearing damage after a union "thug" blasted me with an air horn at point blank range during our last contract negotiation...
There is a reason that many of us "scabs" avoid work for the first day or two after the strike is called. It isn't because of support for the union. It's because we value our property (cars) and would actually like to avoid the cameras of "peaceful" union workers that take pictures of said property. It's not like that property might suddenly get "vandalized" when you are at home.
I've never had anything like that happen to me before....
You may not like painting unions broadly with a thug brush, but while not all union members are "thugs" many are (and are encouraged to be so by the union leaders) and that culture drives the fear and intimidation that pervades many union workplaces.
(BTW - it's hard to paint a broad union member brush in states that don't have right to work laws...there are many in unions in those states who have little choice if they want to work in certain industries)
^^THIS^^
If Boeing had built the factory in Illinois, the NRLB wouldn't have intervened.
Drum:
Chickenshit sellout!
I am totally OK with giving my address to union organizations so they can try to convince me at home. I think I should give them my address voluntarily instead of my employer doing it behind my back.
If they want to converse with my civilly, I would be happy to explain why I am not interested in being in a union. If they want to attempt to coerce me, I would be happy to shoot them dead, plant a knife or hammer somewhere, and tell the police they came at me. The only good union thug is a dead union thug.
I like your style. We at Pinkerton could use a few good men such as yourself
I have extremely relevant brute squad experience. In fact, some say I was the brute squad.
" The only good union thug is a dead union thug."
Ah, to adapt the old racist slogan and use it so demonstrates the totally rational dislike of unions exhibited here.
Hi --- I'm a fucking pinko piece of shit and my only recourse is to suck at every single facet of argumentation and debate -- boy, oh, boy, do I suck major cock!
A spoof post full of homophobic ad hominens that claims I suck at debate. Deconstruction at its best.
and so says the gay-baiter. Heelarious.
Now RAAAAAAAAAAAAACISM too? You've got the whole universe here of lefty, um, arguments in orbit on this one. Congrats!
I think the operative word is thug. You could replace union with any descriptor you like. If a man threatens you in your own home, you should kill him.
I'm no athlete, I'm ashamed to say, but I'm an excellent shot, and I have a miniature arsenal to... "share" with any such potential intruders -- mother-fuckers can try.
"Ah, to adapt the old racist slogan and use it so demonstrates the totally rational dislike of unions exhibited here."
The fact the slogan was used before is noted as an attempt at evasion.
Yes, unions are disliked and they are properly so as they currently exist and act as a coercive arm of the government.
If unions offered to negotiate, and were not empowered to require that negotiation by the government, there would probably be little dislike for them. They don't, and they use violence or the threat of same to keep others from competing for jobs.
Finally, I asked several weeks ago:
Can anyone name one other circumstance were a perfectly legal activity (opening a new plant) becomes illegal simply by thinking about it in a certain way?
MNG responded with 'well, there's lots'. Uh, that's not a answer.
Boeing officials were surprised by the legal action and said they believed they were "doing the right thing for the country"
Yet another example in a long, sorry history of American companies acting in their own best interests, and then appeasing their critics with the language of self-sacrifice, nationalism, patriotism. They do this time and again, and wonder why they can never cite their own selfish business interests as a reason for any of their business decisions; they seem genuinely surprised when somebody uses the concept of altruism against them.
Next time, they'll just announce that the factory is already built, the Indonesians are already trained, and everyone can pick up his or her last check in two weeks.
Or they'll never open a business in the U.S. in the first place. You never hear about the jobs that were never created, only the ones that were lost.
Don't forget jobs saved.
Yep! Why would anyone build a plant in a country where the government will dictate to you who you will be allowed to hire and on what terms?
Surely Jeff Immelt and his jobs panel can fill in the Prezzydint on it.
Yes, but only after they collude to force us to pay too much for shitty light bulbs.
If workers want to better profit from their labors, they should stop paying union dues and instead buy share in their employer's company and then work their asses off.
At the moment, Boeing is going for $71.21 per share of common stock.
See, that is the thing I never got about the "Big Mean Corporations" meme. Anyone can buy stock (with some limitations if one is a registered insider).
The thing you don't understand is that the corporations are all corporation-y, and sit around in their corporate offices and make money! It's unconscionable!
Extra credit for not using the words "top hat" and "monocle."
They don't just make money. They make profits.
Was this supposed to be a rebuttal of some type?
Our Story So Far:
Pro-union butthurt troll is butthurt.
Fetching the stick doesn't even seem to make him feel better.
I love a thread like this!
...especially when the troll comes out at the bell calling me names.
Don't you have tv personalities to watch and fume at and then run on the internet to report said fumings?
They'd be lost without you, Ming. They know it, you know it.
then appeasing their critics with the language of self-sacrifice, nationalism, patriotism.
Next time, say it was the drugs, booze and floozies.
Dude - floozie? Are you, like, 40 years old or something? Just call 'em bitches or ho's. Get with it daddy-o!
NLRB tried to save America from dumb, unskilled Southern workers
I had to check my paper copy of the Wall Street Journal today to make sure this wasn't some elaborate prank. Then I double-checked what year it is, to make sure I hadn't been slingshotted around the sun and found myself back in 1975.
That's about when I remember it last being routine for Rust Belt lawyers to publicly disparage the skills and education of people from the South. The only thing missing from the op-ed by Chicago-based lawyer Thomas Geoghegan is the word "hick" or "hillbilly." WSJ is to be applauded for its determination to feature different viewpoints, but Geoghegan's piece certainly pushes the envelope.
The topic is the NLRB ruling against Boeing moving its assembly plant for the Dreamliner to South Carolina. And it really is as bad as my intro suggests. Go read it, if you think I may be cherry-picking or making a mountain out of a molehill. I'll wait. OK, here's that last paragraph again:...
I'd honestly like to say something along the lines of "I just shat bricks" to demonstrate just how amazed and surprised I am, but I'm not. Morons like that will just keep peddling bullshit.
TRAKTOR PULLZZ!!11!!
That...is surely special. Perhaps he'd care to compare my home state's current economic condition, to that of his Illinois?
Yet another example of the overlordship conception of property rights.
I was unaware that there was any "we" when it came to a private company making business decisions.
Because nothing helps a company stay solvent more than higher wage spending?
By the miracle of circular logic, Washington production employees get paid twice what SC production employees make because they are twice as productive.
Unbelievable. I actually was tempted to hint at this mentality in an earlier comment but restrained myself as to not put words in anyone's mouth. Yet there it is, clear as day. I wonder if Geoghegan knows there are lots of blacks in the South as well.
You guys don't actually think he believes this do you? The is like Godwin Luu saying he regrets saying all of those nasty things about Alito. I am sure he does, now that his dumb ass won't be on the 9th Circuit.
Obama knows the Boeing thing is wildly unpopular. That is not going to cause him to change it. But it will cause him to tell his nominee to lie his ass off before Congress and pretend that things are going to change.
Why is Boeing, one of our few real global champions in beefing up exports, moving work on the Dreamliner from a high-skill work force ($28 an hour on average) to a much lower-wage work force ($14 an hour starting wage)? Nothing could be a bigger threat to the economic security of this country.
Nice bit of rhetorical cape-work, there: from higher skill to lower wage. Taaah daaaaaah! Everybody knows wages and skills are perfectly correlated, especially in union facilities.
RACE TO THE BOTTOM blargleblargle!
You missed $28/hr average vs. $14/hr starting wages.
Were you aware that half of South Carolinian workers make less than the median wage in that state??
"Nothing could be a bigger threat to the economic security of this country."
The biggest threat to our economic security is Boeing being cost competitive?
First it starts with Boeing, and before you know it? Everybody will be competing on price!
I don't know where to go from there. Is it, "How will we cope in a world of wanton affordability?"
Affordability with lower wagers = everyone is worse off.
Higher wages and higher prices!! Inflation for everyone!!!!!! Yay!!!!!
"Affordability with lower wagers = everyone is worse off."
Out of curiosity, how does affordability hurt people with lower wages?
Do you have any idea how silly this sounds coming from someone who was cutting on blue collar people who go to tractor pulls?
Weren't you the one making fun of poor people who shop at Wal*Mart--because they go to tractor pulls?
Do you have any idea how absurd it is to listen to somebody who thinks they're sticking up for poor working people--and can't seem to fathom why making things more affordable might be good for poor working people?
You think you're sticking up for blue collar working people--but you don't seem to have any conception whatsoever of what blue collar working people are really all about.
It's like you saw Norma Rae or something--and can't get over it!
God, I read that article too and was astounded at how blatently venal the sophistry of it was.
There is no way that could be a product of mere stupidity. It's more of a crude effort at partisan misdirection.
And-
At this moment especially, deep in debt, we cannot afford to let another company like Boeing self-destruct. Boeing is not a product of the free market?it's an extension of the U.S. government. Over the years, our taxpayers have paid to create a Boeing work force with exceptionally high skills. That work force is not just an asset for Boeing?it's an asset for the country. Why should the country let Boeing take it apart?
Nationalize the industrial base.
Why didn't I think of that?
Because I thought of it first.
Boeing is such a sorry-ass corporate welfare sponge, they're practically nationalized already.
Hey! This is wonderful logic! Since Boeing hires people, and people in the United States all ready belong to a Union. That being the United States of America. And corporations are people too. All Americans are unionized and the government and the corporations at the same time!
I have no idea where this is going but WEEEE what ride!
I know. That guy is fucking insane.
Hey, with all those newly unemployed skilled workers, you would think that the government might benefit from a large labor force available, but apparently, if they aren't working for Boeing, and specifically on the Dreamliner, they'll be "destroyed". I guess the US government needs Dreamliners desperately. Our national security can't survive without them.
Levels of stupidity that are beyond rational comprehension here.
What the hell is actually wrong with a business "retaliating" against employees for striking?
All negotiation is a tit-for-tat process. If I refuse to work on a project, I see no moral reason why my employer should be prohibited from retaliating by not giving me more work in the future.
The employees are allowed to "retaliate" for low pay by going on strike, so why shouldn't the employer be able to retaliate by firing them.
These are exatly the stupid kinds of laws that favor unions that we should be trying to get rid of. Nobody is against unionization per se, but there should be no laws the tilt the playing field in favor of the unions, which is what this law does.
The unions demands for higher pay and benefits MUST be balanced against the competitive pressure of the business environment. Otherwsie you end up with pension funds that kill the long-term viability of the company and an uncompetitive industry that eventually dies. If you tie the hands of the employers and destroy his negotiating power, you ensure that the unions will end up making excessive demands that put the company at financial risk.
This makes so much sense that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming law.
Over the years, our taxpayers have paid to create a Boeing work force with exceptionally high skills.
How odd- I would have said the government had entered into contractual agreements with Boeing to build and deliver aviation and aerospace products.
But what do I know?
Actually the US government has paid for compliance training for Boeing workers. There are so many regulations that have to be followed to fulfill government contracts it seems insane to me.
He has gone through many governmental compliance training programs on the tax payers dime.
Opps left out I roomed with a Boieng purchasing agent for a couple years
Affordability with lower wagers = everyone is worse off.
Wrong.
MNG, please tell me what exactly the Boeing exec's could have ever said about building a new plant in SC that could not be considered retaliation. The only thing I can think of is that "the weather is nicer".
And if they never spoke to why they built there, because of the concern of retaliation, that silence would be construed as evidence enough that was nothing but retalation.
Thus, once your employees strike, you are stuck according to NLRB.
And no, the NLR laws are not black or white on this. This is not about upholding the law.
The minute MNG talks about treating employees 'fairly', which is a matter of opinion, he loses the ability to claim the law is cut and dried and the govt has no choice.
You know, I remember the last time the progressive side of the country decided it had the right to fuck over the economy of the other half of the country. As I recall, it didn't go over too well. I wonder how blatantly Obama will have to attack the economies of red states before we see a second wave of secessions (granted, it presumes he even gets a second term).
Once again, we are forced to observe the inevitable perverted results of a paradigm under the terms of which the king is the sole arbiter of the law.
I've been thinking of Mange's definition of "retaliation." It seems to me that, at the conclusion of the last strike and the signing of a new contract, had the CEO of Boeing sent a fruit basket to each and every union member with a note saying "Welcome Back!", it would fit within his definition.
"As Virgin Airlines founder Richard Branson declared after the 2008 work stoppage, "if union leaders and management can't get their act together to avoid strikes, 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."
Unfortunately, Boeing's unions have given it a bad reputation among it's customers. I hope the NRLB is aware that while they may be able to force Boeing to close shop in SC, they cannot force airlines like Virgin into buying Boeing products.
hope the NRLB is aware that while they may be able to force Boeing to close shop in SC, they cannot force airlines like Virgin into buying Boeing products.
Give it awhile. The labor cartels will demand that the government seize Virgin's US assets until they play ball with Boeing.
Last I saw, Virgin America is in enough red ink to paint one of their planes. They needed the 787 to, you know, be more competitive, use less fuel, and so on.
They're 51% owned by Americans, by the way, since the U.S. doesn't let evil foreigners own airlines which offer domestic U.S. service.