Is the NLRB Going to Drop Its Case Against Boeing?
The Associated Press reports that Boeing is close to striking a new four-year collective bargaining agreement with its unionized employees in Washington state that will likely put a stop to the National Labor Relations Board's controversial prosecution of the company for opening a new production facility in right-to-work South Carolina. As the AP story notes:
If the deal is finalized, it would appear to leave in place the work at a new $750 million Boeing plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state where the company opened a new production line for its 787 airplane….
The new agreement guarantees that a different aircraft — the 737 Max — would be assembled at union facilities in Renton, Wash., said Tom Wroblewski, president of Machinists Union District 751.
Wroblewski said that if union members vote to approve the deal in the coming weeks, the union would inform the NLRB that it has no further grievances with Boeing.
Read the whole story here. For details of the NLRB's dubious case against Boeing, see here.
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
It's not good news when extortion works.
If those union ass-hats want to control the means of production they should buy a controlling interest in the company. Wake me when the government ass-hats are sacked.
Sounds like the union didn't think it had much of a case.
Boeing sucked on Washington's dick for years hoping to get some of the senatorial splooge. Surely it didn't think it was going to be able to stop so easily.
Indeed Boeing is a hard victim to root for.
Obama's Commerce Secretary is on the BoD at Boeing and opposes the NLRB on Boeing.
I'd be happy to see them work this out. There has been so much ignorance and misinformation about the NLRB's actions and the NLRA in general over this.
The NLRA was enacted to counter what was at the time rampant and often violent labor strife. It was very negatively impacting interstate commerce, so the feds got the idea to 'rationalize' the strife. This involved putting restrictions on employers (not being able to retaliate against workers for certain union activity, having to 'bargain in good faith' with a certified union, etc) and on unions (barring secondary boycotts and wildcat strikes).
One set of provisions in the law bars employers from taking retaliatory actions for 'legal union activity.' Allegedly in this instance the union engaged in some of that activity, a 'lawful strike' and then Boeing said that in response (that was key, if it had just decided out of pure business reasons none of this could have happened) they were going to build the plant in South Carolina. So stopping it seemed to fall under the law. But of course Obama is the President and he is TEH SOCIALIST HITLER and such, so the Right-Wing Press cranked up the noise machine about this unremarkable action. They counted on most people to be ignorant of the origins, purpose and provisions of the law (they can usually count on this) and were able to paint it as "Obama's NLRB shutting down this Boeing plant because they are in the unionz thrall and hate SC!"
Sheesh.
Don't get me wrong: for a principled libertarian you can understand every bit of this and still be appalled. To the libertarian the government should not combat labor strife in any other than policing the attendant violence; they should not bar employers from things like firing all the striking workers in the first place; and they surely should not be able to prevent a business from relocating for 'retaliatory reasons.'
It's those who act like this is some unheralded thing pulled out of nowhere that are the dupes. Anyone who knew anything about the NLRA and the facts of this case was not much surprised by any of this.
"and they surely should not be able to prevent a business from relocating for 'retaliatory reasons.'"
Yep, thought-crimes are all the rage in New America.
There's quite a few actions that, when done with a certain motivation, are legal but when done with another are not.
If your whole aim is to prevent labor strife then trying to prevent actions motivated by revenge is not exactly crazy...
Labor strife?
Workers, scabs, the National Guard and Pinkertons shooting each other...That kind of stuff. Bodies got in the way of shipments and stuff.
I just heard that Boeing wanted to move a plant, I didn't know that the Pinkerton Detective Agency or the National Guard were involved. Jeeze, that sounds serious man.
Dude, I was talking about the origins of the law. It was passed in 1935.
OHHH, I see.
Well then since it's antiquated and hamfisted you'd certainly agree that we should be rid of it.
Yeah, it works so good we don't need it.
Or something.
Sooo, you weren't talking about the origin of the law then?
It's not like the law stopped operating at the time it was passed dude.
There was a lot of labor strife. We passed a big ass bill to try to curtail that by rationalizing labor relations. Then much less labor strife followed, but of course the law is operating the entire time. Now you're like "geez, we don't need that law anymore cuz it's worked so good!"
Your reasoning reminds me of a neighbor who had a flea problem with his dogs. I told him to buy and apply Frontline to his dogs. He did, but did not the next year, so he had fleas again. I asked him why he didn't apply the Frontline that year and he said "well, I didn't have a flea problem anymore!"
Ohh, you're pretty smart for realizing that.
I guess things would be really bad if we were to repeal the law. Boeing would have just killed all of those workers instead of only threatening to open a plant out of state.
Your neighbor was wrong and I was wrong.
Anytime a law is passed and things change for the better we can never never ever repeal the law or things will go back to being bad again, and nobody likes bad things.
I'm glad we have so many people making laws so things always get better!
Well, it's pretty stupid to argue we don't need a law anymore because it seems to be working exactly as intended...Nowadays for the most part when management and workers argue they do so in ALJ administrative hearings, not with shotguns as was common pre-NLRA.
Maybe they should have just enforced the laws against violence? Instead they decided to legalize extortion of companies. Brilliant.
And your defense of Obama for aggressively enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws is ridiculous. Perhaps you'll defend enforcement of slavery as well.
It was passed in 1935.
And the people in charge of the federal government at that time were concerned solely with reducing labor strife, not favoring one side over the other.
Who were those people again? Let me look it up on the wiki.
Sure they were motivated with helping unions. But they weren't communists or something. Note that they put some pretty heavy restrictions on unions too. The secondary boycott and wildcat strike were devastating to management pre-NLRA, but the NLRA banned it.
If you look at the law it seems like an attempt to combat labor strife more than a "here's how we can put labor in charge" law. If you wanted to see such a law I could describe it to you, it wouldn't be the NLRA dude.
Labor strife?
i.e., "Saying 'NO' to the unions at any time, for any reason."
Yes, because with the NLRA in effect all these years unions certainly have gotten everything they wanted, all the time at any time.
Sheesh.
Let's talk about that pesky notion of secret ballots in union elections...
After tittering, goggle-eyed, at your "O lawsy laws, dem ol' Pinkerton boys might still be a-lyin' in wait" nonsense? Please.
"Sheesh" backatcha, Goober.
"There's quite a few actions that, when done with a certain motivation, are legal but when done with another are not.
You've made that claim more times than I care to count, and you've *yet* to offer a single cite.
Now, I know 'hate crimes' are included are equally "thought crimes", and are equally specious, so I presume you'll cite those (and be laughed at, again).
Any others? Or are you just offering an 'everybody knows' bullshit claim?
Why, there's all those crimes that say that if you "knowingly" or "in order to defraud" do X, like evade taxes or overdraw your bank account, but if you did any of those things for other motivations you would not be held guilty.
Sevo?
Sevo?
Sorry I didn't get back to you on *your* schedule.
MNG|11.30.11 @ 9:36PM|#
"Why, there's all those crimes that say that if you "knowingly" or "in order to defraud" do X, like evade taxes or overdraw your bank account, but if you did any of those things for other motivations you would not be held guilty."
"All those crimes"? Well if "all" means a couple you could find. Yep, 'hate crimes' writ small; the criminal justice equivalent of judging figure skating.
I stand corrected in that there is stupidity beyond my ken. And you seem to be pleased by that.
It's those who act like this is some unheralded thing pulled out of nowhere that are the dupes.
Oh, bullshit. Show me a link where, before this incident, the NLRB told some other company they couldn't build a new plant in a right-to-work state, even though the company was not laying off any existing employees.
That IS unprecedented -- literally. There is no precedent of the NLRB ever previously asserting they have the power to dictate where new plants get built.
I'm betting you don't know wtf you are talking about, so let's make it interesting.
If I show you a link like that, what do I get? I mean, you'll just move the goal posts. It's pointless because even if this is plenty precedented you would be adamantly opposed to it. So why the silly game?
Cuz I just want to know what you're willing to put on the line. How about if I show you a case where the NLRB slapped down a company for threatening to move, and even prevented them from following on the threat, you have to reply "I am sorry Oh Great MNG, my hyperpartisanship and careless tongue made me say something very, very foolish on a topic which I was unsure of, but I asserted myself nonetheless."
Make that bet and I'd be glad to find you a case...
Well, I for one hear those crickets chirping prole.
I'm going to bed now so you can pop back on and accept the bet safely :).
I don't know anything about the NLRB, but "the NLRB slapped down a company for threatening to move" is much different than "the NLRB ever previously asserting they have the power to dictate where new plants get built."
so put up the link already. I'm willing to learn something.
Still waiting for the fucking link, MNG ...
A lot of talking smack on your part, and not a single shred of evidence to support your highly dubious sounding claim.
Oh, and re: your "crickets chirping" crap -- I live in Hawaii, and have kids, and live 5 time zones away from DC, and so when I post something at what shows at 9:45 PM, that means it's 4:45 PM in my time zone, and have to get dinner ready for the kids -- which takes precedence over listening to you spout off and not back up your assertions with links.
It's not his fault you went and reproduced. 😉
"they surely should not be able to prevent a business from relocating for 'retaliatory reasons.'"
No more than they should be able to prevent workers from going on strike for 'retaliatory reasons.'
Boeing said that in response (that was key, if it had just decided out of pure business reasons none of this could have happened) they were going to build the plant in South Carolina.
Link to them saying this, please.
I mean, if they actually said that out loud or in print they have to be the stupidest executives in the universe.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5348.....-Complaint
Somehow I'm betting instead of a "thanks for the link" I'm going to get some goal posts moving here...
That's not a link to the statement, it's a link to a claim that the statement was made.
Sure, it's a link to the findings from the the NLRB agent which investigated the original complaints by the union. Evidence whether the things were said would be heard before the NLRB and appealable to a federal court.
I don't have some videotape of them saying it.
The wonderful impartial NLRB you mean.
Sure. A problem with the NLRB is how it switches bias under different administrations. But the investigatory process is usually career people. More importantly Boeing could have taken this into federal courts which are more than willing to slap down NLRB findings with little basis. The fact that they seemed uninterested in this route but went to public opinion so strongly suggests they knew they had stepped in it...
So, the wonderfully impartial people who make a career working for the Labor Board.
I have more faith in the objectivity of the career DCFS workers, thankyouverymuch.
Well, like I said, they go before an ALJ, and if they don't like what they get there they can go to federal court. That's how the law works...
You admit if they made these statements they would be in violation and the NLRB would be authorized to act. Well, the General Counsel says he can prove they said it in court, it's Boeing that doesn't want to go there...
Only the guilty have reason to fear, eh?
The General Counsel has nothing to lose by getting involved in a long drawn-out lawsuit. The taxpayers pay for it.
Why my goodness it seems we've actually found a law enforcer which Tulpa meets with unequivocal skepticism!
Meanwhile, you didn't post a link to them saying it, you posted a link to someone saying they said it, which isn't even remotely the same thing.
It's easy to allege that anyone does anything. Of course the union workers assumed it was purely out of retaliation.
I think Boeing said that they could not afford the lost days of production due to the union strikes, which was the reason for building their new plant in friendly SC.
If they said that then they are in violation of NLRA. That's considered retaliatory.
I can't believe they actually said that in widely-distributed memos. They aren't fit to run a McDonald's night shift if they did.
"If they said that then they are in violation of NLRA."
Well, that's refreshingly objective (not a personal slight against you Tulpa but about the hysteria surrounding this). Let me do likewise and point out that of course in Libertopia the NLRA would never have been enacted...
Retaliatory against whom? Neither the factory in Washington, or the employees who work in that plant, were ever in jeopardy.
The NLRB protects employees from retaliation by employees. What threats were made towards Boeing current work force?
https://www.nlrb.gov/node/1810
"or by predicting a loss of business and jobs because of unionization or strike disruptions without any factual basis."
How could a strike now cause loss of business? Why is "we want to open a plant in S. Carolina because it will allow us to make more money" not acceptable?
And yes, the NRLB should up and disappear.
Which of course shows how stupid the NLRA is.
Sure, but this is not just the union's allegation. What happens under the NLRA is a party makes an allegation and they send out investigators to look over the situation. The investigators come back and meet with counsel and decide whether to take action in the name of the NLRB. The parties can take the matter before the board for a hearing, and if they don't like that they take it to court.
Which workers did Boeing retaliate against? The National Labor Relations Act protects employees from being targeted by unfair labor practices by employers. Boeing never threatened to terminate, or take action against their employees.
The only action committed by Boeing, that could be perceived as retaliation, was their decision not to create any more union jobs in the state of Washington. The only group who could possible feel threatened by this decision, is the labor union that represents the employees of Boeing, because the decision could effect future membership. The NLRB is not intended to protect the labor union, only the employees who belong to the labor union.
^^yep.
In fact, not only were they never threatened with terminations, Boeing has actually hired more workers for their Renton plant in WA.
Let's say you sell goods to company X. You usually sell them 100 goods a month. And you've always been their exclusive seller of the good. But after a dispute between the two of you they tell you "you know, I'll still buy 100 a month from you, but I'm also going to start buying 50 a month from some other guy, because I don't know if I can trust you given that dispute."
You don't think that "discourages" your willingness to brook a future dispute? Because discouraging "legal union activity" is exactly what Boeing is being charged with here...
We should pass a law because of those meanies at Company X, they should have to buy all of our stuff!
If we pass a law then Company X will always buy our products and we'll have more money, who could argue with that?
If we have more money that is good and laws make things good so we should pass more of them to make more good things!
Look, like I said above "of course in Libertopia the NLRA would never have been enacted..." and "To the libertarian the government should not combat labor strife in any other than policing the attendant violence; they should not bar employers from things like firing all the striking workers in the first place; and they surely should not be able to prevent a business from relocating for 'retaliatory reasons.'"
To a non-libertarian though the NLRA seems more attractive. They look at the terrible labor strife and it's impact on the interstate economy pre-NLRA and they note that today that kind of thing is much less of a problem, that people settle this via the rationalized process which the law intended and, not having the priority you guys place on "no coercion" they might find the law worth the coercion.
But of course libertarians are not, and should not. I concede that readily.
"They look at the terrible labor strife and it's impact on the interstate economy pre-NLRA and they note that today that kind of thing is much less of a problem"
And correlation = causation.
We could also presume that since unions have practically no (non-government) presence now, a lack of unions is a recipe for peace.
Well if companies and people could buy products from any old place then businesses will go under and people will lose their jobs. Why don't you want people to have jobs, do you hate families?
Be a human being and support the Make Company X Buy Our Products Act, NOW!
Correct. If you don't show up to work, I should be able to fire you. If you have leverage, i.e. possess skills that I cannot easily get elsewhere, I will try to come to a compromise with you.
Except that they didn't relocate at all.
Boeing is still operating production lines in WA state. Not one job has been lost. Even before this announcement, Boeing hired more workers in WA state.
All of these facts completely deflate your argument about "Co. X" losing sales....WA workers lost nothing. At. All.
If we have more money that is good and laws make things good so we should pass more of them to make more good things!
Is that one of mine? 'Cause it really does sound like one of mine."
You can keep it Joe, you're my hero.
Ming has shown me the light!
Bad analogy. The Boeing factory in SC isn't replacing the production from the factory in Washington. Boeing needed to expand their production capability in order to meet demand.
Should have kept reading before I posted above!
I totally agree with you, especially since as the seller of the goods, I wouldn't be able to solicit other buyers of my goods, so that if I had another dispute with company X and lost their business, I would have other buyers who could make up the loss.
Oh, wait....
You're kind of a tard, aren't you?
"The NLRA was enacted to counter what was at the time rampant and often violent labor strife"
It was enacted as a giveaway to labor unions and it resulted in an INCREASE in strikes.
That actually sounds like a plan to me dude.
http://www.ano-post.tk
Off topic, but too good to ignore:
New Ron Paul add rips Gingrich a new asshole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
I heard Rand Paul spoke eloquently on his vote on the amendment to defense authorization bill that would prevent the indefinite detainment of US citizens on US soil. He's really turning out to be as much of a principled statesman as his father. Too bad he was one of only two GOPers who voted the way he did (Kirk from Illinois was the other).
BTW-supposedly the President asked the bill to have this power in it, and more. What a foreseeable disappointment that jerk has turned out to be...
Saw the ad, it's hilarious. Newt really is his own worst enemy.
The sad thing is that Herman Cain is probably going to drop out of the race and his Iowa supporters are apparently going to flock to Newt.
Well, they did have that whole Lincoln Debate love-in thing not far back...
Nothing about the Federal Reserve lowering its dollar swap premia to help the eurozone today?
Not very cosmopolitan of you folks.
OR IS IT SUPREMELY COSMOPOLITAN?
I'm pretty sure the language the Fed used means they're just simply going to order up QE3, or 4, or 5, or whatever it's up to now. Gold really skyrocketed in pace with stocks which would mean it's more of an inflation deal than just artificially lowering borrowing costs.
That's my interpretation too. Lowering the price of getting brand-spanking new dollars means there are going to be more dollars gotten.
UNIONS BAD! garble herp da derp
Huwah|11.30.11 @ 9:12PM|#
"UNIONS BAD! garble herp da derp"
Stupid post, arble herp da derp
Isn't the 'strike charge' a red herring? What's the average wage in the non-union SC plant vs Seattle?
It's quite possible that the line can't be based in Seattle because it can't be profitable at union level wages. The unions knew this all along and used the entire action as a way to extract an advantage in this negotiation. A simple shakedown.
OT: Herman Cain is retarded. I thought there was no way that someone with his background could really be stupid but jesus christ at this point it can't all be attributed to political inexperience:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com.....oke/45576/
I've heard this sentiment a lot. The only part of Cain's resume that seems smarter than most is his MSCS, but AFAICT those were a lot easier in the early 70's. The only thing I've heard personally from people who might not be full of shit is that he was a joke at the NRA. What is it about his background that lead you to think retard was out of the realm of possibility?
MSCS in the 70s would involve a lot more math than today, I'd think. It was considered far more theoretical than the engineering-oriented programs of today.
This is bullcrap. They needed to make an example out of Boing.
Now any company can just choose to build a factory wherever they want without permission, and they know the worst that will happen is they'll have to get a few extra water coolers for their workers.
Yeah, these spring makers are out of fucking control, man!
"NOOOOOOOOO SPRINGS!!!"
+1 internet for the MST3K reference.
Hey!
Now any company can just choose to build a factory wherever they want without permission
------------------------------
why should a company need the "permission" of big nanny to build a factory if the state or city involved wants the project? Companies want to build in certain locations for a variety of reasons; if municipalities and states can work out a deal with a company, why does Fedzilla need to get involved.
Some reasons are good and others are bad.
If the workers and community are OK with it then I'm OK with it.
mustard|11.30.11 @ 11:28PM|#
"Some reasons are good and others are bad."
Yes, asshole, and if they're bad, the company will go out of business.
bad for business /=/ bad for community
Why did BoEing* need to be made an example?
"build a factory wherever they want without permission"
O great mustard... may we PWEASE build a new factory in an area of our choosing?
Fucktard.
*note: "Boeing" has three vowels.
Stupid fucktard can't even spell a six-letter company name that's been around for decades.
ad hominem ==> defeat
Stupid shit ==> fail.
That doesnt logically follow. It is perfectly possible to both make an ad hominem attack and be right.
There was no "ad hominem". It was an entirely factual post, mustard.
Now any company can just choose to build a factory wherever they want without permission
"What? Without His Mocha Magnificence's expressly stated permission, you say...? [::lower lip trembling; accusatory finger quivering in righteous indignation::] "THIS. SHALL. NOT. STAND -- !!!"
Sweet, fluffy Baby Jesus, but you're a fucking moron.
Dese unions is full of goons and goombahs.
I coulda been a contender
NLRB/Boeing are moving union jobs from Kansas to Washington.
Where's the lawsuit? I guess Barry doesn't think he'll carry Kansas.
"Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita builds about 70 percent of current 737 models, including the fuselages, which are shipped by rail to Renton for final assembly. Spirit is expected to have a similar role in the Max, as well."
http://www.bizjournals.com/wic.....ax-in.html
Boing needs to be punished more.
mustard|11.30.11 @ 11:13PM|#
"Boing needs to be punished more."
Mstard (missing vowel) needs to fine a brain cell. Equally missing.
Sevo needs to see that that was a spoof.
Who can tell the difference?
i miss charleston.
Libertarians believe in whatever the market produces in every other area of life, why don't they accept the market's decision on the right laws to have? The market says people want a robust government provocatively satisfying the needs of the community. That includes making sure workers are treated justly and companies can't move the means of production away from their control once they have it.
This is easily the stupidest thing I have read in the past 24 hours, and I just finished reading Gavin Schimdt defending the CRU over on RealClimate.
The market is a matrix of voluntary transactions between consenting people.
Laws, being imposed by a minority on the majority by force have nothing to do with markets.
Mustard, your trolling is weak. Dan T would have kicked your ass in four sentences typed out on a keyboard with his dick.
Isn't that how all libertarians type, including the females?
The market says unions say people want a robust government provocatively satisfying the needs of the community passing laws to distort the wage market on behalf of union workers and at the expense of everyone else.
"The market says people want a robust government provocatively satisfying the needs of the community. That includes making sure workers are treated justly and companies can't move the means of production away from their control once they have it."
You shouldn't confuse election results with market consensus.
You seem to be assuming that our representatives are behaving in a way that accurately reflects the desires of voters? That's absurd by itself...compound that with the fact that the NLRB is an independent agency that isn't even accountable to voters, ...
If the American people wanted to eschew Boeing products becasue of Boeing's willingness to move some of its production to South Carolina, then the real market gives them plenty of opportunities to do that.
The reason the NLRB got involved was because they didn't like how they though the American people would respond to Boeing moving some of its production to South Carolina; i.e., they didn't think the American people would respond at all.
So what the NLRB was doing wasn't reflecting the American people's desires on this--the NLRB was trying to inflict its will on the American people.
Obama isn't wrong on everything
Props
They have a Twitter feed on the side:
Nearly unanimous derp.
Now, they just need to open up a season on "wild" (actually, feral) horses and burros in the Western United States.
You get a tag, you either get to hunt and kill a horse for its meat, or you can round it up and use it for whatever purposes you wish.
The BLM currently controls the "wild" horse population with occasional round ups; the horses that are collected are put up for adoption, but the vast majority are not adopted and the government pays a lot of money to keep them alive and off the range, where unchecked horse populations compete with actual native fauna for scarce food and water. They are also routinely sued every time they do a round up by the usual suspects. So, not only would a hunting/round up season save the government money (since they would no longer have to do roundups) they'd MAKE money through tag fees.
MNG arguing with everyone about the NLRA. Yup. Seen this before.
Anyway, @BarackObama sent me this a week ago:
Zombie Attack Barbie slaughters the undead, while remaining fabulous in pink camouflage
I can't believe I actually want to purchase a Barbie Variant doll.
Including Zombie Ken.
I'm in.
"Corporate Puppet!" Occupiers Turn On Obama
Oh, dear. No more hideous oil paintings of Jug-Eared Jesus, nekkid and astride his magical, marvelous rainbow-farting unicorn, then...?
Racists.