Boeing in SC?

[Cincinnatus]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20110511/NEWS05/110519959/boeing-disputes-unfair-labor-claim

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the NLRB wants the government to tell Boeing where they can and can't do business?  Please let me know if I'm missing something here...

[phk]

...what?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Hey! That plant is right outside the Charleston International Airport!

[The Vorlon]

Hard to be objective on this one, any use of language will be seen as partisan, but here is my best shot at "just the facts"

Boeing's 787 "dreamliner", despiting being rather late, has piled up quite a number of orders, and there are a lot of good jobs to be had building the plane.

Boeing has an existing 787 plant in Washington State, but this plant alone cannot meet demand, additional capacity is required by Boeing to meet demand.

The existing plant is Unionized, and the Union, by virtue of Washington State law, thus lays claim to ALL production work done by Boeing (not just existing jobs, which are remaining Unionized), essentially, all jobs, both current and future, "belong" to the Union and not to Boeing.

The key question is does the Union's "ownership" of all of Boeing's jobs extend beyond state lines and apply in South Carolina? (A "right to work" state)

There have been a number of strikes and other work stoppages/work to rule, etc incidents with Boeing in Washington.

When Boeing was selecting a site for the new 787 site, one of the factors Boeing cited was the reduced likelihood of labor disruptions in South Carolina.

The Union, with the agreement of the National Labor Relations Board appointed by Mr. Obama, contends that Boeing building a plant in a place where the Boeing Union does not get the jobs constitutes illegal retaliation against the Union for past labor stoppages, and thus the plant (which is already build and ready to open) cannot be opened and the work must be returned to the Boeing Union which is deemed to be the rightful "owner" of the jobs about to be created.

About the only thing everybody agrees on in this case is that SCOTUS will get the final word.

[opebo]

The existing plant is Unionized, and the Union, by virtue of Washington State law, thus lays claim to all production work done by Boeing, essentially, the jobs "belong" to the Union and not to Boeing.

Huzzah!  If only the fervid fears of the right-winger were true.

[Liberté]

The government shouldn't intervene on the side of the unions. At the same time, the government shouldn't actively militate against the unions.

[opebo]

The government shouldn't intervene on the side of the unions. At the same time, the government shouldn't actively militate against the unions.

No, they should side absolutely with the unions. 

[Liberté]

The government shouldn't intervene on the side of the unions. At the same time, the government shouldn't actively militate against the unions.

No, they should side absolutely with the unions. 

The last time that happened, you created a labor aristocracy, completely unresponsive both to the workers it served and the needs of the economy at large. That union works best which relies on government support the least.

[opebo]

The government shouldn't intervene on the side of the unions. At the same time, the government shouldn't actively militate against the unions.

No, they should side absolutely with the unions. 

The last time that happened, you created a labor aristocracy, completely unresponsive both to the workers it served and the needs of the economy at large. That union works best which relies on government support the least.

Wrong. A union cannot exist without State backing, in any meaningful sense - in the sense of having any power at all.  A labor aristocracy, compared to what we have now, would be paradise.

[Liberté]

The government shouldn't intervene on the side of the unions. At the same time, the government shouldn't actively militate against the unions.

No, they should side absolutely with the unions. 

The last time that happened, you created a labor aristocracy, completely unresponsive both to the workers it served and the needs of the economy at large. That union works best which relies on government support the least.

Wrong. A union cannot exist without State backing, in any meaningful sense - in the sense of having any power at all.  A labor aristocracy, compared to what we have now, would be paradise.

Yes, the AFL-CIO is absolutely paradisaical for its membership.

[opebo]

Yes, the AFL-CIO is absolutely paradisaical for its membership.

Well, obviously.  Without it they'd have all been toiling their whole lives for $10/hour with no health care.