Obama Vs. Boeing

[Clyde]

The only comments made by Boeing was that the company could not survive any more work stoppages due to striking union employees... No one in Washington will lose any jobs. In fact Boeing has added 3000 more jobs in Washington.. Obama has no right to tell anyone where or where they can't build a new plant.. Just another attack on the free market... South Carolina Governor...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778104576287290266016016.html

 

Do you want to address the legalities or continue to ignore those facts?

[cammando]

I did address what Obamas NLRB considered illegal... What facts am I ignoring?

[Clyde]

I did address what Obamas NLRB considered illegal... What facts am I ignoring?

 

How about what I posted a few posts earlier? Start there.

[cammando]

So what federal labor laws were broken??

[cammando]

Also the NLRB has filed a suit on behalf on the union...

[Clyde]

So what federal labor laws were broken??

 

From what I've read it is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The law states that you cannot move work elsewhere in response to lawful union activity. Strikes are covered under that. This law has been around since 1935.

 

Should this law not be upheld?

 

In addition, the only person who has say over this is the Independent Counsel - not the President.

[Clyde]

Also the NLRB has filed a suit on behalf on the union...

 

The complaint was not brought by the NLRB. It was brought by the Independent Counsel which is independent of the NLRB.

[woodsrider]

From what I've read it is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The law states that you cannot move work elsewhere in response to lawful union activity. Strikes are covered under that. This law has been around since 1935.

 

Should this law not be upheld?

 

In addition, the only person who has say over this is the Independent Counsel - not the President.

But they aren't moving work are they? They are creating new work. The NLRB may be trying to use that as a way to stop Boeing from opening in SC but I don't see how it applies here. Of coarse there may be details I am not aware of.

[Clyde]

But they aren't moving work are they? They are creating new work. The NLRB may be trying to use that as a way to stop Boeing from opening in SC but I don't see how it applies here. Of coarse there may be details I am not aware of.

 

From what I've read the violation occurred when the CEO made the claim that he was moving the work due to strikes every two to three years. Those strikes are considered to be "lawful union activity" so to move because of legal strikes , according to labor law experts, violates the NLRA.

[woodsrider]

From what I've read the violation occurred when the CEO made the claim that he was moving the work due to strikes every two to three years. Those strikes are considered to be "lawful union activity" so to move because of legal strikes , according to labor law experts, violates the NLRA.

But they aren't moving anything are they? These are new jobs.

[75center]

No facts have been presented, only a complaint. It will be interesting how this works out, particularly if no operations or jobs end up moving. I don't know if the regulations cover expanding the business.

[Clyde]

But they aren't moving anything are they? These are new jobs.

 

As I read it the CEO said that jobs (existing or upcoming) would be moved because of the threat of strikes. That comment seems to be the key to the claim that the NLRA was violated.

 

The NLRA does not prohibit employers from moving work to find lower wages. It DOES forbid that from happening as a result of legal union activities such as striking or such as forming a union.

[Clyde]

No facts have been presented, only a complaint. It will be interesting how this works out, particularly if no operations or jobs end up moving. I don't know if the regulations cover expanding the business.

 

From what I've read it's not a case of "did the CEO say what's claimed?" That's a given. The issue centers around that statement and subsequent action being a NLRA violation. It would tough for Boeing for argue "sure, he said it but that's not really the reason we moved - even though he said it was."

[cammando]

The complaint was not brought by the NLRB. It was brought by the Independent Counsel which is independent of the NLRB.

The independent counsel brought on the first complaint, but the NLRB HAS filed a suit against Boeing on behalf of the union.......... The only way Boeing would be in violation is if they shut down the Washington plant and moved shop.. Not the case in this situation..

[cammando]

The Supreme Court has long held that firms may consider the economic effect of strikes when making business decisions...

The court will have the final say.. Not the IC..