June 23, 201115 yr OK..so the NLRB is now acting on BEHALF of the union...in the beginning of this thread, cammando, you said that "Obama's NLRB" was against the union. So...are you ready to concede you jumped the gun?
June 23, 201115 yr 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.. What do you base your "only way" comment on? I've read quotes from 4 labor attorneys and they all say it seems like a clear violation.
June 23, 201115 yr Also, the consensus is that even if Boeing is found guilty of violating the NLRA they will not be forced to move the jobs from SC back to WA. There will be some punishment but it will not be that.
June 23, 201115 yr Author What do you base your "only way" comment on? I've read quotes from 4 labor attorneys and they all say it seems like a clear violation. And I have read decisions by the court that side with the companies in these cases... Lawyers will say anything... Again, what laws did they say were broken...
June 23, 201115 yr 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." Actually, no, it would not be hard to argue. If something else is in the minutes of any meetings then it could be just somebody venting. Been known to happen.
June 23, 201115 yr Actually, no, it would not be hard to argue. If something else is in the minutes of any meetings then it could be just somebody venting. Been known to happen. I found this. According to the complaint, company executives explicitly told investors, the media and employees that they put the new line in South Carolina specifically because of the machinists' work stoppages. These statements carried an implicit threat, the NLRB complaint alleged, that employees who exercised their legal right to strike would lose work. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/opinion/la-ed-boeing-20110615
June 23, 201115 yr And I have read decisions by the court that side with the companies in these cases... Lawyers will say anything... Again, what laws did they say were broken... How many times do I have to answer your same question about what laws were claimed to be broken? The claim is clear and I've been crystal clear as to what those claims are.
June 23, 201115 yr I found this. According to the complaint, company executives explicitly told investors, the media and employees that they put the new line in South Carolina specifically because of the machinists' work stoppages. These statements carried an implicit threat, the NLRB complaint alleged, that employees who exercised their legal right to strike would lose work. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/opinion/la-ed-boeing-20110615 If it's a new line, case closed isn't it? My guess is that will be the answer as you can bet attorneys checked out all those things ahead of time.
June 23, 201115 yr If it's a new line, case closed isn't it? My guess is that will be the answer as you can bet attorneys checked out all those things ahead of time. IMO the issue isn't really about the line or the jobs in SC. Those aren't going anywhere regardless of the decision. It seems the NLRB brought this claim because of the bigger picture of intimidation trying to prevent contractually-agreed to rights and the fact that there are long-standing labor laws that the company broke. I'd argue it's more about the future and , more simply, breaking the long-established law.
June 23, 201115 yr I think the NLRB is trying to intimidate alright. No law has been broken here that I can see if it is a new line.
June 23, 201115 yr I think the NLRB is trying to intimidate alright. No law has been broken here that I can see if it is a new line. And if and when a Republican is elected President the NLRB will swing 180* and side with the companies again . What goes around comes around .
June 23, 201115 yr So what part of the blame does the President get in this? That was the impetus of the thread.
June 23, 201115 yr I found this. According to the complaint, company executives explicitly told investors, the media and employees that they put the new line in South Carolina specifically because of the machinists' work stoppages. These statements carried an implicit threat, the NLRB complaint alleged, that employees who exercised their legal right to strike would lose work. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/opinion/la-ed-boeing-20110615 Again how they losing work? They aren't moving jobs from Washington to SC, they are creating new jobs in SC.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.