Again how they losing work? They aren't moving jobs from Washington to SC, they are creating new jobs in SC.

 

In 2007 Boeing said the line would be added in WA. Two years later it said it would be switched to SC and internal documents and public comments suggest that it was in retaliation against the union which is illegal.

Edited June 23, 201115 yr by Clyde

In 2007 Boeing said the line would be added in WA. Two years later it said it would be switched to SC and internal documents and public comments suggest that it was in retaliation against the union which is illegal.

Gotcha. That's what I was missing.

Gotcha. That's what I was missing.

 

So the only debate is was it retaliatory. The SC cases cited earlier say companies can move from union to non-union. That's not the debate. The law says it cannot be retaliatory. The comments made by the CEO seem to indicate that it was either directly or through implication. Both of those , from what I read, seem to violate the NLRA.

 

Fair questions to ask:

 

Would this complaint be filed under a different President even though the person making the complaint is independent from the NLRB?

 

Should the fact that it's so far down the road factor in? I think it will in regards to any penalties.

 

Should the President make a comment?

 

Is this issue being used for political gain?

The Job Killer strikes again.. Comments? http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/04/federal-labor-board-seeks-ground-boeing#ixzz1KGERFgxa

 

So he is trying to kill a few thousand more jobs... No big deal I guess..

 

Where did I say that... I said Obama was against Boeing...

 

And, where in the world do you get that Obama is against Boeing?

And, where in the world do you get that Obama is against Boeing?

He has stated more than once that he thought Boeing was wrong and he directed the NLRB to investigate the issue...

Federal law doesn't stop Boeing from putting production lines where labor costs are lower. And the company's defenders say that Boeing's expansion in South Carolina hasn't cost machinists jobs in the Puget Sound region; to the contrary, the company has added more than 2,000 jobs there.

He has stated more than once that he thought Boeing was wrong and he directed the NLRB to investigate the issue...

 

That doesn't mean he's anti-Boeing. That means he's anti-this-chain-of-events by Boeing.

That doesn't mean he's anti-Boeing. That means he's anti-this-chain-of-events by Boeing.

So do you think the complaint is valid or ridiculous?? http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/aviation/166827-sc-gov-haley-obama-made-nlrb-boeing-complaint-political-not-her

Federal law doesn't stop Boeing from putting production lines where labor costs are lower. And the company's defenders say that Boeing's expansion in South Carolina hasn't cost machinists jobs in the Puget Sound region; to the contrary, the company has added more than 2,000 jobs there.

 

You still havent addressed the Claim made by the NLRA.

He has stated more than once that he thought Boeing was wrong and he directed the NLRB to investigate the issue...

 

I challenge you to back that up. Every story I have seen has commented on how the President has not commented on the issue. Gov Huntsman is the latest to request that he take a stand.

You still havent addressed the Claim made by the NLRA.

The claim is bogus.. The Boeing execs simply stated that they could not afford any more strikes... What else do you want... Are you actually siding with Obama on this..

The claim is bogus.. The Boeing execs simply stated that they could not afford any more strikes... What else do you want... Are you actually siding with Obama on this..

 

How is the claim bogus?

 

Again, how am I supposed to side with the President when he has not publicly commented?

So you think the claim has merit ?

Boeing built a new plant for a new airliner and where free to choose whatever state or even country they wanted to do that. Was 'right to work' a factor? Probably. The same could be said for any new plant in a right to work state over the last 20 years. Did Boeing move or relocate work to South Carolina to 'punish' union members or the union in Washington? No. So what is the case here? None. If Boeing materially shifted work away from union-based Washington to the new plant in a right to work state or specifically threatened to do so during specific union negotiations then there would something that may rise to an issue for the NLRB. But that has not happened.

So you think the claim has merit ?

 

Let's recap.

 

I am the only one bringing the real story to the discussion. I am far from a Labor legal expert but I can see why the claim was made. Unlike you, I realize this has nothing to do with the President "telling" Boeing where they can place factories.