Bluegrasscard - you speak with authority that no violation occurred. That differs from what some people in the labor law world believe. What are you basing your declaration on?

This article states Boeing is 'relocating'. It is not 'relocating'. It is built a new factory for a new product.

 

http://www.blufftontoday.com/bluffton-opinion/2011-05-20/facts-about-boeing-and-nlrb

 

Boeing violated the law when it made clear to employees that it was relocating because of strikes.

 

Boeing is 'relocating' nothing.

 

Later in the article.

 

According to a letter in the Wall Street Journal written by Dorian Warren, professor of political science and public affairs at Columbia, Boeing “ explicitly and egregiously broke the law.” Therefore, “the general counsel had no choice but to issue a complaint against the company’s violation. To not have done so would send the wrong signal to both American workers and employers – that it is OK to flagrantly break our labor laws.”

 

Original:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576307343145782896.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter#articleTabs%3Darticle

 

t is illegal to retaliate against employees exercising their rights to form a union or strike, and that is exactly what the company did. The complaint issued was based on public comments from Boeing executives making clear their reasons for relocation: to avoid strikes by their employees.

 

Say what? The statement above is idiotic on its face.

 

This is an assault on the right-to-work states. Pure and simple. The same complaint could be lodged against Toyota's Georgetown plant for NOT building in Michigan. It is basically the very same thing. This is a message - with White House support - stated or not to business to avoid right-to-work states or they will be harassed.

Bluegrasscard - you speak with authority that no violation occurred. That differs from what some people in the labor law world believe. What are you basing your declaration on?

 

An idiot Columbia professor??...go read those who have posted on his article - 90% condemn his inaccurate statements.

 

What has Boeing done to 'retaliate' against the union membership? Oh yeah, they hired MORE union employees in Washington.

And that's the main problem with liberals... You can't realize whats going on then wonder why companies head over seas.

^Unless Toyota execs said that the reason they moved a line to another site because of strikes then it's apples and oranges. No one is claiming that businesses cant put operations where they want. That's a red herring.

An idiot Columbia professor??...go read those who have posted on his article - 90% condemn his inaccurate statements.

 

What has Boeing done to 'retaliate' against the union membership? Oh yeah, they hired MORE union employees in Washington.

 

You quoted one guy. Is that all ot takes now?

And that's the main problem with liberals... You can't realize whats going on then wonder why companies head over seas.

 

It is painfully evident you have no idea what the real issue is in this case.

I know that at least nine attorney generals that say the case has no merit.. It's purely political and directed by the white house..

^Unless Toyota execs said that the reason they moved a line to another site because of strikes then it's apples and oranges. No one is claiming that businesses cant put operations where they want. That's a red herring.

 

Boeing built a new plant for a new product - exactly what Toyota did. What is the difference?

 

How does this at all show that Boeing denied workers the right to organize? That is the essence of what the good professor has indicated is the problem.

 

For reference:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/129/usc_sec_29_00000151----000-.html

 

Boeing has not impacted the ability of any group - in Washington or in South Carolina - to organize. Stating you want to 'avoid strikes' is not union busting.

It is painfully evident you have no idea what the real issue is in this case.

I know exactly what the issue of the case is is.. I've stated it several times... I just don't agree that it has merit... You seem to be the only one who agrees with the NLRB...

I know exactly what the issue of the case is is.. I've stated it several times... I just don't agree that it has merit... You seem to be the only one who agrees with the NLRB...

 

No, I'm the only one that has stated the NLRA (not NLRB) case accurately.

Boeing built a new plant for a new product - exactly what Toyota did. What is the difference?

 

How does this at all show that Boeing denied workers the right to organize? That is the essence of what the good professor has indicated is the problem.

 

For reference:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/129/usc_sec_29_00000151----000-.html

 

Boeing has not impacted the ability of any group - in Washington or in South Carolina - to organize. Stating you want to 'avoid strikes' is not union busting.

 

From your post history I know you're an intelligent person. The above makes me question if you're fully aware of the facts.

 

Givens:

 

2007 Boeing says they are adding a line to the WA plant

2009 Boeing changes their mind

Sometime after that the Boeing CEO is quoted as saying that had it not been for the potential of a strike that they would not have moved to SC.

Labor laws from 1935 say it is illegal to punish or threaten to punish a union for legal union activities.

Same labor laws say a company CAN move jobs to non-union areas as long as the company follows the labor laws.

NLRA (not the President) investigates and files a complaint saying the Federal labor laws were violated and ONE of the issues was the public comments made by the CEO as well as internal memos that no one has seen(to my knowledge).

 

So those are not in dispute despite what others on here have claimed (and many in the public arena).

 

The ONLY debate that we should be having is does the claim have merit. You are not fully versed (if at all) in Federal labor laws. I am not and it's obvious Cammando isn't.

 

So the only real argument we can have is SHOULD a company be allowed to move in retaliation or make threats to move. In other words, should the law be changed.

 

However, since the law isn't changing I'm not sure how anyone on here can make an intelligent decision as to the legitimacy of the claim.

 

My only point in starting this path was to at least have a discussion that was based in fact and not the discussion that Cammando wanted to have by starting the thread since it was based on inaccuracies and ignorance of the law.

And you are the only one who thinks it has merit... It is totally ridiculous to think so.

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

 

President is not involved. Your statement has no merit.

 

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

 

Irrelevant to the claim being made.

 

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

 

Again, the President is not saying anything.

 

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

 

All of the ones that matter.

 

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..

 

Your "only way" comment is 100% incorrect.

 

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

 

You failed to accept my challenge to provide ANY comments made by the President. Hint: there are none.

 

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.

 

Again, like many of your posts, irrelevant to the claim.

 

Your claim that you know what's going on lacks any evidence.

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.

 

If I'm understanding correctly they can't move operations. That doesn't mean they can't change their mind, does it? I think they can retaliate by not putting something in place due to the union. If the operation never started up, it's not illegal.