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.

 

Again, no one is disputing that Boeing can move operations in the name of saving money. The only question is was it in retaliation. If so, illegal move. If not, legal move.

By the way it's my opinion that the "well they added more jobs in WA" argument is irrelevant to the debate. That cannot be a justification for an act that is deemed to be illegal.

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.

 

Since Boeing has not attempted to eliminate the union or take any direct action then building a new plant for a new product instead of expanding an existing plant has nothing to do with labor relations unless lack of 'rewarding' a union base could be construed as 'retaliating'.

 

151 says it illegal to prevent (which Boeing has not done) or retaliate against individuals (which Boeing has not done) who belong to or want to start a union. There is simply no case here. Is the White House 'behind' the action? Maybe, maybe not. But certainly given the very close relationship of the administration with unions it has provided a wink and nod to the action. Given the number of visits by SEUI president to the WH that is a certainty.

Come on Clyde.. You are starting to sound like Westsider... Even Obamas own pick for commerce secretary thinks the claim is bogus. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/obama-commerce-secretary-nominee-criticizes-nlrb-s-suit-against-b You claim you know it all and you have provided zero evidence to back your claim that laws have been broken... Where is your proof??

Again, no one is disputing that Boeing can move operations in the name of saving money. The only question is was it in retaliation. If so, illegal move. If not, legal move.

 

I'm still hammering on the move part. They moved nothing. They built. That's what I'm hung up on. They can build for any reason anywhere for new operations, can't they? That's where I'm confused.

75, that's still my hang up as well. Is a plan to put the line in WA the same thing as actually having it in WA? They didn't move anything but an idea.

Come on Clyde.. You are starting to sound like Westsider... Even Obamas own pick for commerce secretary thinks the claim is bogus. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/obama-commerce-secretary-nominee-criticizes-nlrb-s-suit-against-b You claim you know it all and you have provided zero evidence to back your claim that laws have been broken... Where is your proof??

 

Unless the Commerce Secretary is an expert in labor law then his opinion carries no extra weight.

 

I don't claim that I know it all. I claim that I , unlike you, realized from the beginning what the story was.

I'm still hammering on the move part. They moved nothing. They built. That's what I'm hung up on. They can build for any reason anywhere for new operations, can't they? That's where I'm confused.

 

75, that's still my hang up as well. Is a plan to put the line in WA the same thing as actually having it in WA? They didn't move anything but an idea.

 

I don't think the "move" issue is relevant to the argument. IMO the argument is the threat (real or not) that was made when leaders of the company said publicly and internally that THE reason they're moving was not the lower costs in SC but the threat of a strike.

 

Logic says that should be a valid consideration. Law, however, does not allow it IF it's found to be a retaliation for the union's legal right to strike.

 

The "move," the fact that Boeing added jobs in WA, the fact that the building exists in SC already, is ancillary.

I'm kind of surprised that Unions would be striking in this economy. If ya don't know, I was in the teamsters for 12 years and have been in management the last 15. Being on both sides of the fence gives me a pretty good perspective.

I'm kind of surprised that Unions would be striking in this economy. If ya don't know, I was in the teamsters for 12 years and have been in management the last 15. Being on both sides of the fence gives me a pretty good perspective.

Were they or was it the past history of the plant that prompted the move .

I'm kind of surprised that Unions would be striking in this economy. If ya don't know, I was in the teamsters for 12 years and have been in management the last 15. Being on both sides of the fence gives me a pretty good perspective.

 

I think I read the last strike by the union against Boeing was 2008 or so.

Were they or was it the past history of the plant that prompted the move .

 

Latter

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned-this is the sum of good government"

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

Clearly part of the reason Boeing opened the second plant was to have production capacity in the event of a prolonged strike in Washington state. Boeing's customers (Virgin Air) were reluctant to purchase their planes for fear of work interruptions. Boeing tried to negotiate a deal with the unions for lengthier contracts to mitigate the possibility. The union refused. The company was faced with the choice of losing business or building new capacity to secure their customer base. However, one thing is now crystal clear. As a result of the union and NLRB's reaction to Boeing's decision, the 787 could be the very last new aircraft that Boeing manufactures in Washington State.

Clearly part of the reason Boeing opened the second plant was to have production capacity in the event of a prolonged strike in Washington state. Boeing's customers (Virgin Air) were reluctant to purchase their planes for fear of work interruptions. Boeing tried to negotiate a deal with the unions for lengthier contracts to mitigate the possibility. The union refused. The company was faced with the choice of losing business or building new capacity to secure their customer base. However, one thing is now crystal clear. As a result of the union and NLRB's reaction to Boeing's decision, the 787 could be the very last new aircraft that Boeing manufactures in Washington State.

 

I was hoping after a few days of contemplation that you'd reflect on what the real issue is. However....

 

What you say above is fine and doesn't violate any Federal labor laws.

 

As I've tried to point out SEVERAL times , though, it's irrelevant to the claim made ie the legal issue.

 

The union and the company have to follow long-standing labor laws. Obviously, there is a debate as to the following of those laws. It has nothing to do with their right to use a non-union plant.