NlRB vs. Boeing, I here Ayn Rand calling

[billc]

At what point did the federal government assume the power to tell a private company in which state they can move to. I'm sorry, this used to be the United States, not soviet russia. the story...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/boeing-vs-the-nlrb-a-naked-power-grab-by-radical-pro-unionists/

From the article:

Boeing currently builds 787s in unionized Washington state, and its customers love the plane. Demand is so strong, the company needed to build a second assembly line. Boeing decided to locate this second line in South Carolina instead of Washington state.
This was a sound business decision. South Carolina offered Boeing $900 million in tax-incentives, has better tort laws, and is geographically closer to many suppliers. South Carolina is also a right-to-work state with few union members. Building in Charleston dramatically reduces the risk of strikes — a real benefit since the International Association of Machinists (IAM) regularly launches expensive strikes in Washington.
So Boeing decided to build its new plant in South Carolina — and the IAM objected. After a two-year wait, during which Boeing spent $2 billion, the NLRB recently filed a complaint. The NLRB contends that Boeing illegally “transferred work” from Washington in “retaliation” for the IAM’s strikes.
Contrary to the NLRB’s unsupported claims, the government cannot tell companies where they can and cannot create jobs. Even on their own terms, the NLRB’s dubious charges do not pass legal muster.
Boeing’s actions can’t be characterized as a “reprisal” against the union when Boeing is not closing its existing Washington plant or “transferring” work from it. No members of the union are losing their jobs. Boeing is simply creating new production capabilities in a second facility in South Carolina. The NLRB’s own regional director, Richard Ahearn, admitted this. As if this weren’t enough, the union’s collective bargaining agreement expressly states that Boeing can build new assembly lines wherever it chooses.

****THE IMPORTANT PART--Contrary to the NLRB’s unsupported claims, the government cannot tell companies where they can and cannot create jobs. Even on their own terms, the NLRB’s dubious charges do not pass legal muster.*****

 

[elder999]

At what point did the federal government assume the power to tell a private company in which state they can move to. I'm sorry, this used to be the United States, not soviet russia. the story...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/boeing-vs-the-nlrb-a-naked-power-grab-by-radical-pro-unionists/

From the article:

Boeing currently builds 787s in unionized Washington state, and its customers love the plane. Demand is so strong, the company needed to build a second assembly line. Boeing decided to locate this second line in South Carolina instead of Washington state.
This was a sound business decision. South Carolina offered Boeing $900 million in tax-incentives, has better tort laws, and is geographically closer to many suppliers. South Carolina is also a right-to-work state with few union members. Building in Charleston dramatically reduces the risk of strikes — a real benefit since the International Association of Machinists (IAM) regularly launches expensive strikes in Washington.
So Boeing decided to build its new plant in South Carolina — and the IAM objected. After a two-year wait, during which Boeing spent $2 billion, the NLRB recently filed a complaint. The NLRB contends that Boeing illegally “transferred work” from Washington in “retaliation” for the IAM’s strikes.
Contrary to the NLRB’s unsupported claims, the government cannot tell companies where they can and cannot create jobs. Even on their own terms, the NLRB’s dubious charges do not pass legal muster.
Boeing’s actions can’t be characterized as a “reprisal” against the union when Boeing is not closing its existing Washington plant or “transferring” work from it. No members of the union are losing their jobs. Boeing is simply creating new production capabilities in a second facility in South Carolina. The NLRB’s own regional director, Richard Ahearn, admitted this. As if this weren’t enough, the union’s collective bargaining agreement expressly states that Boeing can build new assembly lines wherever it chooses.

****THE IMPORTANT PART--Contrary to the NLRB’s unsupported claims, the government cannot tell companies where they can and cannot create jobs. Even on their own terms, the NLRB’s dubious charges do not pass legal muster.*****

Boeing's actions can be characterized that way, as several Boeing executives have made public statements that they chose South Carolina to avoid potential strikes.The union characterized this as retaliation for the 2008 strike, and the NLRB counsel agreed.

If a Republican were in office, the NLRB counsel-a political appointee of the executive branch-likely wouldn't have agreed. It's gone that way for other cases where a geographic relocation or expansion was involved.

This will all be settled at the bargaining table, or in court, with concessions on both sides, a union plant in Washington, and a non-union one in South Carolina. That's the way the process works.

A sound business decision by Boeing, and a dubious basis for the complaint, but that's the gamesmanship required for bargaining sometimes. IF the company wants to have both a union and non-union plant-and it does intend to continue production , it pretty much has to deal with the union it already has a contract with, and the NLRB is sometimes part of that process.

At what point
did the federal government
tell a company in which
state they
could move to?
Not Soviet Russia?
Pajamasmedia
United States?
THE IMPORTANT PART:
Pajamasmedia.

 

[billc]

It would be great if Boeing just moved everything out of washington and see how the unions liked that.

 

[Twin Fist]

It would be great if Boeing just moved everything out of washington and see how the unions liked that.

amen, I for one am sick of the union attitude of screwing the business.