Hearing begins in labor complaint against Boeing

SEATTLE (AP) – Boeing on Tuesday asked a judge in Seattle to dismiss a case brought by the National Labor Relations Board that accuses the plane maker of breaking the law when it built a non-union production line in South Carolina.
The complaint by NLRB acting general counsel Lafe Solomon accused Boeing Co. of illegally retaliating against union workers for past strikes by adding a non-union assembly line for its new 787 passenger jet in South Carolina. The NLRB said Boeing also should move that assembly work to unionized plants in Washington state, where other 787s are assembled.
At the opening of a hearing on the case Tuesday, Boeing attorney William Kilberg said the legal dispute has cast a shadow over the company. He said the process has affected Boeing, its employees, its supplies and its investments. “It’s made life very, very difficult for Boeing,” he said.

finance.yahoo.com/news/Hearing-begins-in-labor-apf-4219196512.html?x=0&.v=3

So much for job creation and economic growth. Looks like Obama is bullying non-union jobs and saying union jobs are more important than non-union jobs. Obama is crazy about GM, Ford, and Chrysler, but yet he is silent on Mercedes Benz, Hyundai/Kia, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and BMW’s success in the South. It is because they are non-union.

We need to vote the guy with big red hair and red nose and black shoe out of the office ASAP.

Yep. If Obama doesn’t rein in the NLRB on this one, then he is absolutely demonstrating the emptiness of his words when it comes to job creation. He could care less. The Boeing plant is good for South Carolina, Boeing and the country as a whole.

Sometimes I really hate unions. My shipyard has a union, but the shipyard one city over doesn’t and their workers get paid a lot more.

Unions are like little governments these days.

Yep. I’m not totally anti-Union. They have their purpose, both historically and today. However, many of them are counterproductive when it comes to our country’s health.

I just watched Waiting for Superman last night - a documentary about education issues in our country. The Teachers’ Union is one of the biggest impediments to real reform.

This hearing couldn’t come at a better time. Boeing is facing angry customers over the 787 Dreamliner’s delay and stiff competition from Airbus. Airbus is readying its own Dreamliner, the A350.

This hearing couldn’t come at a better time. Boeing is facing angry customers over the 787 Dreamliner’s delay and stiff competition from Airbus. Airbus is readying its own Dreamliner, the A350.

Hmm…maybe Obama owns Airbus stock? :wink:

More likely, the NRLB board owns Airbus stock.:rolleyes:

“The case has taken on major political overtones, with Republicans in Congress accusing the board of attacking right-to-work states in favor of labor unions. South Carolina’s Republican congressional delegation and other lawmakers have tried without success to put public pressure on the Obama administration to get the NLRB to back off.”

the National Labor Relations Board is actively fighting the STATE’S rights. this really comes down to the classic Obama administration Federalism vs State rights. The NRLB, of course, takes the federalist view against state’s rights.

Obama is a central control statist, he could care less about federalism and state’s rights.

[LEFT]On the face of it it appears the Obama ministration would prefer to see US jobs go to nonunion workers overseas than nonunion workers in the United States. However I suspect they know they’re going to lose this case and the only reason they even bothered to bring it up was to pander to their union supporters.[/LEFT]

So should we allow companies to break the law in the name of job creation? How many new jobs does a company have to create before it is allowed to operate above the law?

The case against Boeing is compelling. The plant was originally planned for Washington and was only cancelled after the union refused to enter into an agreement with Boeing that would prohibit strikes for a period of ten years. Its also stated publicly that strikes are, at minimum, a contributing factor in changing the location of the plant to South Carolina.

So Union intransigence caused Boeing to move. How is that illegal?

Its illegal because its retaliation against a legal union activity (the right to strike). If Boeing had given their reasons for shifting the plant to South Carolina as tax breaks galore then the union wouldnt have a case. But thats not what Boeing said.

Retaliation against what? Future strikes??? There is no case Boeing will move either 20 sc or overseas

Boeing has no legal right to demand that union workers give up their right to strike or lose employment opportunities.

There is a case and one I doubt Boeing would win in court. They’re not going overseas. They’re probably just going to reach a settlement.

Original Planned is the key word. There was no employment contract with the union. Talks and discussions etc don’t mean jack until there is a signed contract.

I highly doubt that Boeing just suddenly decided to try to move to SC. They probaly had multiple business plans drawn up and when the one in washington wasn’t going to work they moved on to a different business plan. Its what business do. There is no reason to punish them from trying to stay competivie and met work demands. Its not like they are closing the other plant line. its still open and all the jobs already there are staying there.

What is it liberals say? Unjust laws don’t have to be followed. :wink:

I don’t know the legal merits of the case, but I’m in favor of a new Boeing plant in South Carolina. If the unions made it economically unfeasible for Boeing to build the plant in my home state, then the unions failed the workers of our state. It’s that simple. As far as I understand, Boeing is not shutting down a plant in WA…just building a new one elsewhere. If they were shutting down and moving in retaliation, that would be a different situation IMO.

Odd contention - that once a company has entered into a contract they are forbidden to open new plants in other locations unless the Union approves. Can you show anytime that this unique theory has ever been imposed in the past ?

How is it illegal?

It is a rather nove interpretation of the law-an interpertration unheard of in the entire 70 plus year history of the NLRB. The NakRB is trying to give Union veto power over plant expansions of unionized companies. Not only will they ultimately lose in court but they are further hurting the cause of Unions. If you were a new company knowing the hostility of the NRLB to companies would you open a plant in a heavily unionized star or a right to work state?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.