Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans continue to flip out over NLRB doing its job (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let me make this simple (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KJG52, roadbear, SunsetMagnolia

    As for why the NLRB is taking on Boeing, I think the diary makes a pretty clear case. The NLRB is doing its job by keeping a company from retaliating against a union who was doing a protected activity. (Contract negotiation and withholding of labor). As for the earthquake theory, I do not know where you got that line of reasoning, but it is pure eyewash. I live in Washington state and there are very few earthquakes and none of the really bad kind. And as for the opportunity to mitigate a strike risk, I would suggest you ask any union officer about that idea. In any organized labor, at the end of the day, when reason and sanity has failed to move a stupid employer, all you have left is the strike. It is rarely used, but you should never let their be any doubt that it would be used to achieve reasonable sharing of profits and decent benefits. Bargaining it away is suicide. And I would say that Boeing would have saved a hell of a lot more money by keeping the entire production line in Washington, instead of outsourcing so much of it overseas. This has cost them at least a billion in correcting quality control mistakes. Washington state has a great pool of skilled workers, that take pride in their work and expect to be paid accordingly. What is wrong with that?

    •  Well, as an architect formerly resident in WA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fed up Fed

      I can tell you that there is most certainly an earthquake risk, and most of WA is in seismic zone 3 (CA is 4, the highest).

      That being said, the earthquake theory is complete unmitigated BS.  Boeing has built planes in WA for 100 years.  Buildings are structurally designed to deal with earthquake hazard.  If I were worried about natural disasters wreaking havoc on my manufacturing facility, I probably wouldn't have located a new plant in a major hurricane area (Hugo, anyone?).

      There was even a major earthquake in Charleston in the 1880's, IIRC.

      As a Washington native currently resident in South Carolina (and has no personal or family connection to either Boeing or the aviation industry), I will say this to the government of my new state (for now):  F*CK OFF.  Stop stealing tax money from states like Washington--who pay more than they get back so that states like SC can sponge off the Feds and then turn around and hand the money to corporations instead of using it for something that perhaps would be useful to this benighted place, like, say, education.

      Nikki Haley is a grade-A douchebag as is nearly every politician here, including the so-called Democrats.

      I like lemurs -6.50, -4.82

      by roadbear on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:36:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It seems simple . . . (0+ / 0-)

      but I am not an expert in this topic (union stuff), and have been very confused by the language of retaliation - to me that meant that you can't take work away, or shut down work at a particular place, and move it somewhere there is no union.

      All of the examples and explanations say that Boeing can't move the work or move the plant.  I really don't understand how you could move work or a plant that does not exist yet.

      So, for me, it isn't simple . . . there is a nuance that seems important (but I may just be too pedantic).

      If someone says that once you start working with a union, all work (existing and new) has to stay with that union, period - no exceptions, I would understand.

      Or if it was stated that when Boeing mentioned the union strikes, they could not build a new plant anywhere except where it could be supported by the exact same union.  I would understand that also.

      With regard to your specific question:

      Washington state has a great pool of skilled workers, that take pride in their work and expect to be paid accordingly. What is wrong with that?

      I don't think there is anything wrong with this.

      I just think there was more that went into the business decision than the Boeing work force (similar to when they moved the headquarters to Chicago).

      Thanks for trying to help me understand.  

      •  It's not that you can't take away from a union (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        it's that you can't take work away BECAUSE of the union.  You can't move work as a means of breaking the union, chilling union activity, or to avoid union activity.  You can't award work to a non-union plant as a means of punishing or otherwise suppressing union activity.

        Boeing admitted that the entire reason they sent the Dreamliner to SC was because they couldn't get a guarantee from the union that there would be no strikes.  Let me say that again, they deliberately, openly, egregiously moved work to South Carolina because they didn't want union activity to affect their operations.  That's in direct contravention of Federal law.

        The actual complaint.

        Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.

        by Fed up Fed on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:05:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This I understand (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fed up Fed

          But I am still stumbling over the 'move work' part (since they were going to build a new factory to accommodate the new work, but they chose not to put it in Washington).

          If it was worded as:

           . . . they deliberately, openly, egregiously built a the new 787 factory in  South Carolina because they didn't want union activity to affect their operations.

          Would this still in contravention of Federal Law?

          But if they had just done it, and not mentioned the unions, it would not be illegal.  Correct?

          I think it is starting to sink in.  It's not just moving the actual work, it also pertains to moving potential future work.  If you are establishing a new work location for reasons other than the union, you are OK.  If you do it to avoid working with a union, it is illegal.  If you do it for a combination of reasons, then you go to court and let the judge decide . . .

          Thanks to Fed up Fed, and Lenny Flank for sticking with me until I understood.   I appreciate it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site