Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WillR

    This is confusing to me because people keep saying Boeing moved the plant or took away the work (as in retaliation).  And if Boeing had moved the plant/work to a non-union state I would understand this, and would stop wasting your time.

    But they aren't moving a plant, they are expecting a bunch of new work to come in.  Some of it will go the the union in Washington, some of it will go somewhere else . . .

    If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that it doesn't really matter that they are not moving the plant/work.  The primary issue is that Boeing admitted that strikes had impacted the business, and that this needed to be taken into consideration when selecting the site for the new factory.   And, because they picked a right to work state, they are in effect 'avoiding the union', and that is illegal (and my interpretation of retaliation is immaterial because avoiding the union is just as illegal as retaliation).

    If they had chosen a state that was not a right to work state, but was not Washington, the problem with legality goes away.

    I am curious, what if it was a different union, would that make a difference?

    Thanks for your patience in helping me understand this, I really appreciate it.

    •  that's right. (0+ / 0-)

      The problem isn't that they moved the plant.  The problem is that (1) they are trying to avoid the union, and (2) they were dumb enough to say so out loud.

      If they had simply expanded the very same plant or built the new plant right next door but hired non-union workers, they'd be in the same boat as they are now. If they move the plant elsewhere, it doesn't matter if it's a right-to-work state or not---what matters is that there ain't a union at the new plant, and they moved it there, wherever "there" is, to get away from the union. It is illegal to evade or avoid a union--no matter how you try to do it.

      Even if they move somewhere and allow a different union, that is still a violation, because (1) they can't evade or escape the first union, and (2) they can't change the union anyway because that's not their decision to make.

       

      •  Thanks for your patience (0+ / 0-)

        I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand.

        •  I'm happy to help. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fed up Fed, SilverWillow

          Most Americans have no idea what labor law is or what it says. Many assume that we have protections that we in reality don't--for example, there is no Federal law at all requiring employers to give anyone a lunch break. The more people learn about the (deliberate) weaknesses of labor law, the more pissed off they get--and the more likely we can win REAL legal protections in the future.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (23)
  • Environment (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Economy (15)
  • Republicans (14)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Racism (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site