New York Times columnist Joe Nocera is apparently still doing penance for writing, at the
beginning of the month:
You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.
These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people.
His penance tour started a couple days later, when he began an entire column about the evolution of his political beliefs by writing:
In the four months since I began writing an Op-Ed column, the thing that has most surprised me is how darned liberal I sound sometimes.
He went on to apologize for having used words that were "intemperate and offensive to many." Now, a couple weeks before he plans to write about how Republicans are blocking regulations that would create jobs, he comes out with a column titled "How Democrats hurt job creation." And it's about the National Labor Relations Board's complaint against Boeing. Nocera writes that:
But a fair-minded person would have to acknowledge that the N.L.R.B.’s action is exactly the kind of overreach that should embarrass Democrats who claim to care about job creation. It’s paralyzing, is what it is.
The law, to be sure, forbids a company from retaliating against a union. But the word “retaliation” suggests direct payback — a company shutting down a factory after a strike, for instance. Boeing did nothing like that. It not only hasn’t laid off a single worker in Washington State, it has added around 3,000 new ones. Seven out of every 10 Dreamliners will be assembled in Puget Sound.
Apparently Nocera's interpretation of what constitutes "retaliation" differs from the interpretation of the general counsel and majority of members of the NLRB. But what he fails to mention is that when deciding to locate jobs in South Carolina that otherwise would have gone to Washington State, a senior Boeing official went on tape to say:
The overriding factor [in moving to South Carolina] was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we’re paying today. It was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.
That sort of statement is the basis of the NLRB's complaint. Because it acknowledges directly that Boeing moved jobs in retaliation for protected activity.
Here's another thing Nocera doesn't note: It's not like the NLRB is unilaterally imposing some kind of massive sanctions on Boeing. No, the NLRB filed a complaint, one that will be heard in court and decided by a judge. It's called the legal process, but apparently that's something that evades the attention of New York Times columnists eager to prove that they're not filthy liberals and that they're really, really sorry they insulted the tea party. Yet another thing Nocera misses:
Moreover, the remedy being proposed by the NLRB’s general counsel would allow Boeing to operate the South Carolina plant, contrary to the claims of many conservatives (and sloppy reporters who allow such claims to go unchecked).
The remedy sought by the NLRB’s general counsel merely requires Boeing to maintain a second line at the unionized Washington facility. As the NLRB complaint explains, the “General Counsel does not seek to prohibit Respondent [Boeing] from making non-discriminatory decision with respect to where work will be performed, including non-discriminatory decisions with respect to work at its North Charleston, South Carolina, facility.”
But when seeking "balance" between columns criticizing Democrats and those criticizing Republicans, heaven forbid the facts should get in the way.