National Labor Relations Board Attempts to Stop Boeing From Moving Jobs to South Carolina

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2011 11:11 PM GMT
    The Obama Administration now believes that it is illegal for companies to move operations between states in deference to union interests. Apparently they believe that they can legislate or regulate jobs into existence? Or am I missing something here?

    Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    In what may be the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, the agency filed a complaint Wednesday seeking to force Boeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in Washington State instead of moving the work to a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

    In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

    Although manufacturers have long moved plants to nonunion states, the board noted that Boeing officials had, in internal documents and news interviews, specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South Carolina.

    Boeing said it would “vigorously contest” the labor board’s complaint. “This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both N.L.R.B. and Supreme Court precedent,” said J. Michael Luttig, a Boeing executive vice president and its general counsel. “Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region.”

    It is highly unusual for the federal government to seek to reverse a corporate decision as important as the location of plant.

    But ever since a Democratic majority took control of the five-member board after Mr. Obama’s election, the board has signaled that it would seek to adopt a more liberal, pro-union tilt after years of pro-employer decisions under President Bush.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 22, 2011 12:55 AM GMT
    If they are doing so as retaliation, then the NLRB is right. Federal law prevents retaliation for union organizing or striking.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3591

    Apr 22, 2011 1:53 AM GMT
    Maybe individual personal retaliation.

    Building a plant is a business decision.

    Apparently jobs are not being moved away. 2000 jobs were added in Washington state from Boeing recently.

    Washington ExaminerBoeing went on to say that, "none of the production jobs created in South Carolina has come at the expense of jobs in Puget Sound and that not a single union member has been adversely affected. In fact, (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) employment in Puget Sound has increased by approximately 2,000 workers since the decision to expand in South Carolina was made in October 2009."

    not a smart move I can see the campaign ads already.

    Here is the next question. If Boeing decided to close Puget Sound altogether would someone try to get a restraining order to make them keep the factories open?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 17, 2012 12:08 PM GMT
    LOL ... what we got here is a bit of domestic outsourcing ...

    Instead of Mumbai we got Spartanburg icon_cool.gif