Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MattSepeta, Apr 27, 2011.
Surprised this has not come up yet. Surprised it's not getting more airtime in general in the media.
And folks wonder why "...they send jobs overseas!" This is just one of many reasons.
The reason it doesn't get more media coverage is because the media cannot relate this sort of decision to job losses and economic malaise--and is thus relatively important to them. Besides, they can at least halfway understand royal weddings and Hollywood shenanigans.
Hmmm, jobs are going elsewhere to avoid unions? predictable.
"hey, you give us ____ and _____ and _____" .... " and, hey wait a minute, why are you sending jobs elsewhere?"
Yeah...nobody is terribly happy about this around here.
The party line from Boeng is that they've actually added union jobs at their Washington state facility - I have no reason to doubt this.
The other question this raises is why the NLRB didn't bother to mention this when Boeng was initially looking for the site a few years ago.
I admit I'm pretty far-left. And I do tangentially support unions, although I admit that I've never ever dealt with one before. However, to me, this comes across as a very heavy-handed union power grab as retaliation for creating jobs in a non-union state.
Incidentally, I drive by the new facility on the way to work every morning.
Even salaried engineers are union employees in Washington. It's pretty pervasive.
As for SC, its real estate and per capita income is pretty low, meaning competitive salaries can be much lower. The anti-union angle is not the only angle to be had.
I'm pro union but this is dumb. Companies have been relocating manufacturing to whatever US State is most profitable for a long while already. Right to work or not, at least they're keeping it domestic.
If NLRB is gonna block a company for moving manufacturing to a right to work state, they might as well block all manufacturing operations in the State of South Carolina to begin with, as well as operations in any right to work state in the nation. Then they might as well sue every company that's outsourced overseas for being anti-union on general principle.
So, what about the new KIA plant in Georgia?
What is different?
So, they're angry at Boeing for opening a factory in a non-Union workers' state?
So they should open one up in a non-Union Workers' COUNTRY instead?
I'm sure there's a lot more to this story than we know but based on that article, this sounds like a bonehead move by the Obama administration.
I think you have answered my question, as to what is different.
KIA is an off-shore enterprise, whereas Boeing is 'resident'.
If this is the case, it is truly disappointing.
Yeah, Ford and GM never have vehicles built in Canada or Mexico.
There is a lot more to this story. First, this isn't the "Obama Administration" unilaterally moving to block Boeing. There was a suit filed by the union. The union employees at Boeing have a contract with the company, therefore, Boeing is subject to Federal law regarding collective bargaining. The union filed suit against Boeing alleges numerous violations of federal law, including making threats to the employees; I think one of which was locating the new plant in a non-union state. (Something like, you must agree to XY or Z otherwise, we are going to move manufacturing jobs away from here to a non-union state.) There is nothing wrong with setting up a plant in a non-union state, but because the action was done allegedly in violation of federal law, the NLRB took action. This is a preliminary move as part of an ongoing investigation and legal action. To not do this now could harm both parties.
(edit) Oh, if a non-union company had done exactly the same thing, there would not have been a problem because non-union employees don't have the protection of federal law. One pretty big reason how unions offer protection to employees beyond salary, pensions, and work conditions.
I'll see if I can find a link later.
I'd like to see the link
From what I see, the only difference between a union and non-union company is whether the state the company was founded in is right to work or not. And the label becomes meaningless if a company wants to expand outside the state. The unions should be able to protect their own jobs (current membership) but expansion is an executive business decision that the unions should not decide.
I could totally see Boeing crunching numbers and telling the union, we need you to cut X, Y, and Z if we want to keep this new plant in Washington and still keep it cost effective. Otherwise we'll move it to another state where it will be cheaper. Unions say no, Boeing moves plant, unions run to NLRB.
In this case, the dreamliner production was in Washington, and when the company was unable to secure the contract terms it wanted, it retaliated against the Union by just moving the jobs.
Conservative Daily News
I used this site to give you the right-wing arguments; you will note that none of them are that what Boeing did was legal. Rather, the argument seems to be that what they did shouldnt' be illegal.
(edit) Oh, and I my impression (from the other post) of the suit was wrong. This was the Obama administration filing the suit.
Yet, in Germany, there are union representatives at board level in every corporation, intimately involved with "executive decisions". I wonder how that works out for them?
I know very little about this situation. Trying to read up. I read your link.
Have you found a link that - outside of allegations in a complaint - affirmatively says what Boeing did was illegal? Just curious.
Can you post the law that mentions this? I'm not that familiar with it.
Maybe I read it wrong but I thought the jobs were for a second plant and don't belong to the union (or anyone) yet.
I can see an issue if the jobs belong to current membership (IE they built 3 planes a year at the 1st plant and after this one opens they're only gonna build 2). But if they don't the company is just using a future plant location as a collective bargaining tactic, which seems alright to me.
I'm actually more interested in the implications. If Boeing gets slapped for this it could mean
- A company founded in a union state would not be allowed to expand to a right to work state or a foreign country, at least not without a legal headache. This would have a big effect on the free market.
- The Fed government can now restrict capital flow between states to single out right to work states
- Unions would now have leverage on business decisions that affect future labor
Why don't you tell me why you picked Germany as an example instead of China.
Terrible, I've heard. The poor sods are so short on good ol' coal that they have to get more than 30% of their power from solar too.
Why do you think?
This was a facility Vought built to avoid Unions. Unfortunately, for Vought, it was unionized before the plant was operational, backfiring on them. Even more unfortunately, the plant operations had numerous issues and the workers were, generally speaking, unskilled (since Vought had hired non-Union workers to train up to lower their labor expenditure).
As a result of the plant's poor management, and the ongoing Boeing/Union issues, Boeing acquired the facility from Vought. At that time, the facility was still a unionized workforce.
The workers themselves voted the Union out (SC is a right-to-work state) shortly after Boeing acquired the facility.
Seems to me that Boeing's posturing is what's biting them, not the facts.
30%? More like 2%
Because you're trying to turn a lousy comparison into an argument
No, you're wrong. It is because Germany is a Western, industrialised nation with strong union rights, well-educated union representatives and a successful economy.
My apologies. It's actually solar and wind. (and I was a bit sloppy in how I labeled the 30%. It's actually 'penetration', not actual consumption. That's what happens when it's been a year since you've read the articles. )
Sorry for the source, but the site had links to the actual documents (and it was on the first page of my google results).