Feds trying to force Boeing plant to Wa

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
Can the government do this? SHOULD the gov't be doing this?Why is the gov't trying to do this? Isn't the Gov the government ofus all, including non union people and right to work states?

From link
"Can federal bureaucrats tell a private company where to build a factory?
Members of President Obama's National Labor Relations Board think they can. In a decision that even the New York Times is describing as "highly unusual for the federal government," Lafe Solomon, who was appointed to the board by Obama, filed a complaint on behalf of the NLRB on Wednesday seeking to force the Boeing Co. to build an assembly line in Washington state instead of South Carolina. The NLRB action stems from Boeing's October 2009 decision to build a new factory for its new 787 Dreamliner airplane near Charleston, S.C. Boeing first sought to build the new plant near its existing facility in Puget Sound, but negotiations with the International Association of Machinists broke down when the union refused to agree to a long-term no-strike clause. The IAM had struck four times since 1989, costing Boeing at least $1.8 billion in revenue.



Read more at the Washington Examiner:The Link
 
If it involves labor the BHO Administration will trample any law, precedent etc to side with the unions-------despicable.
pukey.gif
 
Trupka has bragged that he meets with Obama 3 times a week and he speaks with someone at the white house every day. The only people obama sees more than this guy is probably his chief of staff and his family. You can bet that this administration has a union based agenda. it is very clear.
 
Why should Boeing even take this seriously...? Couldn't the NLRB be basically ignored here...? Do they have any standing...?
 
The NLRB is hanging its case on a senior Boeing official's statement to the Seattle Times that "The overriding factor [in transferring the line] ... was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years." The NLRB absurdly claims this is "unlawful employer speech" that infringes on "a worker's fundamental" right to strike. But the Supreme Court has long held that firms may consider the economic effect of strikes when making business decisions.
__________________________________________________

The NLRB has filed a complaint. It isnt a good case, but they can do it. I'm sure the obama admiistratiuon wilkl try to grease as many wheels as they can. God forbid they be actually concerned with jobs in this country. Boeing has already built the plant and hired the workers. If for some shocking reason Boeing does lose, expect more jobs be shipped overseas or south of the border.
 
general good point, of course the gov't can do it
but should the gov't be lobbying for one group and state against others?

is there any justification?

Notice in the article it mentions that not only is the plant in SC nearly complete and 1000 employees hired but that Boeing in Wa has added 2000 employees.

This from the article speaks of Boeing having to pursue this before a judge.
"Also, Boeing's existing collective bargaining agreement with the IAM allows Boeing to build facilities at other locations. An administrative law judge will hear Boeing's objection to the NLRB's complaint June 14, so there still is hope sanity will prevail. But a decision in favor of the IAM would be a disaster not just for Boeing, but for American workers everywhere. A ruling in favor of Obama's NLRB would make it presumptively illegal for any unionized firm to invest in a right-to-work state."

So even though the union agreement Boeing has allows it to build plants elsewhere Obama is trying to hurt the people in South Carolina> That is some compassionate man, caring for ALL Americans.


whiteflag.gif
 
there's one question here...Did Boeing move the jobs to SC to retaliate for the union's previous strikes?

If so, then it is in fact, illegal, and the NLRB will prevail.
 
Will
It would be hard to prove that Boeing moved for that resason since this is a new line of production so no one lost their job on the Dreeamliner production line at Boeing Seattle.

In fact as pointed out in this thread Boeing has added 2,000 jobs in Seattle and so far only 1,000 jobs at the SC plant.

That would be a weak *** excuse that won't hold up
 
You know, the reason threads like this become "circle jerks" is that liberals apparently have nothing to say about the OP other than to try to make fun of people who think it's an issue.

It'd be nice if a couple were actually willing to admit that they support the government's right to force private industry to build where they say build.
 
Meso, assuming you're actually honest about why you post on these boards, I'm curious exactly what you think the reaction to this should be. Because you seem to like the idea of posting on here to mock posters, but you're not interested in refuting the issue.

That leaves me to believe that either you agree it's a bad thing and would never admit it, since it's more fun to laugh at people than to say they have a legitimate issue, or you don't have an issue with the action and are either unable or unwilling to defend your position.

I can't speak for the others on this thread, but I genuinely like debate - honest debate, at least - where if someone thinks this is a good thing, they just come out and say it and give reasons why. When people aren't interested in that kind of discussion, my assumption is that they are incapable of holding their end up.

So yes, the circle is indeed complete. You fit right into the stereotype.
 
Prodigal et al,

Despite considering myself progressive/liberal, it will probably surprise you that I agree the NLRB shouldn't be able to force a company to open there, not there. I am generally pro-labor, but I think this is overreach. If a business doesn't want to locate in an area because they don't like the climate, the transportation systems, the cost of living, or previous history w/ unions, that should be their right. I imagine that govt contracts can also be used as a hammer on the business.

However, my understanding is that the NLRB isn't the last word in these situations, that their ruling is reviewed by a US Court of Appeals, and then has to be enforced by court order?

Although there is ample opportunity, I don't post ONLY to make fun of Repcons (re the thread on Dearborn/Terry Jones). This thread caught my eye because - other than BigWill - it was just you guys (gen35, namew/h, 6721, gecko, you) who ALWAYS post on anti-"big gov", anti-Obama, anti-union, and anti-Dem/lib/progressive/socialist threads. Very predictable, never a surprise.

And other than one small question from BigWill, there has been no debate abt the OP on this thread, hence the circle jerk.
 
meso
so it seems you agree, the NLRB should not have brought this action?

OR if you think this is a valid action, why do you think it is?
 
well, read my 1st paragraph
confused.gif


I'm for the public employees in WI, but I disagree w/ the NLRB on this. But that's apples and oranges (and we don't need another pissin' contest abt that, do we).
 
meso
i did read your posts and that is why I am confused.
It looks like you agree the NLBR should not have tried this

so why the pissy post abour a circle jerk?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top