By Kevin Meyer
I haven't exactly been Boeing's best friend over the past several years, regularly taking them to task for their nutty 787 Dreamliner outsourcing idea that has predictably led to delay after delay, not to mention the transfer of knowledge to competitors. However all along I was also rooting for them, especially when it appeared they learned their lesson, as a stronger, smarter Boeing meant more North American jobs. Good jobs.
So now that they've decided to build a new full assembly operation in the U.S. who decides to attack them? The U.S. government no less.
On Wednesday, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Boeing, seeking to prevent the aircraft manufacturer from opening a second production facility in Charleston, South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner.
The NLRB alleges that Boeing violated the law, opening the non-unionized South Carolina plant in retaliation against union workers for past strikes at its facility in Everett, Washington and also as part of an effort to discourage future strikes. The NLRB wants an administrative court to force Boeing to relocate its second production line back to a unionized plant in Washington.
Seriously? How blatant can this administration get in pandering to its donors? There's even already settled Supreme Court level decisions on this.
Boeing's lawyers slammed that claim as "legally frivolous" and said the NLRB's effort to restrict the company's business represents a "radical departure" from precedent. They were quick to point out two 1965 Supreme Court cases affirming employers' right to consider potential strikes in making business decisions, and they refuted the union's claims of intimidation by pointing out that in the eighteen months since the announcement of the South Carolina plant, Boeing has added more than 2,000 union jobs in the Puget Sound area.
Senator Lindsey Graham called the NLRB's complaint "one of the worst cases of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I've ever seen."
On the other side, the International Association of Machinists District 571, which filed the grievance in March of last year, predictably hailed the filing as "a victory for all American workers."
Well "all" with the exception of those workers in South Carolina. I guess they don't matter as much since they don't contribute to certain coffers.
I don't know, my friends. One of the nation's few remaining exporters of high-value manufactured products, employing tens of thousands of high wage people. And we're doing our best to make them reconsider opening a new plant in the U.S. and perhaps instead go someplace more hospitable. Like China? Italy? Korea? Or maybe they'll follow Halliburton's lead and say screw it, pick up the whole kit and kaboodle, and move overseas. It's stunning and sad how many already are.
And then those same folks that make these inane decisions will moan and groan about jobs moving overseas, U.S. companies hiring more at their overseas facilities than their U.S. facilities, why our tax base is decreasing, why our balance of trade is shifting, and so forth.
Anyone have a mirror they'd like to send to the White House?
AJ Sweatt says
This is nothing more than a classic shake-down. Tony Soprano would be proud. Heck, Kevin – even the Seattle Times agrees with you:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2014850924_edit24boeing.html
After reading your post, the Time piece and this (http://j.mp/ewhIvW), I’m wondering who’s helping who …
Bob48362 says
Boeing should consider Portugal. The cost should be low there. The country has good workers, and what is little known, Portugal is a destination popular with Russians. Russian and Portuguese share much the same sounds-of-words and Russians would bring good techical skills.
robert edward cenek says
Yes, Boeing should be allowed to set up shop anywhere – whether in the South or in China, our key supplier to apple pie, motherhood, and the American Flag Walmart.
What’s somewhat disturbing is how SC will (or would handle future unionization attempts by Boeing workers at the new facility).
See this interesting comment from the Sarah Palin wannabe, Nikki Haley….
“The NLRB’s finding set off a fury of angry statements from anti-union South Carolina Republicans. Keeping South Carolina union-free has always been a priority for the elected officials representing the state. Earlier this year, In These Times covered how the Governor of South Carolina Governor-elect Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) announced that a unionbuster, Catherine Templeton, would head South Carolina’s labor agency. Haley said Templeton was hired to specifically to fight union organizing at a large Boeing plant in North Charleston, S.C.
Haley was quoted as saying at the time: “She knows what it takes to take it on and she understands it’s going to be a partnership level that we cannot lose. We’re going to fight the unions and I needed a partner to help me do it. She’s the right person to help me do it.” The hiring of a public official to bust private sector unions led IAM to file a lawsuit against the governor.”
So…is labor cost really the issue? NO. Work stoppages yes. Who is to blame for work stoppages? Boeing has had a history of cantankerous labor relations since WWII. It’s a piece of the firm’s work culture. Both parties need to get serious – and quit acting like a couple of sophomoric youngsters.
Blaming the White House reads like copy from O’Reilly.
Mark Graban says
Only the political class gets aways with blatantly messing things up through their laws and policies and then they decry the impact of those past decisions, running to “help” with new laws and government decisions.
Boeing moved their headquarters to Chicago already (a dopey seeming decision) but I wouldn’t blame them for moving their headquarters to a country that is friendlier to business and job creators.
Kevin says
Robert – I’m glad we agree that a company should be able to locate its operations where it sees fit, including taking into account a desire to avoid costly work stoppages.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the union aspect. I’ve long said (often in this blog) that I believe unions are the result of poor management. Instead of “busting unions” we should figure out why they exist and rectify the underlying problem.
At the same time I wish the pro-union folks wouldn’t automatically assume that the lack of a union means the workers are either ignorant, blackmailed, unable to unionize but obviously mistreated. Perhaps management and the company really is treating them well, values them, and they see no value to being unionized. I know many, many companies like that.
Old Navy Dhief says
I don’t watch O’Reilly and rarely watch TV at all any more. But I read a lot and try to keep up with as much information from as many sources as I can. Having said that, this White House has made it patently clear that it is only interested in business of any kind in regards to revenue for its social agenda. The onerous regulations and blatant support of organized crime (oops, I meant labor, my bad) makes this administration stand out among any in recent history as a one trick pony. Boeing is certainly not perfect but if they need to go to a non-union state to remain competitive, that is their right in a free country. Anything less drives us one step closer to socialism. And that CAN be tied directly to the administration based on its own desire to “spread the wealth around.”