NLRB dictates Boeing operational plans

posted at 8:48 am on April 21, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I’ve heard plenty of people dismiss Atlas Shrugged (the book as well as the movie) as overwrought, contrived paranoia about the regulatory state.  The government can’t run companies through its regulatory system, critics scoff, no matter what a Russian ex-patriate thought more than 50 years ago.  No one is marching into manufacturers in the US and telling the Hank Reardons of the world what they can build and where.

Of course not:

In 2009 Boeing announced plans to build a new plant to meet demand for its new 787 Dreamliner. Though its union contract didn’t require it, Boeing executives negotiated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to build the plane at its existing plant in Washington state. The talks broke down because the union wanted, among other things, a seat on Boeing’s board and a promise that Boeing would build all future airplanes in Puget Sound.

So Boeing management did what it judged to be best for its shareholders and customers and looked elsewhere. In October 2009, the company settled on South Carolina, which, like the 21 other right-to-work states, has friendlier labor laws than Washington. As Boeing chief Jim McNerney noted on a conference call at the time, the company couldn’t have “strikes happening every three to four years.” The union has shut down Boeing’s commercial aircraft production line four times since 1989, and a 58-day strike in 2008 cost the company $1.8 billion.

This reasonable business decision created more than 1,000 jobs and has brought around $2 billion of investment to South Carolina. The aerospace workers in Puget Sound remain among the best paid in America, but the union nonetheless asked the NLRB to stop Boeing’s plans before the company starts to assemble planes in North Charleston this July.

The NLRB obliged with its complaint yesterday asking an administrative law judge to stop Boeing’s South Carolina production because its executives had cited the risk of strikes as a reason for the move. Boeing acted out of “anti-union animus,” says the complaint by acting general counsel Lafe Solomon, and its decision to move had the effect of “discouraging membership in a labor organization” and thus violates federal law.

Ah, that must be the Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Law, or one of the Fairness Laws, or something, right?  The WSJ isn’t sure what law the NLRB is talking about, either.  Not only do businesses routinely relocate to find the most advantageous environment possible, states and cities compete for that business by calculating their business climate. If this has escaped the notice of the NLRB, perhaps they should get out more.

Workers have the ability to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, and working conditions in the private sector if they desire.  If they make their labor too costly and businesses can conduct their operations elsewhere, then they have the right to do so, too.  The government has no legitimate role in forcing business owners to be hostages to their workforce.  If the workers price themselves out of their jobs, then they need to deal with the consequences. The ability to collectively bargain does not include a guarantee of a job.

Otherwise, we all pay higher prices for the same product or service — and for Boeing, which competes against the EU’s Airbus, it will mean lost sales and less work altogether in the US.  Prices of flying will increase, while the taxes that flow from both employment and sales will decrease.  Nor will it end there.  Such a decision will lock businesses in their present locations and give local and state governments carte blanche to hike taxes and fees, secure that business owners won’t be able to vote with their feet — and leave taxpayers holding the bag when businesses go under and capital stops flowing to the US for investment.

But, you know, that Ayn Rand was a nut, or something.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

My husband and I finally saw Atlas Shrugged last night. The only complaint I had about the movie isn’t the movie itself but the trailers for the upcoming movies.
-First one was a Julia Robers and Tom Hanks movie that was so dull I can’t remember the name.
-Second one was a movie about an illegal alien and his son struggling to survive as a landscaper in California (the trailer screams open borders movement)
-Third was this guy who met a girl but also discovered that his father who was married to his mother for 60 years until she died is now gay and is having a perpetual coming out party.
-The last was the Jodie Foster and Mel Gibson movie where Mel uses a beaver puppet to communicate because he’s lost his marbles.
I thought to myself that if there was one more crappy trailer I would walk out and Atlas Shrugged be damned. It just reminded me why I don’t bother to go see movies anymore.
SOAPBOX RANT OVER.
Back to A.S. Hank Rearden was exactly the way I imagined him to look and sound (he was hot btw…very hot!). I was surprised by the acting skills of the one who played Dagney. She was great. Wyatt Ellis was exactly the way I pictured him to look, act and sound. The only ones that seemed out of place was Danconia (expected more of an Antonio Banderas ala Desperado sort) and James Taggeret I expected to be older. He looked like Dagney’s baby brother. I also expected him to be more sniveling as well. Other than that we enjoyed the movie. My husband is planning on taking my daughter to see it next time & I’m going to upload the A.S. audio book to her blackberry so she can understand why this is so pertinent. She’s 2/3rds of the way throught Glenn Beck’s Broke so she’s getting an understanding how much in deep doo-doo we’re in.

mizflame98 on April 21, 2011 at 10:39 AM

I think Ellen had the proper response to the NLRB.

Vashta.Nerada on April 21, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Unfortunately, Boeing must toe the line or risk jeopardizing it’s military contracts with the government.

CliffHanger on April 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM

They already moved their headquarters to Chicago (why Chicago? No telling…) and should just thumb their noses at the union greed.

Big John on April 21, 2011 at 9:46 AM

The idiots had a chance to move to Texas, Dallas was a finalist, but they didn’t think it was fun/interesting enough for their corporate employees.

mrsmwp on April 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM

“discouraging membership in a labor organization” and thus violates federal law.
Does this law exist? If so, change it. Problem solved.

ernesto on April 21, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Yes, it exists. And, like all things, it was fairly benign when enacted – intended to keep managment from firing workers who express interest in or participate in organizing and that kind of thing.

But, again like all things, the left has used the courts and administrative agencies to expand this to mean almost anything management does that a union does not like. Someone like Crr6 would interpret the law to achieve his preferred outcome in a case like this. If this is allowed to stand, if the courts uphold this, it will eventually be used as precedent to build up law that basically will not allow a company to ever shut down a plant or relocate.

And the left claims it is not authoritarian or interested in controlling every aspect of everything.

Monkeytoe on April 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Stalin would be so proud of today’s democrats…
…….Lincoln…not so much.

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2011 at 9:58 AM

In the 1860s the democrats were the party of the slavers. What do you know they still are.

Slowburn on April 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM

With Wesley Mouch as president, what do you expect?

flyoverland on April 21, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Wesley Mouch = Cass Sunstein

mizflame98 on April 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM

mizflame98 on April 21, 2011 at 10:39 AM

I’m confused. If this came out of Hollyweird shouldn’t the regulators be the good guys.

Slowburn on April 21, 2011 at 10:58 AM

I’m confused. If this came out of Hollyweird shouldn’t the regulators be the good guys.

Slowburn on April 21, 2011 at 10:58 AM

The power of independent film makers…dirty propagandists! /s

mizflame98 on April 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Hello? Yes? Ayn Rand is on line 1. I can’t really understand what she’s saying. She won’t stop laughing.

nukemhill on April 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Boeing acted out of “anti-union animus,” says the complaint by acting general counsel Lafe Solomon, and its decision to move had the effect of “discouraging membership in a labor organization” and thus violates federal law.

This is obviously BS, since one could make the same argument about any company that chooses to locate a factory in a right-to-work state because they don’t want to deal with union hassles.

I read in another article that one of the union’s other arguments is that Boeing’s decision to move the factory to SC is unlawful because it was done “in retaliation” for the past union strikes against Boeing by its union workers in Washington state. But how exactly does the decision “retaliate” against the workers who went on strike in the past? Presumably, they’re still employed by Boeing in Washington. Are they saying that had the right to hold their current job, plus another job in the new factory? Or are they saying that their unemployed friends and family members had the right to be hired for the new jobs? Or are they saying that their union had the right to collect the new dues that would have been required of the new workers, had the plant been built in Washington? None of these arguments make a valid “retaliation” case.

This claims needs to be dismissed, today, and the union should be required to pay all of Boeing’s legal fees in defending this nonsense.

AZCoyote on April 21, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Jerry Della Femina has officially Gone Galt thanks to Obama.

mizflame98 on April 21, 2011 at 11:06 AM

This reasonable business decision created more than 1,000 jobs and has brought around $2 billion of investment to South Carolina. The aerospace workers in Puget Sound remain among the best paid in America, but the union nonetheless asked the NLRB to stop Boeing’s plans before the company starts to assemble planes in North Charleston this July.
The NLRB obliged with its complaint yesterday asking an administrative law judge to stop Boeing’s South Carolina production because its executives had cited the risk of strikes as a reason for the move.

If Boeing plans to start production in SC in July, the assembly plant is probably nearly completely built, at great cost to Boeing, and some judge is supposed to prevent Boeing from building planes there? What is “illegal” about paying willing workers an agreed-upon wage to build planes to be sold at market price?

Even if the judge rules against Boeing, what’s to prevent the Boeing from building the planes in SC anyway? Given the profit margin on planes, Boeing will probably just pay the fine and keep on building them…

Maybe a little O/T, but why does the actor in “Atlas Shrugged” look so much like Senator Rand Paul?

Steve Z on April 21, 2011 at 11:07 AM

This is a huge opportunity for Nikki Haley to get in Obama’s face and fight like a girl.

SouthernGent on April 21, 2011 at 10:32 AM

There you go! I would guess that SC will fight this.

Vince on April 21, 2011 at 11:12 AM

This is a huge opportunity for Nikki Haley to get in Obama’s face and fight like a girl.

SouthernGent on April 21, 2011 at 10:32 AM

I’ll bring the popcorn for that.

tomg51 on April 21, 2011 at 11:16 AM

This is a huge opportunity for Nikki Haley to get in Obama’s face and fight like a girl.

SouthernGent on April 21, 2011 at 10:32 AM

There you go! I would guess that SC will fight this.

Vince on April 21, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Even that little *ss-sucker Lindsay Graham is up in arms over this. You’re probably going to get every major politician in South Carolina besides Jim Clyburn on Haley’s side because the plant would mean so much to the state.

teke184 on April 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM

By the way, the movie is expanding its theater roster. The producer says he can’t make prints fast enough to satisfy distributor demand.

rrpjr on April 21, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Boeing needs to set up the John Galt manufacturing plant in South Carolina.

mizflame98 on April 21, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Ah, that must be the Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Law, or one of the Fairness Laws, or something, right? The WSJ isn’t sure what law the NLRB is talking about, either.

Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA, presumably.

crr6 on April 21, 2011 at 11:34 AM

This also sets up an interesting question of interplay between States’ rights, personal property rights, and the Federal Government’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Can the federal government prevent a company from relocating to a different state (i.e. cross state lines) due to another state’s lower cost of doing business? That is apparently what the NLRB is arguing that Congress can and has done.

Conservative in NOVA on April 21, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Another point–isn’t South Carolina pretty important in Presidential primaries? I’m assuming every Republican candidate would bring this up…

Conservative in NOVA on April 21, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I’m assuming every Republican candidate would bring this up…

Conservative in NOVA on April 21, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Really? I’m not.

rrpjr on April 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM

This also sets up an interesting question of interplay between States’ rights, personal property rights, and the Federal Government’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Can the federal government prevent a company from relocating to a different state (i.e. cross state lines) due to another state’s lower cost of doing business? That is apparently what the NLRB is arguing that Congress can and has done.

Conservative in NOVA on April 21, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Mostly it seems that they are arguing that the NLRA clauses that make it a federal crime to interfere with organized labor mean whatever they say it does, and allow unions to dictate to their employers.

Count to 10 on April 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM

If you collectively bargain, you can collectively get fired, too. Can’t have one without the other.

And I’m a Boeing stockholder, one of the few stocks in my portfolio that has steadily increased its value through the years. I invested in them because their management has good business sense and has been able to utilize new technology to consistently produce an exceptional product. Keep your hands off MY company, you DC REMFs.

Socratease on April 21, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Can the federal government prevent a company from relocating to a different state (i.e. cross state lines) due to another state’s lower cost of doing business? That is apparently what the NLRB is arguing that Congress can and has done.

Conservative in NOVA on April 21, 2011 at 11:38 AM

No, that’s not what they’re arguing. If I remember the law on this correctly, an employer can relocate or close down an operation for “economic reasons” and it’s perfectly lawful (See NLRB v. Adkins Transfer Co., 226 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1955). Really they can relocate for any reason at all, as long as the decision isn’t motivated by anti-union animus. If it’s motivated by anti-union animus it’s an 8(a)(3) violation.

So the corporate execs in this case are either 1) retarded, or 2) have awful legal counsel, because they said the one thing they can’t say as a reason for the decision.

crr6 on April 21, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Even that little *ss-sucker Lindsay Graham is up in arms over this. You’re probably going to get every major politician in South Carolina besides Jim Clyburn on Haley’s side because the plant would mean so much to the state.

teke184 on April 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Well Clyburn was singing another song back in November, 2009:

“This puts us in the game from the air,” said House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, who said South Carolina is already competitive on other business fronts.

Clyburn admits Boeing’s arrival is badly needed in a state that’s suffering from 12 percent unemployment.

“We’re going to really build on what we have here today. When you’re in a slump, you have to get that first hit. Today we have gotten that first hit and I really believe we’re out of this slump,” Clyburn said.

Greyledge Gal on April 21, 2011 at 11:49 AM

“…and its decision to move had the effect of “discouraging membership in a labor organization” and thus violates federal law.”

Wait for it…

“Union Justice!”

Seven Percent Solution on April 21, 2011 at 11:49 AM

My airplane was made in 1957 and so was I. It was in better shape than me, I might add.

Big John

That’s a great plane, BJ. I’ve flown in a few, with the new turbofan retrofit. Nice stuff…

ricer1 on April 21, 2011 at 11:56 AM

The plant is already built. It’s HUGE! MASSIVE! I can see it from some of the tall bridges in Charleston. No way those planes won’t go into production soon. Trust me.

SouthernGent on April 21, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Boeing has resisted taking highly lucrative Air Force contracts because it was not in the best interest of the nation, and Air Force.

Slowburn on April 21, 2011 at 12:04 PM

I think Ellen had the proper response to the NLRB.

Vashta.Nerada on April 21, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Thanks for the laugh!

Dr. Conservative on April 21, 2011 at 12:06 PM

an employer can relocate or close down an operation for “economic reasons” and it’s perfectly lawful…If it’s motivated by anti-union animus it’s an 8(a)(3) violation.

crr6 on April 21, 2011 at 11:48 AM


Your problem here crr@ck666 is that Boeing is not shuttering it’s doors nor relocating. It’s opening a second plant. Add to that the fact that the union has seen 2000 jobs added to the WA plant since this all started and they’ve lost their argument.

mauioriginal on April 21, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Unfortunately, Boeing must toe the line or risk jeopardizing it’s military contracts with the government.

Um, and whom else can build C-17′s? oh, I suppose Lockheed but aren’t they a tad busy building F-22′s?

I R A Darth Aggie on April 21, 2011 at 12:12 PM

It would be hard for Boeing to move lock-stock-and-barrel out of the US. First of all (as already mentioned) it would be detrimental to their military business. However, Boeing is already divided into two groups: Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Defense, Space and Security. So in theory, the company could break the commercial unit out as a separate business and move wherever the hell it wants. It would still be hard, because aircraft aren’t built like furniture–major sections of the aircraft are outsourced to several companies who in turn outsource subcomponents. For example Spirit AeroSystems builds fuselages for the 737 and 787 in Kansas. All the sub-assemblies come together in Washington for final assembly. Moving out of country would mean either transporting these assemblies very long distances or find new assembly partners, both of which are expensive. However, I really don’t think that would be a problem in China because the labor savings would offset the cost of moving.

China would be tricky for Boeing however, because they tend to steal intellectual property. Boeing would essentially teach Chinese companies advanced aviation manufacturing techniques and then Boeing would be facing another major competitor that would probably run it out of business. Russia is now running into this same problem. They built Su-27s and other advanced aircraft in China and now the Chinese are selling knockoffs at a cheaper price.

I see the US being divided between states that are business friendly and states that are not. Even without Boeing, SC has a quickly growing aviation industry. SC has major production facilities for Lockheed-Martin, BAE, Raytheon, Textron and Eaton. Even across the border in NC aviation is a growing industry. Spirit has a manufacturing facility in Kingston and Goodrich, Cessna and General Dynamics have plants in NC. Just look at where new car factories are being built. Right to work states will get the business and the rest will suffer. If you ever talk to a person thinking about opening a business of any size on the West Coast, you’re talking to someone that has clearly lost their mind.

ReaganWasRight on April 21, 2011 at 12:15 PM

While reading the book, I always mentally pictures Dagny as Ann Coulter.

Still have to go see the movie. Was planning to go see it opening night but there was a certain Canadian band playing in Cleveland that night (who was heavily inspired by Rand btw.) :-)

KeepOhioRed on April 21, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Your problem here crr@ck666 is that Boeing is not shuttering it’s doors nor relocating. It’s opening a second plant. Add to that the fact that the union has seen 2000 jobs added to the WA plant since this all started and they’ve lost their argument.

mauioriginal on April 21, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Yup. Moving jobs from one plant to another while they both stay open, means that 8(a)(3) doesn’t apply in this instance — at least not the way I read it.

gryphon202 on April 21, 2011 at 12:21 PM

The plant is already built. It’s HUGE! MASSIVE! I can see it from some of the tall bridges in Charleston. No way those planes won’t go into production soon. Trust me.

SouthernGent on April 21, 2011 at 12:03 PM

I was just wondering why they let them go ahead and build the plant and just now throw their hissy fit???

BigWyo on April 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I was just wondering why they let them go ahead and build the plant and just now throw their hissy fit???

BigWyo on April 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Because they had nothing to say about the plant’s being built. You can bet your sweet ass they’ll enact a law at their soonest convenience.

gryphon202 on April 21, 2011 at 12:30 PM

an employer can relocate or close down an operation for “economic reasons” and it’s perfectly lawful…If it’s motivated by anti-union animus it’s an 8(a)(3) violation.

crr6 on April 21, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Your problem here crr@ck666 is that Boeing is not shuttering it’s doors nor relocating. It’s opening a second plant. Add to that the fact that the union has seen 2000 jobs added to the WA plant since this all started and they’ve lost their argument.

mauioriginal on April 21, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Splat.

That’s the sound of a troll getting stomped.

fossten on April 21, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Considering that only something like 6% of US private sector workers belong to unions in the first place, why do we even HAVE an NLRB?

Seems like it is a huge amount of bureaucratic overhead for a tiny segment of the US workforce.

crosspatch on April 21, 2011 at 12:50 PM

… and do not forget the pending disclose executive order! Obama is lineing up political attacks on Boeing management, boards, contractors, and non-union employees if they dare to even try to get out from under his fascist thumb!

Freddy on April 21, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Considering that only something like 6% of US private sector workers belong to unions in the first place, why do we even HAVE an NLRB?

Seems like it is a huge amount of bureaucratic overhead for a tiny segment of the US workforce.

crosspatch on April 21, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Because every additional greedy union member means more money for democratics.

slickwillie2001 on April 21, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Next step: All Boeing products must be approved by the Feds before being approved for manufacturing.

Badger40 on April 21, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Actually, that has already been true for many years due to FAA certification of aircraft parts of all descriptions that go on or into airplanes. That’s why an airplane part that is identical to a non-airplane part costs three times as much. Required airworthiness testing and liability insurance for manufacturers jack up costs wildly. A Cessna 152 throttle cable is identical to your lawn mower throttle cable but costs way more for these reasons.

Big John on April 21, 2011 at 10:01 AM

How true.

I have been an aerospace engineer and project manager for years. My aerospace pricing formula is: take your best shot at what that item would cost if buying it commercial from any retail source, then multiply by 100.

The amount of data tracking, all the way back to what mine produced the raw material and on what date, plus the qualification and certification of parts, plus the engineering analysis and reporting of every aspect of functional and structural behavior, plus the almost religious adherence to configuration control of every serial number part throughout its entire life cycle, makes Aerospace and Aviation mind boggling. Much of it is good practice, but there is overreach and overkill everywhere.

Jimmy Doolittle on April 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Internalize this, from now until Nov. 2012 – from the Henninger thread in the headlines

Obama.2011 has been something else—testy, petulant, impatient, arrogant and increasingly a divider.

Think this is bad? Ain’t seen nuttin yet. The real Øbama will emerge only after the 2012 election. A re-elected Øbama will double down on thuggery, bullying, divisiveness, lawlessness and power grabs.

petefrt on April 21, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Schadenfreude on April 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

This is another case of an agency just effectively rewriting a law which doesn’t give it all the power it wants. It seems to be a pattern with this Administration – EPA, FCC, etc.

Rule by decree is dictatorship.

Adjoran on April 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Jimmy Doolittle on April 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM

I suppose this is true in a lot of areas that are ‘sensitive’.
If you look at animals medicines, many are no different from human medicines.
Like Lidocain for livestock.
It’s the same exact stuff for people.
But when you get it from the Dr., it costs a hell fo a lot more.
Ranchers are notorious for using vet meds to self medicate.

Badger40 on April 21, 2011 at 2:38 PM

have been an aerospace engineer and project manager for years.
Jimmy Doolittle on April 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Have you heard of Bruce Industries out of CA(got bought out by some other bigger company)?
That was my Great Uncle’s company. My grandfather helped him build it. He worked in aerospace,too.

Badger40 on April 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Jimmy Doolittle on April 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Bruce Industries.

Badger40 on April 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Jimmy Doolittle on April 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Bruce Industries.

Badger40 on April 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Hadn’t heard of them before. Bookmarked their site, if any opportunity comes up. A tough business selling component equipment. The prime contractors like Boeing, Lockheed, etc, just pound the little guy till there’s nothing left.

Jimmy Doolittle on April 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Jimmy Doolittle on April 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM

I think they moved headquarters from CA to Zephyr Cove NV bcs of tax reasons in the 90′s. My Uncle has passed away. I don’t know if his family is running it or not.
But I think he did very well for himself over the years.
I seem to remember him saying they had a govt contract at one ponit to make parts for the space shuttles at one time.

Badger40 on April 21, 2011 at 2:50 PM

I seem to remember him saying they had a govt contract at one ponit to make parts for the space shuttles at one time.

Badger40 on April 21, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Now that’s a production run that makes a mfg guy cry! Although they nearly rebuilt each shuttle after every mission, so there were probably lots of spares.

A famous saying about govt engineers when looking at products from contractors is: Nice airplane, now show me your paperwork.

The key to making money in Aerospace is the paper, not the product. Figuring out ways to getting paid for the paperwork nightmares is crucial.

Jimmy Doolittle on April 21, 2011 at 3:04 PM

NLRB is just trying to get some more for his Highness’ cut. Any excuse is suitable. IIRC South Carolina is a right to work state so that door is closed. Boeing will settle for 1/200th the cost of one bird. After 2 months of “negotiation”. Betcha some Boeing lawyers are already on first name basis with DOJ NLRB guys.

What will be fun is when 737 production gets partially shifted from Renton.

Caststeel on April 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM

yeah, i think this is just a shakedown effort to get some bucks for the union bosses (and therefore Obama)

but the larger point is that this is exactly why the private sector fears Obama. He likes it that way, but you will not have good economic growth (i know, he does not care…it is about fairness)

so we have essentially a stagnant economy with the fed printing money equal to several percent of gpd.

r keller on April 21, 2011 at 3:20 PM

ReaganWasRight on April 21, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Do not confuse pure transactional efficiency with freedom.

Moving to China and like countries is rewarding a different set of Looters. While the transactions might go more smoothly (due to them being more able to dispose of company-harming dissent), it provides support for governments that have less freedoms.

sethstorm on April 21, 2011 at 3:48 PM

So the corporate execs in this case are either 1) retarded, or 2) have awful legal counsel, because they said the one thing they can’t say as a reason for the decision.

crr6 on April 21, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Would that be the Boeing Board of Directors, which at the time included one William H. Daley?

rockmom on April 21, 2011 at 4:28 PM

I wish I could afford to go Galt. But the way things are going I will have no other option in the end.

mechkiller_k on April 21, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Just a note here.

Boeing would jeopardize _future_ defense contracts with the government. I won’t say too much, here, but the reality (if not the rules-as-written) of government-contractor relations means that it’s almost impossible for a contractor to not get paid the value of a contract with the federal government.

I rather wish the FAR were more streamlined.

Scott H on April 21, 2011 at 4:59 PM

If I ran Boeing…

Second plant? Did I say second plant? I meant we’re moving the entire company to SC. Right to work state? That’s too bad, isn’t it?

Common Sense on April 21, 2011 at 5:09 PM

They already moved their headquarters to Chicago (why Chicago? No telling…) and should just thumb their noses at the union greed.

Big John on April 21, 2011 at 9:46 AM

The idiots had a chance to move to Texas, Dallas was a finalist, but they didn’t think it was fun/interesting enough for their corporate employees.

mrsmwp on April 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM

As I recall Boeing didn’t want to be 3 hours behind Washington DC (ET) so they compromised on central time zone. Not sure why Chicago was the specific chosen city. But the intent was to have more available time to “communicate” with DC.

Dasher on April 21, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Jimmy Doolittle on April 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Bruce Industries.

Badger40 on April 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM

The first thing I thought of was Batman Begins — Wayne Enterprises — Make that Bruce Wayne Enterprises Industries

Dasher on April 21, 2011 at 5:15 PM

ReaganWasRight on April 21, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Do not confuse pure transactional efficiency with freedom.

Moving to China and like countries is rewarding a different set of Looters. While the transactions might go more smoothly (due to them being more able to dispose of company-harming dissent), it provides support for governments that have less freedoms.

I’m not arguing that Boeing should go to China. That’s the last thing I’d like to see and I really don’t think Boeing wants that either. However, Boeing’s job to make the owners (stockholders) as wealthy as possible. If they can no longer do this in the U.S., it would be something they might consider, especially if the U.S. government is dictating how Boeing should do business.

ReaganWasRight on April 21, 2011 at 7:04 PM

This is a well-played hand by the union. If they win, then conceivably any business decision that could adversely affect unionized workers could be interpreted as “retaliatory” and therefore unlawful. All a union has to do is strike once, and the collective future of their members is secured forever.

NorthernCross on April 21, 2011 at 9:46 PM

I’m not arguing that Boeing should go to China. That’s the last thing I’d like to see and I really don’t think Boeing wants that either. However, Boeing’s job to make the owners (stockholders) as wealthy as possible. If they can no longer do this in the U.S., it would be something they might consider, especially if the U.S. government is dictating how Boeing should do business.

No argument against it being something that the stockholders may want to pursue. Just that it seems like that they’d end up with a government that is worse than the US overall, but appears better to entities like Boeing. Thus my point about transactional efficiency versus overall freedom.

sethstorm on April 22, 2011 at 2:52 AM

This is pure unabated idiocy. Boeing has the right to build plants where ever they want to. The unions don’t run the company. The shareholders run the company. I am a South Carolinian. I was born in Charleston. I am a Boeing shareholder. And, if the damn Unions (Yankees) want a fight South Carolina and Boeing are not afraid to fight. This is the exact kind of union action that killed the American automotive industry.

SC.Charlie on April 22, 2011 at 10:09 AM

I’m not arguing that Boeing should go to China. That’s the last thing I’d like to see and I really don’t think Boeing wants that either. However, Boeing’s job to make the owners (stockholders) as wealthy as possible. If they can no longer do this in the U.S., it would be something they might consider, especially if the U.S. government is dictating how Boeing should do business.

Boeing already builds some parts of its airliners in China. Does anyone know if the unions screamed when those deals when put on paper. China made in conditional upon getting the contracts.

SC.Charlie on April 22, 2011 at 10:14 AM

This is a well-played hand by the union. If they win, then conceivably any business decision that could adversely affect unionized workers could be interpreted as “retaliatory” and therefore unlawful. All a union has to do is strike once, and the collective future of their members is secured forever.- northernCross on April 21, 2011 at 9:46 PM

And that business enterprise is doomed.

SC.Charlie on April 22, 2011 at 10:21 AM

From Bruce Mcquain in the Green Room:

It is a battle between a business’s best interests and about its fundamental right to make decisions about how it conducts its business and the government’s “right” to interfere and dictate how and where it will do its business.

Isn’t that Fascism in a nutshell?

Gyro on April 22, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Still have to go see the movie. Was planning to go see it opening night but there was a certain Canadian band playing in Cleveland that night (who was heavily inspired by Rand btw.) :-)

KeepOhioRed on April 21, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I’m not sure what Canadian band it is to which you are referring. LoveRboy? GUess Who? The Tragically Hip? The Stampeders? Triumph? April Wine? Chilliwack? Helix? Am I getting close?

OH OH OH OH! I know! Michelle Bachmann-Turner Overdrive!

L.N. Smithee on April 23, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Let me guess. Any manufacturing company that is consider where to set up shop is now going to do so in a right-to-work state, even if it costs them more, because they don’t want to be held hostage to the NLRB twenty years from now. (Can’t get mad at you for leaving a state if you never were there, right?)

Roxeanne de Luca on April 23, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Hum… can we expand this? Can I get some alphabet soup government agency to declare that I must be paid more, and that I cannot be laid off in favour of a lower-paid employee, because I have federally-backed student loans, and paying me more money makes it easier for me to pay them off?

Snark aside, I really have to wonder about these people. If you’re part of a union, part of union management, or on the NLRB, you are not a manager of a company. Probably because you are too freakin incompetent and lack enough business savvy. Having these people oversee the decisions of executives and shareholders is like having a kid who had to repeat first grade evaluate a quantum physics doctoral thesis.

Roxeanne de Luca on April 23, 2011 at 4:12 PM

This is an end run around the states with right to work laws. If the NRLB can prohibit companies from moving their operations, the individual mandate in Obamacare seems like an afterthought.

flataffect on April 27, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2