NLRB memo: More in store for businesses like Boeing; Update: NLRB responds

posted at 12:45 pm on May 17, 2011 by Tina Korbe

The complaint against Boeing might have just been the beginning. It seems the National Labor Relations Board can’t bear to let businesses relocate without allowing unions to have a say.

Current NLRB rules allow a business to move without first negotiating the relocation with its union — provided the decision doesn’t turn on labor costs. But according to a recent internal memo from the NLRB general counsel’s office, NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman now wants to compel businesses to provide unions with information about relocation decisions in advance. That way, Liebman reasons, unions will have a chance to ascertain to what extent the business is moving because of labor costs — and will ultimately be able to bargain against the move.

On one level, this sounds sensible: If a business decides to relocate and the decision seems to be based primarily on labor cost concerns, union leaders might complain to the NLRB — and say, given the chance to bargain, they would have made concessions that might have altered the business’ decision. In other words, requiring businesses to advise unions as to the motivation for a move in advance might necessitate bargaining — but it might also spare companies NLRB involvement. That seems to be what Liebman wants businesses to believe, anyway.

But to require business leaders to provide unions with this kind of detailed information about their business plan is just one step closer to making unions “equal partner[s] in the running of the business enterprise” — and the Supreme Court has already said the National Labor Relations Act in no way mandates such equal partnership.

Moreover, these requirements would be expensive.

What Liebman envisions would raise business costs enormously. Current labor law and the attitude of the pro-union NLRB enables unions to drag negotiations on … and on … and on. Until bargaining hits an “impasse,” employers could not legally make any business changes opposed by their union.

If the NLRB really wants to preserve work in any given state, its best bet would be to advise that state to pass right-to-work legislation. Compared to forced-unionism states, right-to-work states have more new residents, more new businesses, more new jobs and faster income growth, according to a new report from Sen. Jim DeMint. What’s not to like?

Update: NLRB Public Affairs Director Nancy Cleeland wasn’t able to get back to me with a statement before scheduled publication, but she called after publication of the post to say she is looking into the implications of the memo and will respond shortly.

Update: Here’s the full response from NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland:

A 30-year-old Board decision called Dubuque Packing sets the framework for when an employer with a union workforce must bargain over relocation. If the decision is considered ‘entrepreneurial,’ involving a change in the scope of the business, it does not have to be bargained. However, if labor costs are a factor in the move, the employer is obligated to bargain to give the union a chance to make concessions, unless the employer can show that the union could not make sufficient concessions to change the decision. The Dubuque decision advised that employers would improve their chances of showing the union could not have made sufficient concessions by explaining its reasons to the union in advance of the move and asking whether the union could offer sufficient labor cost reductions, but did not require it.

In the Embarq decision issued by the Board on March 31, 2011, which found the employer did not have a duty to bargain before moving, Chairman Wilma B. Liebman suggested in her concurring opinion that the “Board’s task would be easier, and, more importantly, the Act’s policy of promoting collective bargaining might well be better served, if employers were required to provide unions with requested information about relocation decisions whenever there was a reasonable likelihood that labor-cost concessions might affect the decision. To encourage more constructive good-faith bargaining, we might modify the Dubuque framework, for example, by requiring the employer to timely advise the union whether its contemplated relocation plan turns on labor costs.”

The Operations Management Memo issued on May 10 and available on our website merely asks regional offices to identify cases that might raise this issue and send them to the Division of Advice at NLRB’s Washington DC headquarters for review, in light of the Embarq decision. Based upon the review, the General Counsel’s office could bring a case to the Board to revisit the question of timing on providing information.

This is an extremely early stage of a process that may lead to reevaluating one aspect of Board law with an eye toward making it more useful and efficient for all parties involved.

Cleeland’s point is well-taken: Board law should be “more useful and efficient for all parties involved.” Hopefully that means the NLRB will consider whether “requiring the employer to timely advise the union whether its contemplated relocation plan turns on labor costs” would be more useful or efficient from an employer’s standpoint, too.


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 3 4

Well in Indiana you’re not allowed to do that anymore against agents of the state.

It’s gotten worse. Hope is waning.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Try this:

Ind. Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

Insert witty screen name here on May 17, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The Robber Baroness went out to loot some more.

Work harder.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Insert witty screen name here on May 17, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Got it. The SC case just shows where they are. It’s truly nearly the end of times, as you knew them. Load up on all essentials.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Load up on all essentials.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Plus, go gulching.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Two important items about Wilma’s ideas. One, if the union were to know ahead of time where the company would like to move the price and availability of that land would skyrocket or become “Unavailable”, (Union thuggery or worse). and Two, even suggesting that a union would take pay and benefit cuts to keep the company local is just plain stupid. Ask any laid off teacher or fireman/policeman why their union would not agree to an across the board pay cut so that they would not be laid off. Folks this is war on capitalism and if we lose it say hello to France/Greece/Italy/GB/Spain and all of the other broke countries with NO innovation or job growth.

inspectorudy on May 17, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Christien on May 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM

So are you alright with what the NLRB is doing or just that they are doing it to Boeing?

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 3:10 PM

If the Boeing CEO would not be an Obama-asscrawler, on his committee, he’d move his headquarters from Chicago to the South.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 3:11 PM

It’s gotten worse. Hope is waning.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Yes. I said it last week with Indiana. They are coming.
Are you ready?

orbitalair on May 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM

crr6 does serve a purpose. She educates us about the shocking ignorance of the world.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM

haha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Tell us again which one of the 10+ Hawaiian Queens the hospital O’bama claims to have been born in was named after.

Auwe!

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Well in Indiana you’re not allowed to do that anymore against agents of the state.
It’s gotten worse. Hope is waning.
Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM

I went there. From the article:

“When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do,” he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

For God’s sake you better hope you weren’t taking a crap when the police came knocking on the door!
And if you were, DON’T FLUSH!

I would put it more directly than that: “It also hogties the citizens of the state bcs they cannot hire the talent they want &/or need.”
We should never forget that public institutions are our institutions.
PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM

You cannot believe how many ‘conservative’ teachers I know who are fine with this sort of thing, not paying one teacher more than another.
They think it’s perfectly fine for all teachers to make the same amount of $$, no matter their talents or degree, or demand.
I keep pointing out to them, that if I were to work in the private sector, I could get a job paying much more than this one.
All they could probably hope for with their journalism, business, or Phy Ed degree was a managerial job at WalMart. MAYBE.

Try this:
Ind. Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will
Insert witty screen name here on May 17, 2011 at 3:00 PM

And where is G M to tell us this is perfectly acceptable?

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM
I went there. From the article:

“When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do,”

And so I am also wondering here, can private citizens then just burst into anyone’s home when they hear things going on in there?

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 3:25 PM

rockmom on May 17, 2011 at 2:42 PM

As long as they can move with the jobs. I’m talking about everyone legally in the US, without regard to union membership.

But using the excuse that we have to be peers amongst the world(the reference to competition) is not something I can agree with. I love my country, but I don’t like how it is currently being made to submit to the will of other countries.

How far does the US have to go(beyond the issue of unions) before it is “competitive”? What would be the costs of getting to that point? Finally, can “competitiveness” mean better benefits, more secure work, and other things that completely remove the need for a union?

sethstorm on May 17, 2011 at 3:25 PM

The thing from the Indiana sheriff looks suspicious to me. I can’t find any info like that on any news site.

However, if fake, it’s a good fake.

Don Hartman is the sheriff of Newton county Indiana. Crown Point is not in Newton, but in Lake county, right next door. So, it wouldn’t be surprising to see news from Newton reported in some sort of Crown Point press.

Chris of Rights on May 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM

From the socialism thread…also on bieng “equal”:

The perfect lesson on socialism:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single
student, but had once failed an entire class.

The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be
poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said,
“OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.”

“All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so
no one will fail and no one will receive an A.”

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The
students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had
studied very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little
studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since
they couldn’t make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average
was a D.

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an
F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted
in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism
would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater
their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward
away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

stenwin77 on May 17, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Newton County Sheriffs Department –

304 E Seymour
Kentland IN 47951
219-474-3331

Sheriff Donald Hartman Sr. (sheriff@newton-sheriff.com)
Captain Thomas Vanvleet (captain@newton-sheriff.com)

Chris of Rights on May 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM

…while I value freedom of association …

I call B.S. on you, crr6! You do NOT value “freedom” of association, or you would support right-to-work states, as only there do you truly have the choice to freely associate – or not to do so – with others in a union. If you don’t have the choice not to associate – not to join a union, in other words – then what “freedom” you have is not freedom at all.

psrch on May 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 3:10 PM

No.

Christien on May 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM

But to require business leaders to provide unions with this kind of detailed information about their business plan is just one step closer to making unions “equal partner[s] in the running of the business enterprise” — and the Supreme Court has already said the National Labor Relations Act in no way mandates such equal partnership.

The NLRB needs to slapped down hard by the Supreme Court!

SC.Charlie on May 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I call B.S. on you, crr6! You do NOT value “freedom” of association, or you would support right-to-work states, as only there do you truly have the choice to freely associate – or not to do so – with others in a union.
psrch on May 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM

No sorry, that’s stupid. No one forces anyone to join a union, even in states which aren’t “right to free-ride” states. 1) If you don’t want to join a union, you can always freely choose to work for an employer which isn’t unionized, 2) No employer can force you to actually join a union, the worst they can do is force you to pay an agency fee.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 4:23 PM

I am also against large Internet companies like Amazon.com being exempt from not collecting the sales or use tax on items that they sell in some states. They wanted to build a huge shipping building in the State of South Carolina but wanted to still be exempt from collecting sales tax on sales made in the state of South Carolina………….I am glad that South Carolina stood-up to Amazon and told them to take a walk.

SC.Charlie on May 17, 2011 at 4:23 PM

I call B.S. on you, crr6! You do NOT value “freedom” of association, or you would support right-to-work states, as only there do you truly have the choice to freely associate – or not to do so – with others in a union. If you don’t have the choice not to associate – not to join a union, in other words – then what “freedom” you have is not freedom at all.

psrch on May 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM

I confess, IDK crr6′s opinion on right to work.
But it is true that if you are forced to join a union, that is not freedom.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Hopefully that means the NLRB will consider whether ”requiring the employer to timely advise the union whether its contemplated relocation plan turns on labor costs” would be more useful or efficient from an employer’s standpoint, too.

Anyone care to make a small wager on that?

Chris of Rights on May 17, 2011 at 4:26 PM

The problem is that “moving due to labor costs” is not even in-question here. No one is losing a job. No one is being laid off. No one is being required to locate (though I’m sure some execs may be given the option). They are expanding. Suffice it to say, I am not okay with this.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 4:34 PM

That statement from the NLRB is a lot of gobbledygook. Basically, the Chairman decided that even though the NLRB reached a logical decision in the Embarq case, she really didn’t like the result because it didn’t give the unions enough power. So she has ordered the NLRB staff to give the unions the power anyway.

This has to be looked at in conjunction with all of the NLRB’s other envelope-pushing actions in this Administration. This Board simply does not care what the law says, or what makes sense in today’s tough economy. They are going to give the unions whatever they want.

rockmom on May 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM

crrs you stupid broad. Have you ever heard of a closed shop? dumb dumb dumb. You also say if you don’t want to join a union then go to work for another employer. Yeah, that is freedom of a sort – the freedom not to work except by permission of certain union thugs. I guess the union thugs have more freedom than the rest of us. I can’t believe how dumb crr6 is. Darwin will eventually catch up with her – that’s a foregone conclusion.

By the way, crr6 – have you ever worked in a union shop? Of course you haven’t or you couldn’t say you’ve worked. Not much work is done in union shops except to spend your time figuring out how get out of work, and how to keep anybody else from working. Sheesh you dumb b….!

Old Country Boy on May 17, 2011 at 4:45 PM

crrs you stupid broad. Have you ever heard of a closed shop?

Sure, but they’ve been illegal for decades.

By the way, crr6 – have you ever worked in a union shop?

No, those are prohibited by current law too. I’ve worked in an agency shop, for a short time, if that’s what you mean.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM

The NLRB needs to slapped down hard by the Supreme Court!

SC.Charlie on May 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM

In gangster government, challenging little Bammie can be very costly. They might decide to take a closer look at Boeing’s healthcare plans and compliance with Obamacare for example. Standard manufacturing tax deductions as provided to the oil companies could be revoked by EO. Even if the plaintiff wins in court, that would result in just another court order for the idiot tyrant in the White House to ignore.

slickwillie2001 on May 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM

No, those are prohibited by current law too. I’ve worked in an agency shop, for a short time, if that’s what you mean.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Union shops aren’t illegal in states without right to work laws. There are in fact entire industries in which you can not work without union membership. Coal mining and railroads come to mind as modern examples

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM

No, those are prohibited by current law too. I’ve worked in an agency shop, for a short time, if that’s what you mean.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM

I’m not sure exactly what the terms union shop & closed shop mean.
But this business about some states having professions where everyone in that profession must join the union is what I think of when I hear those terms.
I would think you are against requiring people to join a labor union in those circumstances if you recognize people’s right to affiliation.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Union shops aren’t illegal in states without right to work laws. There are in fact entire industries in which you can not work without union membership. Coal mining and railroads come to mind as modern examples

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM

You put it better than I did.
I’m not quite sure what she is alluding to in her post.
Bcs WI teachers are forced to join the union.
So are teachers in MT.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Union shops aren’t illegal in states without right to work laws.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM

My understanding was that, while the THA permitted union shops, under recent case law union membership can’t be required through a union shop clause (only the payment of dues and initiation fees can be demanded), and in effect this allows anti-union employees to treat the agreement as if it created an “agency shop.”

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Bcs WI teachers are forced to join the union.
So are teachers in MT.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Public sector workers aren’t subject to the NLRA. I was referring to the NLRA.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:00 PM

The thing is, states have to proactively legislate right-to-work. The unions can and do force people to join in non-right-to-work states because they can and do extract it from employers as a condition of union representation in the collective bargaining agreements. I think what crr6 means is that governments don’t enact laws requiring people to belong to unions to as a condition of employment, but even that is patently false: The United Transportation Union has enjoyed a government imprimatur for the better part of the last 60 years, and I know this because I come from a long line of railroad men going four generations back.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:03 PM

My understanding was that, while the THA permitted union shops, under recent case law union membership can’t be required through a union shop clause (only the payment of dues and initiation fees can be demanded), and in effect this allows anti-union employees to treat the agreement as if it created an “agency shop.”

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 4:59 PM

That’s a distinction without a difference. If unions benefitted workers from a strictly economic standpoint, more people would join unions rather than less when given a choice. In practice, this is not the case.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:07 PM

That’s a distinction without a difference. If unions benefitted workers from a strictly economic standpoint, more people would join unions rather than less when given a choice.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Not necessarily, no. It’s a classic free-rider problem. Individual employees can choose not to join the unions and contribute dues, and they’ll still benefit from the benefits and wage increases obtained by the union’s bargaining. But at a certain point, if enough people “free ride,” the union’s bargaining position will weaken (because it will have less members and income) and as a result, everyone’s pay and benefits will suffer. Agency shops are a way to solve this free rider problem.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Not necessarily, no. It’s a classic free-rider problem. Individual employees can choose not to join the unions and contribute dues, and they’ll still benefit from the benefits and wage increases obtained by the union’s bargaining. But at a certain point, if enough people “free ride,” the union’s bargaining position will weaken (because it will have less members and income) and as a result, everyone’s pay and benefits will suffer. Agency shops are a way to solve this free rider problem.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM

It’s a free rider problem where unions provide economic benefit, but I looked up agency shop laws and they vary from state to state. In at least one state (Illinois, surprise surprise), it seems to me they have no restriction on what agency fees may be collected — so it is in effect forced union membership. I was able to discover that in my home state, agency fees are capped at a certain percentage of union dues, but was not able to find out what that percentage is.

Unions are dying. It sucks for the thugs in the leadership, but they serve no interest anymore except to line their leaders’ pockets and serve as an opiate to the shrinking masses.

By the by, I’m working at a non-unionized OHESD manufacturing plant where my starting rate of pay was over $1.50 an hour higher than I’d have gotten for comparable work at the unionized industrial gearbox manufacturing plant on the other side of the industrial park here. I know anecdotes =/= data, but I figured some of you here might find this interesting.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:19 PM

crrs you stupid broad. Have you ever heard of a closed shop?

Sure, but they’ve been illegal for decades.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM

In theory, yes. But not in reality. Construction unions have found a way around Taft-Hartley, without breaking that law. I’m sure you know all about it.

And try getting a job in radio or TV without being a union member. Especially in Boston!

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Why is this move referred to as a “relocation”? The Washington plant is not only staying open but it’s been enlarged.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Why is this move referred to as a “relocation”? The Washington plant is not only staying open but it’s been enlarged.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 5:27 PM

You must’ve missed my earlier post, Cindy.

The problem is that “moving due to labor costs” is not even in-question here. No one is losing a job. No one is being laid off. No one is being required to relocate (though I’m sure some execs may be given the option). They are expanding. Suffice it to say, I am not okay with this.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 4:34 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Why is this move referred to as a “relocation”?

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Because Boeing originally planned to locate the work in Washington. They later chose to “relocate” the work to South Carolina, because of the strikes at the WA plant.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM

I
By the by, I’m working at a non-unionized OHESD manufacturing plant where my starting rate of pay was over $1.50 an hour higher than I’d have gotten for comparable work at the unionized industrial gearbox manufacturing plant on the other side of the industrial park here. I know anecdotes =/= data, but I figured some of you here might find this interesting.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:19 PM

That’s terrific, but you should be aware that the union activity at the nearby plant likely causes your employer to keep the wages higher at your plant in order to prevent unionization from occurring there (“the threat effect”).

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Because Boeing originally planned to locate the work in Washington. They later chose to “relocate” the work to South Carolina, because of the strikes at the WA plant.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM

So? My reading of the NRLA is that it doesn’t apply unless there are layoffs or firings, neither of which apply in this instance. The “relocation” simply consists of Boeing not hiring in Washington, and hiring someplace else instead. I couldn’t find any language in the relevant part of the NRLA that seems to address this kind of situation.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:36 PM

That’s terrific, but you should be aware that the union activity at the nearby plant likely causes your employer to keep the wages higher at your plant in order to prevent unionization from occurring there (“the threat effect”).

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Even better for me, then. All the benefits, none of the guilt tripping. I was offered a job at the gearbox plant a few years ago, but declined it. I really didn’t want to be a unionized lifer out there.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:37 PM

So? My reading of the NRLA is that it doesn’t apply unless there are layoffs or firings, neither of which apply in this instance.

I couldn’t find any language in the relevant part of the NRLA that seems to address this kind of situation.
gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Not sure how you got that idea. Look at Section 7 and 8(a)(1). Also, 8(a)(3) refers to discrimination as to any terms and conditions of employment, not just hirings and firings.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Not sure how you got that idea. Look at Section 7 and 8(a)(1). Also, 8(a)(3) refers to discrimination as to any terms and conditions of employment, not just hirings and firings.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Those are among the sections I looked at over the last week or so. And I stand by my assertion. In order to believe that discrimination of any kind is the motivation in how Boeing wants to expand, you have to read language into those sections that just isn’t there (unless you count the standard boilerplate “as may be determined” hogwash). I’m coming up a blank here, but I guess that’s why I’m not a lawyer.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:42 PM

crr6: Ah, so this is like a reduction in the increase of the budget is like a budget cut?

If Boeing originally plans to increase at one location, but then increases at a different location (new or not), that is in fact a reduction at the first location?

BS.

Scott H on May 17, 2011 at 5:44 PM

If Boeing originally plans to increase at one location, but then increases at a different location (new or not), that is in fact a reduction at the first location?

BS.

Scott H on May 17, 2011 at 5:44 PM

A perfect example of why I don’t have the chops to be a lawyer. I just can’t twist words like that.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Yes, yes but the rest of the world would call it expansion. And they did that in Washington also.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Those are among the sections I looked at over the last week or so. And I stand by my assertion. In order to believe that discrimination of any kind is the motivation in how Boeing wants to expand, you have to read language into those sections that just isn’t there.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Why’s that? Striking is protected conduct under Section 7. Boeing said they were relocating the work because of the union engaging in protected conduct (striking). It’s reasonable to assume that they repeatedly stated the strikes as their reasoning for the relocation, at least in part because they wanted to discourage future strikes. Thus there’s a pretty straightforward case that by making those statements and relocating the work, they were “interfering with, restraining or coercing employees” in the exercise of their Section 7 right to strike, in violation of 8(a)(1).

If Boeing originally plans to increase at one location, but then increases at a different location (new or not), that is in fact a reduction at the first location?Scott H on May 17, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Who says there has to be a reduction at the first location? Where are you guys getting that idea from? I’m curious, because you keep repeating it.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:53 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Sorry, I did miss that. Words have meanings and they ought to be accurate.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Obama’s appointment of Craig Becker to the NLRB should be all one needs to know about their intent.

Becker wants everyone … everyone … forced into a union.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Yes, yes but the rest of the world would call it expansion.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Hey, call it whatever you want. It is what it is. For some reason you guys think the semantics of calling it a “relocation” or an “expansion” are essential to the case.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Sorry, I did miss that. Words have meanings and they ought to be accurate.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Seriously, how is “relocate” not accurate? Boeing originally planned to “locate” the work in place A. They later chose to “relocate” the work to place B. Relocate means to “move or establish in a new place,” that’s exactly what Boeing did with the work.

At any rate, has it occurred to you that it might be accurate to refer to it as an expansion, and a relocation?

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM

crr6: So you believe that labor should be allowed to dictate to management where they can be located?

You need to understand that a proposed change is not a change until it actually happens. If there is not a change for the worse, I see no way in which the NLRA applies here.

Scott H on May 17, 2011 at 6:01 PM

crr6: I can also say that, from an industrial perspective, a relocation must be of existing work. A change in planned expansion is not relocation, because it does not involve existing work.

Scott H on May 17, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Striking is protected conduct under Section 7. Boeing said they were relocating the work because of the union engaging in protected conduct (striking).

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:53 PM

What protection does the NRLA give employers? None? Strikes are protected yet the employer isn’t. In this day and age strikes aren’t noble acts. They’re planned disruptions of business for the sake of greed. Especially in Boeings case, these people aren’t striking for fair pay, or safe working conditions, or even a day off. They’re striking to suck as much out of the company as they can.

Greed.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:03 PM

crr6 in NO WAY understands FREEDOM because it’s a liberal. Unions are the bane of capitalism because they are based on communist principles. Unions, at one time, served a useful purpose back when working conditions were horrid and pay was not commensurate with the job performed. Unions had a big role in changing that. That is no longer the case as society has evolved.

Unions now are nothing more than money laundering operations for the Democrat party. They provide no real value to society, in fact they are becoming more and more of a drain and an obstacle to progress. They are forcing more companies to move operations to other countries because of the ever increasing demands made by these parasites.

In this particular case, if Boeing were relocating and not just expanding, the union may have a case. But that would presume that the union had been operating in good faith during prior negotiations and I don’t think they have. In fact, this particular union regularly operates in bad faith and seems to regularly strike when a delivery deadline is nearing. This practice has cost Boeing an estimated $1.5 billion in missed deadlines over the years. This union should have no say whatsoever in what Boeing decides, and they should be happy that they don’t pack up and leave altogether.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Seriously, how is “relocate” not accurate?

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Relocate is accurate. Boeing negotiated with the union, but the union demanded outrageous concessions. Negotiations failed, Boeing moved. Case closed.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:07 PM

What protection does the NRLA give employers? None?

The NLRA prohibits secondary strikes and boycotts by employees, it protects employer free speech to oppose unionization, and it imposes a duty on unions to bargain in good faith, among other things. Employers don’t have “section 7 rights” but they certainly do receive protections under the Act.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Sporty: I hope Boeing does pack up and leave. At this point, I think Boeing has more power than the federal government in this situation.

If nothing else, I don’t think Obama will destroy Boeing entering an election year, when a bad economy and our militant foreign policy are the top of the electoral agenda.

Scott H on May 17, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Relocate is accurate. Boeing negotiated with the union, but the union demanded outrageous concessions. Negotiations failed, Boeing moved. Case closed.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Reading is fundamental. So is comprehension.

Boeing is NOT moving. They are opening a NEW plant in SC and hiring more people – NON-UNION people. The plant in Washington is NOT affected.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:14 PM

The NLRA prohibits secondary strikes and boycotts by employees, it protects employer free speech to oppose unionization, and it imposes a duty on unions to bargain in good faith, among other things. Employers don’t have “section 7 rights” but they certainly do receive protections under the Act.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:08 PM

That’s ridiculous. Those are protections? Becker wants “free speech to oppose unionization” stripped. I wonder where the 1st Amendment comes into play.

Unions don’t bargain in good faith, I would think that’s obvious by now. Countless jobs and industry sent packing overseas … all because of “good faith” bargaining by unions I suppose.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Boeing is NOT moving. They are opening a NEW plant in SC and hiring more people – NON-UNION people. The plant in Washington is NOT affected.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Yeah, they moved (instead of building a new facility in WA) to SC after the unions refused to bargain in good faith.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Scott H on May 17, 2011 at 6:03 PM

It’s really pointless trying to argue directly with that cur.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

Is the plant in Washington still there? YES

Are the people still working there? YES!

They did not move – they are expanding.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Hey, call it whatever you want. It is what it is. For some reason you guys think the semantics of calling it a “relocation” or an “expansion” are essential to the case.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:55 PM

…says the law student who is learning to use case law to quibble over the very semantics she nitpicks us for. You can’t “relocate” a job that hasn’t been established by the act of hiring yet.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 6:20 PM

When I interview for a tech writing contract, I would love to know how much they are willing to pay to hire me. But alas, they are not forthcoming so I have to ask what I feel I am worth and go from there. What do they call that now? Free, free, free something… something about a market? I forget now.

Mr_Magoo on May 17, 2011 at 6:22 PM

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Refer to comment above.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Uh, you got a little spittle on you. Yea right there… on your chin. That’s better.

Mr_Magoo on May 17, 2011 at 6:24 PM

More gangster behavior from unions: Union Whistleblowers: Beaten and Harassed After They Accused Union Bosses of Looting

We really should be using RICO against unions.

slickwillie2001 on May 17, 2011 at 6:24 PM

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

Is the plant in Washington still there? YES

Are the people still working there? YES!

They did not move – they are expanding.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Look ahole … I was trying to be nice to you but apparently you can’t read because you have your head buried deep in your a$$.

I know they didn’t move the main facility. They did move the planned expansion to SC after the union goons play for a seat on the board got shot down. Got it?

Say yes darwin, now I understand.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:24 PM

That’s ridiculous. Those are protections?

They are, and pretty hefty ones at that. Especially the provisions prohibiting secondary boycotts (they basically say that unions can’t boycott employer B in an attempt to get it to stop doing business with employer A, whom the employees have a labor dispute with).

Becker wants “free speech to oppose unionization” stripped. .

That’s a lie.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Hey, call it whatever you want. It is what it is. For some reason you guys think the semantics of calling it a “relocation” or an “expansion” are essential to the case.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:55 PM

But, but Mithta Limbaw, Mithta Limbaw!

Mr_Magoo on May 17, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Can they be defunded by the congress?

Bambi on May 17, 2011 at 6:27 PM

I wonder where the 1st Amendment comes into play.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Good question. Why doesn’t the 1st amendment protect employees’ right to engage in a secondary boycott?

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Say yes darwin, now I understand.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Which means they’ve relocated the planned expansion. They have not relocated any jobs, because there were no jobs to relocate. You’re welcome, Darwin.

/eyeroll

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 6:30 PM

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Your are being the a-hole, sir.

You still do not seem to understand what the term ‘relocate’ means. Boeing never considered expanding their operations or adding a new plant in Wash. due to the union strikes in previous. So therefore, they are NOT relocating to SC – they are adding a plant in a business friendly state. ADDING. ADDING. ADDING. ADDING. ADDING. ADDING.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM

They are, and pretty hefty ones at that.

I don’t agree. Unions should be prevented from striking unless they can prove an actual grievance such as unsafe work condition, etc.

Becker wants “free speech to oppose unionization” stripped. .
That’s a lie.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:25 PM

More extraordinary, Mr. Becker advocated a new “body of campaign rules” that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM

You still do not seem to understand what the term ‘relocate’ means.
Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Why don’t you tell us exactly what it means? A primary dictionary definition would be helpful.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:33 PM

More extraordinary, Mr. Becker advocated a new “body of campaign rules” that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Nothing too “out there” about those rules. Captive audience speeches by either side 24 hrs before an election, and the leaflet rule doesn’t strip employer speech, it just gives unions equal time.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Captive audience speeches by either side 24 hrs before an election are already prohibited, and the leaflet rule doesn’t strip employer speech, it just gives unions equal time.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:35 PM

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Why don’t you tell us exactly what it means? A primary dictionary definition would be helpful.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:33 PM

I don’t think a definition of the word “relocate” would be very helpful in litigating this matter. I think we need to determine just what it is that is being relocated. If I’m counsel for Boeing, my argument would be that the proposed plant is being relocated, but since Boeing has not proceeded to hire for that plant, no jobs exist to be relocated, and therefore it is not really a labor issue at all.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Good question. Why doesn’t the 1st amendment protect employees’ right to engage in a secondary boycott?

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Well, why doesn’t it protect an employers freedom of association? Employers should be free to associate with workers who share common ground and interests instead of having to capitulate to greedy, demanding union employees who care nothing about the company that pays them.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Read slowly, crr6, so you don’t hurt yourself.

relocate [ˌriːləʊˈkeɪt]
vb
1. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) to move or be moved to a new place, esp (of an employee, a business, etc.) to a new area or place of employment
2. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) (intr) (of an employee, a business, etc.) to move for reasons of business to a new area or place of employment
relocation n

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Nothing too “out there” about those rules. Captive audience speeches by either side 24 hrs before an election, and the leaflet rule doesn’t strip employer speech, it just gives unions equal time.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Right. Nothing too out there about that. Just like the fairness doctrine was about “equal time.”

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 6:38 PM

crr6, by your logic when the US Government opens a new embassy in a foreign country I guess the US Govt. is relocating to that country.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Especially the provisions prohibiting secondary boycotts (they basically say that unions can’t boycott employer B in an attempt to get it to stop doing business with employer A, whom the employees have a labor dispute with).

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Except for the fact that Barack Obama, the Obama Party, and Becker support and endorse them when unions do them.

Some members of the State Employees Union are warning businesses in Wisconsin to either support collective bargaining for public employees or face a boycott.

A letter from Council 24 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees asks businesses to express support by displaying a sign in their window. The letter says failing to support the union will mean a public boycott of the business. And, that neutral means ‘no’ to supporting the union.

Now watch as desperate union shill crr6 spins to explain why secondary boycotts are legal, why businesses should be forced to support unions or be punished, and so forth, since her Barack Obama, her Becker, her NLRB, and her Obama Party all support and endorse them.

northdallasthirty on May 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM

northdallasthirty on May 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Public sector workers aren’t subject to the NLRA.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:00 PM

HTH.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Nothing too “out there” about those rules. Captive audience speeches by either side 24 hrs before an election, and the leaflet rule doesn’t strip employer speech, it just gives unions equal time.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:35 PM

I don’t know what qualifies as “Nothing too out there” in your world, but any restrictions on a private individual or company is “out there”.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Touche, northdallasthirty on May 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM. Great point.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Read slowly, crr6, so you don’t hurt yourself.

relocate [ˌriːləʊˈkeɪt]
vb
1. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) to move or be moved to a new place, esp (of an employee, a business, etc.) to a new area or place of employment
2. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) (intr) (of an employee, a business, etc.) to move for reasons of business to a new area or place of employment
relocation n

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:37 PM

…right. So Boeing planned to locate the jobs in WA, but then chose to “move [them] for reasons of business to a new area,” i.e., South Carolina.

Glad we’ve cleared that up.

crr6, by your logic when the US Government opens a new embassy in a foreign country I guess the US Govt. is relocating to that country.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM

I’m not sure you understand my logic, Sporty.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:45 PM

any restrictions on a private individual or company is “out there”.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 6:44 PM

lol.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Nothing too “out there” about those rules. Captive audience speeches by either side 24 hrs before an election, and the leaflet rule doesn’t strip employer speech, it just gives unions equal time.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Of course not, in the minds of union shills like yourself.

Want an example?

He wrote that employers should be barred from attending NLRB hearings about elections, and from challenging election results even amid evidence of union misconduct.

So you and Becker support fraud, crr6, and you and Becker support stripping employers of the right to even challenge fraud.

And it gets better.

He argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a “captive audience” ought to be grounds for overturning an election.

And as far as “equal access”, liar crr6, you should note something:

Employers are required to provide union reps with a list of employees and their addresses. Union organizers can visit employees at home, but companies cannot. Organizers can also make promises to employees (such as obtaining raises), which employers cannot.

So, since employers are expressly barred from visiting employees at their home, you DIMINISH access by preventing businesses from holding meetings and you give the union unequal and unfair treatment.

This shows you how desperate the union thugs are. They cannot compete on an even playing field. They need the government to slant everything. Becker is their puppet, and he is nothing more than a shill, a liar, and a fool.

Just like you, crr6.

northdallasthirty on May 17, 2011 at 6:47 PM

PEUs in Georgia, a RTW state, have no right to a seat at “bargaining/contract” talks.

marinetbryant on May 17, 2011 at 6:47 PM

No, pretzel girl, I don’t think you understand your own logic.

Again, Boeing never planned on adding jobs in Wash. due to dishonest union tactics in prior years. Therefore, they cannot relocate jobs they never filled or planned to add.

Sporty1946 on May 17, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Public sector workers aren’t subject to the NLRA.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Which hardly means that secondary boycotts by public sector workers constitute “protected activity”.

Spin some more, crr6, and show us how government workers are allowed to abuse their position to force people to comply. You’ll also have to deal with Wisconsin law on the matter, which it’s not surprising you don’t understand either.

northdallasthirty on May 17, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Public sector workers aren’t subject to the NLRA.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Also, notice one other thing crr6 tries to spin around: the private-sector union members who were carrying out the boycotts and making threats against businesses.

So according to the idiot Crr6′s logic, secondary boycotts are illegal, except when they aren’t. Crr6 states that it is perfectly legal for both private and public sector workers to carry out secondary boycotts as they did in Wisconsin.

northdallasthirty on May 17, 2011 at 6:55 PM

…right. So Boeing planned to locate the jobs in WA, but then chose to “move [them] for reasons of business to a new area,” i.e., South Carolina.

False. There were never any jobs to begin with, so how could they be moved?

If I’m thinking of building a house in CA, then decide against it and build in FL instead, does that mean I’ve relocated my house to FL?

spinach.chin on May 17, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4