NLRB drops case against Boeing Update: Issa still to investigate NLRB
posted at 1:10 pm on December 9, 2011 by Tina Korbe
An official with the National Labor Relations Board announced today that the Board will drop its controversial case against Boeing, The New York Times reports.
The N.L.R.B.’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the labor board had decided to end the case after the machinists’ union — which originally asked for the case to be brought — had urged the board on Thursday to withdraw it.
On Wednesday night, the union announced that 74 percent of its 31,000 Boeing workers in Washington State had voted to ratify a four-year contract extension that includes substantial raises, unusual job security provisions and a commitment by Boeing to expand aircraft production in the Puget Sound area.
Mr. Solomon had filed the case against Boeing last April. Agreeing with the union’s position, he asserted that Boeing’s decision to build the $750 million plant in South Carolina constituted illegal retaliation against the union’s members in Washington for having engaged in their federally protected right to strike.
When I first read the NYT headline, I cheered. But the NLRB’s decision is actually somewhat of a mixed blessing. Just the threat of the case was clearly a powerful tool in the union’s negotiation of its contract renewal. Note that Boeing has agreed to expand aircraft production in the Puget Sound Area. That’s probably a sound business decision in the current climate: Better to agree to expand production in a state beset with union strife than to have to face a hostile NLRB.
But, from the very beginning, Boeing’s decision to open a new aircraft production plant in South Carolina was less a punishment of union workers in Washington than it was a reward for the leaders of South Carolina, who have conscientiously worked to make the state appealing to investors. Yes, the decision meant more new jobs for South Carolina and fewer new jobs for Washington — but it didn’t mean presently employed Washington workers would face layoffs. All of which is to say: Boeing should never have had to face this case in the first place — and the unions were still able to use the case to extort concessions from the company.
Furthermore, this could make it easier for the NLRB to follow through with its plans to institute snap elections and other disastrous policies. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said he would block any Obama nominee to the NLRB as long as the Board pursued the case against Boeing. Now that the NLRB has dropped the case, Republican opposition to new nominees might not be as unwavering. An NLRB filled with Obama appointees would be even more biased toward unions than the Board we have now. Republicans in Washington need to remember this case as a warning — and still work to limit the unwarranted power of the NLRB.
Update: Rep. Darrell Issa, at least, won’t be fooled out of investigating the NLRB just because the Board dropped the case against Boeing. Check out Erika Johnsen’s excellent post for more.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Menendez – Looks like we don’t have the votes for that immigration bill after all

America in decline – Bars selling rubbing alcohol as “scotch”






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
Heh.
Curtiss on May 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM
The problem is that Boeing is forced to compete against Airbus, which has even more immense government subsidies backing their products. The subsidies they are getting are only to level the playing field against that sort of unfair competition.
Edunai on May 4, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Then let’s let Boeing build something else, and we’ll fly Airbus aircraft subsidized by European taxpayers. The alternative is for our taxes to prop up Boeing’s profits. Choose one.
glockomatic on May 4, 2013 at 6:22 PM
You know, I import and export stuff every day. I certainly don’t need these guys. I’ll bet they don’t even know I exist.
That’s probably a good thing.
trigon on May 4, 2013 at 6:23 PM
I don’t think you understand the situation, Glockomatic, Boeing is locked in a death struggle with Airbus, WTO has continually ruled against Airbus for their subsidies and the EU just keeps it up. I’m glad you are so blase about having piece of shit Airbus products as the only commercial airliners, but whenever Boeing and Airbus compete on their merits and not on price points, Boeing wins, Boeing makes a *superior* product. I don’t mind leveling the playing field when it’s to allows for actual competition.
Edunai on May 4, 2013 at 7:21 PM
…why are you asking such a funny question?
KOOLAID2 on May 4, 2013 at 8:32 PM
I have to agree with Edunai here. I understand in theory how your approach makes sense, but there are a couple of problems in practice. First, the subsidy only comes from the EU in order for Airbus to compete with Boeing. If Boeing were to exit the market, so would the subsidy and we’d be stuck with crappy overpriced Airbus products. It’s not like Boeing can just hop in and out of the commercial aviation business at will — the order pipeline is measured in decades.
If any superior domestic producer could be chased out of the market with temporary subsidies we’d soon find ourselves making nothing. Free trade agreements — aggressively enforced — are the answer, not just taking advantage of temporary external distortions in this or that market.
SoRight on May 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM