H. L. Mencken defined puritanism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. The National Labor Relations Board is haunted by the fear that a company somewhere might be creating jobs with a nonunionized work force.
Boeing has run afoul of that fear by investing more than $1 billion in a new plant in the right-to-work state of South Carolina. With only the flimsiest legal justification, the board wants to force Boeing to reverse course and locate the facility with its current operations in Washington State, where its workers are unionized.
Advertisement
The NLRB’s claims are laughable on their face, although Boeing — trying to run a business in a highly competitive global market — can be forgiven for missing the joke. The board accuses Boeing of “interfering with, restraining, and coercing” its union employees in the exercise of their rights by making a thoroughly understandable business decision.
This is putting not a thumb, but a fist on the scale in favor of the unions. A writer at the liberal The New Republic says it “may be the most radical thing the Obama administration has done.” It’s an attempt to keep companies with the misfortune of operating in union-heavy states in perpetual thrall to organized labor.
The CEO of Boeing stands accused of saying the company could ill afford the “strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound.” In a memo, paraphrased in the NLRB complaint, Boeing management said it wanted “to reduce vulnerability to delivery disruptions caused by work stoppages.” What’s notable about these statements is that they are so obvious, they should go without saying.
As the NLRB itself notes, Boeing suffered strikes with some regularity, in 1977, 1989, 1995, 2005, and 2008. These job actions weren’t good for business, or the unions wouldn’t have undertaken them: Their express purpose is to inflict pain on the company. The logic of the NLRB’s position is that businesses shouldn’t notice strikes, and if they do, they should learn to like them and never factor their potential cost into investment decisions. At bottom, the executives of Boeing are guilty of a thought crime.
There are rules against “runaway shops” (i.e., picking up and moving a plant to evade a union) and against retaliating against workers for striking or organizing. Boeing’s decision to expand its business in South Carolina is manifestly none of those things. It is leaving its Washington State facility intact. In fact, Boeing has expanded it, adding 2,000 jobs. When the Charleston facility is brought online, Boeing will build ten of its 787 Dreamliners a month — seven of them still in Washington State.
If every company were abusing its workers by continuing to employ them and adding to their ranks, the unemployment rate wouldn’t be 9 percent. The NLRB can’t point to any Boeing worker in Washington who has been harmed — let alone restrained or coerced — by the company’s decision to hire additional workers in South Carolina.
If the drift of jobs to right-to-work states in the South and elsewhere is a violation of the law, the union-dominated dinosaur of Michigan is the victim of the greatest mass breach of the National Labor Relations Act of all time. Perhaps the NLRB needs to give Nissan a stern talking-to; the company has done union workers everywhere the disservice of locating its American manufacturing plants in Tennessee and Mississippi.
The desperation of Pres. Barack Obama’s NLRB is understandable. It is fighting a losing battle against the inexorable erosion of the supports of the semi-guild system of 20th-century unionization. In its overreach, though, it is creating yet another disincentive for business to locate in union-heavy blue states. What company wants to risk having to fight a union and the federal government for years in court just to defend a common-sense business decision?
Clearly, Boeing made a grave mistake in its labor relations. It should have located its production in South Carolina from the beginning.
You have not stated the obvious long term plan. Any corporation in union controlled states cannot be allowed to escape, but more importantly, when the financial lunacy of being forced to stay in the union clutches inevitably rears it's head those corporations, and only those corporations will be propped up the government, and investors in those unionsick corporations will lose their investments. And most inportantly, this will be called capitalism and used as evidence that capitalism doesn't work.
The Right to Work State of Texas wishes to thank the NLRB for helping GE transportation systems choose to locate a new locomotive build/rebuild facility in Fort Worth.
Boeing, the poster child for Union captivity..................
It would be horrendous for the economy if this ruling is allowed to stand. Nonetheless, if it does, one of its effects would be that no new enterprises would ever be located in a state that is not a right-to-work state.
Let's see. I'm gonna invest millions of dollars in a manufacturing facility. Illinois: high taxes, lots of unions to deal with, cold as ice. Texas: no taxes, no forced unionization. Plus, better climate, food, and football teams. No brainer.
I agree with your point and with most of what you have said regarding Illinois, but better food in Texas, c'mon, get real. Man cannot live on tacos alone.
I used to live in Texas. The food is great, and if you don't like tacos, there are ethnic restaurants and steakhouses galore.
But there are a lot of insects, large and highly active insects, infesting the buildings. This is partly facilitated by the generally temperate to sub-tropical climate. Other than that, it's a great state, and at least the insects can be killed with impunity. Problems in other states are not remediable by sturdy boots.
First, of course this is a horrible infringement on Boeing.
However, on what point of the law will the NLRB lose? My understanding is that the law/reg is so vague that a judge with little common sense could definitely rule in favor of forcing Boeing to forever remain in Washington State.
Right to work is an important conservative issue and hopefuly our candidate will make that a central plank of his campaign. Does not look like Mitch Daniels will though.
You won't see National Review reporting any of Mitch Daniel's comments that don't help him. He's their candidate this year now that Romney is no longer viable.
Not just a rule, it's the law! It is illegal to retaliate against workers for striking. In their arrogance the managers of Boeing repeatedly told our community - Puget Sound, WA - that they were moving to SC precisely because of the union strikes of 2005 and 2008. Are we a nation of laws. . . or not?
Insects cannot be killed with impunity as safe and effective pesticides are now outlawed. Also animal rights groups are seeking legal protection for endangered species...
I can already see it coming...in an effort to protect bees (vital for agriculture), government will create the 'No Insect Left Behind Act"
Thus ensuring all native insect populations are protected from predatory humans and it will even have a safe haven clause for those stowaway non-native insects that now reside in the US.
As a life long resident of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Michigan, I have seen first hand the wreckage unions and their insane 'work' practices have wrought. City of Detroit down to pre 1910 population, Flint GM employment under 7,000 (from a high near 100,000). Oh yes, the unions have been very good to Michigan.
Farmland in MI is more valuable than Detroit residential real estate. Maybe the best use of Detroit would be turning it back into farmland, and a lasting legacy to the UAW.
This is more than outrageous, it is part of a larger plan--call it a conspiracy if you like, but it's so. We always hear about America being a group of 50 laboratories, with local State governments being able to try solutions to problems and find out what works best. Clearly, right-to-work laws are such an experiment in problem-solving, and the key to this ruling is that even though union leftists know they can't overturn such laws where they are popular and job-creating, they seek to keep companies in other locales from "voting with their feet" and in their own economic self-interest.
The "excuse" that Boeing wasn't limiting Washington operations but merely adding to them elsewhere didn't fly with these people because they know that when, 10 years or 20 years down the road, somebody at Boeing looks at the relative profitability of the two operations and sees how much more predictable, stable, and profitable the S.C. plant is on a plane-by-plane basis, they'll start expanding there and, eventually, reducing production in Washington. THAT, in turn, will influence voting on potential right-to-work rules by sensible rank-and-filers who want to keep their jobs at home in Washington, and that, in turn will make the whole "50 laboratories" plan work--solutions will spread, inefficiencies will diminish, and the system--the one the leftists HATE so much--will work.
This isn't short-term, folks. This is long-term strategic action. We have to recognize that fact and, while being rightly outraged by the immediate, look at their long-term plans and call them on them and thwart them. As always with leftists, it isn't about the immediate issue--it's about POWER, and nothing but.
This will cost Boeing mega-money for their lawyers to defend this junk. Think of it as a warning shot across the bow to other companies who wish to escape union dominated States.
When Boeing leaves the country for greener overseas pastures, the Libs can point out another evil company refusing to take care of the man.
Remember the make up of the NRLB can be fixed in '12 with a different President in office.
Please spare me the pity party for Boeing. Here in Mobile, we say "turn about is fair play." We lost a major contract because Boeing is such a sore loser. Turns out, it's better to build a plane in Washington than one in Mobile, Alabama because we, too, are a right to work state. Boeing spent years insulting us, even infering at one point we were too stupid to put a plane together. So, I say, "ha ha ha." Of course, now that the shoe is on the other foot, Boeing is going to whine and cry like the little babies they are, claiming discrimination, again. Well, this time they've gotten caught trying to play both sides of the field. And, I'm quite surprised that Mr. Lowry hasn't bothered to do his homework. As for the rest of you reading this, do your homework yourselves instead of immediately jumping on Boeing's side. You might find you aren't as informed as you think you are.
The NRLB should be worried about paying GM's Mexican workers union scale - or maybe US workers Mexican scale and keep their hands off private companies.
I see! You aren't even allowed to "protaliate" against people who aren't yet union members, but will be because the closed shop rules violates their freedom of association!
PROTALIATE (verb) 1. To preemptively retaliate against an action not yet taken by people who do not yet exist.
Source: Orwell's Guide to Newspeak, Houghton Mifflin, 1984
Well done, Rich. All of us old 'Hoos appreciate Bill Buckley's discriminating eye for a well turned phrase backed up by solid reasoning. Keep up the good work!
I think the lesson the NLRB is teaching to us all is that we should avoid setting up shop in union dominated states to begin with.
Why would any company now set foot in a state like Washington?
The just punishment that the union dominated states will receive for this is the loss of future investment. The current jobs may linger on, but high paying jobs for the quasi-skilled will be increasingly harder to come by in the future.
Not only will existing companies with no ties to union states avoid them, but start-up firms will as well.
Follow
