When the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel filed a complaint challenging Boeing’s decision to open a $2 billion plant in South Carolina — one of 22 “right-to-work” states that prohibit compulsory union membership — the state’s governor, Nikki Haley (R), launched a spirited opposition campaign, urging members of Congress, the GOP 2012 field, and her fellow governors to weigh in on what she argued was an issue of national significance.
“Governor Haley believes what the NLRB is doing is not just an attack on right-to-work states — it’s an attack on every state and every business attempting to put people back to work,” her spokesman Rob Godfrey tells National Review Online.
Advertisement
Republicans were quick to offer their support. A group of GOP senators drafted legislation not only to head off the NLRB’s pending action against Boeing but also to prevent any similar attempts against other companies in the future. But the bill quickly stalled when it became clear that not one of the eleven Senate Democrats representing right-to-work states was willing to stand up to the White House and Big Labor by signing on as cosponsors. Not even Sens. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) and Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), two moderates from right-to-work states facing tough reelection battles next year, would stick up for their states.
Meanwhile, of the 22 governors in right-to-work states, only two are Democrats. One of them, Mike Beebe of Arkansas, has expressed concern that the NLRB ruling could be “detrimental” to his state’s economic-development efforts. The Boeing saga, he said, “undoubtedly is raising questions about a company’s ability to move plants to different parts of the company for competitive reasons.” In fact, state officials had actively tried to recruit Boeing to build its new 787 Dreamliner plant in Arkansas, using their state’s right-to-work status as a chief selling point.
The other is Gov. Bev Perdue of North Carolina, who not only has failed to denounce the ruling or express concern, but has refused to weigh in at all. Perdue’s press office tells NRO the governor is simply “not engaged on the issue.”
Fair enough, one might argue: Perdue has enough on her plate trying to close a nearly $3 billion budget deficit. On the other hand, maybe she ought to be grateful that she has the flexibility to make the difficult decisions that forced-unionization states don’t have, not to mention to the advantage right-to-work states enjoy when it comes to attracting new businesses. “It seems obvious that Bev Perdue is afraid to say anything that might offend her leftist support base, which is just what speaking up on behalf of North Carolina’s right-to-work statute would do,” says George Leef of the Raleigh-based Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.
Indeed, if the Democratic party’s enthrallment to the purse and power of Big Labor was ever in doubt (an admittedly big if), the blatant refusal of Democratic lawmakers to defend the economic interests of the states they were elected to serve is a shocking example of this symbiotic relationship. A couple of weeks ago, in a telling display, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka issued the latest in a serious of warnings to Democrats, threatening to withhold support from politicians who fail to wholeheartedly embrace the union cause.
“It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside — the outcome is the same either way,” Trumka said at a National Press Club luncheon. “If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be — now, in 2012, and beyond.”
Clearly, that message is being received, and Perdue’s is a particularly revealing case. According to a report filed by Boeing, the company spends more than $200 million annually in North Carolina and supports more than 220 businesses and thousands of jobs in the state. Many of those businesses stand to directly benefit from the new South Carolina plant.
But what are a few thousand jobs stacked up against one’s fealty to Big Labor? Not to mention the Democratic establishment, the entirety of which is set to descend on Charlotte for the 2012 Democratic convention in the hopes of boosting President Obama’s chances in what is sure to be an especially important swing state. It would be a shame to complicate things by “engaging” on behalf of state businesses that would certainly suffer if the NLRB (and the White House) gets its way. As it turns out, North Carolina’s junior senator, Kay Hagan, is one of the eleven Democrats who refuse even to question the board’s ruling. Her office did not return requests for comment.
Both parties certainly have their cadres of special interests. As it stands, however, only one seems interested in economic growth.
I think that the actions taking by NLRB is further evidence that this administration is governing by intimidation and is circumventing the free market system. Can the federal government tell a company where they can locate?
The other point is how does the NLRB determine the motivation of board of directors in making a prudent business decision. The NLRB has determined that Boeing's decision is retaliatory against their beloved unions.
The gangster tactics of this Administration must be exposed at every turn. To do otherwise would be an offense against our freedoms. In this case it is an offense against Boeing's rights to make decisions that are best for their shareholders. Tell the NLRB to but out!
I think its an open question as to who owns whom. Are the Democrats in thrall to big labor, or do the Democrats own big labor. The Democrats pursue policies that are detrimental to labor union members but continue to enjoy the support of the union bosses. A good example of this are their environmental and energy policies which will "necessarily bankrupt the coal industry" yet the United Mine Workers continue to blindly support politicians whose policies will put their members out of work.
What will the NLRB do the next time a company wants to build a new plant and builds it in China because of the inhospitable business climate in BHO's Amerika?
The best part is that,in "helping" big labor, the NLRB is set to destroy it. If the NLRB is successful, it will ensure that no business opens its doors in a forced union state, for fear of not being allowed to expand.
Excellent point. I think the left completely misread the 2008 election. They thought Obama, Pelosi and Co. could lead them to the promised land of a socialist utopia. Fortunately, the Obama election appears to be an aberration caused by an un-popular war, a tanking economy, and an incredibly bad candidate in John McCain. Big Labor's over-reach will result in no businesses setting up shop in a forced union state resulting in a further decline of membership for the labor unions.
Andrew, nice piece. It should erase any doubt that big-labor has reduced each and every Democrat at both state and national levels (Nelson and Nelson included) to mere lap dogs of Trumka the thug.
It's actions such as the NLRB's that show how important it is to rid ourselves of the Obama administration -- wherever there's freedom, this president and his minions will attempt to stifle it.
The law creating the NLRB should be clarified. With the current language, the complaint might be valid.
Companies are not allowed to retaliate against unions. Opening a plant in a right-to-work state can be considered an attempt to escape unions and the disruptions they can cause, have caused Boeing.
The case was strengthened by Boeing's President's public comments. He said he was trying to escape unions.
Just as the Courts should - should - make decisions the Judges consider unfair, so an NLRB appointed by Republicans might have to agree that the complaint is valid under the law as written.
The solution isn't to bring political pressure. It's to change the law so that its application is more sensible. Boeing may be right, but that needn't determine the ruling.
It would cost x to set up and operate the new plant in South Carolina. It would cost x+y to do the same in Washington. In order to get y at or close to 0, Boeing needed broad concessions from the unions, since all Boeing plants in Washington operate under the same rules. Boeing says that unless they get those concessions, they will put the plant in another state. Union tells them to make an aerial attempt at s*xual intercourse with a mobile pastry torus. Boeing says fine, we will put the plant in South Carolina. How exactly is this retaliating?
Seems to me that the Boeing BOD could could be the object of a stockholder suit if they didn't do this.
Where in the US Constitution is the federal govt authorized to make labor law? I say the law is itself illegal.
From another important but ignored perspective: 150 years ago our South Carolina forebearers wanted a divorce from this union of states. The federal govt used the utmost violence to refuse the divorce. We are forced to be a part of this union of states, but are being treated like a class D member of it. A company in another state wants to locate here, and the federal govt that forces us to be one of its states forbids that company to locate here. South Carolina is forced to be a US state, but is oppressed as a second-class member. Let us be a full, 1st-class member of your union of states, federal govt, or let us out.
Lee - I do not disagree with your sentiments about the probable unconstitutionality of the NLRB (although I'm sure it's been challenged and found constitutional). I must, however, profoundly disagree with your secessionists sentiments. The Civil War was fought several reasons. One of those was whether a democratic republic can remain united despite disagreements between its component parts. The outcome of the war should have settled that question. I personally think the only way out the bind of regulatory agencies like the NLRB (and the EPA, etc.) is for any and all regulatory changes to be voted on by Congress and signed by the President. For the Executive to write legislative regulations stand in direct contravention of Articel I, Section I of the Constitution. Until this matter is settled, any misbehaving agencies can simply be defunded, as I recommended earlier.
@Jack: Lee has a point. States not towing the liberal line not only get treated differently for actions today (NLRB) but for actions now almost 50 years the past as shown by the continual renewal of Section 5 of the voting rights act.
If the states are equal members of a federation shouldn't they have protections against unequal treatment just as citizens do via the 14th Amendment.
Jack, I don't think Lee was seriously advocating secession as a solution to this problem. He was merely pointing out the absurdity of SC being forced to be a member of a nation that now wants to mistreat it. Sort of like saying "You'll get nothing and LIKE it!"
Harvath and HerbN - I am not disagreeing with Lee about how unfairly (and probably illegally) the NLRB has treated SC and Boeing. And HerbN - You are absolutely right about the Voting Rights Act. It's time to sunset it.
You both miss the two points I was making to Lee: The first was that the secession question was resolved (at the cost of 600 to 700 thouseand dead, and many more maimed for life), and secondly that the way to overcome the issue of Executive tyranny is for Congress to reassert its constitutional legislative powers, something it has abdicated since FDR.
Why don't we just fast-track this issue the way battle-line issues get fast-tracked to the Supremes. It's obvious Boeing has been singled out by the pro-union cronies.
Let's encourage Boeing to get it over with. Move to China. I'd rather have Chinese-built planes in the skies than the constant tyranny of President Trumka and Senate Majority Leader Stern.
Jack, I think that Lee's point was that A) fighting to hold onto an area that doesn't wish to be held, and B) THEN treating it as specially problematic or undesirable, is the last word in adding insult to injury. It's perfectly reasonable that B should cause A to appear in a shabbier light.
Secondly, your definition of "resolved" may be a trifle broad. As my country's president once put it: "A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must remain unsettled forever."
Jhimmibhob -- My point to Lee was that in a democratic republic as ours, there is a question of how to maintain unity despite objections by the minority to policies of the majority. If the minority picks up its marbles and leaves, you cannot really sustain a democratic republic. You'll note the tension between maintaining a unified state and a democratic republic. I don't know exactly how you "resolve" that tension when it actually occurs (as in 1860). BTW The point I am making on this matter is not original with me. I took it from Adam Goodheart's 1861.
As for your second point, I'll respectfully disagree. Unfortunately, in human affairs many issues are "re-solved" through violence. That was how we resolved independence as well as Nazi domination of Europe and Japanese imperial agression. In that sense, that is how we resolved the issue of staying in the Union despite strong disagreements amongst the states.
Finally, I do not disagree with your characterization of how the Federal government is treating South Carolina (and Boeing as well). I don't think, though, that the Federal government cares about which particular state it is treating that way. It could be any right-to-work state and the Feds would have done the same thing. To repeat, though, it is no doubt shabby and tyrannical, and I think criminal.
I think it kind of matters on why you want out of the democratic republic in the first place.
If it is because a democratic election didn't go your way, then you were never wedded to the concept of a democratic republic anyway. Only so long as it is convenient to you.
In which case, your subsequent actions have all the honor and righteousness of Wisconsin Senate Democrats fleeing to Illinois to demonsrate their belief in democracy.
Hardly a thing you hang bunting on and set to jaunty music.
Though the question of secession was resolved by force of arms, that doesn't necessarily confer constitutional legitimacy (not that historically the result wasn't a good thing). When did the states bestow irrevocable allegiance to the federal union?
Follow
