. . . is the title of Thomas Geoghegan’s piece today in the Wall Street Journal.
There’s much in the article to comment upon, but I’ll confine myself to his observation that “there’s little bar to a runaway shop if the CEO is careful with his public statements.” This presumes that Boeing’s location of its 787 Dreamliner plant in South Carolina constitutes a “runaway shop” remediable by an NLRB restoration order. That presumption is problematic.
Save for an appearance on the Bill Bennett show last month, I’ve refrained from commenting on the particulars of the Boeing case, in part because the hearing before the administrative law judge began only last week and salient facts have yet to be adduced. Nonetheless, based on undisputed, publicly available facts, Boeing’s placement of the plant in South Carolina doesn’t make this a standard ”runaway shop” case.
In a typical “runaway shop” case, the employer moves some or all of the work work presently being performed in its unionized Mayberry facility to a nonunion facility in Green Acres. The employer does this to avoid the costs and restrictions related to being unionized. The employer moves the work without giving the union an opportunity to bargain about labor costs and make them more competitive with the nonunion operation. The union plant is either completely shut down or some of the operations are eliminated, often with machinery and other equipment being transferred to the nonunion shop. Invariably, some or all of the employees in the Mayberry facility lose their jobs.
In the above scenario, the NLRB may issue a “restoration” order, requiring the employer to return to the status quo ante and give the union an opportunity to bargain in an effort to retain the jobs in Mayberry. In the Boeing case, however, no existing work or machinery was transferred from Washington to South Carolina, no unionized Washington employees lost their jobs (in fact 2,000 jobs were added), and the General Counsel doesn’t even allege that Boeing refused to bargain with the union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. As former NLRB chairman William Gould says, the General Counsel’s complaint is unprecedented.
Even if the General Counsel can establish that Boeing violated the NLRA, there are at least two other remedies-related problems with the General Counsel’s case that I’ll address in the next few days. Suffice it to say that Boeing’s South Carolina plant isn’t going anywhere soon.
— Peter Kirsanow is a former member of the National Labor Relations Board.
Geoghean's main point, insane though it is, seems to be "don't let those lower-wage crackers down South make these planes or they'll fall out of the sky and we'll lose the airliner industry to Airbus!" Wow. Why do I think that IF the plant in Carolina was unionized we wouldn't be hearing this pitch? I read this earlier and was aghast at how amazingly insulting, tone-deaf, and dumb it was...and was and am equally certain that he's very, very proud of the piece, too. These guys live in another universe and are, by the way, the biggest bigots of our era.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYep. The guy is a hardcore labor union lawyer, of course he's proud of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, the premise of the article seems to be that because unionized workers cost more, they therefore must do better work. Ipso facto. Perhaps this piece was originally intended for The Onion?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYep. It is almost (but not quite) as silly as saying that because LAWYERS are, as a class, among the best-compensated workers in America, their work MUST be exceptionally great! (hehehehehe....)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is simply a case of the NLRB, and by extension, the White House wanting to create more jobs in a blue state and less jobs in a red state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe actions of the NLRB are simply outrageous and are in direct opposition of what has been (until now) a free market for American businesses to operate within.
Of course, given the other outrageous actions of the federal government as they specifically relate to General Motors and its "pre-packaged" bankruptcy (almost entirely at the expense of the company's secured creditor and to (almost) the exclusive benefit of the unionized laborers, is this NLRB decision all that unforeseen?
When you start punishing bond holder to "save" unions, it's not a very long path to dictating to private business where they must actually do business.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe article was idiotic.
One word: BMW
Somehow I don't see BMW putting a factory anywhere where they couldn't get a requisite number of skilled workers or workers capable of being sufficiently trained.
More proof the left is running on fumes. This is the weakest "argument" for unions I've ever seen. "Union workers are better because they have higher pay".
Hmmm, I guess this guy is assuming no readers ever bought a Detroit vehicle in the 70's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Runaway shop"???????
You mean that the government can actually tell a business owner that he CAN'T move work, equipment, etc. freely from one plant to another for whatever reason seems good to him as the owner of his property?
For REAL??????
Unions can actually FORCE a business owner to deal with them -- even if that owner has the resources and the will to move his business elsewhere?
I knew that unions were nothing but legalized extortion rackets, but I find that absolutely shocking.
And, btw, I am a factory worker -- 10 hour shifts, on my feet most of the time, working conditions that leave a lot to be desired, ... the whole 9 yards. And still the idea that, if we were insane enough to invite a union into the plant, we could have the government force our owners to do the union's bidding about opening and closing plants is deeply repugnant to me as a free citizen of a free country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"For REAL??????"
I believe, but am not positive, that their has to be a negotiated prohibition in place for the NLRB to enforce such a doctrine. IOW, the business would have had to previously made this a negotiating point (with organized labor) to not runaway before they would be disallowed from actually running away. This is why you will see a lot of businesses close up shop at the end of a labor contract. The way the runaway shop doctrine had been interpreted is if the contract is up, labor is SOL.
I also believe that this Boeing situation would change all that because this is a NEW model altogether that Boeing decided to build in South Carolina. It's not a cessation of manufacturing that was taking place elsewhere. It's brand new. This is a bigtime overreach by NLRB.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a silly argument.
Boeing is actually empowering low wage earners. Everyone knows that $14 per hour in SC represents more buying power than $28/hr in Seattle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDepends on what you're buying. Plus, WA has no state income tax.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about a simple burger, fries and shake at a burger joint at UVillage? Or perhaps a house within a one hour commute to Boeing?
The point is that the lawyer is trying to make a false comparison, either on purpose or because he lacks the knowledge.
My first reaction is that it's on purpose. But then that would mean he doesn't fully believe what he wrote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf public statements really mark the distinction between what legal and illegal actions are, then that demonstrates what nonsense the whole law is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSC has boatloads of manufacturing and industry after aggressively pursuing them for a couple decades with special tax rates and other sweetheart, come to SC, deals (as is their perfect right). I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn that SC is more industrialized than WA.
Basically, unions milked the industrial cow to death in the north and forced industry overseas and south. Reap what you've sown, boys. To knock the rust off the rust belt, unions need to rethink their whole schtick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy the way, IF this NLRB ruling stands (which I don't believe it will) then every person in America who ever starts a business--no matter how small--who hopes it will grow someday (literally all of our future Henry Fords and Thomas Edisons or Fred Smiths and the like) will never, ever begin a business in anything other than a right-to-work state, because the only way to stay "clean" of this insane ruling will be to do business in a place where unionization cannot be compelled in the first place.
Over time, competition from these startups which grow to large market forces will put the unionized (and thus financially handicapped) companies OUT of business and will inspire their most creative executives and innovators to quit and start their own non-union right-to-work-state-located businesses in the same industries they know.
And someday, boys and girls of the Obama NLRB, the ONLY unions in America will be government worker unions, period. Of course, THOSE will have been bankruptcy-disenfranchised due to their predatory and impossible pension schemes, and that will decimate the usual financial and sweat-equity support they now give to Democrat candidates, who will, of course, lose elections until the party, clinging to its Big Labor dogma to the last, dies the same death as private unionized businesses.
Frankly, considering that the scenario I just related is the logical and fully anticipatable result of this ruling, one has to wonder if somehow us evil capitalist Republican conservative S.O.B.'s have snuck sleeper agents into the Obama NLRB to work from within to destroy the American labor movement. Maybe Geoghean is a closet Glenn Beck fan?
Seriously--IF this comes to pass (as it surely would over time if the ruling stood) the nation would lose a lot of GOOD things that have come from Unions over the years--and please, my fellow conservatives, know that there are some. The ruling and the current Big Labor political attitude and leadership are truly monstrous....but unions aren't, at least not always.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs the Govt Motors fiasco showed, the govt will never permit a large, unionized company to go under. They will just seize it from it's owners and give it to the unions, with enough govt subidies to make sure it stays solvent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes anyone out there understand Boeing's double game? Sheesh. There are a very liberally biased employer here in Washington State - they love Murray and Cantwell and Gregoire. Boeing has helped tilt Washington State in a liberal/Democratic direction for generations and now they are finally reaping what they sowed, by trying to move production out of state. All they are doing is covering all their bases politically and economically now with the SC plant. Hello, Boeing board member is to become of new Commerce Sec. Remember, Boeing hated McCain over the tanker deal scam and helped to get Obama elected.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHonestly, I couldn't care less if NLRB denies Boeing their SC plant. It's called just desserts!!
Yes! Let's destroy the last industry we dominate!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEmployers should be able to move 'shops' if labor costs are too high. Better that they move the 'shop' to TX or SC rather than to China.
'Collective Bargaining' is akin to bargaining while holding a gun to the employer's head. If union employees want to 'run the shop', they should buy the shop or set up their own competing business. Of course, that won't happen, as that would require them to be efficient and to utilize their own money, not someone else's. Heck, if they had to use their own money to actually operate a business they would have less money with which to buy politicians in order to extort money from taxpayers and businesses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe rollback on this kinda garbage has to start ASAP. if the union is holding up a company's progress and expansion they should be able to pack up and move. the laws governing this are draconian and way too one-sided.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse