The Corner

‘Boeing’s Threat to American Enterprise’

. . . 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.

Peter Kirsanow — Peter N. Kirsanow is an attorney and a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Most Popular


Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More