Boeing is basically saying, we're soooo far behind on the 787, we can't risk being held hostage by the unions in Washington State. That makes sense to me, at least they are creating more jobs in South Carolina.

The NLRB, normally a good advocate for workers, missed on this one.

To me, the sad thing about the US union movement is, they keep pushing manufacturing overseas, so ultimately it's the union workers that pay the price when the US plants close and they lose their jobs.

If they would just look beyond a 3 to 5 year timeline, they would see they are only hurting themselves with their excessive demands. It's not like any US worker is being told to work for $2/day - we now have federal laws preventing truly abusive working conditions.

Same ole same ole. Companys are going to states with less educated folks so they can pay less. The American workers in Washington can buy houses and products with their pay. Those in S.Carolina will not. They will be paid less and less until the company moves to Chins and pays $2/hr. That's capitalism in America!

grunt @ 1.4: yes, less educated people to build the 787. Do we want to fly in one of these non-union built planes? I don't. Boeing has been a thorn in the side of aerospace workers since it subsumed McDonnell Douglas. Union workers are well-trained to do their job. Boeing makes a lot of money, and did, even when it was only in union states; but this move to right to work states has been constant for all major corporations. Soon, they will move their headquarters to a city like Atlanta, where a secretary makes about 25K (one with experience) and the two major CocaCola guys make about 25 million.

The NRLB is the only entity that is saving us from having everything built to shoddy specs or built by slave labor in some other country. Unions save our middle class, our working class, and many jobs in communities where union workers eat, play, live. If you think laws will keep your weekends, your overtime pay, even your benefits and your breaks, you've not been paying attention to these people.



This is just another example of the close, cozy, and corrupt relationship between the Obama administration and the Democrats biggest supporters, the Unions. We had the total fiscal disaster of the auto bailouts for which taxpayers will never even break even let alone make up for the lost potential such a massive expenditure could have brough in terms of a real investment. Then we have the Unions going all in to campaign to allow the Democrats to force their health care mandate and fiasco on all of us, and as payback have received so many crooked "waivers" to allow them to get out of the onerous regulations the rest of us are being forced to face that they currently make up over 50% of the individuals enjoying the waiver even though they only make up about 12% of the population...

And then the latest and most vicious attack by the NLRB against Boeing, is nothing short of complete arrogant overreach. Boeing looked at the variables and made a rational decision that the most cost effective option for building their plant to maximize long term profits would be to locate in South Carolina. We should rejoice at that really, here they are employing Americans rather than trying to locate a plant in some foreign country, and yet they are being maligned because they won't willingly self immolate to help thugs. Workers have a right to strike, but Boeings actions are not punitive against that, as evidenced by the fact that they are not only not closing those Union shops but that they have actually hired about 1,000 more Union workers even after they made the decision to locate the new plant in South Carolina. But the NLRB continues it's baseless attacks, because they loathe the non-Unionized work force.

And, let's not forget that there is nothing stopping the South Carolina workers from being in a Union. It's not as though they are outlawed because it is a Right to Work State. Workers there can Unionize, but Unions themselves can not *FORCE* people to join them as a pre-condition of being hired, thus those Unions can not violate individuals universal human right to work they way they can in non-Right to Work States. So, even the very foundation of the NLRB's complaint is suspect because South Carolina's workers could be Unionized if they wanted. In Right to Work States Unions must successfully provide enough value to their workers for the Union dues collected, or the Unions do not keep their members... as opposed to forced Union States where law permits those Unions to extort money from members who many not want to be a part of the Union or do not feel as though they are being properly represented, but have no recourse short of being denied employment to get away from it. But that would threaten the overbearing power of the Unions, and thus the NRLB *must* attack at any chance it gets, not only Boeing for having the audacity to hire workers who have the freedom to join or refrain from joining a Unions, but also to attack the workers or potential workers and thus all individuals in not just South Carolina, but all of the Right to Work States.

On the NLRBs part, this is not about good policy, nor is this about protecting workers, this is about power and politics, and protecting the monied Union interests so that they may continue to line the pockets of their puppet Democrat politicians.

And where do some of you get off claiming that non-Union labor is "less educated"? Seriously, many of those workers in Right to Work States manufacturing auto's are producing better quality with consistency than their MI counterparts because they aren't being hamstrung by useless wasteful work rules put in place by Union bosses that prevent them from adapting and evolving towards better and higher efficiency.

Honeywell pushed the IAM off the campus over the objections of people I won't even list. Upper management, well I won't even go any further some people about got in trouble I believe at the time that are good people still there. I was a toolmaker "A" there until not too long ago,and after they had diluted the union contracts over time they finally had the means to just make an unacceptable offer in bargaining.

That actually had started before I even started working there so after assisting them in getting a STAR rating from OSHA and the way the fact the older union related contracts had expired they finally ended up offering what was left of the IAM there such a pay cut in order to be retained they knew we wouldn't vote to accept it and basically they managed to push the union out off the campus and outsourced the work so they wouldn't be obligated to pay for healthcare, retirement, etc. Still haven't found anything else atm, at least in my area.

I like were I live and almost had my house paid off and the wife has a good job here, but might have to move soon I guess as I just can't find anything decent in manufacturing here atm.

Appears to me Boeing is trying to do the exact same thing here, well of course they are, forget appearances.

strikes are LEGALLY protected, not ECONOMICALLY protected. Looks like union rights are trying to become union entitlements.

Gee - I guess the fact that Boeing made it perfectly clear that they were opening the South Caronline non-union plant was BECAUSE of the union's ability to hold a strike and the fact that doing it for that reason IS illegal, doesn't matter to you 'know it all' pseudo-experts.

I've never worked for a union, and don't plan on ever doing so.

But I'm seeing more and more companies doing things to screw thier employees out of more and more money while paying thier execs irrationally inflated incomes and that bothers me greatly.

There's a problem when the greed of the company execs bastly outweighs the perceived greed of the unions. Neither should be allowed the kinds of greed that are in play.

Wow.......In one sentence grunt dissed an entire state. Calling them "stupid" ! Way to Go!!!

Same ole same ole. Companys are going to states with less educated folks so they can pay less.

That would be "Companies", so maybe you could keep education out of the conversation. That is unless you actually have proof that those being hired are too ignorant to complete a job application. But then it must take a degree in rocket science to willingly hand over presumed hard earned money to over paid union attorneys and politically ambitious shop stewards. Good luck with that rationale.

Why are people, who are beholden to smarter people in the Union hierarchy, more deserving of well paying jobs than those in right to work states? Isn't it better to work for a job than to pay for one?

Spat over Boeing plant sparks political firestorm

Spat? A government agency telling a free enterprise that they must make a temporary assembly line permanent is not a spat. This goes against everything this country was founded on.

grunt,

Same ole same ole. Companys are going to states with less educated folks so they can pay less. The American workers in Washington can buy houses and products with their pay. Those in S.Carolina will not. They will be paid less and less until the company moves to Chins and pays $2/hr. That's capitalism in America!

That's capitalism anywhere on the planet genius.

Chuck,

Even WalMart had factories here at one time, and they were probably in cheap right to work states, which weren't just cheap enough. It has to stop somewhere folks....... Maybe the people of the south like being bent over a stump, but we don't up here!

When the fvck did Walmart ever manufacture anything? They are a retailer Einstein not a manufacturer. Can you please give me the name of your state? I'd like to know for future reference of where not to consider for manufacturing jobs if you are an example of the caliber of employee there. Or maybe you just got bent over one too many stumps and hit your heard.

On the one hand the government is spending billions to make jobs, job stimulus and make work jobs to keep people employed. Obama poured billions into the auto industry (and the unions were the major beneficiaries, look it up) People compalined of companies moving business offshore and that jobs were lost as a result. You now have a perfect example of why there are no businesses wanting to work in the US. As to the BS about strikes, a group of workers doesn't have to be in a union to protest bad working conditions, there is OSHA, Wage and labor board and a host of other bureaus that workers can go to. Unions are killing business and the union supporters only think about themselves....me, me, me.

This is a perfect example of WHY businesses move offshore. Unless you belong to a union you don't get a job????? Please, hate capitalism and move to Cuba or some other failed communist state. The Chinese are communist in everything but business, wonder why?

With the economy tanking do we need more BS from union friendly government? Guess the goal is to fix it so that no one has a job. American companies can't compete globally if they stay here and one of the major contributing factors (not the only, by a long shot) is pandering to unions.

Same old thing, "show me the money". In a right to work state you do have the right to work, for less. What is wrong with paying a workers a living wage. Those workers build those planes that last for twenty or so years. The production workers work on them for about three months or less. Why do people think the unions came into being, because the workers were being paid too much. In the early days the working conditions were intolerable, working 30 years as a union journeyman carpenter, when I was an apprentice I knew welders who worked on the Golden Gate Bridge, and carpenters who worked on the dams along the Columbia River, and Mt. Shasta, working conditions were hard, dangerous, and no margin for safety. So the unions came into being, the carpenter's union in 1888, others branched off later. Most of the problems were about forming a union. I don't know why people hate the unions so much. I know why the robber barons hate them. They only exist to protect the workers. What is wrong with being paid a decent wage and coming home in one piece at night. In the end it is about justice!!!

Mygirl/DickC, thanks for your common sense response!

Barlow...why are you assuming that those in right to work states are not making a living wage?

I keep forgetting that the CoH doesn't matter in the Business section of NewsVine. Gary @ 1.9, at least I'm bright enough to use the adverb "too" when I call someone "not to (sic) bright". I do not have to justify my posting in this teabag section, but I will: I have worked in aerospace for 1/2 of my adult life, as a mainframe operator on the Apollo Project back when the Original 7 came to our plant in Huntington Beach all the time. I worked for McDonnell Douglas, for Rockwell, for Hughes and for a few other firms on and off because Nixon effed up the economy then, and jobs were going south. Unlike you, I have a degree in English, I also have an A.A. in comp. sci; so I'm pretty well-rounded in the science/liberal arts. I would have become a teacher save for a disability; so, I am working on going to Law School in order to work on Voters' Rights, sadly needed down here in the South.

So, I know what it is to work in a union shop - great - and what it is to work as a slave in a temp situation. Anyone who wants a right to work state is just unpatriotic, completely unAmerican, and one of the GOP greedy bloodsuckers.

So if one does not believe the government should direct work toward union-only manufacturing plants, one is considered "unpatriotic", "unAmerican", and a "bloodsucker" ?????

Isn't that pushing things a bit ???

Raised by Wolves...You have all of that and still can't work because of a disability. What a shame that you do not avail yourself of EEOC regulations or rights under the Americans with disabilities act....So how is it you can't work but you can study?

Unions are full of slack jawed, loud mouthed, fat, lazy, sorry sacks of puke.

Do you want to know why companies moved so many jobs offshore? Because some sorry lazy fat POS wants $45 an hour to put on lugnuts. Thats the union for you!

Look at unions - very few are really any good anymore. Mostly they work against the comanies their employees are paid by. Unions would be different if they bargained and helped the companies keep good profits as well as make sure that the workers are treated fairly.

By ensuring that non-skilled and minimally skilled labor pulls down $40-50 per hour, they have effectively sealed the doom of these companies. Whenever you cannot replace some slack jawed loud mouth ignorant retard with a new hire - you have done the same thing. Come on guys, do you really think that these union workers are worth 50 an hour to put on tires or watch a robot? They aren't - plain and simple. America is based upon competition. Whenever you cannot get new hires and fire the non-productive union guys - then you have eliminated competition.

I am extremely anti-union myself. I was forced to be part of the CWA back in Bell Atlantic and the early days of Verizon. I spent a decade there. Sure, the pay was good, and the management of those companies was terrible. The union interfaced and bargained for worker rights. But the union also very much against the company - it in fact encouraged people to be non-productive. They protected bad workers with terrible repeat ratios and encouraged more people act the same. On top of that they took 15 bucks a week - and gave those of us who worked hard absolutely nothing for our money.

I will never forget the CWA - or being forced to pay out to them. They have ensured that I will forever and always be anti-union until the day I die.

Good.. so the only organization that actually gave employees a voice is now muted so Boeing can work them as hard and long for as little pay as they want. Good-bye quality assurance. 100 bucks says we see and increase in Boeing plane crashes.

Barlow-1919963,

There's nothing wrong with a Union when the Union is voluntary. But that is where the problem is. Unions in non-Right to Work States are not voluntary. Unions can create situations where they can force individuals to join the Union as a precondition of work. That violates that individuals universal human right to work. You should have the freedom to associate with whom you will, and as a part of that the freedom to join a Union if it suits you. But respect for an individuals right to join a Union and freedome to associate for work also requires that we respect individuals freedom and choice to not join a Union if it does not suit them.

You act as though anyone not joining a Union will automatically be paid less than Union workers, and that is patently false. Unions often institute work rules and contract negotiations whereby invididuals who are outstanding and worthy of higher pay due to merit are unable to bargain individually for more because of those onerous regulations.

But either way, that is not the highest consideration here. If an individual finds their particular situation is better off by not joining a Union, then they ought to have the liberty to not have to contribute to it. This can be for many reasons. They may be politically inclined against the Union (most of which spend the vast majority of their campaign money on Democratic causes, which individual members may be completely opposed to) enough that they find value in not belonging to it and contributing to it, even if being a part of the Union contributed to higher wages for them. But they should be free to make that decision. Workers may not find the Union is getting them enough wage increase and protection for the amount of money being taken from them for the Union membership. And if they are not being well represented, they ought to have the freedom to reject association with that Union without having their employment held hostage. It would be extremely naive to think that the goals and best interests of Union leadership are always aligned with the best interest of the Union members and workers themselves. When the Union can force members not to be able to leave or face termination, there is little recourse the average member has, and giving them the freedom to leave gives them the ultimate way in which toregister their disatisfaction. While this may not be great for entrenched Union leadership, it's ultimately good for the Union members because it aligns incentives such that the Leadership must work towards getting the best value for their members, in order to ensure they keep their members.

But the long and short is that Unions are not just about protecting workers abuse and dangerous conditions, or getting them a "living wage". If that's all it was, you would not see the vast popular rejection of what Unions have turned into today. Union leadership routinely works towards inefficiency, and institute rules designed to generate insitutional power rather than creating better products or safety for their workers. Union leadership also routinely fails their members by demanding wages so high that it near guarantees many in their membership will have difficulty even getting a job, wages that have little to do with being "livable", and more to do with "greed".

In a just world, Unions would need to be voluntary. And that is ultimately what Right to Work law is about. Unions are not some magical construct immune to the corruption of entrenched power, and political special interests. Contrary to proponents claims, they do not always represent the best interests of their members. So in order to guard individuals against any abuses by them, individuals must have the right not to be forced to join them just to get a job.

The right and freedom to refuse to join a Union is about making sure that justice is honored.

And respecting an individuals freedom is one of the higher callings patriotic Americans can aspire to,

South Carolina shouldn't get too dependent on tax money from this plant. The next stop for Boeing will be some country with even lower cost workers. This is what happened to the textile industry.

This is is just another step on the path of converting the US into a third world country.

FormerMarineSgt

What the article fails to mention and what you do not know, is that they had a unoin there until in Septemeber of 2009 the worker voted it out. That election was overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. BTW regardless of many on here write, the wages in the Carolinas are not low.

By Andy Owens
aowens@scbiznews.com
Published Sept. 10, 2009

Boeing workers in North Charleston voted to decertify the Machinists union by a vote of 199 to 68 this afternoon.

The election was held by the National Labor Relations Board in response to a petition an employee filed for union decertification in July.

The results of the vote won’t be official until certified by the National Labor Relations Board seven days after the vote, said Boeing Charleston spokeswoman Candy Eslinger. She said that window gives time for any objections to be lodged.

So, why don't the union workers in Washington apply for the jobs in SC....then register to vote! Eventually, as the quality of life continues to deteriorate, there will be a revolt similar to the 1930's in the U.S. We've done it before, why does everyone think we can't do it again?

Where is it written that the government must protect a union's right to bludgeon an employer into bending to its capricious and self-centered will?

Unions realize that their times have passed and they are more hindrance than help to employees these days. Yet, like any special interest group that is happy to continue riding the gravy train they set in motion - they don't want to give up their special privledges - whether it helps the country or the public. They are screwing the public and ultimately screwing the workers they purport to be trying to help.

Here's hoping that Boeing gives the union and the NLRB both bloody noses and kicks them out of their plant(s). You can't be competitive when you have freeloaders - in the form of costs mandated and enforced by government for special interest groups - sucking the life out of your business - there is a name for it "feather bedding".

I do not work because I'm 65. I cannot sit for more than 10 minutes. I cannot work under bright light. I cannot drive very far. I use a cane, and since it is degenerative, I can look for more of this. What I can do is read; so, I'm thinking that maybe I can find an emeritus situation where I can take a class on-line at Emory or somewhere - one a semester because sometimes I hurt so much that I cannot think. So, for all of you who think I don't like what you've said above, you are more than right.

For all of you who are not happy being called greedy bloodsuckers, watch Zorro, the Gay Blade and call yourself Esteban.

The following states have a Right to Work law:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming

RaisedByWolves,

Your points might be better taken if you refrained from breaking the Newsvine code of conduct and did not resort to name calling and insults. There is in fact a civilized and respectful way to discuss this topic even when you have divergent view points.

I called no one names. However I was called "not to (sic) bright". If you fit into the slots I outlined, you did it yourself, not me.

There is no civilized way to discuss business with a bunch of people who believe that all value must come to them and to hell with everyone else.

If Boeing would have fired a 1000 workers for being in the union and then hired a 1000 in carolina the unions and the NLRB would have a valid point.

No jobs were lost in Washington, just additional jobs added at another new plant.

Not sure how they can force a temporary plant to go permanent. I don't see how the government can force business decisions like that.

I have 16 years in a union by the way, but don't understand this at all.

I am a union worker who works at a very profitable company. I'm paid well and have medical benefits. A 401 k that the company contributes to. I have to say though, since i'm a good capitalist, I can't wait for my state to become a right to work state. I'm looking forward to losing my medical, 401 k and high hourly rate compared to a lot of jobs here. One of the benefits will be the reduction in traffic from the nearby right to work state who take jobs here because they can't get a decent wage in their own state.

Since the capitalist ideal is market demand, I can't wait to see how low my pay will go in a economy that has so many unemployed people in it. But this is as it should be. Never mind that the company makes the profit it does off of my labor, think of how much better their profit margin will be if they can pay me minimum wage??? Capitalism prevails!!!

And speaking of minimum wage, we need to get rid of that, too. Too socialistic. Let the market rule!!! As Scrooge said, let the surplus population die off so we have a much better world.

And lets go hell bent for leather on automation! You don't have to pay a machine. Wonderful. Make sure you use those self checkouts at the supermarket and wallmart. That way they can increase profits by employing less, providing cheaper goods to the consumere. I have to admit I'm a bit fuzzy on just who they're going to sell to though, since most will be living below the poverty line or worse, but I"m sure capitalism will figure it out and uh, well.... something.

Raised by wolves...

There is no civilized way to discuss business with a bunch of people who believe that all value must come to them and to hell with everyone else.

Isn' that the basic premise of a Union....Join or don't work. I find you point rather unclear. It seems that you are absolutely in favor of Unions and States as well as Federally subsidized entities that support them to the exclusion of those who wish to work and support themselves and their families. please state your premise more clearly. It seems to me that Unions have done more to damage the American economy than those who wish to provided to the best of their ability. After all every individual should have the opportunity to rise to the top of their own vocation or skill regardless of that skill or vocation. What is the point of a job well done if someone who is trying and failing will be compensated at the same scale as the one who is truly a craftsman or master? There really is none if mediocrity is all that is rewarded.

This is an airplane that they will be building at this plant. Do you really want to fly on a plane that was built by cheap labor or one that was built by skilled union tradespeople?

The NLRB is way out of line on this one. States have, do, and will in the future compete for businesses to locate there. The reason in NONE of the NLRB's business. Strike, union wages, too slow on production, whatever. That's the companies decision. Also, these agencies aren't there to do things at the whim of politicians. WE pay for Boeing's products provided to the government. If they can make them as well for less---why not? Better than taking it overseas. Really, stupid best describes their action. The NLRB will lose this one.

RaisedByWolves, you said:

"Anyone who wants a right to work state is just unpatriotic, completely unAmerican, and one of the GOP greedy bloodsuckers."

I favor Right to Work States, and would like to see my State become one. I am not a member of the Republican party. I am an ex-Democrat and now political independent. You have painted all people who see the value in Right to Work law with a broad brush of insults.

I never questioned nor ridiculed your intelligence. I presented what I see as valid reasons to support Right to Work law. You on the other hand got angry and resorted to insults that included all people who disagree with you, including me.

I'm not unpatriotic. I love my country very much. I don't always agree with it's leadership, either Republicans or Democrats, I can find enough fault to go around on all sides of the political spectrum. But I do have faith in the resilience and ingenuity of the American people, myself included.

Yet, for my embrace of giving individuals the freedom to demand that their Union better represent them for the money they have taken from them in membership dues or be able to leave that Union, you have painted me as a "greedy bloodsucker", and wrongly as a part of the GOP.

Drakkonist....Are you the least bit aware of labor laws that are imposed by Federal legislation? It seems you don't fully understand the ideals of a competitive workforce either.

I live in a right to work state and go figure we have companies and industries that offer competitive wages, 401K's with employee matching funds, exceptional work benefits including outstanding medical, vacation pay, sick pay, tuition assistance and bonus structures based on the companies overall profitability. Many companies offer on site day care or subsidized rates to quality day care facilities, discount dry cleaning and associated benefits to local businesses like nail or hair salons/barbers, car care etc. I know of a couple of companies that will compensate employees to volunteer at their local schools. You might consider doing a bit of research before you decide to post what you seem to know little about.

“I do not believe unelected bureaucracies should be allowed to go down the road the NLRB is charting,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in a statement.

of course he is going to say that, he is talking about money for his state. he would say that if he was a dem.

The governments in Europe give Airbus billions of dollars to compete with Boeing. The government in the United States tries to make Boeing less competitive with Airbus. What's wrong with this picture? Do you progressive/liberals really want to have all manufacturing jobs in the US go away? Just to support your unions? Because of products like the ones that Boeing builds the world has become a very small place that people can go wherever they want to do whatever they want to do. Boeing has not shut down any manufacturing in Washington State but they have made a lot of people in S. Carolina real happy.

Why are progressive/liberals always so unhappy all the time?

RIO-lover: "This is an airplane that they will be building at this plant. Do you really want to fly on a plane that was built by cheap labor or one that was built by skilled union tradespeople?"

Why do you assume that non-Union tradesmen are unskilled? Why do you assume that a company hiring non-Union tradesmen would employ unskilled labor for a job that requires skills, particularly for a product that necessarily has such high and exacting regulation safety standards it must meet, or the company would stand to lose profits as their sales tanked? Why do you assume that Union labor is higher quality, particularly when Unions have a record of protecting mediocre employees along with their great employees? (evidenced enough by the products coming out of the Unionized auto-manufacturer plants compared to some of those coming out of the Right to Work States)

not to bright are you?

ha ha

aceman

Unions are full of slack jawed, loud mouthed, fat, lazy, sorry sacks of puke.

Don't sugar coat it please tell us what you really think of union workers.

Do you want to know why companies moved so many jobs offshore? Because some sorry lazy fat POS wants $45 an hour to put on lugnuts. Thats the union for you!

Look at unions - very few are really any good anymore. Mostly they work against the comanies their employees are paid by. Unions would be different if they bargained and helped the companies keep good profits as well as make sure that the workers are treated fairly.

By ensuring that non-skilled and minimally skilled labor pulls down $40-50 per hour, they have effectively sealed the doom of these companies. Whenever you cannot replace some slack jawed loud mouth ignorant retard with a new hire - you have done the same thing. Come on guys, do you really think that these union workers are worth 50 an hour to put on tires or watch a robot? They aren't - plain and simple. America is based upon competition. Whenever you cannot get new hires and fire the non-productive union guys - then you have eliminated competition.

Just where does a nonskilled union worker make $50 an hour?

I am amused because the same mentality that wants to dictate to Boeing that they must stay in Washington and use union labor is the same mentality that keeps collapsing the posts on here that are not pro-liberal or pro-union. There is nothing offensive about any of these collapsed posts, unless you are a liberal and happen not to agree with them. Strong arm tactics are the only way that unions/liberals can prevail (whether it be dictating where a company can hire or censoring opinions contrary to theirs.)

The "thug-ocracy" is alive and well at the NLRB and MSNBC!

One way to REALLY improve this list would be to get rid of censorship (collapsing). It's nothing more than a tool for liberals to stifle ideas they disagree with.

It's only a matter of time when Boeing will throw in the towel and leave my state because of the unfriendly business environment created by incompetent Washington politicians, and never ending union greed and shortsidedness.

Hey JPM, IT called, apparently you spent all day on newsvine talking to yourself. Please pick up your final pay check on the way out the door. Signed, Billion Dollar CEO

Mygirl, MANY MANY companies moved offshore that have nothing to do with unions. As a poster said above, companies have been proven NOT to be profitable to investors, but much more for the execs. Much as you guys want to, you can't blame unions for all loss of jobs. Companies will always move to the next country where they can pay someone $1 day to make their product. IF they start demanding more than $1, then they go to the next poorest country.

JPM, I'm not actually a union defender, but PLEASE get your facts str8 before posting. Your claim that the bailouts were a disaster are rediculous. You need to look at the money tax payers made off of bailouts. We made a ton of money on the banks and received more than we invested. All but a very small amount has been paid back by auto. Had we held onto the Chrysler stock a little longer, we would have made money on that one as well, but the GOV dumped them too soon. Much like a regular investor, made a bad timing choice. If you don't think keeping auto in business didn't keep our recession from turning into a depression, then I have some swamp land I need to show you. You have any idea how many more people would have been unemployed and on unemployment???? How many small business people who sell parts, etc to auto would have filed bankruptcy? I'm continually amazed how you people live in your little perfect bubble.

Why is this post collapsed and many of the comments? It is unbelievable to me that someone is so unsure of their positions that they have to collapse anyone who makes a valid point that they cannot counter (except with vitriol and hatred).

Grow up people--both sides, we can have intelligent conversations.

Whitewashing the Auto Bailouts
GM's Phony Bailout Payback
General Motors Will Never Repay Taxpayers

wives fan,

The fact of the matter is American taxpayers have been shafted by the auto bailouts. Those companies should have gone through normal and legal bankruptcy proceedings, because they would have come out stronger in the end, they wouldn't have violated secured debt holders rights in the process, and we all wouldn't still be on the hook to eat the losses they've incurred. Chrysler was never a matter of "holding on till the right time", the amount Chrysler stock would have had to increase to make it a worthwhile investment is beyond any reasonable expectation.

The U.S. Auto industry was not going to collapse, nor were the people who sold parts to them. GM or Chrysler would have restructured. The Right to Work States, (And Ford who did not take a bailout and produces using Union plants) would have continued to produce, and would have picked up any excess production that might have been lost as GM and Chrysler went through that restructuring. And, as a correlation, Ford and the other Right to Work State manufacturers would not have been as badly *harmed* by the intrusive government interference on the UAWs behalf.

It's not a perfect bubble. There would have been pain. But it was a necessary transition and adjustment to come out stronger in the long run. Instead, we insulated those companies from the cost of their own poor decisions and in a very large part rewarded them for it, practiced crony capitalism on behalf of entrenched special interests, and hurt and continue to hurt the American taxpayer.

If you would check the actual facts, my statements are not ridiculous, they are true.

Linda Luke - thanks for posting the right-to-work states. With a few exceptions, lots of poor people who make low wages. The Wal-Marts in AZ hand out forms to apply for government aid and benefits (like food stamps, low-income health care, aid to dependent children, etc.) when an employee is hired. So, the TAX PAYERS SUBSIDIZE WAL-MART, despite their billions in profit. Hey, that's great!

JPM77 - You're right that Union membership should be voluntary. It's only fair. Of course, if you don't join the union and pay for union membership, you would have to turn down any benefit from the unions. Fair is fair.

Linda Luke, you forgot NY and aside from that anyone who thinks right-to-work is intended to protect the American worker needs to have their head examined.

I agree, and I don't have any problem with that Deborah, if you don't join the Union you are entitled to only what you can get for yourself, not what any other Unions can get for you.

But to say that the taxpayers subsidize something like Walmarts profits because some employees that work for them go and take advantage of existing welfare benefits, is more than a stretch. Walmart should be paying the market wage for the work it's employees do, which should be derived for efficiency from the combination of the supply and demand for that labor. If the people who have decided on their own accord that it is worth their time to do those jobs for the salary offered qualify for welfare benefits, that is not Walmarts problem, nor is it their responsibility to provide higher salaries to compensate for it. Welfare benefits go to subsidize the individuals who are in that situation, they could try to find different work that pays more, or to seek more education to attain higher paying jobs, or seek additional work to supplement their income. Blaming Walmart for market conditions, and an individuals choices in terms of engaging that market is not really rational. If the jobs were actually providing real productive value that was higher, the market would support a higher wage for it.

Look, I'm not out to crush Unions. I worked as a non-Union Laborer in construction in the past, I know what it's like to work in that kind of environment, it's dangerous, it's dirty, and it's pretty physically brutal on your long term health. I also knew some Union guys that did good work. They ought to have the freedom to belong to those Unions if they want. I've been an unemployed student who had no benefits and subsisted on nothing but Ramen in the past living in cramped, rat and roach infested quarters. I'm not a stranger to not having a lot.

But I opted not to stay there because of that. I used the money I did make doing it to buy books, taught myself a good bit of computer programming, and eventually took out some loans which I will probably be paying back for the next 30 years to go to school and learn how to do software engineering properly, and database development, and economics. Now I make a good living, but it's been hell getting here, especially because I also deal with some fairly severe health problems from time to time.

But ultimately you're responsible for yourself. People want to be a part of a Union voluntarily because that Union provides them with enough benefits that they think it's worth the Union dues? Great, go for it, you ought to have that freedom to associate. But your freedom to associate ends where everyone elses begins, and you should not have the right to force others to join you. If you want to try to convince them to join you? Wonderful. If you want to try and work toward providing better benefits for being a part of your group in an effort to entice them to join you? Great! But you should not have the legal standing to deny them a job through your employer because they will not come be a part of your group, because at that point you violate their freedom to associate.

Drakkonis,

And lets go hell bent for leather on automation! You don't have to pay a machine. Wonderful. Make sure you use those self checkouts at the supermarket and wallmart.

We should also bring back the buggy whip industry. Luddite.

So do those that say that unions protect the middle class and provide a living wage also support the checkout person at the grocery store making $35/hour? What about the guy at Walmart, should they make $35/hour? What about your paperboy? Afterall, you are for people making a living wage and being middle class. Could you imagine the price of your Big Mac at McDonalds if the cook was making $35/hour? But you support that, right?

Or do you only support a living wage for yourself? Or maybe you deem the jobs at McDonald's as not being difficult, not requiring much education. Where anyone could go in and do the job after a little training, so they should not pay as much? I know people and have family that are IAM machinists at Boeing and I can tell you that they lazy, not so intelligent, overpaid, and could not get a job for 1/3 the pay anywhere else because of their lack of skills, drive and education.

I've managed many projects with a mix of unionized and non-unionized workers and here in the great state of NY I see very little difference in the treatment of employees, compensation or work conditions. You know why? Organized labor. It's not just for the members. It's for everybody.

RIO-lover

This is an airplane that they will be building at this plant. Do you really want to fly on a plane that was built by cheap labor or one that was built by skilled union tradespeople?

What an untrue statement. You are saying that only union workers have skills?? You are way off! Just curious, what kind of car do you drive? Believe me, I've worked for large company where their were both union and non union workers. Believe me, these guys were far from being superior, and they did the least they could for their pay. And they thought they were above us who were not in their union. If you asked them a question while they were on break they would tell you to get lost until their break was over. But one day I was on my non union break and one of the union bosses came to me needing info, and I told him to buzz off. He was highly unset, but I couldn't give a rats behind!

Boeing should not have to answer to Big Bad Obama and his buddies. Boeing should tell them all to shove it!

So now they are basically saying that only union workers have the right to work. BO has got to go BO has got to go! I hope that will become a new bumper sticker.

Is there a moderator working on the vine....All these censored remarks and no support from the vine for civil conversation.

Perhaps the moderator IS the liberal hater who collapses every non-liberal post.

My following remarks were collapsed:

Same ole same ole. Companys are going to states with less educated folks so they can pay less.

That was a quote from someone else

That would be "Companies", so maybe you could keep education out of the conversation. That is unless you actually have proof that those being hired are too ignorant to complete a job application. But then it must take a degree in rocket science to willingly hand over presumed hard earned money to over paid union attorneys and politically ambitious shop stewards. Good luck with that rationale.

Why are people, who are beholden to smarter people in the Union hierarchy, more deserving of well paying jobs than those in right to work states? Isn't it better to work for a job than to pay for one?

Nothing in that statement violated the code of ethics that rule this board. It probably hurt the sensibilities of some helpless individual who has no authority over their own life rather must gain some personal fulfillment by attempting to silence others.

Bruce-308647

Perhaps the moderator IS the liberal hater who collapses every non-liberal post.

Talking in circles?

Tyler....Thank you for opening up the discussion again.

RIO-lover:

Don't sugar coat it please tell us what you really think of union workers.

Just where does a nonskilled union worker make $50 an hour?

Ok, to be fair - I was pretty honest. I harbor no love at all for unions. None. I do, however, consider the workers to be good people until they get that 'union attitude'. Once they get the lazy attitude and union mentality they are a lost cause. They think that they should sit around and get paid - and pretty big bank at that - for doing no work!

As soon as your attitude changes from being a productive employee into a union worker, its done. This is my personal experience from having been in a union company. Companies don't want to fire productive employees! They want to get rid of dead weight. In almost all cases the dead weight they want to get rid of is union 'labor'. Imagine that!

As for this 'skilled' union labor - I have yet to see it. I was in a communications company - the only good employees were cable splicers. Thats because they were the 'be all, end all' type of technicians. Systems techs and Service techs were told not to go on the Central Offices (CO's) because of the Union agreement. If I did the Central Office Technician's job, then I was 'stealing food out of someone elses mouth' according to the union. And there in lies the crux of the issue...... As a Tech my job per the Company is to get my customer in service. As a tech per the union, my job was to get service from the D-marc to the customer, and nothing else. The union attitude was to screw over the customer for one, which screws the company for two - because we are not getting satisfied customers - loss of revenue. Not to mention, the faster I get your lines working the faster I can bill you :) The next time you want a phone line or your DSL fixed and it takes DAYS to get it done you can thank a union worker. The real techs fixed most DSL and phone issues in well under 2 hours. No joke.

As for the general average union worker being so skilled..... I don't buy it. They may be specialized, but they are hardly skilled. Thats why you see a lot of foreign cars that last 2x as long as the american ones, and have FAR better warranties. Why? Is that 'unskilled' laborer in another country making a better product? Damn right he is! For as much as we have to pay our UAW peeps, why do we not have the best products on the roads? Simple answer - because they are not worth what you are paying them. They are too busy watching the clock, rather than making quality products and services.

As for the pay, come up to the Washington DC area or Virginia and Maryland. Become a Union Steward - and completely suck at everything you do. Be sure to be idle as much as possible and have a surly attitude. In the Phone Company this will get you a management position in NO time and you will be making $50 ( maybe a little less, but not much) per hour. Yes, they also hire management right off of the streets, too.

South Carolina shouldn't get too dependent on tax money from this plant. The next stop for Boeing will be some country with even lower cost workers. This is what happened to the textile industry.

You mean the textile industry that was by the end 99% unionized? Yeah, now why was that?

Unions are what chased away the American jobs.

RIO-lover is just confused over the cost of employing someone vs what they get in their paycheck. Whether these people are ignorant as to the way things work or just want to deny it in the interest of organized labor bashing is up to them. The fact remains, like it or not, union bashshers, they've helped every working man or woman in America. And I'm a management guy who's managed jobs both union and non-union. Until you can put yourself in my shoes your opinion don't mean crap.

Unions are what chased away the American jobs.

Greed sent the jobs away. Average CEO pay went up 24% last year. There are plenty of jobs that are unionized that can't be outsourced. If a company can use Chinese labor at 23 cents an hour they will use it. Plenty on non union jobs that was paying minimum wage have been moved to China.

Unions are not the reason 1 million customer service jobs went overseas. I've never heard of a customer service union. If China had mandatory English classes in less than 10 years all the jobs that was sent to India would go right to China.

Amazing, I'm very worried about education in United States, I know common sense can't totally be taught but with a little experience you've got to gain something. It is asinine to tell any company who they have to hire and what they have to pay. That's why there's no business in US. That's why all american auto manufacturers went bankrupt, Unions causing unprofitable wages, benefits and all. Then add the thieving attorneys ambulance chasing any company with money, What they can't kill EPA, OSHA, environmentalists, and we wonder why there is no work in America. Everyone can't be that dumb. NLRB need unfunded, closed down the federal government has NO business in telling businesses and companies what and where they can do it. The only thing they should be doing is Not allowing companies to bring foreign products into America, US name or not foreign products should not be allowed. Thanks for bailouts so GM could go build plant in Mexico, all union workers, all smart educated, right you union supporters are beyond idiocy, face the FACTS. Please explain how proper wages should be determined.

nonsense Wayne

It is embarrassing to imagine that the NLRB and Unions see destruction of America as a benefit to it's members. It could be the members too have a different agenda for America. Perhaps they don't recall what happened to the Textile Industry.

One thing for certain, the current trend in the decision making process of America's leaders seems focused on doing everything wrong and making case for China's success. Embarrassing!

It is embarrassing to see the assault on unions that are taking place in republican controlled legislatures across the country. Now a corporation is trying to take advantage of that movement by making statements that clearly violate labor laws and they expect labor to just roll over and accept their demise. I have a feeling the elections in 2012 will be the most important election in 200 years. We have to determine if the citizens of this country are here at the mercy of corporations or the other way around. Left to the Republicans and SCROTUS of the US, corporations are the real citizens of the US while those working for corporations are simply "guests" of the corporations.

Raging Capitalist - I would suggest that its sad to see that CEO's and Shareholders see the destruction of America as a benefit to themselves. To me, its awfully silly to talk about the "greed" of Union workers, demanding better pay (which may or may not be justified) and completely leaving out the 500 million a year CEO and their shareholders, who put their personal profits ahead of the company's overall success...or the nations success.

China's success is a direct result of manufacturing jobs shipped to china. Without our jobs, China isnt what they are today.

This is part and parcel with the riduculous tarrif policy (which no other nation is as awful as ours). Our workers simply CANT compete, and thats reality.

If everyone wants to work for severely depressed wages, while CEO's and Shareholders are the only people capable of making a quality wage...then, by all means...stand with the CEO's and Shareholders and Republicans.

The rest of us, will continue to stand with the rest of the American workers who've already been shown the door for simply asking for a quality wage in comparison to the work they provide.

As for Unions/Leaders who are reaching too far...they should be lumped in the same group of the CEO's and Shareholders who are reaching too far.

But alas, the republicans/conservatives never seem to see it that way.

Stupid is as STupid will continue to do...America, the experiment is on the verge of fail. Turns out, greed isnt always a good thing. Sometimes, having a sense of community - working together, is better than unbridled greed.

Drano, If union members keep causing the problems they are, and they are, you needn't worry about 2012. Just one more nail in the union coffin. People are sick of hearing it, tired of WI. and union this and union that. 12% of US workers are union. 88% are not. Even a sympathy vote won't win it. WI was the beginning of the end and every other incident just speeds it along.

There are several issues here at play all at once.

1. Boeing is trying to hold the US hostage with their Dreamliner manufacturing. Their CEO already touted how great it was to outsource big chunks of the manufacturing of the major pieces of the plane to China and elsewhere (than just make it all in WA where they have their main plant). The fact that they opened a plant in SC rather than China says a lot about concessions made by the Obama Administration!
2. Unions have really blown it in the last several years. Look no further than to the short-sighted decisions of US Auto to see how Union-concessions rewarding short-sighted executive decisions lead to the host-company's downfall (job-banking anyone?)
3. US Fiscal policy is abysmal! We need to stop inflating the dollar and we need to have the Fed raise its rate! The low Fed rate, which allows big businesses and the US government to borrow huge sums of money for virtually nothing is both allowing China to undervalue its own currency while simultaneously boosting ours! Ordinarily, a low Fed rate should devalue one's currency, but China is purchasing US-paper anyway. The low Fed rate is instead erroding people's savings, promoting economic bubbles, killing domestic business and fueling the outsourcing trend to other countries with cheaper currencies.

It's too bad that large multinational corporations like the position we are in right now! It's going to require a huge meltdown in US-credit before anything changes.

"Americans will always do the right thing...after they've exhausted all the alternatives"

--Winston Churchill

A very complex issue to be sure. Unions are not always right as they often demand wages that are not in line with skills, education or the market and protect bad workers. But corporate America is not exactly right either in their belief that they should be able to do whatever they want in a "capitalist" society. We workers do not have total "free choice" in our jobs. And if we do choose to "work", this choice should not leave us vulnerable to unsafe working conditions, wages so miniscule that we either have to work 2 to 3 jobs to survive or live in abject poverty or be exploited or abused. There has to be a balance between the two.

Unfortunately, neither of our political parties represent that balance. In the old days when they more often than not worked together and could compromise, the two extremes would mostly pull something together that balanced. Nowadays both parties (and unfortunately most of our citizenry) are not capable or mature enough to compromise and thus we just keep going back and forth between one bad choice and another.

It is embarrassing to see the assault on unions that are taking place in republican controlled legislatures across the country. Now a corporation is trying to take advantage of that movement by making statements that clearly violate labor laws and they expect labor to just roll over and accept their demise. I have a feeling the elections in 2012 will be the most important election in 200 years. We have to determine if the citizens of this country are here at the mercy of corporations or the other way around. Left to the Republicans and SCROTUS of the US, corporations are the real citizens of the US while those working for corporations are simply "guests" of the corporations

Union members are not the best at what they do if they think they are why do they need union protection?

Jessica & Drano

As a Boeing shareholder (and most of us are) I expect the company to do everything it can to develop the best products and control costs to maximize my return on investment. If the company determines that building a new facility in SC will be more cost effective, I expect them to do so. This is their fiduciary responsibility.

The union works for the company. The company does not exist for the benefit of the union. Ironically, all Boeing's unionized employees are shareholders as well given a portion of their pensions are held in Boeing stock.

By the way, no labor laws were broken. If the WA plant had been closed, that would be another matter. There is nothing in the labor laws protecting jobs as yet uncreated.

The unions are getting what the paid for OUR GOVERNMENT!! I guess the people in SC don't have a right to jobs only people in communist Washington state get jobs!

sjacobs123 - One of the best posts I have seen on any subject matter.

Larry your full of it. unions have never been afraid to match there skill against non union workers . how many of your right to work state workers have a 4 year education in collage. all union workers in the electrical union have to attend 4 years of collage. as compared to some redneck worker who has a 9Th grade education. let me ask you this would you rather have a educated Dr. "brain surgeon" operate on you or some non educated redneck person who thinks he can do the job. it's about money . and the big companies don't want to pay a fair wage.but thats ok remember your going to be flying on that non union airplane good luck when the first one go's down. just think for a few bucks your ass will be on the line.

all union workers in the electrical union have to attend 4 years of collage.

It's college not collage.

Apparently, they don't teach spelling to electrical union workers but I'm pretty sure they teach spelling to 9th grade rednecks.

stopthespending-2291099

And North Carolina is a union state....a right to work state where the employees choose whether they want to be a union member.

=============

What is it with you cons? You can't even frame an arguement in a cohesive manner. First of all, the state is in question is South Carolina, not North. Second, you're confused. You claim NC is a union state, then preceed to tell us, in your next breath, it is a right to work state. Which is it?

Ignorant people are dangerous. Sometimes when I read the drivel the cons post the thought runs through me I hope and pray they really aren't as ignorant as they appear.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Jessica-1170252

China's success is a direct result of manufacturing jobs shipped to china. Without our jobs, China isnt what they are today.

Jessica, I disagree with you and here is why. For the past sixty plus years the US has played the global cop and wasted tremendous amounts of money. Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, etc. Our defense budget is bigger than the next six countries combined. While we've wasted our money and lives the Chinese haven't. Yes, they've sent troops to various conflicts but nothing like what we've done. They invested their capital in their manufacturing base, in high speed rail, etc. and they are now seeing the fruits of their labor. We can not continue on the path we've been on for the past sixty years. This country is falling apart. It is time to bring our troops home from around the world, close our foreign bases and start rebuilding America. Unfortunately, as polarized as this country has become that will not be an easy task.

Phil W...Please get spell check before you decide to help.

drano - Since you obviously didn't notice it, Boeings decision was made before the so-called "anti-union" movement was "started by Republican legislators". The real problem has been the ownership of Dem politicians by unions, which is why Boeing felt it need to move to new state and why taxpayers showed Dems the door in 2010.

"The battle centers around Boeing’s 2009 decision to build a second assembly line for its much-delayed 787 "Dreamliner" in North Charleston, S.C."

wolf -

Perhaps your brain is too small to realize things can be two things!

A right to work state doesn't mean unions are outlawed. It means you CHOOSE whether to join the union or not. It's no longer compulsory. The union and the NLRB know that people who don't HAVE to join the union probably will not, and that screws with THEIR money, so they whine and moan and throw a tanrtum like a toddler.

Last I checked, the unions and the NLRB weren't on the Board of Directors of Boeing, and as such should have ZERO say in how they conduct their business if it falls within the law. Seeing as no law has been broken, they need to get bent.

Well, this court case may result in the loss of election campaign funds from Boeing to our three Washington State Democratic representatives.

Wait, Senator Murray campaigned on "saving Boeing jobs" in Washington State even before the tanker deal was finalized.

The NLRB is on track with this one to permanently damage the Unions. So, may as well forget those "sit ins" and "Fist" placards.

BTW, SEIU Lerner....how is your "collapsing the economy" going, even with Mr. Obama's "SEIU's agenda is my agenda" ?

• http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/6808-former-union-official-exposes-plot-to-collapse-us-economy
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM

RVK $ Dadze,

Nothing to contribute, so you attack a person for a honest misspelled word. Pitiful.

I expect the company to do everything it can to develop the best products and control costs to maximize my return on investment. If the company determines that building a new facility in SC will be more cost effective, I expect them to do so. This is their fiduciary responsibility.

Yes. Just think how much better things would have turned out for the taxpayer and auto investers/employee stock purchases had Chrysler stood up to Union demands and took the responsibility that Boeing is. Boeing is smart to take steps to prevent the Union's potential destruction.

Fletch, that guy came on here insisting that anyone not in a union was a redneck moron and that he was so much smarter by virtue of being in a union. Then he misspells college, spells goes "go's" and doesn't capitalize the first letter of every sentence.

He deserved what he got. Perhaps he couldn't read the computer screen from up on his high horse.

Let's see, this NLRB is an Obama panel, selected in 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board

Now they've injected themselves (who asked?) into a major U.S. and world aircraft producer affair that runs the risk of sending big money to (European) Airbus or off to the China mainland.

Perhaps Boeing should seriously consider leaving the U.S. entirely if they are (literally) red-taped by Obama's NLRB to forego relocation to Carolina where it will NOT be unionized.

Go ahead, Obama, completely screw up our America you took an oath to protect...

Hi Jessica,

I think you pose a danger to the USA, but not intentionally. Your sentiment, that businesses should care about their workers and our nation, aside from any business concern, is shared by I think most Americans today. It's too bad. Businesses should be amoral and profit driven, not socially conscious or nativistically inclined. This isn't to say we should let firms do anything they want, but so long as they play within the rules we set up for them, then we should leave them be to conduct their affairs.

The reason I think your idea, your sentiment, is so damaging to our nation, is that you do not trust (as a consequence of your sentiment) your fellow citizens to make wise consumer choices. Or your fellow citizens to establish firms and operate them as they see fit. It's a shorthand, if you will, for wanting others to act as you think is right. And this clearly is not the essence of the USA. No, your idea places liberty far down the list of desirables, if it even makes the list.

If a firm chooses to leave the USA because tax and regulatory policy is so detrimental, to you this is wrong, but not because the tax and regulatory policies are wrong, but because that firm isn't acting how you want. I have a few suggestions. First, start up your own firm and operate it how you want, deal with the government as I do, and if you continue to conclude we need ever more bureaucracy in order to perfect the business climate, well I would withdraw my conclusions about you. Second, buy Boeing, or any other firm you want, and make your desire known to the BOD--if your asset valule declines when they do as you want, then you are the one paying the price, and should be free to do so. Third, find some place in your mind for the concept of liberty--it is liberty that made the USA great, not (as Obama claims) a national tradition of governmental control and largesse.

The question that I have is why should a person take advantage of the wages and benefits that are negotiated by a union but not have to pay into the entity that negotiated those wages and benefits. Right to work to me is just an excuse to bust unions when you don't have the legal authority to ban unions.

As far as unions themselves, I am personally indifferent. There are bad unions and there are good unions, just like there are lousy employers and good employers. The relationship between the union and management will tend to determine the labor relationship between the two entities. Labor strife usually goes beyond the existence of the union, there are usually other issues.

As far as this decision is concerned, Boeing made some damaging comments in a venue that wasn't protected (a court for example). As a result they are paying for it. Same thing when Boeing was caught trying to curry favour with the Pentagon a few years back with bribes. They got caught, they have to pay for it. Free speech is not something that means you don't face the consequences for what you say, that is anarchy. Boeing could have made FAR more appropriate statements that would have justified a wholesale move to south carolina, let alone this one, without even touching the union issue.

And for the person that mentioned Airbus, you think Airbus doesn't have a union? Airbus's unions are even far more powerful and combative than Boeing's union.

By the way, no labor laws were broken. If the WA plant had been closed, that would be another matter. There is nothing in the labor laws protecting jobs as yet uncreated.

and as long as the line in WA is not closed the NLRB has no problem. Glad to see that you agree that the it would be illegal to close down the line in WA.

Why is it "illegal" for a business to open or close portions of it's own property?

This is getting out of hand. What happened to all the union people claiming that the unions were there to make sure they weren't abused? Now, they're abusing the companies that employ them.

Maybe if we're lucky, this anti-union wave will ride to all 50 states and we can get rid of them all.

Why is it "illegal" for a business to open or close portions of it's own property?

The issue is the reason they publicly used to build a new plant.... fear of a union strike. Union strikes are protected activities. If Boeing had used another reason other than one blatantly illegal we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Seems your question is steeped in rhetoric and the answer I am providing is based in fact, seems ironic given your blog name.

Who cares if striking is protected. Building something because they don't want to lose money during a strike isn't illegal. The STRIKE is legal, not building a plant somewhere where they won't strike so they don't get shut down when the unions decide they want more money for the monkey sorting plane bolts.

Saying the strike is legal but a company protecting themselves against it is illegal is like telling a hockey player high sticking is legal, but wearing pads is illegal.

Saying the strike is legal but a company protecting themselves against it is illegal is like telling a hockey player high sticking is legal, but wearing pads is illegal.

you have a right to an opinion, but not your own set of facts. The simple truth of the matter is that it's illegal to shut down operations in a unionized facility and move those operations to non union facilities simply because the union might someday strike.

At the very least change your name to all rhetoric no fact.

Right after you change yours to union apologist.

drano-2462756

The simple truth of the matter is that it's illegal to shut down operations in a unionized facility and move those operations to non union facilities simply because the union might someday strike.

According to the article, the company says it has added 2,000 union jobs since announcing their intent to build a plant in South Carolina and only intend to close down a production line which was intended to be temporary from the start. That hardly sounds like a company intent on shutting down operations at it's current production facility.

Opening a plant in a Right-to-work state might be damaging to the unions involved, but producing jobs for American workers is highly preferable to the company moving off shore and taking those jobs to another country. Many companies have done just that in the past because of union demands, taxes and government regulations which all work together to strangle profitability. Contrary to the opinion of many unions and their members, businesses are begun with the objective of creating wealth for those who assumed the financial risk of their creation, not to provide a lavish lifestyle for the people they employ. While that tends to happen, it is only a by-product of a healthy, thriving business.

Oh...and the "might someday strike" comment, it's guaranteed that the union will go on strike again, not might. That's how a union controls a company whether it's for better wages and benefits or to protect the laziest of workers, you can take it to the bank that they will hurt the company with a strike.

I think there's a good solution for everyone that hasn't yet been widely tried.

B-corps are companies that include fair compensation, environmental protection, and other social goals in their corporate charter. In states where B corp legislation has been passed, these things are legally enforceable and legally protected.

Investors who want to invest in socially-responsible companies can be sure that the company can't go back on its word without a major reorganization. Employees know that the company will take care of them and the environment. Employers know that they won't be sued by shareholders for sometimes putting people ahead of profit. It means fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is no longer the only measure of a company's performance. And it's completely voluntary. Everyone wins.

Support B corp legislation in your state!

The issue is not unions and collective bargaining, the issue is the inequity
of income and the inequity of wealth in the USA. The corporations contribute to
the inequality by moving the jobs to where folks will work for the lowest wage,
be it in a state with non-union workers or overseas where wages are even lower
and unions are nonexistent. According to the Institute for Policy Studies,
average CEO to average production worker pay has gone from a ratio of 42 to 1 in
1980 to 263 to 1 in 2009, in fact many CEOs make in one day what an average
production worker at their company makes in one year.
In the United States
net wealth and financial wealth is concentrated into relatively few hands, and
according to the data this is a trend which has been continuing for at least 30
years with the continuing concentration of the wealth into fewer and fewer
hands. The latest data available details that the top one percent of Americans
own 42.7% of the nation's total financial wealth and 34.6% of the nation's
total net wealth.

Unions are not the problem. Unions and collective bargaining are an effective
force to combat the inequality of income, the inequality of wealth
and the continual concentration of the wealth into a smaller and smaller
segement at the very top of our society. The propaganda machine of the
ultra-rich and their politically powerful friends would love for the American
people to think that unions are the issue. However, if one does some research
into this matter, it becomes apparent that the workers of the U.S., union and
nonunion, have benefitted greatly from the efforts of unions and collective
bargaining over the years. United States labor unions have achieved these
accomplishments for ALL workers, union and nonunion.

• End child labor
• Establish the legal right of workers to form unions and collectively bargain
  for wages, benefits and working conditions
• Establish the 8 hour work day and paid overtime
• Win workers' comp benefits for workers injured on the job
• Secure unemployment insurance for workers who lose their jobs
• Secure a guaranteed minimum wage
• Improve workplace safety and reduce on the job fatalities
• Win pensions for workers
• Win health care insurance for workers
• Win paid sick leave, vacations, and holidays as standard benefits for most
  workers
• Win the right for public sector workers to collectively bargain
• Win passage of the Civil Right Acts and Title VII which outlaws job
  discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin
• Win passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
• Win passage of the Family Medical Leave Act

Do not believe the right wing propaganda of those who try to tell you unions are no longer relevant. Without the unions and the Democratic Party how long do think it would be until the right wingers began to dismantle all the hard earned gains unions have won for the working people of America?

“We can have democracy in this country,
or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't
have both.”

----Louis D. Brandeis (Supreme
Court Justice, 1916-1939)

Where is it written that the government must protect a union's right to bludgeon an employer into bending to its capricious and self-centered will?

Unions realize that their times have passed and they are more hindrance than help to employees these days. Yet, like any special interest group that is happy to continue riding the gravy train they set in motion - they don't want to give up their special privledges - whether it helps the country or the public. They are screwing the public and ultimately screwing the workers they purport to be trying to help.

Here's hoping that Boeing gives the union and the NLRB both bloody noses and kicks them out of their plant(s). You can't be competitive when you have freeloaders - in the form of costs mandated and enforced by government for special interest groups - sucking the life out of your business - there is a name for it "feather bedding".

This decision does not impact Boeings ability to open or close the plants. The request to have the temporary plant labeled a permanent plant is a union contract thing, and it changes the process that boeing would have to follow to close it. It is a CONTRACTUAL item. Not a legal item.

Essentially what Boeing got nailed for was blackmailing the union during contract negotiations. If they didn't say what they said, there would have been no issue.

The problem with your post Jonathon is that the union contract governs union plants. The South Carolina plant is not a union plant. The union wants control over the non union plants making a union vote a waste of time. According to NLRB, all the union has to do is cry foul to prevent the opening of the plant. This union can't point to one job lost for a union member. If the union think the plant should have been union, according to the NLRB that is all it takes. It doesn't take a plant employee vote. All it takes is the union wanting the plant to be union. Now you wonder why jobs are going overseas and union rolls are shrinking.

ray:

And the decision doesn't impact the South Carolina plant. It has no affect on it. The ONLY thing that has come out of the decision is that the temporary plant in WA state be changed from a temporary plant to a permanent plant. That more than likely only changes the process of shutting down the plant.

So what again is your problem?

I don't understand why people can't just bloody read the article along with the statements that came from the NRLB.

Where is it written that the government must protect a union's right to bludgeon an employer into bending to its capricious and self-centered will?

the same can be said of employers bludgeoning employes to the capricious wills of selfish and greedy executives that keep increasing their own pay and benefits while cutting employees

not all of them are bad, but there are quite a few greedy and rapacious ceos out there.

Thug government agencies and business breaking unions please get out of America, some people want a job.

While South Carolina boasts that BMW brought in many jobs, they fail to say they though jobs are all through a hiring agency outside of the company and the workers are hired as temps with little to no benefits. They are fired when the mood strikes for whatever reason they choose.

What I also found interesting is that BMW came to this country because German workers would not work for the wages offered in their own country. Are we becoming the new third world employers?

No, the deal is back on. Amazon will hire 2,000 people and spend $125 million on the facility. In return, SC will not require the company to charge the state sales tax.

Oh, good. And so no revenue for South Carolina from Amazon sales. What a deal! Look to the ruling class of South Carolina to see just what sort of perks they get in the coming years. This is a deal bought and paid for.

Do you have any ideas on how difficult it is for an company to do business in EMEA? The rules are so stringent its crazy! For instance let just say Germany, (they are about in the middle) If I have an employee in Germany that is not doing his/her job correctly, I can not just fire him/her I have to retrain them and think about providing them with a position they can handle. If I have no such position I can document the issues and let them go! However I will have to pay about a years salary and offer them more training and assist them in finding another job. This same German employee has about 6 weeks of "holidays" and up to 9 months leave for both male and females when babies are born. I have an engineer in Frankfurt whos wife had a baby last year. His wife had the baby in May! He was off for 2 weeks per the EWC (European work council) Then took 6 months paternity leave at full salary, he came back in October, worked for 2 weeks then took vacation until the new year!. So from a business point of view I paid in salary and benefits close to 160k Euros for 3 months worth of work. And his wife is again pregnant this year. Hard to keep a production line moving with those kinds of events!

jolly, What your are sharing is what I know to be true. It will be interesting to see if many of the "entitled", self serving, greedy posters will agree with what Germany does and claim their entitlement to those kinds of benefits.

so strange how personal greed will influence a person and when the consequences catches up to the action (such as what we have seen play out with the loss of US jobs), we cry "unfair". Over the last 50 years, many of the old European jobs came to America and nobody complained, then the US lost jobs to China and so many more countries (not only to cost, but also because the employees of other countries actually wanted to work). We have seen this played out for over since the industrial revolution and yet so many cannot see the repetition of history. Is this a testimony that we are not interested in reading history?

Raised -

No revenue from Amazon sales, however if they hire 2,000 people that will take a bunch of people off of unemployment, saving the state money. That will have a bunch more people paying state income taxes. That will put money in the pocket of a bunch more people, allowing them to spend money on things, bringing in other sales tax revenue.

SC was not getting any revenue from Amazon before the deal, so 2000 jobs and 125 million investment is pretty good. It is only a 5 year exemption from collecting state sales tax, and then it will be collected to generate a new revenue source along with the continued 2000 jobs plus benefits and new property taxes from the beginning. Try to get the facts correct before you label everybody in SC politics corrupt.

Skelmcb,

It's funny how that sort of logic always seems to be overlooked by some people.

Raised ... there is a reason states go recruit these businesses and offer tax cuts. All states do it. They do get a lot of revenue from the business there, from taxes from the employees and all the ancillary businesses that support them. Plus it keeps unemployment down and people off things like medicaid and other state supported programs.

I just love how so many folks are arguing for people to be paid less. How generous of you all.

Boeing's only competitor is EADS and all of EADS plants are unionized with better pay and benefits than Boeing's unions get. So tell me, how does that put them at a competitive disadvantage? The only anwers I can think of is that Boeing's executives get paid much better than their EADS counterparts.

A more logical line of reasoning would be to ask why doesn't Boeing limit it's executive compensation?

The answer to BMW was that auto-workers in Germany only work 36 hours a week and the union wanted to lower that to 34 hours.

Affable,

Why do you think Americans deserve to be paid more? To what extent? Till we are all making $100/hr because bread is $50 a loaf? Why continue this drivel? Bread should not be costing us an arm and a leg. It's the cost of living that is killing this country not our wages.

It's the cost of living that is killing this country not our wages.

I disagree with you. The wages have not kept up with the cost of living, and the outsourcing of jobs overseas's proves it. When is enough is enough, for everyone? Even the Ipad is made in China now, and those workers work in sweat shops and are paid next to nothing.

What Boeing did was wrong. They are trying to break the union by opening this plant right after the strike and they are opening it in a State that has suppressed wages. The Boeing company did this in RETALIATION for the strike, because the workers wouldn't take MAJOR CONCESSIONS.

My son's job at Boeing was sub-contracted out, during this time, and he was laid off for two years. Boeing found that the contract workers for 1/4 of the wages wasn't working out, and the work was NOT getting done. So, Boeing made a a commitment and contract with the union to hire back the laid off workers, BUT they are still trying to keep the laid off workers from being rehired.

Boeing has tried to manipulate the union and break it.......These very large and very PROFITABLE companies are trying to break the back of the union so they can hire cheap labor at 1/4 of the cost, like they do when they outsource to China. Enough is Enough. American Companies need to start supporting the American economy by hiring local and not outsourcing.

These are not "american companies"...they are global companies, some of which currently have an HQ in the US. If it's profitable to have manufacturing in the US, then they will have it here...but if it's not profitable, they will move it to other countries.

I could understand if a fully compensated factory worker was only getting about $15/hour in total compensation, but that's not the case anymore - and it hasn't been the case for 40+ years in the US.

As I said in an earlier (collapsed) post...the union workers are only hurting themselves, because they are the ones that will ultimately lose their jobs when the remaining factories move out of the US.

If companies are now global, shouldn't we stop them from being US citizens, and therefore, they can't give many to campaigns/political ads. I mean is it allowed to try a corporation for treason, and seize the companies assets for the crime?

If corporations are global, shouldn't we stop foreign nationals from influencing the election?

The reason we have union laws is from the corporations would move shop every time an union was formed. Then states were told by the Supreme courts that they couldn't tariff other states products.

If you want to allow corporations to outsource and move state to state, you should allow states to tariff those out of state goods, so the state doesn't go broke.

BTW, right to work states force unions to bargain for employees that don't belong to the organization. Should we now force lawyers to represent clients and if the law suit goes class action, the rest of the clients get in for free?

Right to work states are anti-union states. The do everything they can to kill unions, with in the law/changing the law against unions.

BTW, those people who argue about union workers aren't the best, then you also need to understand, you pay for what you get. If you pay someone less than the union, you get people who couldn't do better that wage. Therefore, you get crappy non-union workers, because those workers didn't know, it is better to group your power as the workers, than to allow the company shop to dictate your worth.

So union workers are smart enough to understand power in numbers, and non-union workers aren't.

Reason and Logic,

Unfortunately, some unions are not smart enough to see the end result of pushing too hard is the manufacturing base moves overseas and they lose their jobs here in the US.

Unions don't have a thing to do with companies going overseas...if the cost of doing business in a closed shop was the problem, the company would just move to a right-to-work state.

It's the overall cost of labor and benefits that drives companies overseas...no H&W Benefits, retirement or SS benefits, unemployment, workman's comp. and numerous tax breaks all drive the exodus.

Years ago when Nike took their production to Asia, we were told that it would lower the cost of their expensive shoes...it did. Problem was the consumers didn't see one red cent of the lower production costs...any savings went straight to executive salaries, bonuses and stock dividends.

Two very obvious assumptions can be made...Asian workers making $12 a day can't afford to buy stock and neither can the men and women that were formerly employed by Nike!

R. Scalzo: Name calling already. Doesn't take much does it? Never said when the NLRB was created. The bottom line is Obama and the NLRB are in lock step. Obama has chosen to support unions over the taxpayer. The union membership is only 12% of the total work force. Totally out of line for you to then say it is for the American Worker. The NLRB doesn't care about anything but forcing workers to join their ranks and steal their money. They can then take that money and buy whatever politician they need.

The union membership is only 12% of the total work force

Yes, and that is the goal of the right wing...to the detriment of workers in this country, amazing you support that.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/03/147994/unions-income-inequality/

Funny you guys support lower wages, yet blame unions, think for yourself for once.

stopthespending you need to grow a brain. Union workers ARE taxpayers, just not the kind that your narrow mind can grasp. That 12% is why you get a vacation every year, why you get health insurance, why you get the occasional salary increase and a multitude of other benefits. But you guys on the right just don't get that. Go ahead, kill the unions and kill any sort of lifestyle we have remaining with them. It's so sad that you people actually believe what these corporations are telling you. They could really care less about you and your family but you're going to have to get badly burned before that dawns on you.

Luckily, Amused, with the Ryan Path to Poverty already voted on, I don't think the people who want to thoroughly decimate the unions have a chance in hell of being elected in 2012.

stopthespending-2291099,

Were you awake at any time during class????? You did get the part about big business trying to basically do away with the middle class huh? If the gap between the rich and the poor increases, then everyone suffers except the rich. This isn't an Obama thing dude. This has been going on since the very beginning of our nation. If you're going to criticize the President, at least be relevent.

Union workers are tax payers, I guess other have said that before but that was just so ignorant as to about make my jaw drop.

Unions are middle class workers, the rich are the ones trying to run them out of their multinationals to increase their profits by usually using temp workers to get out of paying entitlements in a lot of places.

stopthespending is so misinformed you ought to just go hide in a corner somewhere :P

Were you awake at any time during class????? You did get the part about big business trying to basically do away with the middle class huh?

Wow! In which Socialist country schools were you indoctrinated at? Was it before or after the Berlin Wall fell? Certainly US schools aren't teaching that unless of course the Unions have taken over the Academic Agenda also.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, 1948

What? Well that explains it doesn't it?

Wow! In which Socialist country schools were you indoctrinated at? Was it before or after the Berlin Wall fell? Certainly US schools aren't teaching that unless of course the Unions have taken over the Academic Agenda also.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Read a book dude! The economic history of this country has never been about spreading the wealth...it has always been about keeping the gap between rich and poor. The sheer number of people and their associated ability to earn is large enough that it will allow for a middle class...not that the rich necessarily want one. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm pretty certain you don't either!

I saw a bumper sticker on my way to work today that made me spit out my coffee. Definition of Liberal, An individual who is so open minded that their brain has fallen completely our of their head! Some shyts just plain funny. Please remember that the left and the right are both Minorities. The next President will be elected by the Independents of this nation who for the most part center/Center or Center Right! The thing the unions/left know how to do is make loud noises! They can scream and yell with the best of them! there is a similarity with the demonstrators against the Viet Nam war in that vitriolic manner!

Keep it up, support the unions over jobs. The country is tanking, the unemployment numbers are rising, more people are on food stamps and the government and the unions want to kill more business. What will the unions do when all manufacturing is overseas? As to killing the middle class, guess what, no jobs is killing the middle class.

I have no idea what you're talking about

Perhaps it is you that needs to pick up a book then. Just a thought. LOL!

And I can't wait for 2012 either. When he IS reelected, will you shut your trap and stop the lies? And will you start advocating for making the rich pay their fair share? From the sounds of it, the answer is no. No one in their right mind of the working classes will put any of these people in office. If that happens, what happened after Bush/Cheney will continue and they won't care what you think.

...and I'm pretty certain you don't either!

You missed the important part. Just a thought? As if!!

As if!!

So not only are you making a judgement about something you admittedly have "no idea what you are talking about" but then you try to impress with a quote by Alicia Silverstone from the movie "Clueless". How apropos!

Uhm, antgne - what happened after Bush/Cheney was Obama and whoever his VP is. I forgot his name already.

stopthespending-2291099

If the NLRB is the voice of Obama(who has nothing to do with this) and is such a huge supporter of unions, they why di they allow the workers in South Carolina to vote the union out in the first place?

They already a union in South Carolina plant, the workers voted it out.

By Andy Owens
aowens@scbiznews.com
Published Sept. 10, 2009

Boeing workers in North Charleston voted to decertify the Machinists union by a vote of 199 to 68 this afternoon.

The election was held by the National Labor Relations Board in response to a petition an employee filed for union decertification in July.

The results of the vote won’t be official until certified by the National Labor Relations Board seven days after the vote, said Boeing Charleston spokeswoman Candy Eslinger. She said that window gives time for any objections to be lodged.

What I interpreted from this is that Boeing wants to move from Washington to South Carolina. They want to make one of these sites temporary, that way they do not have to pay much in salary and absolutely no benefits. They can hire and fire at will in SC, so if you dare ask for what your job is worth, you are fired.

They also appealed to the country by threatening to take jobs out of the country, because they know everyone will jump to their defense and blame the unions for jobs going overseas. Although Boeing has been outsourcing before they took over McDonnell Douglas, it hasn't worked out too well for them especially with the new "Dreamliner". So threatening to outsource is blowing smoke, to get reaction and support to pay low wages, because of the greed of management and their bad decisions.

Boeing went with Cheap low cost bidders who could do the job Fast and were big enough to produce the quantity they needed, this resulted in Boeing receiving parts that did not fit together and could not be assembled with the rest of the plane. In fact it grew so bad that Boeing actually had to buy one of the suppliers of the air frame for a billion dollars in cash and stock, so they could take over the manufacturing. This resulted in a duplication of staff and facilities (waste to save face). It was totally inferior to US quality. If they outsource again they will not get the orders they are dependent on. So in order to cut cost and keep their humongous upper management salaries, they throw out the threat so that they get the reaction they want...... Blaming the President, unions and NLRB, rather than blaming their management for bad decisions.

Stopthespending and supporters: You will have us all working 12 hours shifts for $4 an hour and no bathroom breaks in just a generation. If these protections break down the slow erosion of workers rights will become a flood and we will be back where our grandfathers were. If you think that is a good thing for most people youare deluded. The 1% will rule us again while we sctratch for rice and beans.

Fletch2,

Thanks for the great summary of real source of Boeing's problems: their own shortsighted management.

The NLRB is the voice of the workers. Ask the families of the 72 miners killed last year how well owners adhere to the law.

“Violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process,” Mr. Blankenship said." [NYT]

Blankenship is the CEO of Massey Energy who owns killer mines. Pretty much says it all about the value placed on miners' lives.

John,

That's extreme, but in a sense, you are correct. What you don't seem to get is that if that's what the job is worth on the open market, that's what will be offered. Otherwise there will be no job. Companies like Boeing have to compete on a global basis. If their planes are too expensive to make, they will lose their competitive advantage.

Like it or not, the world works on a market based economy. In the US worker salaries, benefits and taxes are the largest cost most companies have. SC has the right idea. They will continue to attract businesses looking to control costs.

This has nothing to do with the taxpayer. It's for the Dreamliner which will be sold to airlines, not the government.

Amazing, simply amazing how so many people want what's left of the middle class destroyed.

stopthespending

get real go check your facts and see what the American worker made prior to 1935 then see how the unions built the middle class in the great country. and the last i looked i don't think any of you non union guys are big shot company owners so why are you fighting for the ruling class of non union jerks who can give a s-h-i-t about you and your family

Very interesting comments to my post. Many had insults and name calling from the liberals. Would be great if you all could just give your opinions in response to mine.

To Edward: Why would the NLRB allow a union vote in the s carolina factory? Because they have to. It is a right to work state, and the unions hate it. The employees know that the union is bad, so they voted it out.

John: The scare tactics of the 12 hour days, no bathroom breaks....come on. This is the 21st century and there are now federal laws that protect people. Unions did do alot 50 years ago, but they are outdated. Not needed anymore.

Fletch2: Boeing is a privately owned company. They have the right to build factories wherever they want. unions should have NO SAY in what Boeing does.

To many of the other comments, whether to me or other comments: "shut your trap", "grow a brain" , please keep it civil.

If any of you are unhappy with your lot in life; if any of you don't think you make enough money; if any of you think there is too big of gap between the poor and rich; DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Stop counting other people's money. Stop expecting the government to take care of all of your problems. Get more education. Get better interviewing skills. Stop hanging around losers. Move to a different city. Start dressing better. Learn new technical skills. The list is endless.

I agree with several parts with your posts. The only trouble is that people don't realize its not a union or nonunion thing. There are alot of people who want a free ride from the government.It is known that you can get a free ride rather easily from the government. I am union and proud of it. When we have a fellow member who is ill or a death ocurrs we take up a collection from our wallets to help out. Most nonunions don't or wont. I have seen people at nonunion take up a collection too. Its a moral people thing just as most of this that goes on.

Funny, I'm in the middle class, I am NOT union, I have good benefits in a fortune 1000 company in a Right-to-work state. The lack of unions has not caused me to be a 12 hour-per-day slave.

But keep drinking that union-certified grape koolaid, folks!

Fletch2-1565982

You do not know what you are talking about, Boeing has been using most of the same supplier for years.

Also they did not buy out a supplier because the work was bad, the bought one of the plants so that they would have all the plants there under Boeing control, and that location is the one in SC.

BTW the company they bought it from was started in America by Americans, and to this day still does work for Boeing.

Stop the Spending,

Actually a Union can STILL do good, it depends on how it is managed. There are bad ways to run things, and there are good ways.

In Germany (and most of europe other than the UK) for example, the Union is there to provide an interface between the company and the workers. They manage workers skills through retraining and initial training. The union also will generally have representation on the board of directors, as they are most definitely a stakeholder in the operation of the company.

The problem in most North American companies is that the Union, while representing workers, really doesn't have a connection to the company itself, they don't have any connection to the business as a whole, which leaves them out of touch with the fundamentals of the business. I can't help but wonder if things would have been very different for the big 3 auto companies if union-management relations were run similar to how they are run in Germany.

Otter.........thanks.

Fletch2: Boeing is a privately owned company. They have the right to build factories wherever they want. unions should have NO SAY in what Boeing does.

Where did I say that they did. I simply pointed out how they ran the company, the mistakes they made and how they used people.

John: The scare tactics of the 12 hour days, no bathroom breaks....come on. This is the 21st century and there are now federal laws that protect people. Unions did do alot 50 years ago, but they are outdated. Not needed anymore.

Federal laws does not protect workers from 'no bathroom breaks or 12 hour days', except kids under 18. It is left entirely up to the employer. Check with the Labor Dept. before you make these statements.

You do not know what you are talking about, Boeing has been using most of the same supplier for years.

Exactly, MOST of the same supplier.

Also they did not buy out a supplier because the work was bad.

Do you research and find out why they bought the company.

BTW the company they bought it from was started in America by Americans.

Doesn't negate the fact they produced shoddy work, so threatening to send their jobs overseas does not wash.. BTW what is the name of the company that they bought it from?

I was simply pointing out the fact Boeing has bad business practices. When they acquired McDonnell Douglas, they let one of MD best CEO's go, who went on to be the CEO of Ford. Another bad move by Boeing.

The scare tactics of the 12 hour days, no bathroom breaks....come on. This is the 21st century and there are now federal laws that protect people. Unions did do alot 50 years ago, but they are outdated. Not needed anymore.

and just who do you think fought for those federal regulations. Are you naive enough to think that a single citizen can produce these laws? Without the unions fighting for workers rights federal regulations will soon go the same way our safety nets will, down the tubes. Instead of a voucher they'll give you a suggestion form for the suggestion box!

Unions and union practices have been an unnecessary part of the American work story for at least 40+ years. They were once needed and actually good for the working man, but they have become exactly what they were once fighting against. They are now just criminals stealing the working man's money with no benefits. They are running all good American jobs out of America.

the thing is that both types of stories where unions encourage workers to slough off, and unions that are productive are true. unions and companies need to work together to improve both products and employee's lives. unions also need a bigger stake in the operation of the company the represent, so that both will stand or fall together.

Unfortunately unions are to Democrats as corporations are to Republicans. Both have become corrupt political monsters and they are both constantly at each other's throats with little to no regard for the individuals that get caught up in their feuding. Of course there are exceptions to this, but by and large on the political scene these organizations are both displaying a grand an elaborate form of incompetence as they are all out of touch with the long term consequences of their actions and a sense of balance.

stopthespending-2291099

And North Carolina is a union state....a right to work state where the employees choose whether they want to be a union member. Proves the point that a good portion would choose not to be, and the union bosses know it.

-----------------------------

First off, we're talking about SOUTH Carolina. Secondly, in the state of South Carolina, unions have no negotiating rights to bargain with an employer about employee wages, health benefits, retirement, workplace safety, etc. This is the reason why noone wants to become a union member, for fear of losing their job. As a former resident of South Carolina, I can attest to this.

fletch:

No the scare tactic of 'if you exercise your right to strike legally' we will close the plant and move it to south carolina.

stopthespending, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. You make reference to NORTH Carolina being a right to work state. Boeing is building a plant in SOUTH Carolina near Charleston. Did you fail geography in addition to political science? Or, perhaps you're just a Palin lackey who doesn't even know the purpose of Paul Revere's ride and makes stuff up as you go to suit your political agenda.

Fletch2-1565982

It was Vought, who has been building sub-assembles for every Boeing plane for years and still does including the 787. Back in 2003 or 2004 when Boeing first went looking for a place to put the 787 line, the site in SC was one that was offered, the line ended up in WA as we all know, but had supplier located on the 240 acre site in SC. They bought those factories, they kept both the workers and the union, and guess what now the new plant is is right there beside them. Since neither company lost its contracts with Boeing, they could not have been that bad, or they would have bought the whole company. This was much more about getting the space they needed for the new plant.

David88765430

So how then did the IAM get all this?

Both the union and Vought declined to provide a copy of the final agreement. Vought said it included a 401(k) plan, performance-based pay and the ability for Vought to manage the North Charleston facility. The agreement “includes terms and conditions substantially similar to those in effect at the time of the union’s certification” the company said.

A significant difference is that the contract calls for institution of a seniority-based layoff system. That also means that the company will have to call back workers based on seniority when the plant reopens.

Edward,

Thanks for the information.

TW: I did type North instead of South in my post. Totally right, I mistyped and stand corrected.

You just had to go and start insulting and throwing in things completely unrelated to the topic. Again, can we please be civil?

None have been yet, that is the point.

if you're depending on govt watchdogs to enforce your rights, you've already lost. Have been paying attention that last few years? Govt is as exploitive as the companies.

Well, madmax, I hope you don't work for a living. Or maybe you think the corporate mind is your friend. It's all about "show me the money". The corporations will do anything to enhance their profit. The unions are the last line of defense for the workers. With the demise of the unions workers will recieve no benefits, no health insurance, and a very small wage. As our country slowly slides into the third world. So Madness Max I hope you have a way of protecting yourself!!!

We the corp, your comment since I was asked by a union rep once to join so that the union could do my "thinking" on my behalf. I respect the fact that the unions did a lot to correct a lot of workplace "wrongs" in early 1900s, and I have no issue if a company is dumb enough to break the labor/discrimination/safety laws today- they deserve to be unionized. But my general observations of the union today is they care only about the "union" and not the employees they represent. I also did not like that as a member you could NOT complain about the union w/o the risk of a fine- what is that all about??

Unions protect the rights and wants of the workers. Corporation exec's jobs are to maximize profit, for a number of reasons, some good, some not so.

Our society is made up, for the most part, by workers. They care about the quality of the society, as it relates to them, because they live there. Corporations care about profit. Everyone understands these points, and it is why the laws of the land supposedly weigh and address what is in the best interest of the society as a whole.

Is in the best interest of our society for the workers to toil for the lowest wage based on an international scale? Frankly, I doubt few who would champion such a situation envision themselves or anyone they hold dear surviving at such a level, nor I would further offer would many of us prefer a society operating at such a level. Everything has a price.

Could the Chinese build the jet liners cheaper?.. most likely. What would happen if the quality of the workmanship was lower than those of American workers? I'm not sure, but nothing much seems to have happen to the Chinese suppliers of products which endanger Americans--poison dog food, toothpaste, dry wall ... Would the quality of life in our society suffer? Certainly for some.

I doubt you can hope to pay third world wages, and expect to maintain our society at least as we've known it. In a dog eat dog world, the affluent class will find themselves very outnumbered.

Germany is the largest exporter in the world, it surpasses China and it is heavily unionized.

Your arguement makes no sense.

they don't see it for what it is corporate greed. 14 billion in profit is not enough lets make more by knocking down the worker.

This is the first time I ever felt like posting a comment. I've worked for over 30 years in manufacturing, both union and non-union facilities. During that time frame, it became more and more apparant that the union's main goal was to protect sub-par workers who were usually too lazy to do a good job or even show up regularly for work. They wanted production standards set so low that you would only have to work half a day to meet a day's production. Those of us who wanted to give a fair day's work were constantly harrassed by other union workers to slow down so as not to draw attention the the standards being so low. And for this you had to pay the union. Its no wonder that in almost every case, the facility was forced to close and the production moved off-shore. In the facilities that were non-union, those that wanted to give a fair day's work, were usually rewarded with better pay and raises. For the most part, the working conditions and wages that I experienced were actually better in the non-union plants because the lazy or unskilled or trouble making workers didn't stay too long.

So, from my point of view, I have no sympathy for the unions and feel that their time has past.

Mike

things are a lot more complicated than 'protecting the sub par worker'. It is more about protecting your turf which is a result of long standing issues between management and workers.

Did any one see the Video when they caught Chrysler emploees drinking on a lunch break and then went back to the plant?

Did you see the CEO's of major banks tank their companies, and were forced to get bailed out? The tanked the whole ******* economy and they got billions in bonuses. Only one lost his job, because the government wouldn't bail him out.

In competent workers usually cause harm to one or two people. Incompetent and greedy management could cause harm to billions of people and the so called right won't even point it out, nor allow the Democrats to fix the mess.

Ya blame the unions for management's (US Representatives) bad decisions. Outsourcing can only happen, if you allow the other guy to get away with it. China can steal jobs, but until the US government places a huge tariff on their Chinese exports, it will continue to happen.

Unionization and fair trade are two completely different topics. I agree that "free trade" needs to be replaced with "fair trade" laws. However, this has nothing to do with unions.

The issue with unions protecting the sub-par workers is a very serious problem that must be addressed in order for unions to ever get support from people like me. Personally, I don't see this ever changing - it's just not in the nature of unions.

Unions were a great thing 100+ years ago, but in the US today they are a negative that is slowly driving more and more manufacturing overseas, hurting our education system, and increasing taxpayer costs for public sector workers.

Comparing the role of unions today with their role nearly a century ago is not a valid analogy. Unions served a great purpose back then and righted many wrongs, but today they are superfluous. The country is not the same, workers are no longer uneducated farmers. There is a large amount of mobility now. People can move more easily to take advantage of economic opportunity. Communication is better and the average person has a great deal of access to education and technology.

The argument that if unions disappeared being paramount to repealing all workers rights and sending us back to the turn of the 19th century is idiotic. Its like saying if you repeal affirmative action, it will bring back slavery.

The value of organized labor increases every day.

Now that's some funny @!$%# right there.

The value of organized labor increases every day.

If by that you mean the salaries of people who do jobs retarded monkies could do go up everyday through union thuggery, I agree.

Walmart or the Koch's? Have it your way.

Please, by all means. With the exception of taking away the union's ability to strong arm the government for more pay, what have the "Koch's" done?

actually i'm concerned with the government employee unions holding too much say over the government, while the private employeee unions are losing their ability to hold private companies in balance for their employees.

we have both extremes leaving nothing for the middle

While I'm not at all anti-organized labor as an instititution I don't at all agree with civil servants being represented. They're paid for by the taxpayers and in my opinion are therefore represented.

Well, I can agree with that. But the thugginess of normal unions needs to be brought in check as well.

In Oregon, as a glazier, my shop wasn't even allowed to make a workable living unless they joined the union, even though we were doing better work then union shops. The Glaziers Union found out and basically told us if we didn't join, we wouldn't be allowed to bid on contracts at all. Sounds like extortion to me.

If they didn't act like they had the right to every job the union represents and that everyone else is a piece of sh!t in thier eyes, people might treat them differently.

If they didn't act like they had the right to every job the union represents and that everyone else is a piece of sh!t in thier eyes, people might treat them differently.

I can agree with that, personally I think they should leave the smaller shops, and any larger shop that is taking good care of their employees alone.

See, we may agree on some things. Even me being an ultra-liberal and you being a dishonest independent. Here in NY most of the non-represented trades workers are treated as well as well as those who are. That's why the members need to speak out and the non members need to speak up for themselves. Back in the late 80's I crossed a picket line, along with the 60-70 workers working for me for about 9 months in south Jersey. We wore them down. You just gotta work at it. Right will prevail. Unions like the one you mentioned suck. Beat em up pal. But, real organized labor has it's value.

I see no problems with some Unions. They seem to genuinely just look after the rights of workers, spend their money wisely, don't go overboard funding elections, etc.. But they seem to be in the minority. If ALL unions were like the Steelworkers unions here in Oregon (GREAT Union, use their funds to help pay laid off workers, etc.), I'd be ALL for them. Sadly, they are the minority, and the money grubbing, thug life, do as we say or we'll shut you down unions are the majority. And yes, for God's sakes....get rid of the government employee Unions.

See, maybe we can get along. CSEA's gotta go. I 've worked many projects, as I've said, with a blend of trades and non-represented workers but I also did a 13 month tour of duty with the CSEA. It started out as a 3 month gig and as such I wasn't about to ruin anyone's life but the gig just kept going on and I maintained my attitude. It sucked, but I dealt with it. Taxpayer dollars thrown out the window. The guys would never work overtime, never, except for a holiday, when they got paid huge dollars. Now, it was a landfill, so if I refused to let them work overtime on a holiday picking up litter, which never mattered any other day, an anonymous phone call would get made to the County complaining about fugitive litter and I would catch hell. Hey, clearly, I'm way left leaning and not ashamed about it but I've got a clear head about things.

Agreed. Sometimes it's nice to find common ground with people you would never think you would.

Peace then? Can I take you off ignore? I've never put anyone on ignore before, and that's after being a 4 year NVer. You just drove me nuts. Again, peace and spirited discussion to come up, awright?

Sounds good.

Good from here as well.

I think sometimes we both get caught up in partsian politics. I have a tendency to lean right, as I was last a Republican before going indpendent after the Bsuh debacle. Here's hoping we can set the partisanship aside and have some great, well meaning conversations.

You know, I never realized until a couple of years ago you could register as a "blanK'. Being a professional procrastinator I just haven't gotten around to changing things.

Facts:

I believe your situation in Oregon would be the same with or without a union as it would be controlled by a guild. The concept of a guild predates the union structure.

and as the control increases, so will the exudes out of this country. Surely they will never consider nationalization.......

funny how many complainabout the outsourcing of American jobs as they go to Walmart or any other store and buy their products that have not gone up much in 30 years. We demand lower prices and higher wages- many will not see the disconnect- their actions reflect this truth!

Stopthespending: First, the "taxpayer" is not in the market to buy Boeing 787s. So, how does this affect the taxpayer? Second, Boeing has a great safety record, compared to Airbus. Why diminish unionized safety standards, technical training, and a skilled workforce to "compete" with a lesser quality product?

Just remember, the French Airbus workers have nationalized healthcare, possibly making their wages a bit less, yet still quite liveable.

It's really odd how the anti-union folks are so willing to work for sub-standard wages, no benefits or pension plans, so that their corporate bigwigs can buy yachts and private jets. Talk about irrational thought.

Unions and dinosaurs go together like peanut butter and jelly. They each had their time and purpose, but the world evolves. You either adapt to change or the ship sails without you.

it is so nice to here from the cattle on the right who have no clue about unions and what they stand for.Drink the juice or leave the country gop'ers

all you non union southern jerks make me sick. i hope you all choke on your non union oil,food,steel supplies from forign countrys 2012 is not far off good luck you greedy jerks all because you don't want to pay union due's and thats where the rubber meets the road.

and another thing i don't understand. the less money i make the less i have to spend. so how are we supposed to be able to buy product they are selling in stores I guess thats why most of people who live in right to work states live in mobil homes. because thats all the rednecks can afford. in the midwest. and by the way who is going to pick up the tab for all the distruction in those non union states???

that's interesting cpm...what do YOU think unions stand for? and don't say they stand up for the rights of the worker because I'm employed and have rights and don't need a union to stand up for me. So, what is it? Unions are killing the economy...that's a fact.

I'd rather hire 2 non-union workers who actually WORK for their money and who value the job than 1 overpaid union worker who will retire early anyway and suck out 2X more money than they ever paid in. It's weird...all the overpaid union members who get to (and I know this to be a FACT) sometimes retire with more than one pension and all the glorious benefits don't want unions to go away. I get that. Simpler put, if every person in America was in a union, we'd be bankrupt tomorrow.

My, the union goons are out in force today...

I used to be an engineer for Delphi, ever wonder why they went out of business?

I had never had much experience with unions before I started there. I had no preconceived notion about them other than what I learned in school about the great labor leaders of yesteryear who fought for the safety and well-being of the oppressed workers. I come from a working class background myself, and I'm proud that my family for generations has made their living with their hands. Manual labor is honest, necessary, and something to be proud of, I was always taught.

But fresh out of college, I wasn't prepared at all for what I saw; a large minority of the workers doing everything they could to not work, a belligerent and self-serving union president who personally threatened me within three days of my hire, and a generally surly and uneducated workforce.

Needless to say, after a few months I left and vowed never to work at a union facility again.

Years later, I own my own manufacturing company, and I do what it takes to keep the unions out. I've told my folks many times if they want to join a union that's just fine with me, and that they will all be personally invited to the auction I'd be having the following week. But I've never heard a peep, because I try to treat my people with respect, provide a safe, comfortable work environment, and offer them all the opportunity for advancement I have available. And even though it am not obligated to, I provide a 401k and the best health care I can afford because they're the engine that makes the machine go and any prosperity I have is because of their effort. I'll never forget that.

After all that windy blather, I finally come to my point; the only people responsible for union excesses, corruption, and heck even their very existence are the companies themselves. If employers would act like a mensch, there would be no need for these bloated, greedy, cynical organizations. In my mind senior management and unions are just two ugly faces of the same coin.

thanks for the post, Tom. And I'm with you...manual labor (or any labor) is honest, necessary, and something to be proud of. And you don't need unions for it. I hope your company thrives and I hope you are successful in keeping the greedy unions from ruining your business. I wish aerospace, auto, etc. could have done the same.

Good luck to you.

all you non union southern jerks make me sick. i hope you all choke on your non union oil,food,steel supplies from forign countrys 2012 is not far off good luck you greedy jerks all because you don't want to pay union due's and thats where the rubber meets the road.

and another thing i don't understand. the less money i make the less i have to spend. so how are we supposed to be able to buy product they are selling in stores I guess thats why most of people who live in right to work states live in mobil homes.

So just because Rednecks (A old term for coal miners Union). Know how to get paid what they are worth and can out work you you are angry? I don't need to work for a union to get paid my worth. I know it and they pay me it. Sorry you have such a low self-esteem. Don't worry the people in the south will work for their money. you just keep getting drunk on your lunch brake and then assemble cars. I will get paid what I negotiate and not pay A Mafia member part of my pay.

Unions gave you the weekend, they also gave you fair wages, health care, retirement options, they abolished child labor laws. Its ashame you watch too many movies about Mobs and Unions. Maybe you should pick up a book. Start with something small and slow that you can keep up with and work your way up to the newspaper.

James, read one yourself. There ARE labor laws in place without unions. I have weekends, I have fair wages (now that I'm not in an industry that unions have stuck their tentacles in), I have FAIR retirement options, and child labor laws exist without unions.

As 100s of people said, unions had their place...they're antiquated. The only thing they do is hike up wages so that no industry can survive. I know cops/teachers/postal workers/etc. retiring at 40 y/o or shortly after. In the workforce for 20 years and then retire...sometimes with 2 or more pensions if they play their cards right. Honestly...how long do you think ANY industry/business can survive when people are on full retirement or more after 20 years? Who do you think is paying for that?

Start with something small and slow??? You mean just like every union worker I've ever witnessed.

And those so called laws can be repealed really easy with big business and Republicans who do their bidding. WI just got a Republican governor and Representatives, and they killed the Union by taking away the powers of the Union.

Once the last Union is gone, how long until the labor laws are repealed?

They will stay in place for a long time. And the say Republicans are fear mongers. Reason there are no monsters in your closet.

If times change for the worse, then we can discuss unions again. But, we live in today's world now - not the world of the 1900's. In today's world, unions are ultimately causing more harm than good. They are driving manufacturing jobs out of this country, hurting out education system, and increasing the taxpayer public sector workers costs.

I don't want to solve the problems of 100 years ago by sacrificing our livelihood today.

Thats the plan. China factory line worker makes the equivalent of $4,000.00 US a year. Can anyone on the vine live on $4000.00 a year? No, well then your fired and will outsource your job to Bruce Lee in Hong Kong. Don't worry, you can still buy the product on credit when we import it back to the US.

R, so in your twisted little view the Koch Brothers are influencing a conflict between Boeing and the NLRB?? Where does the flamingleft come up with this stuff? Does Nancy and Harry Tweet the left wingers and tell them what to post?

The reason that american labor cannot compete in the world marketplace is that our cost-of-living is too damn high. Decades of bloated budgets due to the incessant cry for welfare & warfare have resulted in a devalued currency and a tax burden that has spun out-of-control. Trying to keep wages in-line with this spending frenzy along with the American penchant for consumer excess has forced production overseas.

Want to return to properity? End the empire, end government.

Dak, Well said. Everything the Federal Government does right appears to go against the American people. I am so glad our Founding Fathers put that wonderful Clause in the Constitution, I think the time is drawing near to it being used. ONE FED UP AMERICAN.

And soon those with the guns will make the rules.

Think of it as evolution in action.

The Koch brothers (at least some of them) are smart and work hard. This has made them successful. By some convoluted logic, you seem to think that this justifies depriving them of their 1st Amendment rights. Thankfully, we have not devolved to that state yet. The cars we used to drive in the US were manufactured in the US with parts sourced in the US. Even Government Motors cars have substantial foreign content now and may be manufactured anywhere. PCs used to be made by IBM. Now they have H-P or Dell logos on them but are made in SE Asia. The preponderance of value added is an Intel processor and a Microsoft operating system, in other words, the intellectual property stuff. Intel did a lot of the design work in Israel and Microsoft has research facilities in places like China and England. These are wonderful jobs, but there are not very many of them relative to the enormous size of the industry. For the most part, if you want a job, you have to have a value proposition that is competitive globally. [You have a locality advantage if you are a barber or a dentist.] Start figuring out what is your personal value proposition.

Minimum wage is the LAW. Ending the unions has nothing to do with an employee being paid below minimum wage.

what do you rednecks think is a fair wage for a journeymen electrician,carpenter,plumber, brick layer, cement worker??

I was paid $35 an hr when i retired

Rob, the Koch brothers inherited their wealth, they didn't build it up themselves.

And what their father did to build his wealth is manage projects in the soviet union.

Phil

It would depend on a lot of factors, including length of job, inherent difficulty, local cost of living, whether I had to 'import' you into the region etc...

The reason why length of job is in there, the longer the job, the lower the rate, as you are pretty much there for a longer period of time, you don't have to spend time looking for other work etc...

That is at least how I would look at it.

Jonathan, I know the Koch brothers from MIT. They are smart and they work hard. The fact that they inherited some wealth is irrelevant--it's theirs to do with as they wish.

Rob

I am not disputing that, I inherited some money as well. My comment wasn't about that. My comment was about describing them as something that they aren't, that is 'self made billionaires'. They aren't.

And they didn't inherit some money, they inherited lots. Was that wrong, no, nothing wrong with that. It is a matter of how they are described in the press and to a certain extent themselves.

Same thing with Paul Ryan. I don't begrudge that he inherited Ryan Industries, it is that he represents himself as having built Ryan industries that is the misrepresentation.

With Ryan, he collected SSI when his father died, even though they had more than enough money to support him.

Yeah, there was a time when police officers provided a valuable service to communities. They protected people from violent criminals. But now that crime is under control, and most streets in America are safe to walk, it's clear that police forces are no longer needed. We should immediately eliminate all police officers immediately, and make sure that their salaries are redirected to tax cuts. (To the wealthy only, of course.)

Harry,

You do realize that the laws you are talking about that protect workers are actually regulations that are enforced by the NLRB and their state counterparts, right?

Josh, poor analogy! You're comparing apples with oranges. Try again my liberal friend.

David, who enforces the labor laws isn't the point I was making. The message I was driving is that unions are obsolete. They have ruined the manufacturing sector.

Unions will never be obsolete. They are a constitutional right (right to assemble), and they are the foundation of our middle class. People who are working right now have been taught that unions are bad and "beneath" their particular status, especially the white collar workers. But if there are no unions, your wages will be cut, as will benefits, possibly your job. You will no longer have lunch hours (notice that your manager doesn't get a lunch hour unless she takes one); no breaks. I had one office administrator try to tell me I didn't get my two 10 minute breaks because I could go to the bathroom whenever I wanted. Well, I called the California State Labor Board and they called her to correct the error of her ways. The bottom line is that workers' rights are inextricably entwined with union rights. If you count on laws to protect your rights; just remember what this piece of crap House is doing right now, repealing laws meant to help us.

No, corporate attitudes that the investor is king and that customers and workers are just expendable tools are what ruined manufacturing. Really had nothing to do with unions. These corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars that they are doing nothing with right now, no expansion, nothing. But you guys go ahead and bash the unions. It's going to take a little creativity to solve these problems and the right in this country isn't up to the task.

No Harry, Josh's analogy is right on the nose, sorry.

Back when manual labor was just a cheaper type of machine, they were treated like machines and unions helped bring dignity to that kind of work. As machines got smarter and cheapers (and unions became a pain to work with) they replaced unskilled workers. For workers still higher than the machines, a competitive industry gives them alternatives places to go if they dont like their employer and they're hard enough to replace that they can demand better treatment on their own and dont need unions. Europe realized this decades ago their unions evolved to be helpful during this progression upwards. Our unions are the same old "brickthrowers" from the 19th century.

Josh, in your police analogy, after the police ran out of criminals, they seem to have set up speed traps, stings and protection rackets for extracting money from innocent citizens for boosting police department wages and funding the mayors re-election campain.

s123man, oh absolutely: Driving While Black is one of my favorite new laws; and of course now, driving while brown-skinned and without your papers! And it will get worse because now prisons are privatized, and they must have prisoners to make a profit. Everything corporations touch reeks of bad karma.

Raised by wolves, I have worked for companies that had union plants and non-union plants; some of them the union plants made less and others the union plants made more.

When I asked why, the rep could not tell me why. How could they tolerate this I asked, no response. I asked if the union plant that was getting paid less did not have to pay their dues and they walked away from me, why??

I have no idea, and given your handle, I'd have to ask for concrete facts before I'd believe what you say. Ayn Rand is no way to run a world.

you are a dope

Harry you are right about the EPA also. They just shut shell oil down after 5 years and 4 BILLION dollars invested in north alaska.

They did it by not issueing an air permit, saying an ice breaking ship's emissions was not up to their standards. the closest population to it was a village of 250 people that lives 70 miles away. I heard nothing of this in the media about the many jobs lost and the huge amount of money lost by shell.

they also propose boiler and ozone restrictions that even the unions are against. Because it would cost 10's of thousands of jobs, alot of which are union.

When asked for numbers on their requirements they said it would reduce global tempertures by .006 by the year 2100.

It could also give them jurisdiction over 100,000's of buildings which would ballon the agency.

This should make companies want to build here. Our new pro business administration.

RaisedByWolves- you are talking about a company violating state and federal labor laws. Can you not stand up for yourself without a union??

It's silly for any union member at Boeing to still believe that they have any sway in the company's decisions. Several years ago, Boeing made the decision to move all it's management to the Chicago area - once they had done so, there soon followed a spate of company decisions very detrimental to the union, but there was no one to complain to, no one to hold accountable, since those responsible were well out of reach. Boeing had long been monstrously bloated, with many workers idle and on unemployment for fully half the year, and a reputation for such lax supervisory practices that some employees ran travel agencies from their desks at work for years before being discovered. The company's newfound drive to become a bit more lean (not counting the ridiculous expense of relocating so many management personnel) was accompanied by the knowledge that they'd be better able to hold out against any organized union activities if they were out of arms reach. Soon thereafter, Boeing reached a deal with Fuji Industries in Japan to farm out many machining jobs to their workers (does anyone really believe that Japanese machinists are paid less than their American counterparts?) as a 'cost-cutting measure'. Don't believe much that you read about this company (or any other) in the news....

Harry = 100% correct. If I'm a business I should be able to have a plant wherever the hell I want. This is getting ridiculous. Unions no longer have a place in manufacturing. There are plenty of workforce labor laws that are in place without needing to suck money into union boss's pockets. I still haven't heard one valid argument why Boeing shouldn't be able to put their plant there.

buzz

your full of s-h-i-t . unions are the back bone of this nation. ill bet you don't know what today is do you. and when did the a bomb get dropped and where. your way to young to know what your talking about.

bigatc, that sounds like the kind of fake story sent by e-mail just to get people riled up. most of those "can you believe this?" e-mails are actually false.

got a fact-check for that? (or a link?)

phil...you're right. You're old so you know. I'm young so I don't. I'm full of s-h-i-t and your argument is "unions are the back bone of this nation"??? ok. very eloquent. What does D-day and bombing Japan have to do with this???

Old timer...years does not equal intelligence and knowledge about unions...obviously!

I hope you are happy with your union and getting your ridiculous wages for what you do...that's your only hold on them. Personally, I'd rather 2 people have good paying jobs and get rid of the unemployment than have you get paid 2X what you deserve for doing next to nothing. Enjoy it while you can...with any luck you can retire with 2 pensions like MANY people I know. I would be in favor of unions too! Unfortunately you're part of the problem.

I can remember back in the 1970's my buddies would leave high school and get a union job down at the docks making $12.50/hr. I was making $4.25/hr making pizza. Do you think they worked that hard? Hell no. They laughed about finding a hole and sleeping for an hour or two! Those wages were artifically increased by the union. You can only have that so long before it goes bust...and it went bust. They now make about $25.00/hr on average - still not bad and they have a pension plan.

BigPaul, I, and many others have similar stories. I used to work construction...I've never seen anyone walk/work so slow as the union guys on the job site. They got paid 2 to 3 times more and did half as much...and laughed about it. And people wonder why businesses and entire industries are struggling. I could have done my job and theirs and they could get rid of a guy making $25/hour with all the benefits. Oh but they couldn't...no accountability...go ahead and take your time. I'll wait for you to complete your duct work so I can continue with my work.

Harry,

Would you care to demonstrate that workers no longer need protection from business? Perhaps you could use the examples of Massey and BP.

The laws are meaningless without enforcement. Without unions, there is no one to press for enforcement.

incorrect WStevens. I have never been in a union...tell me...who is pressing for enforcement for me? I've never had an issue. There are labor laws already in place...this isn't the 1800s anymore. Why is it that everyone in a union truly believes that they have something unique? That they have someone fighting for them that those in unions don't have? Businesses enforce this and when they can't, the laws protect the worker.

Actually Paul they are already in India.

Yeah, that's one of the roots of the problem right there Paul, these are multinational companies and they all ready have moved large portions of their operations overseas.

They aren't threats, it has all ready and is continuing to happen.

Parts are already being made in china. Its part of china's demands for buying their planes. That's how they're learning to build their own airliners.

Its called JIT manufacturing! And it is a requirement that parts are built within a certain distance from the assembly facility! Most governments require that products sold in their country have a percentage of that product built there! I know its that way with us!

Hey Jollyoldsoul1, there is no requirement that the parts are produced close to the final assembly point in Just In Time manufacturing. First off, the lead time is adjusted for transit. Second, with today's logistical infrastructure, you can move components rapidly and cheaply. Trust me, I'm a Supply Chain Manager for a consumer electronics company with manufacturing in China and US DC in Texas, so this is what I do. We have a 8 week frozen period at our final assembly point and a 26 weeks prior to frozen period for our longest lead item. Production week to US DC is 5 weeks with transit. We have shaved our weeks of inventory in our US DC to 3 weeks on hand.

Also, there is no requirement for for x percentage of products to be built within our country except for when branded as made in the USA.

JIT has nothing to do with Boeings decision. It has to do with cutting labor costs to appease the stock market.

This is an example of the race to the bottom that unregulated labor markets create. It is not unions that are f'n up our country it is wall street and their demands for continued growth and profits of publicly traded companies. It is impossible for sales and profits to continuously increase year over year. In order to maintain that perception the companies squeeze more production out of fewer employees. No longer do stakeholders of a company have any meaning to the company. It is all about the shareholders. This is what is destroying the US work force. Ironically the union funds are massive shareholders in the market driving this move. That plus our consumer market constant move towards price over quality. We are also destroying our work force. Cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Maybe unions have run their course and we do have federal regulations such as minimum wage, age laws and hour definitions, but those are being eroded by a certain party of the rich. What we need, in addition to the above stated labor laws re-enforced, is minimum state tax laws on tax breaks and incentives. This is hurting our work force by one state offering a company tax breaks or incentives to move their facilities. That is how companies are being aided and abetted in the race to the bottom.

Paul, if the politicians are fed up with companies leaving, instead of beating them with a stick they could pass legislation that makes it favorable for companies to stay here. There are many countries to go that have more favorable things for their bottom line than we do.

Regulations have gotten very burdonsome lately and our corporate taxes are the highest in the world. I know some like GE, who basically wrote their own tax breaks with the "green" writeoffs, don't pay as much but most corporations aren't able to get the write offs the big boys get.

I would like to see all american companies stay here but the CEO's have very competitve markets and are paid to get the best bottom line. Not to be patriotic. If they don't they are fired. A fact we probably don't like but a reality none the less.

paul

what a good name my departed son was named paul. he too was a staunch unionest and a great cop. I enjoyed your comment.

BigATC - GE didn't pay AS MUCH; they paid NONE. NONE. NADA. NOTHING.

Politicians could pass legislation to keep companies here??? Ha! They've already passed legislation to make it BETTER for them if they move their companies to other countries.

Bush and boys eliminated lots of regulations when they were in power. Perhaps you recall how that worked out. Think about what someone above said: do you want to fly in an airplane put together without benefit of safety regulations or assembled by Bubba in SC, with no training or education?

Politicians of both parties are beholden to big business, big pharma, big agra, etc. and their legislation benefits them and NOT US. It's entirely possible this will never be turned around.

I know some like GE, who basically wrote their own tax breaks with the "green" writeoffs,

actually they use their financial services division (like home loans) to get almost all of their write-offs, the "green" write-offs account for very little.

of course the right-wing pundits don't want you to know that, it hurts their anti-ecology campaign.

do you want to fly in an airplane put together without benefit of safety regulations or assembled by Bubba in SC, with no training or education?

I'd take Bubba building something over the MBA who injures thamselves when they walk past a hardware department.

I wouldn't want a Masters of Business Administration building stuff as a general rule, their strengths typically lie elsewhere.

now if he/she was an MS in engineering or manufacturing, etc., that's a different story. they usually don't "hurt themselves walking past a hardware department"

@zeroscout

Race to the bottom is exactly what is happening. If you extend state practices logically, you have states taxing people so they can offer business a negative tax to locate there, fighting and eliminating where possible minimum wage laws and laws governing health insurance, getting rid of public education to lower property taxes (business decision makers can afford private schools), fighting the EPA and eliminating or defunding their Depts of Env. Protection so business can save money by polluting freely and so on and so forth. It is difficult to see bottom on the degradation of the quality of life now being offered to the majority of the american people in the name of "pro growth."

Actually Iseeconfusedpeople I was a marine engineer. Which is why I said I'd rather trust Bubba. I did prototyping for 25 years and to be honest a lot of the people with engineering degrees left a lot to be desired too. I learned more from an old man that could barely read or write but could build a boat from logs dropped off at the front door. Which is better than the engineer that sent a drawing with one of the bunks 1/2 way outside the boat.

Which is better than the engineer that sent a drawing with one of the bunks 1/2 way outside the boat.

that was for fishing LOL

an engineer still needs experience after getting out of school

No we republicans are time of the liberal welfare agenda. I grew up poor and I worked hard to rise above that. We are tired of the "The World Owes Me" mentality. Get Up and Find a job, stop asking for a hand out. Take care of your own and leave me alone.

As long as you pay all your taxes, I've got no complaint that you've done so well. And I mean every last penny without a group of accountants hiding your wealth.

Too bad you didn't get yourself an education along the way so that you could really understand these issues and not just mouth off about them. There hasn't be a "welfare agenda" in this country in almost 20 years. You need to turn off Fox for awhile and see if you can figure it out on your own.

As a liberal I believe that everyone should have the right to join a union, however I also believe that everyone should have the right NOT to join a union. If the unions are so beneficial to the workers, let them prove it by earning their membership instead of requiring someone to join as an employment requirement. Maybe if the unions stopped skimming from the benefit funds for their own enrichment, people might want to join a union even if the law in their state does not force them to ! How about a little transparency on the part of the unions and their finances ? Unions are a business, plain and simple, many ( not all ) simply exist to take workers money and provide big salary, perks, retirements, slush funds for the union bosses.

Amused you are so correct. Welfare ENCOURAGES people to better themselves, to get an EDUCATION, Just look at welfare success. Everyone that has been on Welfare is now a COLLAGE GRADUATE.

CombatMedic, what a troll. Read the comment again and try to comprehend it the second time.

You are playing identity politics. You protect union workers at the expense of people who own Boeing stock in their retirement accounts and college savings accounts, at the expense of airlines that have to pay more for their fleets due to monopoly wages and suffer delivery delays due to strikes, at the expense of workers for Boeing and its supply chain who lose their jobs because the airlines switch to Airbus. People and capital go where they are well treated. Capital happens to be a bit more mobile, and that is the source of wages.

I think CombatMedic was trying his hand at sarcasm

Hey amused, what you should look at is the break down of mobility in our country. Working hard in this country no longer means you can advance. A person borne to a wealthy family who has low test scores is more likely to earn a degree than a person borne to a poor family with high test scores. See reference below for actual facts and data.

Economic Policy Institute Report. “Inequality” stateofworkingamerica.org. Washington, D.C. Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2011 Web. 12 Feb. 2011

Now for my take away on this report. Children of the rich (not all of course) lack imagination and creativity because they do not usually have unfulfilled wants or desires. This is because necessity is the mother of inventiveness. Look through our history and learn about the path of those that invented or created something that profoundly altered our country for the better. They are either outcasts of society, or poor, or both. It is not only our responsibility to ensure equal opportunity for all, but our duty as Americans.

Just one more statement. The largest growth economically in our country was during the late 40's, through the 50's and into the 60's. What created this event? A large scale socialism project called the GI Bill that sent millions of people through college. We should be paying more money into creating an education system that educates those who are deserving and wanting, not just those who have parents that are alumni and donors. We should also be encouraging people to get educations and not try to win the lottery of fame or athletic riches. We should also refurbish and reinvest in our country's infrastructure. We cannot be a rich country again overnight, it will take time and money.

"The largest growth economically in our country was during the late 40's, through the 50's and into the 60's. What created this event? A large scale socialism project called the GI Bill that sent millions of people through college."

The destruction of most of the worlds manufacturing base along with their infrastructure was far more responsible for our growth than college degrees. If you remove WWII from the picture a bunch of college degrees will have had little effect.

to rise above and who is going to pay for all the damage that these storms have left us in the mid west. i guess by your way of thinking is screw you I got mine go find your own fix . your unamerican we are a union all 50 states when one is injured we all jump in . with your way of thinking is screww them i'm not going to go with out for them other 49 states

Union work-stoppages have force the Dreamliner to be even more off-schedule than the oft-delayed Airbus. Now Boeing has lost any competitive market advantage they might have had in getting their new plane orders filled faster and will pay the price in cancelled orders and late-penalties.

Then again they can enhance their bottom-line thanks to their tight relationship with the Pentagon. Selling/leasing a bunch of unneeded re-fueler tankers so that the American Empire can continue to bomb the world at will is simply sacrificing even more US productivity & wealth on useless machines of war.

DAK your statement indicates a complete lack of a clue!! Unions have nothing to do with why the Dreamliner is late. It has far more to do with bad design and the non-availability of outsourced parts due to poor quality.

Amused, keep believing that work stoppage dose not stop work..............

I agree that their were other issues, but your comments is slanted to suit your point of few, reducing your credibility. Clueless in the Midwest?

Free enterprise!! It doesn't matter what their motives for moving are!! This isn't an employee owned company!!

Amused

Actually it has more to do with an unprecedented use of a material that has never been used like it is in the Dreamliner. When you expect your plane to have a service life of 20 years, you can't make mistakes. These are risks. Boeing lost the gamble on some of these risk factors. That isn't bad management or bad design, that is just life.

There is a reason why it has taken so long for the aerospace industry to take advantage of what the space shuttle started (the payload bay doors were the largest composite structures ever until now). And there is the same reason why airliners essentially look the same since the Boeing 707. It is because the risk is too high to do try and market anything different. The delays in the Dreamliner are case in point.

They are and have been moving jobs overseas because they want to pay just above minimum wage for jobs that had at one time been considered technical and required skills. So just consider that when you get on your next airplane..... where was it build and by whom. Too, they want to work these people as temp employees through outside companies so they don`t have to pay any benefits. Because it is an at will state they intend to work them 40+ hours a week and if they complain about no overtime pay they will just fire them.

Never been part of a union but I can see where throughout US history they have had a positive impact on the workers of America while at the same time repeatedly shooting themselves in their collective feet. Businesses sole goal the last thirty years it seems is to make the US a third world nation on as many fronts as possible. Most assuredly by driving worker conditions and pay into the dirt. We are in a rapid descent to the bottom so I guess they are achieving their goals. Work will come back when they can pay US workers as little as they pay in third world countries, with 12 hr days,/6 days a week, without benefits, and without oversight. We are already falling behind educationally compared to industrial nations but also some developing nations. Not a recent thing either. Look at she who should not be named complete inability to recall the history lessons of her youth let alone her college years. Not recent.

Shark, it must be difficult living without facts. It is against the law to move a production plant because of union activities. It's very simple!!!!!!

But, they can sell the plant, and then contract with the new owners to build parts for them, or assemble the airplane for them.

They have already done once before.

They aren't moving a plant. The WA Unionized plant is still open. No Union workers have been fired or laid off due to past strike activities. In fact they have hired even more Unionized WA workers.

What Boeing is doing is opening up new productive capability in SC.

What the NLRB is doing is claiming that they have the ability to prevent companies from adding additional productive capacity in Right to Work States because it might threaten future Union hegemony. That is absolutely unprecendented and completely outside of their authority.

just as soon as the non union plant gets up to speed with uneducated workers they will start closing down the washinton plant just like they did here in california

If they can prove that the strike has in essence cost them financially - and in this case it has because they are behind - then any corporation has the right to open another plant and shut another one down. Yes, unions have a right to strike but the owners can say when they close the doors on a building. For anyone who thinks that they can't -- may I remind you that several years ago Safeway started closing stores during a strike and left some of them closed for a year or two after the strike had ended. It happens!!

JPM77

What the NLRB is doing is claiming that they have the ability to prevent companies from adding additional productive capacity in Right to Work States because it might threaten future Union hegemony.

That is not at all what they are doing, read it it has nothing to do with it being a right to work state, it is because they claim that Boeing said was done to avert Strikes.

BTW it was the NLRB who oversaw the vote to remove the union from the SC plant.

Congress vs. the NLRB

Again, no retaliation has taken place. Boeing is not violating the law, they have not fired any WA Union workers, they have in fact hired many many more WA Union workers, and have increased production in their Union plants.

But the Union isn't happy with that. They want the additional work that the expasion in to SC will handle. The work that will be produced in South Carolina is not taking away work from Washington, it is additional expanded capacity. It is only taking away *potential* work from WA, not current work. Boeing was willing to negotiate with the Union to see if it was worthwhile to place the additional capacity in WA. They made a good faith effort to see if that was the case. When talks broke down, they opted for what was their logical choice.

That's not retaliation, or else any time the company didn't just concede to whatever the Union wanted you could consider that retaliation. There were negotiations, the couldn't find mutually beneficial outcome, so Boeing put their additional capacity where it made the most business sense.

And you are naive if you think this has nothing to do with Right to Work law. The NLRB complaint is centered on the fact that they believe this is about workers striking and that workers in SC will not do so because they will be less likely to organize because it is a Right to Work State.

Unfortunately, the NRLB complaint if upheld would gut the Taft Hartley Acts guarantee of Right to Work laws everywhere.

JPM77

This is taken from the NLRB site.

Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. (Examples here and here). In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General Counsel does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory reasons.

All your links are broken. But this is directly from the NRLB website:
National Labor Relations Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility

"To remedy the alleged unfair labor practices, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order that would require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state."

This is the problem. Yes, they wave away the issue by saying Boeing doesn't need to close the production facility in SC. But that doesn't solve the problem. Boeing has enough demand to create 3 additional airliners a month. It doesn't have enough demand to create 3 additional airliners a month in WA because they get forced to do so by the Unions and NRLB, and keep the production plant open and idle in SC.

But again, no unfair or criminal actions have been taken by Boeing. Hypothetically... If you currently own Apple stock, and had an additional $1,000 to invest and you investigated the market and decided to put it in Microsoft stock instead of Apple stock, are you retaliating against Apple because after analyzing the facts you decided Microsoft was a better long term investment for the additional money you had?

How about if you had that $1000, and invested it in Microsoft, but continued to reinvest the dividends from Apple back into Apple?

Look, Boeing has not closed nor transferred any production away from WA and the Union. They have in fact hired additional Union employees in WA since deciding on opening the plant in SC. No executive has made statements to the effect that they intended to punish the WA plant for being a Union shop. All they have said is that amid the myriad factors that go into deciding future investment in the companies long term outlook, production stability was one of those factors, and that overall including that one factor, SC was the better option for the company for the added and expanded future capacity.

That's not retaliation, and it's not breaking the Wagner Act. The NLRB however is doing something that violates the Taft Hartley Act.

Where do you get that quote?.... Top reason that so many mfg have left country?... Try $80 per month in China... that has absolutely nothing to do with Unions.... I doubt you would even work for that wage...

I would also add, great employees that are kept informed about the company goals and objectives. It is a same that Unions cannot believe that this is possible and paint all companies as "evil". I see too many doing the same about both political parties and the reality is there are some good politicians in both parties; it is the media (all) that ties to convince us otherwise. I would also add that we have a lot of posters guilty of the same.

"Unions have so place in the work place now."

Actually with eroding rages, jobs being outsources overseas and the over all raping of the American worker by special interests NOW is the time they are needed the most.

And no, I am a non union worker. But I am a Boeing employee.

all workers need to stand together union and non-union and realize the problem is not the unions nor the worker but the greedy corporations with excessive executive pay. 420 times the average worker per year is what they make and in Europe it 20 times the average worker. Wake up

There is no question that the working class is becoming more conservative and less interested in labor unions. Like cancer cells in the body they will bring their own demise with low wages and fewer benefits. While statistics have shown liberals to be more educated with higher incomes. The best way to overcome the squeeze at the bottom is with an education.

doh, Yes I believe you are correct. A fare amount of liberals are WELFARE RECIPIENTS and there income has risen thanks to Obama. They got a 34% raise. Better than anyone else in the work force. And can you squeeze them into getting an Education. Just look at the stats. More Welfare Recipients are Collage Graduates then the people who actually want to work their way up on their own.

Just start with this.

"According to a 2004 study by the Pew Research Center, liberals were the most educated ideological demographic and were tied with the conservative sub-group, the "Enterprisers", for the most affluent group. Of those who identified as liberal, 49% were college graduates and 41% had household incomes exceeding $75,000, compared to 27% and 28% as the national average, respectively."

Perhaps you could give me some of your "stats"?

dohdeedoh, sad to say that some of the dumbest people I know are college grads. I do have a college degree, I use my common sense, I know that I am entitled to nothing so I work hard and realize that life long learning (with or without a degree) is what makes a person "smart".

funny how you can get a degree and remain stupid.........

Atlas,

Are those "dumb" college grads that you know also welfare recipients?

We all know people who are book smart who have no common sense. I know computer programmers and accountants who are mathematically brilliant and don't know how to use a hammer. But you know what? They're pulling down great money and raising families in great neighborhoods.

Even without common sense, their educations have made them productive, tax paying citizens.

Just imagine if they had neither.

More Welfare Recipients are Collage Graduates then the people who actually want to work their way up on their own.

CombatMedic,

Very simply, this is pure bullsh*t.

hey all you union haters ( republicans) when the chickens come home to roost remember it's on you. ca-ching ill bet every non union worker won't like whats going to happen to there wage when the unions are gone it's called communism

and it will be to late for any of you to run and hide . i hope my grand children move out of this country when the enter the job market

Hey (capitalist hater libbie) phil wilms, that's your opinion! When capitalism is gone it's called communism. You will probably still want your grand kids to move out, but with the new world order in progress they won't have anywhere to go. Wouldn't waste your $$ on a collage fund either.

You don't know what you've got til it's gone.

Maybe his grandkids will take phil with them.

"holding companies hostage" ????

Are you completely gaff? LOL boy did you buy it hook line and sinker. Get back with me when those poor little CEOs loose their income will ya. :)

Damn people are DUMB...

The IAM is not holding Boeing hostage.

It is funnier than hell to even read some of these things, that was a good one :P

Seems to me the IAM is not hodlig Boeing hostage, the are holding the workers in South Carolina hostage.

CalifGirl00

Perhaps the IAM is just trying to get even with the workers SC.

By Andy Owens
aowens@scbiznews.com
Published Sept. 10, 2009

Boeing workers in North Charleston voted to decertify the Machinists union by a vote of 199 to 68 this afternoon.

The election was held by the National Labor Relations Board in response to a petition an employee filed for union decertification in July.

The results of the vote won’t be official until certified by the National Labor Relations Board seven days after the vote, said Boeing Charleston spokeswoman Candy Eslinger. She said that window gives time for any objections to be lodged.

Big Labor is just doing what it is paid to do, pulling the levers of bureacracy. Not even 12% of the workforce is unionized; and only 6.9% of the private sector is, but the NLRB (BHO) is favoring union jobs in WA over nonunion workers in SC.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head retREMF.

and big corporations never pull the levers of bureaucracy to turn things to their favor, do they?

(sarcasm intended)

Sure and then we can all fly Airbus