Anyone else find it strange that the NLB made a big splash to shutter a $ 1B facility in South Carolina that has not even opened yet and now it is all under wraps ?

The Republicans in the Senate will not let the Senate adjourn so Obama cannot make recess appointment(s) to the NLRB, as 2 more are dropping ( 1 is today, the next is DEC ).

The last time Obama did this, it was a labor attorney from Chicago that he used a recess appointment to get him on the NLRB, when the Senate would not confirm him.

The House Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee is requesting documents, and explanations of why members are serving beyond their terms, and get the letters of 'disappointment' from the NLRB. Guess the NLRB does not think they are answering to anyone these days.

Strange how Obama has his state of the union address, about how the govt needs to make it easier for companies to do business, but the NLRB is against this ( or against not increasing the union ranks ).

The NLRB alleges that Boeing is building the new production facility in a right to work state ( i.e. not Union centered ) in retaliation for a strike(s) that delayed ( yet again ) the 787 dreamliner project.

Boeing at the same time as building the new SC facility added 2,000 workers in WA state, and they still claim it is a retaliation...

The NLRB is requesting documents that are considered company proprietary, and now on a case by case basis the documents need to be reviewed.

All the while, the HELP committee is keeping an eye on the NLRB and what they are doing.

If the NLRB gets their way, and requires the new facility to be unionized ( and paying fines ), this could send a bad signal to companies that want to expand into non union centered states, harming those states ability to draw in new business.

Anyone else see anything on this ?
The HELP committee and NLRB have the standard piles of paper to read through, that does not give an indication either way was is going on.
The only thing I see are delay tactics to get the NLRB board refreshed to the type that will find in favor of the Union ( again which the Senate GOP members are making sure cannot happen without an actual appointment this time ).

 

And then folks wonder why jobs are being sent off shore. Our biggest threat to this country is our own Government. We need term limits on all the dimwits in DC. Remember to vote for anybody except the losers in DC that are taking us with them.

 

If all the criteria has been met to open this plant, Zoning,EPA,permits and licenses, then this is just Chicago strong arm politics. Where in our constitution does it say that if you are a labor union your vote counts more than Joe Schmoe?

Heads should roll over this one..........but alas (sigh)

 

Gotta love the unions bullying everyone to try and get their way.

 

Boeing could have done better with this and their understanding of the NLRA. They have to negotiate with the union to make a large scale expansion.

In 1991, after years of litigation, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided Dubuque Packing Co. 1 Involving one of the nation's largest meatpackers, Dubuque Packing raised the important question of when a company can relocate work without talking to its employees' union.

Here is an abstract which gives some context ...very long, but a few pages read will make the point.

http://justice.law.stetson.edu/lawre...4-1Schmall.pdf

 

There is a big difference. Boeing is not relocating, they are adding to. There current factories remain as is.

 

You got that right. I have said it all along, this is the political machine being implemented in DC.

The Democratic party is trying to load the deck. If you setup enough people, they will pay you back with votes later.

Actually the current plant was expanded by 2,000 jobs.

 

No. They are relocating 30% of the 787 production, or trying to. Notice that the underlined portion of my post says - the important question of when a company can relocate work

Also Re: Dubuque Packing, The case was initially tried before the NLRB in 1985. The NLRB created a new rule about when an employer must bargain
with a union about relocating work. Where there is no proof of a
“basic change” in the business, a company must bargain over its
decision to relocate unless it can prove either that the move does not
involve labor costs or that bargaining would be futile.

 

I think I understand what you are trying to say but technically they are not relocating anything as the 787 was not in production at all. It was just certified by the FAA/EASA yesterday as a legal aircraft for customer use. This is all expansion. Relocating would be if they moved part of the 737 or 747 line to SC. Both of those aircraft are currently in production in Washington. Adding another assembly line to these would fall into relocation.

To me the union should welcome the challenge as a way to prove their worth. Show they can put out twice the number of aircraft with less build issues as a non-union shop can. That is if they really are all about what they say they are. However, the amount of crying makes my think they are more about maintaining power than making good airplanes.

 

The NLRB has been de facto supporters of almost every union position as long as I can remember.

Boeing would be best served to try to phase-out their union employees. If Boeing can accomplish this, they will see greater profits and be able to keep/create more jobs here.

 

The charges by the Union against Boeing are not for relocating, it is a 2nd new line that has never been in production.

The 787 production in WA & OR are still there, and at the combination of the WA & OR locations, 2,000 jobs were added.

The claim in the filing from a Boeing company memo on 21-OCT-09 was that the company was moving the 787 line to SC.

The 28-OCT-09 Boeing company memo stated a 2nd 787 line would be built in SC ( probably got the word from Boeing legal staff that they could not move the existing line ?? ).

The 7-DEC-09 memo has a note of dual sourcing of the parts, a union source for the WA / OR line and a non union line for the 2nd 787 line in SC, so the Machinists & Aerospace worker union could not conduct a strike in the NW and bottle neck the SC line by cutting off the parts supply. There were a few dates associated with this.

The kicker that could cause Boeing grief, staff said the SC plant is to alleviate issues of strikes holding back the production of 787s, and that these strikes could cause the WA / OR unit to loose future work due to going on strike very 3 years.

Basically the union is trying a claim of the 2nd production line was relocated, even though it was never setup or operational at any time in the unit area of WA & OR.
I can only guess this is the union thinks they own any production that Boeing does ( or at least that is how the complaint reads, Boeing never put this in a memo ).

This is the filed complaint by the union to the NLRB in case # 19-CA-32431.

 

Things are not going well at the NLRB, with more fast track policies trying to be implemented, and the Boeing case sitting on the sides.

The pending vote on the early contract renewal with the IAM in the unit area would have pay raises and benefit / pension for the 4 year extension, as well as 2 to 4 % bonuses paid, and a $ 5,000.00 contract signing bonus if the contract is voted in for all members. As well as manufacturing of the 737 MAX in the unit area. If this is approved by the union members, the IAM will drop the case with Boeing over the 2nd new 787 production line in a right to work state.

Wow, look at that, the union is all for making working environments better for everyone, until money comes up, then it is every man for himself ( as proven with the UAW stepping to the front of the line ahead of the CA teachers union ). New production line & a cash pay out, and all is forgotten.

Boeing figured out how to pay for the problem to go away, and workers rights for all takes a back seat to money.

Unions there to make thing better for everyone, until it is about money, then it is 'good luck with that, hope it works out'.
Maybe a quick round of how unions gave their lives to make things better for everyone ?

 

Tell me about it. I'm a member of a bargaining unit and can't opt out, but fortunately I don't have to pay dues to the thieves. Every time our management tries to do something against the contract involving money the first person in line is the union rep. As long as he gets money he doesn't want to file a grievance and will actively dissuade people from filing a grievance. Hell he has even gone so far as coming to agreements with management that are in direct violation of the contract to enrich his pockets. His justification for his ability to do this is that the contract has the caveat that local agreements can supersede the contract. He is one of the major reasons I am not a dues paying member. That and I don't think the national president of the union has seen a liberal cause she doesn't like. She has not supported one conservative initiative, but signs on for every liberal one whether it has to do with our work environment or not. Paying dues to that union would be no different than paying $600 per year to the democratic party. It ain't coming out of my paycheck.