Boeing vs. the Union (and the NLRB)

[pcgeek11]

http://blog.machinedesign.com/Machine_Design_Blogs/2011/04/26/boeing-vs-the-union-and-the-nlrb/

Stephen Mraz April 26th, 2011

It looks like the National Labor Relations Board is trying to punish Boeing for having the audacity to run its own business rather than cater to one of its unions, the International Association of Machinists. The company is trying to open a factory in notably non-union South Carolina. The factory would contain a second line to build the 787 airliner away from the threat of union strikes. It seems strikes have cost the company several billion dollars and long delays in delivering planes to customers over the last 20 years or so, or at least that’s what Boeing claims. But building the new plant in S.C. — a two billion-dollar plant close to completion with 1,000 people already hired to staff it – was an act of retaliation against the IAM for their past strike activity, according to the IAM and, apparently, the NRLB.

If the NRLB sides with the Union and the Courts agree that Boeing broke the law, 787 production will have to be in Puget Sound. But I am sure those union bigwigs are correct in thinking that Boeing, along with every other manufacturing company, will think twice about where to build their next plants. They will likely build future factories overseas, out of the reach of the NRLB. Hope that will make everyone happy.

Here are more details from a couple of different perspectives.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014824566_charleston21.html

http://www.laborunionreport.com/por...-labor-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing/

http://www.salon.com/news/the_labor.../htww/2011/04/25/boeing_south_carolina_unions


What do you think. ?

I think Boeing should be able to do whatever they want with their business. Not a single job in Washington was lost, they have actually hired on more workers there. The Union has been busting Boeing balls for years costing billions of dollars. The NLRB is obviously biased towards the unions.

The White House is strangely quiet. I wonder why?

 

[sactoking]

1) It's NLRB, not NRLB

2) In a vacuum the union through the NLRB shouldn't ever have the ability to force Boeing to not build a plant in SC

3) This isn't happening in a vacuum. Allegedly Boeing, in the last collectively-bargained contract with the union, ceded the right to build the 787 anywhere other than Washington. Seeing as how that is a legally bargained concession, allegedly, Boeing would have to be bound by it.

4) The head of the NLRB was quoted as saying he agrees that the NLRB has no authority to step in to this situation but that it won't matter because the other NLRB board members do not view the goal of the NLRB to be equitable dealings between employer and employee but instead view the goal of the NLRB to be expanding the reach of collective bargaining in all forms.

 

[elitejp]

I hate unions. You have an individual or a group of individuals who probably put all they had into a business idea and risked any security that they couldve had to create a business that holds no guarantees. And as soon as you become successful and hire employees the employees believe that they should have a share in the profits. Now a worker should get paid, but the question lies in how much cheaper and effective would boeing be without having to deal with unions?

So put me down for Boeing should be able to do whatever they legally want and the gov should stay out of the way. Right to work all the way.

 

[elitejp]

3) This isn't happening in a vacuum. Allegedly Boeing, in the last collectively-bargained contract with the union, ceded the right to build the 787 anywhere other than Washington. Seeing as how that is a legally bargained concession, allegedly, Boeing would have to be bound by it.

To me that just sounds like that should be illegal, or Boeing should have a way to re negotiate so that they could build anywhere they wanted. If you switch the roles isnt that the same thing Unions do when they go on strike? The unions say we currently dont agree with the contract that was written and agreed to and would now like to amend it, if you dont amend it we will go on strike.
Boeing should say that we currently do not agree with the contract that was currently in place and would now like to amend it, if you do not agree to the amendment you can feel free to go home for a very long vacation.

 

[sactoking]

To me that just sounds like that should be illegal, or Boeing should have a way to re negotiate so that they could build anywhere they wanted. If you switch the roles isnt that the same thing Unions do when they go on strike? The unions say we currently dont agree with the contract that was written and agreed to and would now like to amend it, if you dont amend it we will go on strike.
Boeing should say that we currently do not agree with the contract that was currently in place and would now like to amend it, if you do not agree to the amendment you can feel free to go home for a very long vacation.

It's perfectly legal to bargain away rights.

Consider this: While it is illegal to not hire an adult for a job because they are "too young" the NFL has/had a rule stating that players must be 3 years removed from high school before becoming eligible to play. This was challenged by Maurice Clarett, who lost. The judge(s) deciding the case all stated that the players union, of which Clarett would have to join had his lawsuit succeeded, had legally bargained away the right for players not meeting the 3-year rule to play.

This is a similar situation, allegedly. Boeing would normally have the ability to expand at their discretion, but if they knowingly and willfully bargained away that right they are bound to those terms.

The union could theoretically strike to renegotiate a contract. Such a strike would be an 'economic strike' and could easily lead to all employees being permanently replaced. Employees can only strike with the guarantee of retaining their jobs if the strike is an 'unfair labor practices' strike.

In this case if Boeing did negotiate away the right to build the 787 outside Washington the employees could strike as a ULP action (breach of contract). If Boeing did not make that concession any employee strike would be an 'economic' one and they risk their jobs, at least in my opinion.

 

[pcgeek11]

1) It's NLRB, not NRLB

I didn't write the article

3) This isn't happening in a vacuum. Allegedly Boeing, in the last collectively-bargained contract with the union, ceded the right to build the 787 anywhere other than Washington. Seeing as how that is a legally bargained concession, allegedly, Boeing would have to be bound by it.

Please provide a link where they bargained away the right to Expand the the Assembly to another area. I haven't heard or read where this is the case at all. I don't believe that Boeing would do that.
They did not punish or take away anything from the union. They provided themselves with a cushion against the strike happy union so they could still meet customer demands during the unions frequent strikes. That is why I don't think the NLRB case will withstand the court system.

 

[amicold]

To me that just sounds like that should be illegal, or Boeing should have a way to re negotiate so that they could build anywhere they wanted. If you switch the roles isnt that the same thing Unions do when they go on strike? The unions say we currently dont agree with the contract that was written and agreed to and would now like to amend it, if you dont amend it we will go on strike.
Boeing should say that we currently do not agree with the contract that was currently in place and would now like to amend it, if you do not agree to the amendment you can feel free to go home for a very long vacation.

Unions strike due to ULP such as breach of contract.

 

[rudder]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6317140858893466.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Bumping for more discussion on this continued federal power grab. Does the obama adminsitration not realize who Boeings main competitor is? the dreamliner is behind schedule as it is.. imagine another work stoppage on this product.

I am concerned at how this plays out because Volkswagen is finishing up a new plant in Chattanooga, Tn. TN is a right to work state. Will obama force VW to rebuild this plant in California?

Tennessee also has Nissan which has continually voted out union representation. Nissan autoworkers are definitely making way more than minimum wage.

 

[pcgeek11]

It seems the Union would have to show where they were inhibited in order for this to be true in any fashion. The Union has hired ~ 200 additional workers since the plant in SC was started. Seems like they are doing well in their union plant.

What is the rub other than the NLRB doing some Non-Union Busting.

 

[halik]

Completely ridiculous

 

[halik]

1) It's NLRB, not NRLB

2) In a vacuum the union through the NLRB shouldn't ever have the ability to force Boeing to not build a plant in SC

3) This isn't happening in a vacuum. Allegedly Boeing, in the last collectively-bargained contract with the union, ceded the right to build the 787 anywhere other than Washington. Seeing as how that is a legally bargained concession, allegedly, Boeing would have to be bound by it.

4) The head of the NLRB was quoted as saying he agrees that the NLRB has no authority to step in to this situation but that it won't matter because the other NLRB board members do not view the goal of the NLRB to be equitable dealings between employer and employee but instead view the goal of the NLRB to be expanding the reach of collective bargaining in all forms.

Why wouldn't the union pursue this in civil litigation rather going through the labor NLRB if that was true?

In any case, isn't the NLRB stance a huge stretch - any business decision that doesn't favor a union (diversification of suppliers, operations in RTW states etc) can be construed as "retaliation" in the way NLRB frames it.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I am concerned at how this plays out because Volkswagen is finishing up a new plant in Chattanooga, Tn. TN is a right to work state. Will obama force VW to rebuild this plant in California?

Tennessee also has Nissan which has continually voted out union representation. Nissan autoworkers are definitely making way more than minimum wage.

This is indeed troubling. Toyota and Nissan have significant operations in my home state now. I live in Tennessee and I love this state almost as much as my home state and would like to see it prosper as well. I have passed by where the VW plant is being built, on an old decommissioned powder plant. I thought it was great to see the German company renovating a WW2 ordinance plant and hiring Americans to build quality cars.

But, it seems that politicians, having caused an exodus of blue-collar jobs from their home states because they promote corruption and power-grabbing by not enacting right-to-work laws, have taken this quite poorly. Rather than trying to build a better workforce through freedom, choice and competition, they are trying to reclaim lost jobs by government intervention.

People are angered at the thought of AirBus / EADS grabbing more marketshare in the commercial / military realms, but when Boeing does what it is necessary to compete in the international market while still employing Americans in the manufacturing process, they try to stop them?

 

[D1gger]

3) This isn't happening in a vacuum. Allegedly Boeing, in the last collectively-bargained contract with the union, ceded the right to build the 787 anywhere other than Washington. Seeing as how that is a legally bargained concession, allegedly, Boeing would have to be bound by it.

"The investigation did not find merit to the union’s charge that Boeing failed to bargain in good faith over its decision regarding the second line. Although a decision to locate unit work would typically be a mandatory subject of bargaining, in this case, the union had waived its right to bargain on the issue in its collective bargaining agreement with Boeing."

This article seems to say the opposite of what you stated.

 

[werepossum]

Just another case where progressive ideas are so good they must be imposed with the armed might of government. Who needs socialism when we have fascism?

In the end, companies will do what they have to do or they will fold. If companies in captive union states are prevented from opening new factories in right-to-work states, they will build factories in other nations. If they are also prevented from opening new factories in other nations, they will go out of business, either out-competed by low-wage foreign competitors or simply priced out of the market. Even if one has a monopoly, at some point the price can increase beyond the customers' willingness or ability to pay, or at least enough customers to keep the business viable.

 

[piasabird]

TWA closed down the HUB in St. Louis, MO and moved it with no problem. This happens all the time. It is just a business decision. Maybe they should close their whole business and move to a right to work state.

 

[Lithium381]

I find this abuse of government power to be troubling.... where does it stop?

 

[KillerCharlie]

This is completely ridiculous. The government is now telling you what state you can and can't put factories in?

Well I guess that means the union states are going to start hemorrhaging jobs. No one's going to setup shop in a state where they'll tell you you can't expand to other states.

Boeing is the biggest exporter in the United States. You'd think if you want the economy to do well and create jobs you'd treat your biggest exporter well. At the very least this is going to cost taxpayers and Boeing millions of dollars in legal costs. At the worst the entire country is going to bend over and have to take it as companies don't bother and just ship jobs overseas.

Sure unions can strike. But they think they can do it without consequences? Yeah, right.

I didn't mind Obama before but this is the worst economic policy ever. I hope this blows up and keeps him from getting reelected.

 

[nobodyknows]

I can remember before Reagan was elected, 9 out of 10 cases before the Labor Board were won by labor. After Reagan was in for awhile, 9 out of 10 cases were won by management.

I guess what goes around, comes around.

 

[Patranus]

I can remember before Reagan was elected, 9 out of 10 cases before the Labor Board were won by labor. After Reagan was in for awhile, 9 out of 10 cases were won by management.

I guess what goes around, comes around.

The fact of the matter is that the board shouldn't even exist.

 

[trenchfoot]

Those workers who work in non-union companies derive the benefit of having union workers benchmark their comparable industry wage line through their negotiating efforts.

If it weren't for unions bargaining for fair wages and benefits, all of which the negotiators for those companies fully agree to as being fair (which all of you union detractors always completely ignore), the wage/benefit packages for non-union workers wouldn't be anywhere near what they earn now.

Non-union workers know that every time a union of similar occupation fights for fair wages and benefits and get them, they will eventually benefit from it by seeing a similar rise in their pay/benefit packages. These non-union workers cheer on those unionized workers in silence for fear of retribution from management, something that unionized workers have protection from.

The unions created the middle class, and it's fair to say that as the unions go, so goes the middle class. The unions got what they now have through their bargaining for fair compensation. Every contract that gets negotiated between unions and companies must have the full blessing of the management negotiating team that sits at the bargaining table with them or there would be no agreement between the two. How that can be construed in any way as "union arm-twisting" and "thuggery" on the part of the unions is pure big business propagandized hubris and hyperbole.

Every non-union worker owes their unionized counterpart a debt of gratitude for risking life and limb in the earlier days of union activism and risking their livelihoods and future employability in the here and now. Like it or not, it's an undeniable fact of life.

To reiterate, the unions set the benchmark for the present day wages and benefits that their non-unionized counterparts now enjoy. This is why getting rid of the unions is of the highest priority for big business. They know it, the unions know it, but big business is doing its utmost best to hide this fact so as to make it so much easier to divide and conquer the middle class out of existence.

edit - As for this talk about the NLRB being pro-union, I, as well as any company official or petitioning employee will tell you that from long experience, especially at the local level, the NLRB is decidedly pro-business, no two ways about it.

 

[pcgeek11]

Those workers who work in non-union companies derive the benefit of having union workers benchmark their comparable industry wage line through their negotiating efforts.

If it weren't for unions bargaining for fair wages and benefits, all of which the negotiators for those companies fully agree to as being fair (which all of you union detractors always completely ignore), the wage/benefit packages for non-union workers wouldn't be anywhere near what they earn now.

Non-union workers know that every time a union of similar occupation fights for fair wages and benefits and get them, they will eventually benefit from it by seeing a similar rise in their pay/benefit packages. These non-union workers cheer on those unionized workers in silence for fear of retribution from management, something that unionized workers have protection from.

The unions created the middle class, and it's fair to say that as the unions go, so goes the middle class. The unions got what they now have through their bargaining for fair compensation. Every contract that gets negotiated between unions and companies must have the full blessing of the management negotiating team that sits at the bargaining table with them or there would be no agreement between the two. How that can be construed in any way as "union arm-twisting" and "thuggery" on the part of the unions is pure big business propagandized hubris and hyperbole.

Every non-union worker owes their unionized counterpart a debt of gratitude for risking life and limb in the earlier days of union activism and risking their livelihoods and future employability in the here and now. Like it or not, it's an undeniable fact of life.

To reiterate, the unions set the benchmark for the present day wages and benefits that their non-unionized counterparts now enjoy. This is why getting rid of the unions is of the highest priority for big business. They know it, the unions know it, but big business is doing its utmost best to hide this fact so as to make it so much easier to divide and conquer the middle class out of existence.

edit - As for this talk about the NLRB being pro-union, I, as well as any company official or petitioning employee will tell you that from long experience, especially at the local level, the NLRB is decidedly pro-business, no two ways about it.

A good bit of this was true " Back in the Day ". This is here and now. What sets the pay and benefits in my area is the amount of business competition. More business' around makes them compete for the qualified labor available.

The Union and the NLRB are busting the balls of honest hard working people in a Right to Work State. Boeing choosing to open another assembly line here in SC has nothing to do with union busting. It is a business decision to offset the raping of billions of dollars by the union strikes in Washington State. In order for this New Assembly line to have been in retribution for striking they should have to show that it has had an impact on them. They cannot show this; they didn't loose a single job, but gained approx. 2000 jobs since. The only logical reasoning behind this move by the NLRB is " Non-Union Busting " for a lack of a better term.

As far as your edit goes, I have to call BS as you obviously don't have a clue IMO.

 

[matt0611]

The fact of the matter is that the board shouldn't even exist.

Yup.

Why the fuck is a government body telling a company what state they can put a manufacturing plant? WTF?

Just more proof how our federal government is completely out of control.

 

[nobodyknows]

The fact of the matter is that the board shouldn't even exist.

Actually, the fact of the matter is that the NLRB does exist and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Jhhnn]

The basis for the NLRB position is that Boeing demonstrably used illegal threats as coercion when negotiating with the Union. It's one thing to build a factory wherever you want, another thing entirely to beat your contracted employees over the head with it when bargaining. That's illegal, rightfully so.

It was arrogant and stupid of Boeing management to do things that way, particularly when they have advanced degrees, additional training wrt labor relations, and an army of lawyers.

There have to be consequences for that, and Boeing having to build the second assy line in Washington is the consequence that the NLRB seeks. They haven't taken anything away from S Carolina other than a promise from Boeing. Their plant will continue to operate, if Boeing chooses to do so.

 

[trenchfoot]

A good bit of this was true " Back in the Day ". This is here and now. What sets the pay and benefits in my area is the amount of business competition. More business' around makes them compete for the qualified labor available.

The Union and the NLRB are busting the balls of honest hard working people in a Right to Work State. Boeing choosing to open another assembly line here in SC has nothing to do with union busting. It is a business decision to offset the raping of billions of dollars by the union strikes in Washington State. In order for this New Assembly line to have been in retribution for striking they should have to show that it has had an impact on them. They cannot show this; they didn't loose a single job, but gained approx. 2000 jobs since. The only logical reasoning behind this move by the NLRB is " Non-Union Busting " for a lack of a better term.

As far as your edit goes, I have to call BS as you obviously don't have a clue IMO.

As a former production manager for a tool and die making/plastics injection molding company, I have had the dubious honor of representing the company I worked for at any arbitrations at the Labor Board involving employees/former employees who filed complaints against us. Of the nine arbs over a period of eight years that I can recall off the top of my head, I did not lose a single one, four of which I was pretty sure we were going to lose. I've also had two unions file against us (me) and they both lost.

As a union business agent at the company I presently work for, of the grievances that got passed on to the Labor Board, which is somewhat rare, none of them was won by the employees who filed the complaints. Of those, two were for EEO, one was for sexual harassment and the other for ADA, all of which are usually considered favored toward the complainant, this over a period of more than twenty years.

My apologies to you for not posting this in my previous post.