The Right To Work And Boeing
Under The Radar Again I Go...
I am a "Right To Worker" and have been my entire life. I am also a business owner now and don't need, or want, anyone interfering in how I run my business, especially some union shop boneheads. I especially don't need anyone in the federal government telling me who I can or can't hire, where to locate my business and how to run it. That's why I'm here to make those types of decisions. I was on another Hub when someone made the comment that Obama is going to stop Boeing from opening a facility in my home state, in particular Charleston, South Carolina. Then I started to think about it. See I read quite a bit and this one escaped me temporarily.
A little history might be in order. The Boeing Corporation is very big in the Pacific Northwest state of Washington. I lived out there once upon a time and it is a major employer in the SEATAC area. The state of Washington, according to the map presented, isn't a "Right to Work" state. I know an electrical contractor out there who repeatedly told me that the unions had a stranglehold on labor issues there, and I believe the man. You see, unions want to receive favorable treatment in case you haven't taken notes lately.
Back in the fall of 2009, Boeing made a business decision which was theirs to make - where to operate another production facility. It will manufacture the 787, also called the Dreamliner which is presently manufactured in Everett, Washington. That decision was based upon the failure of the unions to face economic reality. They thought they had a stranglehold on the company. The machinists union was a major contributor to Boeing's decision. They have struck the company at least 5 times in recent history and caused too much economic harm and continually disrupted the work environment. Based upon that and other factors, Boeing had to make some economic decisions and did so.
They could have chosen to move the facility outside the borders of the United States. General Electric, Obama's buddy, has done just that but not a peep huh? Remember that Immelt, the present CEO is sitting up there, appointed by Obama, to head his job creation panel. Give that some serious thought as GE shutters it plants that produce incandescent light bulbs and those jobs move to China. Create jobs for whom is my question?
Boeing decided to move to South Carolina which is a "Right To Work" state. Here we believe that you have the right to work without union interference, bullying or coercion to get your way. A fair day's work equates to a fair day's pay. State officials, like any other state officials, are concerned about continued unemployment and are seeking the presence of job producers, not discouraging them. There is a reason that BMW chose this state to open a plant. There was also a reason that Honda opened an ATV production facility not far from where I live. I know workers in both facilities and they say the they are treated quite fairly and they don't want a union to destroy their work environment. Their words, not mine.
So onto the scene rides the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). A little history helps here also. The NLRB was established by Congress to be a neutral negotiating body to help resolve labor disputes. As with many government agencies. it has become a political appointee reward stopping point. The NLRB is no exception to the concept of cesspool politics. The intent of neutrality becomes a moot point and turned on its head. If you don't believe that Obama has the unions in his back pocket, or him in theirs, then I have a bridge I'll gladly sell you for pennies on the dollar. Trumpka, the union boss of the AFL-CIO, is on the frequent visitor program to The Whine House and racking up some shoe leather time going there. What amazes me is that union workers are the minority in this nation's workforce, but they seem to want to bellow the loudest.
The NLBR, as Obama;s proxy, has sued the Boeing Corporation. This is a severe over reach (you should be seeing the pattern of over reach by the federal government by now) which extends well past their legal mandate granted by Congress. The reason they have sued Boeing is the company's decision to build that second Dreamliner plant in the great state of South Carolina. Imagine that Boeing chose to create jobs in this country rather than shuttering operations and moving overseas to a more labor friendly environment. How dare they!
Several side issues arise here. The voters in South Carolina (me being one of them) overwhelmingly voted to amend our Constitution this past November to allow workers the right to vote on whether they want to be a member of a union. Seems rather reasonable to me as a member of "We, the People..." The workers at Boeing in South Carolina took that step and booted the unions from representing them. Boeing presently employs 1,000 workers here with the objective of providing 5,000 jobs to our people here. Hey, it was a business decision so don't take it so personally union management and sic the NLRB attack dogs on the will of the people. They helped release the stranglehold of the International Brotherhood of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IBMAW) on Boeing production. So you are going to sue them for that also?
What the NLRB contends is that's Boeing's decision to relocate to a better work environment is a retaliatory measure against the IBMAW. How so you ask? Back in 2008 the union struck Boeing and crippled the company's production in Washington state. If you do that to my business, I might have to make some business decisions myself. But to call it retaliation is a bit of a stretch. It was a business decision that any business has the right to make. It's called location, location, location. Why is it illegal to do what is best for your business?
This is the second attempt by the NLRB in attacking the state of South Carolina. Early in 2011 they threatened this state's officials along with Utah, South Dakota and Arizona (of all places huh?). The nature of the threat was that they would use our money (read: tax payer) to sue those states because we had the audacity to include the right of union workers to cast a "secret ballot" in any union elections. They contended the individual states don't have the right to include that in their state Constitution. The contents and wording of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution seems to come to my mind here.
There is pending legislation in Congress to prevent the NLRB from proceeding with such a lawsuit. It should also be noted that 176 members of the House voted to totally defund the NLRB in an amendment to the budget. This agency has over steeped its legal boundaries. It has moved well past the mandate that Congress gave it when it was created. It is to be a "neutral" body, not the voice of the unions.
Since when was a government agency allowed to tell a US based company where to locate or not locate? Since the advent of Obamanation I have to surmise. Whether the Obama packed NLRB is guilty of playing politics underlies this issue. If that is so, then we are trodding one step closer to socialism. What will be the impact on this economy if the NLRB was to succeed in this, which I find very doubtful? When faced with future location decisions businesses will have taken note and rather than build on our shores, they may choose a more favorable business envorment - overseas as General Electric has done and will continue to do.
It is sheer insanity to institute tax policies, regulations and a "not so friendly" environment for our employers to operate. Even a 5th grader gets that concept. I, as a tax payer, also take exception to the NLRB using my tax money to sue any company over any businesses so obviously legal decision as to where to build their business. How absurd. How far are we going to allow this administration to continue to sink us in their political cesspool?
What say you?