全部
← Back to Squawk list
Boeing opens 787 line in Charleston today
Also watch videos from local outlets here: http://www.postandcourier.com/ http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=14877490 Welcome to South Carolina! (www.flightglobal.com) 更多...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Two Seattle papers and the NYT - there you have three totally non-biased news stories regardingthis whole deal. You don't think they would have an agenda of their own do you? I don't suppose you'd give the same credibility for unbiased news reporting to "The Greenville News", The State", or the "Charleston Post and Courier" if the articles in those publications took a differing view would you? Just curious.
From the Seattle times of April 22, 2011
Clearly, Boeing could have skipped the negotiation and put its second line in North Charleston, S.C., keeping its reasons to itself. The "unfair" thing was to bellyache publicly that it was tired of strikes, which everyone knew, and to offer to put the plant here if the Machinists agreed not to strike for 10 years.
Was it not better to offer the chance for a deal?
If that put the Machinists under pressure — and it did — such pressures are part of life in American industry. This page urged the union to agree to a no-strike deal, as did public figures such as U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton.
Machinists did negotiate, offering Boeing a no-strike agreement if the company would have a no-layoff agreement. The company would not. The Machinists would not accept Boeing's proposal without one of their own. The talks ended and Boeing announced for North Charleston.
From the New York Times of April 20, 2011:
Although manufacturers have long moved plants to nonunion states, the board noted that Boeing officials had, in internal documents and news interviews, specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South Carolina.
From the Seattle Pi of April 20, 2011:
The board said it "found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past strikes and chill future strike activity."
IAM District 751 President Tom Wroblewski welcomed the complaint in a statement Wednesday, saying: "By opening the line in Charleston (S.C.), Boeing tried to intimidate our members with the idea that the company would take away their work unless they made concessions at the bargaining table. But the law is clear: American workers have a right to pursue collective bargaining, and no company – not even Boeing – can threaten or punish them for exercising those rights."
The NLRB has presented its case to the Administrative Law Judge, together with the internal memos obtained by subpoena from Boeing. Lets wait and see how the judge rules, shall we. And, I am neither pro union nor anti union, I am a retired attorney who believes in following the law that is in place. If you don't like the law, change it, but until you do, you follow it. When one person or entity believes that another has violated the law, they have every right to resort to legal proceedings. That is the rule of law and the basis for everything we do in this country. The National Labor Relations Act sets out what the various sides can and can not do. The union filed a complaint with the NLRB and based upon their review, they found credible evidence to suggest that the law had been broken and after attempts to resolve the matter with Boeing and the Union, did exactly what they were supposed to do, file a complaint and proceed to court. Why do you and others seem to have a problem with that? Should the NLRB just ignore the law?
Clearly, Boeing could have skipped the negotiation and put its second line in North Charleston, S.C., keeping its reasons to itself. The "unfair" thing was to bellyache publicly that it was tired of strikes, which everyone knew, and to offer to put the plant here if the Machinists agreed not to strike for 10 years.
Was it not better to offer the chance for a deal?
If that put the Machinists under pressure — and it did — such pressures are part of life in American industry. This page urged the union to agree to a no-strike deal, as did public figures such as U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton.
Machinists did negotiate, offering Boeing a no-strike agreement if the company would have a no-layoff agreement. The company would not. The Machinists would not accept Boeing's proposal without one of their own. The talks ended and Boeing announced for North Charleston.
From the New York Times of April 20, 2011:
Although manufacturers have long moved plants to nonunion states, the board noted that Boeing officials had, in internal documents and news interviews, specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South Carolina.
From the Seattle Pi of April 20, 2011:
The board said it "found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past strikes and chill future strike activity."
IAM District 751 President Tom Wroblewski welcomed the complaint in a statement Wednesday, saying: "By opening the line in Charleston (S.C.), Boeing tried to intimidate our members with the idea that the company would take away their work unless they made concessions at the bargaining table. But the law is clear: American workers have a right to pursue collective bargaining, and no company – not even Boeing – can threaten or punish them for exercising those rights."
The NLRB has presented its case to the Administrative Law Judge, together with the internal memos obtained by subpoena from Boeing. Lets wait and see how the judge rules, shall we. And, I am neither pro union nor anti union, I am a retired attorney who believes in following the law that is in place. If you don't like the law, change it, but until you do, you follow it. When one person or entity believes that another has violated the law, they have every right to resort to legal proceedings. That is the rule of law and the basis for everything we do in this country. The National Labor Relations Act sets out what the various sides can and can not do. The union filed a complaint with the NLRB and based upon their review, they found credible evidence to suggest that the law had been broken and after attempts to resolve the matter with Boeing and the Union, did exactly what they were supposed to do, file a complaint and proceed to court. Why do you and others seem to have a problem with that? Should the NLRB just ignore the law?
Boeing acknowledged that the reason to relocate to South Carolina was directly related to the machinists strike in 2008. It was a direct attempt to punish the union, and to instill in the union the fear that should there be another strike, they would move even more jobs. During the negotiations, the union agreed to a no-strike clause in the contract, for a period of 12 years, then Boeing demanded 20 years. This is the essence of the unfair labor practices charge. And, it is a falsehood that a union member cannot be fired. It happens all the time, but there has to be a direct correlation between the act or omission on the part of the employee and the job duties. And when you have double digit unemployment, it is easy to replace an employee.
Mr Grady,
Surely you can't be serious (and I won't call you Shirley), following this logic, any company who has a Union plant would never be able to open a plant in a right to work state for fear of being sued for retaliation. The intent of the law is one thing, this kind of enforcement is quite another. The executive branch of our government is tasked with law enforcement by the constitution, and the current administration will leverage its authority to go after any business that threatens its source of money and power.
I have over 50 employees myself, and in a free market (read as "right to work" and yes - "right to fire") if I don't take care of my employees, pay them well, treat them with respect, and provide the things that the market expects, they will leave and go elsewhere. Conversely, if I can never fire somebody for sub-par performance or outright insubordination and graft, my business will suffer from the dead weight. Businesses are in business to make a profit, not as social programs. No profits (or low return on investment) equal no jobs for anybody, including me!
Surely you can't be serious (and I won't call you Shirley), following this logic, any company who has a Union plant would never be able to open a plant in a right to work state for fear of being sued for retaliation. The intent of the law is one thing, this kind of enforcement is quite another. The executive branch of our government is tasked with law enforcement by the constitution, and the current administration will leverage its authority to go after any business that threatens its source of money and power.
I have over 50 employees myself, and in a free market (read as "right to work" and yes - "right to fire") if I don't take care of my employees, pay them well, treat them with respect, and provide the things that the market expects, they will leave and go elsewhere. Conversely, if I can never fire somebody for sub-par performance or outright insubordination and graft, my business will suffer from the dead weight. Businesses are in business to make a profit, not as social programs. No profits (or low return on investment) equal no jobs for anybody, including me!
This is another example of Obama's Chicago-style politics trying to protect the unions and their inefficient out-dated agendas.
Thank god that people are starting to wake up to the fact that unions are killing the competitiveness of America, and causing a great deal of the Federal deficit with the bloated salaries and benefits.
The idea that companies don't have the right to build and operate plants where they can be profitable is absurd.
Thank god that people are starting to wake up to the fact that unions are killing the competitiveness of America, and causing a great deal of the Federal deficit with the bloated salaries and benefits.
The idea that companies don't have the right to build and operate plants where they can be profitable is absurd.
That is called the rule of law.