Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point.

[dasleben]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

I just read that the S.C. workers used to be unionized and then voted to de-certify the union. Why would they do this?

Can't speak for Boeing, but I was involved with a union decertification drive (actually, two of them). Some people have it in their heads that any union is better than no union. However, a union is a for-profit organization like any other; its membership is free to take their business elsewhere if the dues paid aren't worth the level of representation (or lack thereof).

 

[beasly]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

Because coercion works, maybe? As previously noted, Boeing's public and written statements, while violating the law, were designed to do two things—retaliate against the Machinsts Union in Seattle, and intimidate potential union activity in North Charleston. Nobody believes that North Charleston would have gotten the 787 assembly plant if the workers had remained unionized, do they? Especially after Boeing let it be known they would in fact illegally retaliate and intimidate regardless of federal labor law?

Seattle's KOMO report on the vote.

Seattle Times report (long but really worth the read).

Post Courier article.

Seattle Post Intelligencer.

KING report.

And, to be fair, it appears the union itself bears some responsibility for their own decertification because of the way they handled a contract vote:

Charleston Regional Business Journal article.

But, in the end, Boeing knew they could violate the law and get away with it, and in so doing intimidate workers in South Carolina from ever again considering unionizing well into the foreseeable future.

Thanks RDoug.

Unfortunately, I don't know squat about labor law. I will give those articles a read.

 

[terryb99]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

I used to publish a weekly newsletter and back in November 2009 was submitted an article by a Seattle area attorney. Here is the link;

http://www.imakenews.com/tmcm/e_article001598174.cfm?x=bg2T2nn,bbLW8FPH,w

I am not sure how long the link will last, so just in case, Here is the text;

Boeing is gone - Where the Machinists went wrong
[FONT=verdana,arial] A Seattle Attorney gives his perspective. [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial]

BOEING IS GONE
WHERE THE MACHINISTS WENT WRONG
By John M. Payne, Esq.Davis Grimm Payne & Marra

After more than 75 years of building airplanes in Seattle, how could we let Boeing get away? Here is where the Machinists Union went wrong:

1. Strikes: Three strikes in 20 years. Are you kidding me? Boeing is the highest paying manufacturer in the Pacific Northwest. The Machinists Union let the radicals in the Union call the shots. They knew it and Boeing knew it. It killed the golden goose.

2. 2009 Negotiations. What was the Machinists Union thinking? Six months ago, Boeing announced it will leave if it cannot secure a 10 year no-strike commitment from the IAM. In the meantime, Boeing’s Machinists in South Carolina voted to go non-union.

Instead of recognizing it must work with Boeing to remain in Washington, the IAM reverted to its old ways. It played hardball. The Machinists Union insisted on guarantees that Boeing’s new work would be placed in Washington. It insisted on a $5,000 per employee signing bonus. And, incredibly, it insisted on a neutrality clause so that Boeing could not exercise its legal rights to oppose union organizing at other facilities. This was badly misplayed. With no leverage whatsoever, the Union bowed their backs and overplayed their hand. Now the Union lost it all. Boeing’s comments were correct: The Union’s last minute brinksmanship was the wrong strategy at the wrong time.

3. How could this happen? The Union leadership lost touch with its members. At a time when Washington’s blue collar workers needed the Union the most – to save their jobs – the IAM failed them miserably. The Machinists Union leaders put themselves ahead of their members.

How else can you explain the insistence that Boeing agree to a neutrality clause in Union organizing drives? Do you think the rank-and-file members care about union organizing neutrality agreements?

Do you think the rank-and-file employees are worried about future union membership? No, they want their jobs. The Union leadership lost touch. This ill-played strategy cost them and the Puget Sound region dearly. The Machinists Union could have learned a valuable lesson from their counterparts in the United Auto Workers (UAW) or the Steel Workers. But, they failed to do so.

4. What is next ? It happened in Detroit. It will no doubt happen here. Good paying blue collar jobs will slowly disappear. As jobs are eliminated, skilled craftsmen become underemployed. Tax revenues shrink. The education system suffers. Related industries such as parts suppliers, transportation, hotels and restaurants also suffer. It goes without saying, housing prices flatten or are reduced.

It won’t happen today or even in the next couple of years. But, by 2014 it is inevitable that the Puget Sound area will feel the harsh effects of Boeing’s gradual departure.

The high-tech industry won’t save Seattle. Successful economies are diverse economies. Manufacturing is a key component of that success. What manufacturing do we have left?

5. One last question. One last question – Where were the politicians who in 2008 promised our citizens new hope and a great economy? Couldn’t the Governor and Legislature have matched South Carolina’s $170 million pledge to Boeing?

Instead, they arrogantly insisted that we have quality laborers that Boeing can’t live without. This argument fell on deaf ears, particularly when Boeing’s leadership now lives in Chicago. This was a misplayed hand by political leadership who should know better.

6. Summary. This was a colossal failure by leaders in the Union and government who could have done much better. If Detroit, Youngstown and Cleveland are any indication of the impact of a loss of manufacturing jobs, we are in for difficult times ahead.

John Payne practices law exclusively in the area of labor and employment. His firm is Davis Grimm Payne & Marra, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4040, Seattle, WA 98104. 206-447-0182
jpayne@davisgrimmpayne.com ​

[/FONT]

 

[beasly]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

This thread is getting very interesting.

 

[beasly]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

Because coercion works, maybe? As previously noted, Boeing's public and written statements, while violating the law, were designed to do two things—retaliate against the Machinsts Union in Seattle, and intimidate potential union activity in North Charleston. Nobody believes that North Charleston would have gotten the 787 assembly plant if the workers had remained unionized, do they? Especially after Boeing let it be known they would in fact illegally retaliate and intimidate regardless of federal labor law?

Seattle's KOMO report on the vote.
....

Ok, that is weak. is this the damning quote:

Robert Wood, an IAM spokesman in the Southeast U.S., said the union leaves decisions about representation up to its membership.

"The Machinists union is a very democratic organization," he said.

But he added that he believes many workers were pressured by the company into voting against the union.

okey-dokey.

no sale.

On to the next one.

 

[beasly]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

Because coercion works, maybe? As previously noted, Boeing's public and written statements, while violating the law, were designed to do two things—retaliate against the Machinsts Union in Seattle, and intimidate potential union activity in North Charleston. Nobody believes that North Charleston would have gotten the 787 assembly plant if the workers had remained unionized, do they? Especially after Boeing let it be known they would in fact illegally retaliate and intimidate regardless of federal labor law?


Seattle Times report (long but really worth the read).

.....

weak. Reads like inside union baseball. Sorry, not convinced and doubting your judgement.

 

[RDoug]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

Sorry. I'm not getting your point, Beasly.

 

[derg]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

Sorry. I'm not getting your point, Beasly.

Not too many do, but give him a chance.

 

[beasly]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

Because coercion works, maybe? As previously noted, Boeing's public and written statements, while violating the law, were designed to do two things—retaliate against the Machinsts Union in Seattle, and intimidate potential union activity in North Charleston. Nobody believes that North Charleston would have gotten the 787 assembly plant if the workers had remained unionized, do they? Especially after Boeing let it be known they would in fact illegally retaliate and intimidate regardless of federal labor law?



Post Courier article.

.

Ok, you lost me.

“We are pleased that hourly workers elected to deal directly with the company on employment matters,” Eslinger said. “We are also pleased that Boeing Charleston can move forward and meet commitments on the 787 program.”
She discounted talk that the vote can be construed to influence Boeing’s decision later this year on whether or not to build a second assembly line in North Charleston.
“The two are not connected whatsoever,” she said.
Dallas-based IAM spokesman Bob Wood blamed Boeing for playing one community against another.
“While we believe the workers at the South Carolina Boeing Plant would be better served and their rights protected with union representation, ultimately, it was a decision those workers would make,” Wood said.
“We are frustrated that Boeing did not remain neutral and allow these workers to make a decision free from pressure, intimidation and coercion,” he said. “Boeing is playing a perverse game of pitting community against community for the most taxpayer money, and pitting worker against worker for the cheapest possible labor, using these tough economic times to take advantage of both. The IAM will continue to be here for aerospace workers in the United States.”
The National Labor Relations Board, which oversaw the secret-ballot election, must certify the vote within seven days, Eslinger said.

And I give up.


RDoug, your links are not convincing.

What am I missing?

 

[RDoug]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

I'm not sure what it is you're missing, Beasly. Does your point have something to do with the fact that the decertification vote was done by secret ballot? Of course it is. Doesn't mitigate the fact that Boeing made it publicly very clear that they were moving certain operations out of Seattle in retaliation for lawful union activity, and making that abundantly clear to workers in North Charleston. That's kind of the whole point behind intimidation—to influence the vote, secret ballot or not.

 

[beasly]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

And this:

is a big ass engine casing.

 

[beasly]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

I'm not sure what it is you're missing, Beasly. Does your point have something to do with the fact that the decertification vote was done by secret ballot? Of course it is. Doesn't mitigate the fact that Boeing made it publicly very clear that they were moving certain operations out of Seattle in retaliation for lawful union activity, and making that abundantly clear to workers in North Charleston. That's kind of the whole point behind intimidation—to influence the vote, secret ballot or not.

Ok.

I will study it some more and keep an open mind.

Quick question. Does intimidation work both ways? Your state that Boeing intimidates the union. Does the union ever intimidate Boeing?

 

[RDoug]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

Ok.

I will study it some more and keep an open mind.

Quick question. Does intimidation work both ways? Your state that Boeing intimidates the union. Does the union ever intimidate Boeing?

I have no idea. You'd have to ask Boeing's execs that one. I rather thought the point here, however, was unlawful intimidation. It is unlawful to retaliate against a union for lawful union activities. To do so in called an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP), and is a violation of federal labor law. When such unlawful tactics are used to retaliate against one group of workers and to intimidate yet another group . . . well, that's why the NLRB got involved, now isn't it.

So, once again, I'm not getting your point here.

 

[beasly]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

I have no idea. You'd have to ask Boeing's execs that one. I rather thought the point here, however, was unlawful intimidation. It is unlawful to retaliate against a union for lawful union activities. To do so in called an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP), and is a violation of federal labor law. When such unlawful tactics are used to retaliate against one group of workers and to intimidate yet another group . . . well, that's why the NLRB got involved, now isn't it.

So, once again, I'm not getting your point here.

Did I miss a post showing unlawful retaliation? Nothing in the links you posted showed that. I just saw the typical talking points you get from opposed parties in a political dispute.

Also, in addition to my previous post--I have read that the NLRB is being used as an object of intimidation against private businesses and that the new leader of that NLRB is a bit of a radical.

I suspect that what I have read is true, but I am new to union issues.

p.s.

Congrats on your website--very impressive.

 

[RDoug]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.

Do a Google on Unfair Labor Practices and go over the list. You'll find prohibited practices for both unions and businesses. It should become quite evident at that point.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

To put it in perspective to the people who don't get it, I was a white book hire (I know means nothing to pilots) who hit the point of no return (quit job, going to school to be a controller, then bang enforced non negotiated contract) when the agency used a loophole to cut controller pay, not by a few dollars but 30%. Guys like R Doug had the chance to create a B scale and sell me down the river so they could have the same pay scales they had prior. I was bait/switched and I'm missing 70K in back pay I'll never see, but they had the guts to not create some horrible dichotomy. The hard work they put forth and adamant refusal to sell us out made me realize early on, hey it isn't dues = profit. These guys are seriously not only spending their money to help me, but their time, leave AND continuing an unjust pay slash.

Thanks Rdoug and to those like you.

I've always thought that the National Air Traffic Controllers Association is one hell of a union—mostly because every NATCA member I know has not only stood strong with their fellow members, and also because NATCA has a strong safety focus. If it makes the controllers more effective and safer, it makes us safer - so thanks.

 

[O&M]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

I'm simply going to have to throw the BS flag on this one. Specifically, what governmental intrusion and laws require executives to take multi-million dollar bonuses, even when they drive their businesses off a cliff? Which law is it that required AIG and bank execs after the financial meltdown in late 2008 to get said bonuses even after they got bailed out with tax dollars because they were, "Too big to fail?" Which law is it that required the average S&P 500 exec to earn in 2007 344 times the pay of the average American worker?

Specific cites will be greatly appreciated. Meanwhile, the above examples look to me suspiciously like a LACK of government oversight rather than intrusive government regulation. Buy, hey, YMMV.

To my knowledge, there are no laws in that regard, and that's as it should be. It's none of the government's damn business what anybody in the private sector makes, whether it be the custodian or the CEO. And if some businessman "drives his business off a cliff," that's ok too, because it's HIS business. Now, if you are referring to publicly held companies, well that is why they have a board of directors that keeps the CEO in check.

What I was referring to is a tax code that has the average middle class american paying 25% of his income to the federal government. One fourth of your work day goes just to paying your federal income tax liability. That's not even considering all the many other taxes that we have to pay. When the federal income tax was first levied, the top rate was something like 7 1/2%. Now it's 5 times that, has been much higher in the past, and if this president had his way, would be much higher than it already is.

I'm referring to laws like Obamacare that handcuff employers and kill economic growth. I am referring to labor laws that restrict employers being competitive in their marketplaces while giving unions free reign to ride roughshod all over the people who actually provide the jobs and pay the salaries. Unfair labor practices? What does that mean? It's impossible for an employer to be "unfair" to an employee without the employee's consent. You think your employer is being "unfair?" It's a free country (for the time being anyway). Go find another job.

To me, "unfair" is where unions threaten total destruction to an employer's business unless the union's demands are fulfilled. Unfair is the unions demanding a seat at the table even though they have done nothing to warrant it, have not invested in the company, and therefore have nothing to lose if the company goes out of business.

 

[dasleben]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

To my knowledge, there are no laws in that regard, and that's as it should be. It's none of the government's damn business what anybody in the private sector makes, whether it be the custodian or the CEO. And if some businessman "drives his business off a cliff," that's ok too, because it's HIS business. Now, if you are referring to publicly held companies, well that is why they have a board of directors that keeps the CEO in check.

What I was referring to is a tax code that has the average middle class american paying 25% of his income to the federal government. One fourth of your work day goes just to paying your federal income tax liability. That's not even considering all the many other taxes that we have to pay. When the federal income tax was first levied, the top rate was something like 7 1/2%. Now it's 5 times that, has been much higher in the past, and if this president had his way, would be much higher than it already is.

I'm referring to laws like Obamacare that handcuff employers and kill economic growth. I am referring to labor laws that restrict employers being competitive in their marketplaces while giving unions free reign to ride roughshod all over the people who actually provide the jobs and pay the salaries. Unfair labor practices? What does that mean? It's impossible for an employer to be "unfair" to an employee without the employee's consent. You think your employer is being "unfair?" It's a free country (for the time being anyway). Go find another job.

To me, "unfair" is where unions threaten total destruction to an employer's business unless the union's demands are fulfilled. Unfair is the unions demanding a seat at the table even though they have done nothing to warrant it, have not invested in the company, and therefore have nothing to lose if the company goes out of business.

Good post.

There's a balance. Joining a union to have better representation in terms of negotiating with management? That's great, and can be very effective. That's why I joined the union here, along with the fact that the union provides legal counsel in case you ever need it. However, if the membership has the outlook of "Oh, we'll get our raise or shut the place down (polite version)," that seems little more than a temper tantrum to me. A better and more effective method would be to simply find a better job. Obviously not easy with the economy the way it is now, but let me tell you: I have apps out. So do most people. Absolutely nothing wrong with that; it's the free market in action. If the company wants to move airplanes, they'll have to pay more.

But, just as we expect the company to respect our freedom, we have to respect theirs. Before you agree to work someplace, do your due diligence and find out about pay, work rules, etc. Base your decision to work at a company on the current information you have, not what you expect it to be down the road. And for the love of god, please don't be one of these guys who gets online and immediately starts complaining about the pay/schedule/work rules. Yes, we all know we're on the road too much and don't get paid enough, but all of that wasn't exactly confidential information when you agreed to come to class. This doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to negotiate new rates and improvements, but trying to shut the place down over these things after you willingly took the job makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, it strikes me as rather malicious.

Actually, as negotiations at my current company progressed, I emailed my EXCO chairman (MEC for ALPA-folk) and asked about the union's plans. I specifically asked: If striking over a 30% raise is going to cause the company to lose all of its contracts and result in every employee getting 100% pay cuts (as I later found out, it would not, but just for argument's sake...), is this the most prudent action? The response I received was a one-liner that seemed to put me as the bad guy for even asking such a question. I'm not against a strike by any means, but we have to know that the company will remain solvent and we'll have jobs to come back to. Otherwise, it's a meaningless and irresponsible venture.

 

[RDoug]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

I don't know where you're getting your "facts," O&M, but you might want to check our sources for reliability. For instance, "Tax Freedom Day," the day on which the average American has finished paying all federal, state, and local taxes combined, will this year fall on April 12, up three days from last year's April 9 date. That means the total average bill for taxes from all entities is only 28.0%, a far cry from the 25% you cite for federal taxes alone. And even that amount is the third lowest since the 1950s. And once again, those numbers reflect the average for all taxpayers, which includes everyone from the wealthy to the destitute. If you single out just middle class taxpayers, that figure drops substantially below that 28% figure, and even well below your contention that the middle class pays a 25% of their income in federal taxes alone.

And do you even know what "Obamacare" is? First of all, what you call "Obamacare" was initially proposed by George H. W. Bush back in the 1980s, and again by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in the mid 1990s. It is a requirement for people to obtain health insurance rather than rely upon the local, tax-supported county hospital for "free" healthcare at the emergency room on my local tax dime. Forcing people to be responsible for their own healthcare costs is somehow "handcuffing employers" and "killing jobs"? Sorry, but if it reduces my tax burden at the local level with minimal impact at the federal level, then I'm certainly not seeing it. If it did all that, the Republicans would not have kept proposing it before Barack Obama came into the picture. Indeed, a current Republican front-runner for his party's nomination not only proposed the same plan for his state, he got it enacted into law. Finally, financial costs to the federal government for "Obamacare" range from $80 billion in the worst case scenario to actually saving money (especially on the Medicaid front) in the best case.

Contrast that with the George W. Bush Medicare Prescription Bill, which was financed totally with borrowed money (up to a trillion dollars over twenty years by some estimates), and is a good part of the reason we're under the staggering national debt load we have today.

If you don't like "Obamacare," you should go after those who first proposed it and call it something else, such as perhaps "Bushcare" or "Newtcare" or even "Mittcare."

You also might want to take a quick look at this following links:

What People Don't Know About the Deficit

University of Maryland Study: Fox News Viewers Are the Most Misinformed

 

[RDoug]

Re: Boeing opens S.C plant . flips NLRB an exclamation point

I'm not against a strike by any means, but we have to know that the company will remain solvent and we'll have jobs to come back to. Otherwise, it's a meaningless and irresponsible venture.

That is 100% correct. I would also throw in the caveat that it makes no sense to go on strike if the wages lost during the strike will not be made up in a reasonably short period of time by the wage increases being struck for. Unfortunately, unions run by those other than the ones directly impacted may often lose sight of one or both criteria.

Consequently, I would have real heartburn being in a union whose leadership is not in my business or career field, and whose leaders will not have to suffer the consequences of their actions in the union office once their stint in that office is completed.