Obama's National Labor Relations Board attacks Boeing for creating new jobs.

[Mahasattva]

While I haven't been surprised that this story hasn't been mentioned in the mainstream news, I am surprised that a member hasn't started a thread about it.

President Obama's National Labor Relations Board has begun an action to close down the Boeing facility in South Carolina, because it is a "right to work" state. This is NOT a veiled attempt to payoff his union supporters, it is an out front living large and loud attempt to payoff his union supporters. Several of us conservative leaning individuals on the forum have accused Obama of paying off union leaders AND seeking to undermine business interests here in America (harming economic recovery) AND seeking to limit the freedoms of Americans to build business and work were they chose. This is another example of Obama doing each of these in one story. Those who champion unions need to understand that this effort by the NLRB, if it were to succeed, would greatly harm our economic recovery across the country, not only in “right to work” states but in all states. As the author points out, such action if successful would incentivize companies moving overseas, or at least to Mexico or Canada. Why even try to build a company if the government will swoop down from on high to harm and restrict your capacity to make a profit? Every day we learn of new restrictions being placed on small and large business making it more difficult for companies to make a profit. How many wavers to Obama Crap Care has the Obama White House given out to companies? Hundreds, thousands? If Obama Crap Care was such a great wonder law, why all of the wavers? Now not only will companies have to fight for a waver to remain competitive, they will need to worry about the Obama attack machine in the form of the NLRB.

NLRB Admits Boeing Complaint Applies To Every Business & State
Fred Wszolek
NLRB Admits Boeing Complaint Applies To Every Business & State - Fred Wszolek - Townhall Conservative
The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision to issue a complaint regarding the Boeing facility in South Carolina is a poorly veiled act of revenge against a company that refused to let Big Labor bosses decide its future. As seemingly ridiculous and unbelievable as the attack on the part of the U.S. Government against an American corporation seeking to create jobs at home is, the consequences that this precedent sets for businesses and their right to work is downright dangerous.
The case in question came up when, Boeing, after negotiations with their union in Washington State broke down, decided to build a factory in South Carolina in order to meet demand for their 787 Dreamliner aircraft. Boeing had hoped to stay in Washington, and even opened up negotiations with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) as a show of good faith. When the union demanded a seat on the board and a promise that all facilities would stay in Puget Sound forever, the negotiations broke down and Boeing began to look elsewhere.
Boeing decided to build the new facility in South Carolina, a right-to-work state with more business friendly labor laws. While choosing to build in a new state did not take any Boeing jobs away from Washington, which has actually seen 2,000 jobs created since the new facility in South Carolina was announced; union bosses felt slighted and demanded their friends at President Obama’s labor board intervene on their behalf.
The NLRB complied and almost two years after the new facility was announced, and as construction was concluding and hiring commencing, the regulatory agency told Boeing that they could not extend operations to South Carolina because it was retaliation against Big Labor. This is a blow to South Carolina. It is a swipe to freedom. And it sends a chilling message to any company seeking to relocate in the United States: you are better off moving to Canada or Mexico than creating news jobs in your own country.
But the true damage of this political power play on behalf of Big Labor and against Boeing and South Carolina goes much farther. An NLRB spokesperson recently stated, “The effect would have been the same if the line had been moved to a nonunion facility in any state.”
This is a more straightforward way of saying that the NLRB can tell any business anywhere in our nation and at any time where it can and can not go. This incredible overreach by a little known agency owned by labor bosses seeking “payback” having expended nearly half a billion dollars electing President Obama is simply shocking. The NLRB is clearly saying their complaint against Boeing applies to every company and state in the union.
It also effectively outlaws businesses from moving into any of America’s 22 right-to-work states if a union boss takes issue with their decision.
If unionized companies can’t move into right-to-work states, why would non-unionized companies ever consider moving to unionized states? If this matter is able to set this precedent, America’s economy will suffer as both right-to-work and unionized states will lose jobs, while countries abroad will gain them.
Where did the NLRB get the authority to control commerce in our country? Why isn’t the White House stepping forward to address this gross overreach? President Obama not only agrees with the NLRB’s actions, but has put in place the individuals to create such a system rewarding the union bosses who bankrolled his campaign.
For instance, a Democratically-held Senate in 2010 did not have the stomach to confirm labor radical and union lawyer Craig Becker to the board, yet Obama recess appointed him. And now, Obama has appointed the architect of the Boeing complaint – Lafe Solomon to serve as the regulatory agency’s general counsel.
President Obama clearly believes the NLRB has the power to control American businesses, enabling them to kill jobs as our nation continues to fight through a difficult economic period. By supporting the NLRB’s decision, President Obama has endorsed the idea that bureaucrats in the pocket of Big Labor can make better business decisions than employers. While this may be business as usual for this administration, it is hurting job creators at home and giving greater hope to America’s competitors abroad that they can lure jobs away from our shores.

tashi deleks and thanks for nothing,

M

[9aces]

There was something on it a while back I think M. Basically boiled down to liberals demanding the jobs go to Washington and the union, and some stating they should be able to build them anywhere in the US they want.

Me...I said screw up and build 'em in Ireland.

[Dick Martin]

There was something on it a while back I think M. Basically boiled down to liberals demanding the jobs go to Washington and the union, and some stating they should be able to build them anywhere in the US they want.

Me...I said screw up and build 'em in Ireland.

The NLRB did its job. Plain and simple. Boeing managers screwed up big time, and they got the consequences of their acts. Is that a problem?

[9aces]

The NLRB did its job. Plain and simple. Boeing managers screwed up big time, and they got the consequences of their acts. Is that a problem?

They screwed up by moving some of their operation to a place much better suited for their needs?

Gee we need more screwups like that.

[Dick Martin]

They screwed up by moving some of their operation to a place much better suited for their needs?

Gee we need more screwups like that.

Thats not the issue. And its not any better suited, excepting for their own incompetence.

[9aces]

Thats not the issue. And its not any better suited, excepting for their own incompetence.

Of course it's better, and it's exactly the issue. Lower labor costs, lower cost of delivery to the majority of the airline hubs.

Guess you like paying more for the same thing?

[fishjoel]

The great thing about not having a union is that you could actually pay the employees more and still make more money than running a place with unions and paying them less.

[Mahasattva]

The NLRB did its job.

So the job of the NLRB is to attack private buisnesses that do not kowtow to the wishes and demands of organized labor and to determine where people can chose to set up shop and who they get to hire?

Plain and simple. Boeing managers screwed up big time, and they got the consequences of their acts.

Obviously Boeing managers should have opened a factory in China or Ireland or Mexico -- some place Obama's dogs in the NLRB can't bite.

Is that a problem?

A very big problem. This move, if they are successful will mean fewer jobs for Americans. Unless it is more important to you that the union monster gets fed, than Americans getting jobs. I guess you and the rest of the liberal-Progressives wont be happy until Obama does to the aviation industry, what the unions did to the auto industry.

If Obama wins in 2012, every American needs to invest in and stock up on KY jelly.

tashi deleks,

M

[George Aligator]

They screwed up by moving some of their operation to a place much better suited for their needs?

Gee we need more screwups like that.

I assume 9aces would be equally enthusiastic if Boeing had decided that the "place much better suited for their needs" were China rather than the Palmetto State.

The over-riding question is: do we need a labor policy or not? The conservatives in control of the Republican Party are clear that the answer for them is NO. They believe government should have no involvement in labor issues or indeed the economy generally beyond what is necessary to maintain a "free market." They further believe that this principle is both the spirt and the intent of the American Constitution and a fundamental principle of our way of life.

I won't bother to offer a synopsis of the opposing view as this issue, like so many others in today's political discussion is one on which the opposing sides are locked into position and neither one is going to budge.

This happens sometimes in our history. Our Constitution was created out of the 18th century sense of compromise (the Great Compromise over Congress, the three-fifths clause, the Bill of Rights etc.). Our nation broke apart out of the 19th century refusal to compromise on issues perceived as moral ones -- the extension of slavery to the territories.

When affairs get to this no-compromise point, the only thing that moves us forward is the decisive defeat of one side or the other. Following such a cataclysm the pattern of back-and-forth compromise resumes on the terrain of the winning side. We abolish slavery and fight over Jim Crow for a century as one example.

The showdown over slavery cost over 600,000 lives at a time when our population was tiny compared to today. Fortunately, clearing the current jam caused by fundamental disagreement between the conservative Republicans and the welfare state Democrats isn't going to spill nearly as much blood. If the election of 2012 isn't the decisive point, then the election of 2016 will be. The crisis is approaching at increasing speed as crises tend to do. The resolution will not be far off.

[MattInFla]

Just another example of the quid-pro-quo of big money politics. The Administration knows where their money comes from, and they'll side with Big Labor as long as the checks keep coming in.

It doesn't matter which of the sides of the coin are in charge - their primary purpose is repaying their debts to their money tree.

[chassisman]

I assume 9aces would be equally enthusiastic if Boeing had decided that the "place much better suited for their needs" were China rather than the Palmetto State.

The over-riding question is: do we need a labor policy or not? The conservatives in control of the Republican Party are clear that the answer for them is NO. They believe government should have no involvement in labor issues or indeed the economy generally beyond what is necessary to maintain a "free market." They further believe that this principle is both the spirt and the intent of the American Constitution and a fundamental principle of our way of life.

I won't bother to offer a synopsis of the opposing view as this issue, like so many others in today's political discussion is one on which the opposing sides are locked into position and neither one is going to budge.

This happens sometimes in our history. Our Constitution was created out of the 18th century sense of compromise (the Great Compromise over Congress, the three-fifths clause, the Bill of Rights etc.). Our nation broke apart out of the 19th century refusal to compromise on issues perceived as moral ones -- the extension of slavery to the territories.

When affairs get to this no-compromise point, the only thing that moves us forward is the decisive defeat of one side or the other. Following such a cataclysm the pattern of back-and-forth compromise resumes on the terrain of the winning side. We abolish slavery and fight over Jim Crow for a century as one example.

The showdown over slavery cost over 600,000 lives at a time when our population was tiny compared to today. Fortunately, clearing the current jam caused by fundamental disagreement between the conservative Republicans and the welfare state Democrats isn't going to spill nearly as much blood. If the election of 2012 isn't the decisive point, then the election of 2016 will be. The crisis is approaching at increasing speed as crises tend to do. The resolution will not be far off.

Labor policy= create only union jobs that add to dem voter base. Unions HATE right to work states like Texas. Compare the Texas economy to whatever state you wish. Compare Texas job creation as well. Fuck unions and feed 'em fish heads.

[9aces]

I assume 9aces would be equally enthusiastic if Boeing had decided that the "place much better suited for their needs" were China rather than the Palmetto State.

Actually I suggested Ireland as it would make much more sense.

The over-riding question is: do we need a labor policy or not? The conservatives in control of the Republican Party are clear that the answer for them is NO. They believe government should have no involvement in labor issues or indeed the economy generally beyond what is necessary to maintain a "free market." They further believe that this principle is both the spirt and the intent of the American Constitution and a fundamental principle of our way of life.

Yup. Answer is no. Because the labor policy we've currently got is "who's paying which party in charge". Which is the only labor policy you ever get with government.

I won't bother to offer a synopsis of the opposing view as this issue, like so many others in today's political discussion is one on which the opposing sides are locked into position and neither one is going to budge.

Because you're wrong and don't like dealing with that fact.

This happens sometimes in our history. Our Constitution was created out of the 18th century sense of compromise (the Great Compromise over Congress, the three-fifths clause, the Bill of Rights etc.). Our nation broke apart out of the 19th century refusal to compromise on issues perceived as moral ones -- the extension of slavery to the territories.

Actually it broke apart because of the tariffs the northern states were levying against the southern states. Nothing at all moral about that.

When affairs get to this no-compromise point, the only thing that moves us forward is the decisive defeat of one side or the other. Following such a cataclysm the pattern of back-and-forth compromise resumes on the terrain of the winning side. We abolish slavery and fight over Jim Crow for a century as one example.

Except your position is there is no victory for anyone but those government chooses as the winner. And of course the winners will change based on who is currently paying congress.

The showdown over slavery cost over 600,000 lives at a time when our population was tiny compared to today. Fortunately, clearing the current jam caused by fundamental disagreement between the conservative Republicans and the welfare state Democrats isn't going to spill nearly as much blood. If the election of 2012 isn't the decisive point, then the election of 2016 will be. The crisis is approaching at increasing speed as crises tend to do. The resolution will not be far off.

Well obviously you've bought the lie that the 2nd American Revolution was fought over slavery. It was an issue, but only one, and hardly the biggest.

You are correct the crisis is coming, and wrong about that it will be settled without blood. Liberals want that bloodshed with a passion that is disturbing, because the only way they can advance their warped ideals is through the use of force.