NLRB Moves to Punish Right-to-Work States and their Businesses [The State and the Union]

Alliance for Worker Freedom ^ | 2011-04-21 | Billy Gribbin

[92nina]

The National Labor Relations Board has issued a complaint against the Boeing Company on the grounds that the company’s relocation of its second airplane production line was motivated by discrimination toward union workers. If the NLRB’s case succeeds in federal court, it will set a precedent for union control of virtually every major business decision by American corporations.

Prior to October 2009, Boeing had planned to expand its production capabilities with an additional facility in the state of Washington. In recent years, the company had suffered billions in lost revenue and uncertainty of future orders due to multiple extended strikes orchestrated by the International Association of Machinists. Although it was not legally obligated to do so, Boeing invited IAM to the table in a bid to preserve their plans for local expansion without danger of future union disruption. Negotiations broke down upon union demands for Boeing neutrality in nationwide IAM campaigns and for all of the company’s future commercial airline manufacture to be located in Puget Sound. Having come to an impasse, Boeing subsequently decided to base its second production line in North Charleston, South Carolina (a Right-to-Work state).

In March 2010, the IAM filed a charge of “unfair labor practices” with the NLRB, the meat of their argument being that Boeing illegally changed factory locations out of animus against the union. On April 20th of this year, the NLRB published its own complaint against Boeing, citing several so-called “incidents” demonstrating the company’s bias. Three of them are merely newspaper reports, while only two are intramural documents and quotations...

[Tublecane]

“Quite honestly, even if Boeing doesn’t like the union, they should be able to move their plants wherever the hell they want.”

Of course, and what a sad world we live in where you have to preface such a statement with “quite honestly.” That’s like having to say “Quite honestly, even if I don’t like unions, I should be able to go to the bathroom when I choose.”

[Tublecane]

“What law says you can’t move your business?”

Why, the infamous Gimme Your Money, Sucker, Sincerely, the Unions Act of 2008.

[Delta 21]

IAM can kiss off. If the boss wants you to work for him, its at his good grace that you get to work for his money. If the boss doesnt want you to work for him....YOU”RE FIRED.

No explanation needed.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The NLRB has some authority delegated to it by Congress, but its Orders don't have any force standing alone. Enforcement orders must be granted by federal Courts of Appeal.

So Boeing doesn't need to appeal anything. It can ignore the Board unless and until the Board seeks enforcement of the Order with an appropriate court. That's where the real fight will be.

[onedoug]

¨With a rebel yell!...¨

[chimera]

I don't know, it seems kind of dangerous, granting Constitutional authority to an extra-Constitutional agency. That sounds like an end-run around the checks-and-balances established by the Founders when they drafted the Constitution. Obama’s “Czars” were questionable on similar grounds. Having persons or agencies unaccountable to the electorate exercising powers reserved by the Constitution to persons or agencies who are accountable seems a de facto veto by the Executive of powers heretofore reserved to another branch of government. I would then invoke the Separation clause as well as the Commerce clause in challenging the constitutionality of the action.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I agree with you on this, and it really goes back to a series of decisions the Supreme Court made decades ago regarding these administrative agencies. Scalia once famously labelled the U.S. Sentencing Commission as sort of a "junior-varsity Congress" because it had been given authority that should be Congress' alone. You could google "Mistretta" (the name of that case) and read his entire entertaining rant on the subject.

In any case, I wasn't trying to open that can of worms here. I was simply trying to point out the legal power of the NLRB, and what it meant in this particular situation.

[tbw2]

If the company cannot shift SOME production to a work-friendly state, why not shift ALL production there? Or, as the next poster stated, to China? Or Canada, for that matter - close by, lots of educated people, not a far hop for executives in Washington state.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The labor law doctrine at issue is that of a "runaway shop". What makes this ruling different is that it would apply to a facility that has not yet even been built.

I don't like the doctrine even as its applied normally, to the relocation of an existing plant for the purpose of evading a union.

[upchuck]

Thanks for the ping nutmeg.

The NRLB is completely stacked with union labor thugs thanks to the thug-in-chief, nobama.

South Carolina
Ping
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.

[chimera]

It seems to be a natural consequence of a bigger and more complex, centralized government. Eventually the growth expands beyond the boundaries of control of where the ultimate power theoretically exists in a representational government (the electorate). So you have these czars and agencies operating almost in a vacuum, insulated from the controls built into the system of checks and balances. When agencies like the NLRB start encroaching on Constitutionally-mandated authority of a legislative branch, it behooves of to point that out (not that it will necessarily make any difference).

The Obama Administration seems particularly roguish in this respect. There have been quite a few documented cases where the Executive has essentially told other branches like the Judicial and Legislative to basically shove it when it comes to implementing its agenda. I can't help but think if it were a Republican administration doing that the media and the legal academic community would be screaming bloody murder. But Odouchebag gets a pass, naturally.

[CharlyFord]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits....

Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America, published in 1835

[nutmeg]

Nice to hear from you again, upchuck. I really hope North Charleston gets that Boeing plant as planned...