Where does North Carolina stand on NLRB vs. Boeing? Perdue plays coy.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

September 14, 2011

By Matthew Boyle / The Daily Caller

Follow Matthew Boyle Get Matthew Boyle Feed

 

 

inShare

Governor Bev (left) takes innocent schoolgirl pose in this photo as she talks with somebody.

 North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue won’t answer whether she supports the National Labor Relations Board or The Boeing Company in the ongoing labor battle in neighboring South Carolina.

“As for the NRLB and Boeing, I can only say this: Governor Perdue is, and will continue to be, 100% focused on creating jobs here in North Carolina,” North Carolina Democratic Party spokesman Walton Robinson said in an email to The Daily Caller.

Because President Barack Obama is in the state on Wednesday selling his “jobs plan” to residents, the North Carolina GOP is asking, yet again, where specifically Perdue stands on the issue.  The question has come up repeatedly, North Carolina Republican Party spokesman  Rob Lockwood told TheDC, but Perdue has never given a specific answer: Boeing or the NLRB?

Lockwood says that punting on the NLRB v. Boeing question isn’t attractive to prospective businesses, and isn’t likely to create any jobs as it adds to the uncertainty already in the economic environment.

“President Obama’s NLRB is the one to blame, but Governor Perdue’s deafening silence screams to employers ‘I won’t fight for you if you wanted to come here,’” Lockwood said in an email. “It is almost as if she has a deal with the White House to not comment on this issue.”

The NLRB is suing Boeing as a result of claims from the International Association of Machinists that the airline giant violated labor law by opening a new plant in South Carolina. Boeing contends that building there instead of Washington State was not retaliation against the IAM. Boeing has added new jobs in Washington state and no workers there have lost work. (RELATED: Obama works to keep North Carolina blue)
 
Lockwood compares Perdue with South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who’s been overtly vocal and outspoken against the NLRB for its pursuit of Boeing. She even went as far as calling the NLRB “Un-American” about two weeks ago.

But, since Perdue hasn’t commented, Lockwood points out that companies may choose South Carolina over North Carolina when relocating or opening new facilities or businesses. “Governor Perdue’s deafening silence on the NLRB v. Boeing case has severely hurt employment in North Carolina,” Lockwood said. “We share the same geography and right-to-work laws as South Carolina, but our Governor refuses to fight for jobs like Nikki Haley.”

Obama presented his “jobs plan” in several different places throughout North Carolina on Wednesday, including at WestStar Precision’s headquarters in Apex. WestStar is a high-end, specialty manufacturer that just opened a new facility in San Jose, Costa Rica — creating many new jobs there, but not in the United States.

The company’s owner, Obama donor Ervin Portman, is quoted in local news reports from 2004 as saying the reason he moved jobs to Costa Rica is to “take advantage of low labor costs.”
Follow Matthew on Twitter

Tags: Boeing, National Labor Relations Board, North Carolina

Boeing! Boeing! Labor mess turns into headache for Obama.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

PREZ HAS A HEADACHE? TAKE TWO TAX CUTS AND CALL ME IN THE MORNING.

Associated Press

Posted: Wednesday, Jun. 29, 2011

WASHINGTON The government's labor dispute with Boeing Co. is turning into a political headache for President Barack Obama, giving his Republican rivals a fresh opening to bash the administration's economic policies.

From congressional hearings to presidential debates, outraged Republicans are keeping up a steady drumbeat of criticism over the National Labor Relations Board's lawsuit against the aerospace giant.

The NLRB says Boeing retaliated against its unionized workforce in Washington state by opening a new production line for its 787 airplane in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The agency wants a judge to order Boeing to return all 787 assembly work to Washington, even though the company has already built a new $750 million South Carolina plant and hired 1,000 new workers there.

The case - which could drag on for years - has become an unwanted distraction for Obama as he tries to mend relations with the business community and contend with polls that show growing public disapproval over his handling of the economy.

It makes an easy target for Republicans, who call it a case of government overreaching at a time when the private sector is struggling to create new jobs. And it's a major story in South Carolina - a bellwether early primary state in the GOP presidential race. Candidates are lining up to impress voters and the state's Republican governor, tea party favorite Nikki Haley.

"Obama's NLRB has united the Republican Party and turned this government agency into a political pinata," said GOP consultant Scott Reed. "Boeing spent a billion dollars building a plant to create thousands of jobs and it looks like the NLRB stuck their nose in and tried to pull the rug out."

Business groups and their GOP allies say the government is interfering with the right of company managers to choose where and how to expand business operations. Boeing claims it opened the plant for a variety of economic reasons, but NLRB officials say Boeing executives made public comments showing the move was meant to punish union workers for a series of costly strikes.

For Haley, the case has been a litmus test for every GOP presidential candidate visiting the state. And they have not disappointed her.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, visiting New Hampshire on Monday, said Obama had appointed "union stooges into the NLRB and then they come up with decisions that are really quite extraordinary," like the Boeing lawsuit that he and others have said will drive companies to seek workers overseas.

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich called for defunding the agency during a recent New Hampshire debate, saying the case could threaten the viability of the nation's 22 right-to-work states, where labor unions can't force employees to be members.

And during a tour of South Carolina last week, GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman called on Obama to step in and end the lawsuit to prevent it from scaring other businesses away from the state.

Haley says the only way to make things right "is for the president to tell the NLRB to back off. And until that happens, it is my job to be loud and annoying and in his face until he realizes that what they have done is wrong."

Even South Carolina's Democrats have piled on, focusing on the complaint's effect on business less than the politics of the board.

"Clearly it's an independent agency and is taking an action that I know was not directed by the president," said Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., a Democrat. "But in this case, I think it was a very, very bad decision and a huge mistake that is not good policy for the country."

Obama, ordinarily a reliable supporter of organized labor, has carefully avoided taking a position on the case. White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president does not want to interfere with the conduct of an independent federal agency.

"We don't get involved in particular enforcement matters of independent agencies," Carney said last week. "But I would also say that the president has a strong record on labor rights." He added that Obama also supports "a strong private sector in the United States that helps our economy grow and create jobs."

But the issue became more awkward for Obama when John Bryson, his pick to head the Commerce Department and a former Boeing board member, openly criticized the lawsuit during a Senate confirmation hearing last week.

"I think it's not the right judgment," Bryson said. He said Boeing officials thought they were "doing the right thing for the country" by keeping jobs in the U.S. and not moving them overseas.

Some Democrats and union officials have stepped up their defense of the NLRB, saying Republicans are misrepresenting the case against Boeing. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, accused Republicans of peddling "misinformation," distorting the public perception of the case and unfairly attacking the agency.

Labor experts say if the allegations in the complaint are true, it would constitute a standard violation of federal labor laws, which prohibit a company from moving work to punish union workers for past strikes. The complaint lays out several public statements by Boeing executives saying they wanted to relocate new lines for the Dreamliner because of strike activity, including a 58-day work stoppage in 2008.

But such violations can be difficult to prove, especially if the company can show it had other valid motives for opening the new lines in South Carolina. The government has to show the company relocated work for the purpose of stopping workers from exercising their legal rights to strike, said Catherine Fisk, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine who specializes in labor issues.

Perhaps the best scenario for Obama would be for the case to be settled, an outcome that many labor experts expect.

"The unions don't want an adverse decision, management doesn't want an adverse decision and the best way to avoid that is to reach a settlement on their own," said Gary Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University.

Associated Press writers Bruce Smith in Charleston, S.C., and Kathy McCormack in Salem, N.H., contributed to this report.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/06/29/2415754/boeing-labor-dispute-turns-into.html

National Labor Relations Board continues pro-union, anti-jobs agenda!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

By Administrator / Pantano for Congress    June 27, 2011
 

On the heels of its politically charged attempt to stop Boeing from locating a new factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, the National Labor Relations Board has continued it's pro-union, anti-job political power grab.  This time  the NLRB wants to change the rules for union elections to create "quickie" elections that will be much easier for labor unions to win (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070104576399822234404508.html).

This is nothing more than a politically charged attempt to stop the spiraling decrease in union membership (down to 6.5% from a high o f35% in the 1950s according to the WSJ)  for the political benefit of President Obama and liberals in Congress at the expense of American jobs. Labor Unions were one of the biggest contributosrs to Obama's election campaign in 2008 and one of the biggest donors to his followers in Congress like Mike McIntyre (Big Labor has donated over $450,000 to McIntyre) and now Obama and friends are politicizing the NLRB because they need the big money from big labor for the 2012 election cylce.  As the Wall Street Journal  editors wrote in their editorial "The Union Quickie,"  is designed to be independent with the purpose of ensuring fair labor practices, but under Obama  the NLRB is now "hyperpolitized" and "an advocate for unions."   

Congressman Joe Kline, Chairman of the House's Education & Workforce Committee was absolutley right in his statement in reacton to the NLRB's proprosal:

“In a direct affront to the millions of Americans desperate for jobs and opportunities, the Obama NLRB continues to push an activist agenda at the expense of our nation’s workforce. Big Labor has found faithful friends on the Obama NLRB who are working hard to ‘fix’ a process that isn’t broken.  Not only will this misguided proposal to expedite union elections undermine an employer’s lawful right to communicate with his or her employees, it will cripple a worker’s ability to make an informed decision. Employers and employees have a right to speak their mind and vote their conscience; I will continue to oppose any effort to undermine these fundamental principles.”

“The board is rushing a flawed proposal through a flawed process that will result in limited public scrutiny and congressional input.  For the sake of the nation’s workers and job creators, I urge the board to scrap this reckless proposal and abandon its job-destroying agenda.

http://www.pantanoforcongress.com/posts/national-labor-relations-board-continues-pro-union-anti-jobs-agenda 

info@pantanoforcongress.com>

Our mailing address is:

Ilario Pantano

PO Box 11280

Wilmington, NC 28404

Add us to your address book

Labels: Jobs Needed, Obama, Stimulus Failure, Wildfies in Pender

 

 

Ex-Labor Board Chairman: Union-backed case against Boeing 'Unprecedented'.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

By Judson Berger /AP

Published April 26, 2011

| FoxNews.com

A Boeing 787 Dreamliner is seen on the production line at Boeing's Commercial Airplane manufacturing facility in Everett, Wash., Feb. 14. (AP)

The former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board told FoxNews.com that a board attorney's bid to stop Boeing from opening a production line at a non-union site in South Carolina is "unprecedented" and could have serious implications for companies looking to expand. 

The comments Tuesday from Peter Schaumber add to the roiling debate over the complaint filed last week against the aerospace giant. NLRB's acting general counsel, taking up allegations from union workers at a Puget Sound plant in Washington state, had accused Boeing of violating federal labor law by moving to open a second 787 Dreamliner airplane production line in South Carolina. 

The complaint hinged on claims that Boeing made "coercive statements" regarding union-led strikes, and then retaliated by transferring its second line to a non-union facility. As evidence, the NLRB noted that a Boeing executive said in an interview that the overriding factor in going to South Carolina -- a right-to-work state where unions cannot force employees to join -- was a desire to avoid disruptions. The union in Washington state has led several strikes against Boeing since the 1970s, most recently in 2005 and 2008. 

But Schaumber said the complaint is a big stretch and would mark a departure. He said that if the claim is upheld, it could jeopardize any company with unionized workers that wants to expand to a right-to-work state. 

"It would be fair to say it's unprecedented," he said.

Schaumber, a Bush administration appointee who served on the board for almost eight years including as chairman, argued that the NLRB counsel offered "no basis" for the central claim that Boeing retaliated by transferring work from Washington to South Carolina. 

"The workers don't have any claim to the work," he said. "If the workers don't have any claim to the work, it wasn't retaliatory to open a new second production line. ... It is simply expanding its business operation." 

Boeing offered a similar defense, saying the jobs in South Carolina will not come at the expense of jobs in Washington state. 

The new production line is expected to pump out three planes a month, on top of the seven planes a month coming out of the Puget Sound area. Boeing said since the expansion decision was made, union employment in Puget Sound has increased by about 2,000 workers. Plus Boeing noted that the South Carolina factory is almost done and has involved more than 1,000 workers in the process. 

"This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent," Boeing General Counsel J. Michael Luttig said in a statement. 

South Carolina Republican lawmakers were similarly outraged over the complaint. Sen. Jim DeMint called it a "political favor" for the unions who supported President Obama's 2008 campaign.

Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed to try to cut off funding for the "wild goose chase." 

"If successful, the NLRB complaint would allow unions to hold a virtual 'veto' over business decisions," he said in a statement. 

FoxNews.com is seeking comment from Washington state's two Democratic U.S. senators. But NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said the charge that Boeing is transferring work away from union employees stems from the company's original commitment "to the state of Washington that it would build the Dreamliner airplanes in that state."

Plus she said the South Carolina facility would assume work that is currently being done at a Seattle facility. "As far as the merits of the complaint go, however, the distinction does not matter. Whether this work is considered new or existing, the decision about where to locate it would violate federal labor law if done for discriminatory reasons," she said in an email to FoxNews.com. 

NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon cited Boeing executives' comments on their desire to avoid strikes in claiming the company violated federal rules. 

"A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act," Solomon said in a statement. "We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law." 

Solomon noted that a settlement could still be reached. The NLRB stressed that the complaint doesn't request that Boeing shut down the South Carolina plant; however, it seeks to keep 787 production in Washington. 

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which initially filed the allegation against Boeing with the NLRB in March of last year, said in a statement that the South Carolina decision was aimed at the union. 

"Boeing's decision to build a 787 assembly line in South Carolina sent a message that Boeing workers would suffer financial harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights," Vice President Rich Michalski said. "Federal labor law is clear: it's illegal to threaten or penalize workers who engage in concerted activity, and it's illegal in all 50 states." 

A hearing in the case is now scheduled before an administrative law judge on June 14 in Seattle. That decision could then be voted on by the National Labor Relations Board itself. And that decision could in turn be appealed to a federal circuit court. 

Schaumber said the dispute could drag on for a while, but suggested the current makeup of the board does not favor Boeing. 

"This board views its role as to promote unionization, and with that in mind, that will be their focus in deciding this case," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/26/ex-labor-board-chairman-union-backed-case-boeing-unprecedented/

Big brute union tactics are alive and well. Ask Boeing and South Carolina about NLRB!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

UNION EXCESSES AND THUGGERY TOOK DOWN DETROIT AND U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY. LET'S TELL THEM TO GET OFF BOEING'S BACK! OBAMA AND NLRB SHOULD KISS OFF.

Posted April 21, 2011 by Bruce McQuain

It is a battle between a business’s best interests and about its fundamental right to make decisions about how it conducts its business and the government’s “right” to interfere and dictate how and where it will do its business.

In what may be the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, the agency filed a complaint Wednesday seeking to force Boeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in Washington State instead of moving the work to a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

One of the reasons the South has thrived while the Rust Belt has, well, rusted, is companies have taken advantage of the “right to work” rules in most Southern states to locate there without fear of work stoppages at every turn.  That would seem to be a fundamental right that any business should enjoy, the right to locate their business where they feel their best interests are served.  What the government is saying is that’s not true – if you have union employees elsewhere.

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

First, it’s not “retaliation” if the facts in the story are correct.  Boeing has hired 2,000 more employees – union employees – at the Washington state plant since the decision was made to add a second assembly line and do it in South Carolina.  So A) it’s not taking jobs away and B) the additional jobs since the decision hardly speak of “retaliation” in any sense a rational person would be able to discern.
Second, the “complaint” comes as the plant in South Carolina nears completion and 1,000 workers have been hired there.
So, given those facts, this is a crap statement (that’s technical talk):

In a statement Wednesday, Mr. Solomon said: “A worker’s right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.”

This is the usual duplicitous talk you get from this administration – acknowledge the right of the employer to make business decisions based on their economic decisions and then immediately deny what was just acknowledged.  This too is crap”:

“Boeing’s decision to build a 787 assembly line in South Carolina sent a message that Boeing workers would suffer financial harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights,” said the union’s vice president, Rich Michalski.

No, they haven’t sent such a message.  What they’ve said is they have a backlog of orders and can’t afford (business interest) work stoppages every 3 years while unions negotiate a new contract. That is a legitimate concern.  And they want some sort of continuity built into the productions system that accounts for that probability.  No one is denying union workers their “rights” in Washington nor have any union employees been fired because of them – again, since the decision to locate in SC was made, 2,000 additional union employees have been hired there.
What’s is happening here is government has chosen to take sides and is attempting to intimidate Boeing.  The side it has picked – surprise – is the union side.  And it plans to use its power to attempt to force a company into doing something which is not in its best business interests, despite the lip service Solomon gives that “right”.  But there’s no “hostile business climate” here, is there?
Bottom line?

The company also said it had decided to expand in South Carolina in part to protect business continuity and to reduce the damage to its finances and reputation from future work stoppages.

And in a free country, Boeing would have every right to expect to be able to do that without interference.
—
Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/04/21/nlrb-to-boeing-build-all-your-737s-in-union-state-or-well-sue/