Controlled Chaos Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 chicagotribune.com A strike against economic sanity Boeing gets hijacked: A strike against economic rationality Steve Chapman May 15, 2011 In 1977, Boeing was the target of a strike by the International Association of Machinists, which represents its workers in Puget Sound, Wash., and Portland, Ore. The aircraft manufacturer had another strike in 1989. In 1995, workers returned to the picket lines. In 2005, they went on strike for 69 days. In 2008 ... well, you see the pattern. Strikes are an expensive luxury. The last one, which went on for nearly two months, was estimated to cost Boeing more than $2 billion. "Based on previous strike experience," reported The Seattle Times, "Boeing will not recoup that money for many years." At some point, a light bulb went on in the heads of those running the company: If we can't avoid union walkouts, we can't make aircraft deliveries. If we can't make aircraft deliveries, we don't get paid, we alienate customers and we endanger our livelihood. End of story? Not quite. In 2009, the company had to decide where to open a second production line for its 787 Dreamliner. It could have put it where labor troubles were practically guaranteed. Instead, it built a plant in South Carolina, which is scheduled to go on line this summer with 1,000 nonunion workers. Last month, the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency, filed a complaint arguing that Boeing broke the law by taking account of possible strikes in making its decision. This, it said, amounted to illegal retaliation against the machinists union. Click link above for rest of the story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 It is an interesting legal challenge, but one that I believe will be resolved in Boeing's favor. In answer to your question, yes, the government should have regulations on where businesses locate. But in this case, the government should allow Boeing to move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ May 16, 2011 -> 12:35 PM) It is an interesting legal challenge, but one that I believe will be resolved in Boeing's favor. In answer to your question, yes, the government should have regulations on where businesses locate. But in this case, the government should allow Boeing to move. That would fall firmly under restricting interstate commerce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 And then people wonder why this s*** goes offshore. Gees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ May 16, 2011 -> 10:36 AM) chicagotribune.com A strike against economic sanity Boeing gets hijacked: A strike against economic rationality Steve Chapman May 15, 2011 Click link above for rest of the story This is where I see issues with unions. Its actually not the unions that are even the problem in these instances. As far as I am concerned, they can strike all they want to. But the flip side has to be that the corporations also have the right to fire them or move the jobs elsewhere. The power of unions is significant, as it should be, but it can be that in a natural way. Unions have a hold on workers with a certain skill set, which the company needs, and the company has the jobs, which the laborers need. Its a natural check and balance. No need for adding extra bulls*** to it in the form of government rules like this - and ALSO no need for governments (like WI) to go specifically making striking illegal in some form. Both of these ideas are patently stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Race to the bottom. I think what Boeing did is fair and reasonable. As a business you must take into account all potential costs, if a company moved from California because of the risk of Earthquake and the costs associated with it, that would be fine. The reason I bring up Earthquake is that strikes are usually part of a force majeure clause (act of god), so if you can contemplate strikes in a legal document, why cant you contemplate strikes in a business plan. Im not sure if they really have a chance to win this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Would you want your state to use every option possible to keep jobs in your area? Thinking about the people and politicians being left behind, I understand why governments want laws like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) Would you want your state to use every option possible to keep jobs in your area? Absolutely not. That would include gutting environmental, workplace safety, liability, operational safety etc. regulations as well as giving them enormous subsidies or tax breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Since Wilma Liebman became NLRB chairman, no even marginally "anti-business" action or decision at any level by the Board should come as a surprise to anyone. Remember, the NLRB essentially gets to issue and rule upon its own complaints, with recourse to the U.S. Court of Appeals only allowed very far downstream. When it comes to reversing existing precedent and establishing more labor-friendly new ones, Liebman's Board has absolutely no qualms about pushing the envelope past the bounds of seeming logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts