Saturday, June 11, 2011

Is Boeing Issue An Indicator of the Future

Government always knows best or they would like us to think so.  They know what is the best health care; they know the best car safety; they know the best drugs and they know what is best for labor unions. None are correct except the last.  Labor unions are best friends with big government. You see both of them believe that others know better than you.
 
In the latest merger of ideas between government and labor unions, we find the desire for a business (Boeing) which wants to create a second manufacturing plant in another state (South Carolina) which just happens to be a right to work state in order to lower its cost of manufacturing for its new 787 Dreamliner plane.
 
 Seems to me a good idea for several reasons.  Not only are the plants not in the same geographic area so natural disasters would not effect both plants.  Additionally, employees could be drawn from different pools of workers some of which might never move to Washington. However, the last positive is the lower cost of labor in South Carolina which has brought a charge by the National Labor Relations Council (NLRB) .
 
The charge is that Boeing is retaliating against their Washington State workers by opening this plant in South Carolina.  Since the new plant will be non union, the unions are up in arms. Maybe if the union had worked with the company on other issues in the Washington plant, this would not have happened.  Regardless, the Republican candidates, notably Pawlenty and Romney, have seized on this as an issue and I say rightly so.
 
Once we start protecting unions against the best interests of the country, we are in trouble.  Now let me make one thing perfectly clear.  Unions have their place and they came into being at a time where there were major concerns for the workers of the United States. I get that and agree wholeheartedly. However, over the past 90 years more or less, the pendulum has changed and the unions are now stronger than the companies and it is time for a move back to the center.
 
A company must have the ability to handle its business so as to make a profit and to do what is in its best interests.  Once the government gets involved to protect the union, it completely changes the dynamics.
 
This move by the NLRB is wrong and should be resisted.  Boeing should be able to make the decision to open a new plant and pay the wages commensurate with the skills of the people employed.  If the pay is too low, people will not work there or they will join a union to increase the wages. Seems simple to me. What about you?
 
We are listening and want to hear from you.
 
 
Here is an article from TheHill's  Blog Briefing Room that gives more information on the issue.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Pawlenty: NLRB’s suit against Boeing evokes 'Soviet Union circa 1970s'

By Ben Geman - 06/11/11 10:55 AM ET

GOP White House contender Tim Pawlenty is ramping up his attacks on the National Labor Relations Board for its complaint against Boeing over the company’s decision to open a non-union airline production plant in South Carolina, allegedly retaliating against unionized workers in Washington state.
“The NLRB decision and what they are saying to an American economy as to where and how they can do business is outrageous. This is not the Soviet Union circa 1970s or 1960s or ‘50s,” Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, said on Fox News Friday.
“The idea that we have a federal agency telling an American business in a supposedly free market that it can’t grow a business or start a business in another state is one of the most outrageous things I have seen,” Pawlenty said.
Boeing opened a 787 Dreamliner assembly plant Friday in South Carolina.

The NLRB alleges Boeing decided to place the plant outside its longstanding Washington production hub “in retaliation for past strike activity and to chill future strike activity by its union employees.” The complaint seeks to require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state.
The NLRB complaint has become fodder for GOP candidates seeking to show their pro-business bona fides.
Pawlenty has attacked it repeatedly, and it has also come under fire from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Democrats and liberal groups are fighting back against criticism of the National Labor Relations Board as they grow worried that the attacks could diminish the labor board’s authority.
A hearing in the case before an administrative law judge is set for June 14 in Seattle.

5 comments:

  1. You wrote, "However, over the past 90 years more or less, the pendulum has changed and the unions are now stronger than the companies and it is time for a move back to the center."

    Actually, the private corporations have been very successful in breaking up unions, especially in recent decades.

    According to the BLS, the number of workers in unions dropped to 11.9% last year -- the lowest in 70 years. It was 20.1% in 1983.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html

    I hope you will not dispute BLS as a data source.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  2. No,I agree the numbers have dropped but not their influence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For private sector unions, the wage premium was stable until the mid-1990s and then has declined. But that is just the sector average. It varies considerably by industry, so one must be cautious about generalizing too much.

    In particular, I think globalization has really weakened union bargaining power for jobs that can be done in China, which helps explain why only about 6% of the private sector is now unionized. But I agree that some of these unions that have survived are still effective.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  4. www.equalityintheworkplace.webs.com <------ CLICK PLEASE!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pip, ok, I went to the site, what am I to see there? Pretty regulated Canadian employers is what is see. Please explain what we all should see.

    thanks.
    tom

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.