Boeing charged with union retailiation

[BrianFromWA]

Boeing was retaliating illegally against its largest union when it decided two years ago to put a second Dreamliner assembly line in a nonunion plant in South Carolina, the National Labor Relations Board charged in a complaint filed Wednesday.

To remedy the alleged violation, the complaint says, Boeing should be ordered to operate the second line at a union plant in Washington. However, an NLRB statement said the case "does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility" or the ending of 787 production there.

NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon brought the action after a yearlong investigation of an unfair-labor practices complaint filed in March 2010 by Seattle-based International Association of Machinists (IAM) District 751, Boeing's largest union.

The IAM charged Boeing was retaliating for a 2008 strike when it chose to locate the second line in North Charleston, S.C. Solomon agreed, citing numerous statements by Boeing executives that South Carolina was chosen in large part to avoid production disruptions from future strikes.

Boeing's decision was "inherently destructive of the rights guaranteed employees" by federal labor law, the NLRB complaint says.

A hearing on the complaint is scheduled before an administrative law judge in Seattle June 14.

Boeing said in a prepared statement that it would "vigorous contest" the complaint.

"This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent," said Michael Luttig, the company's executive vice president and general counsel.

The IAM, in contrast, hailed the NLRB's move as "a victory for all American workers."

The Charleston plant was an initiative by Boeing "to intimidate our members with the idea that the company would take away their work unless they made concessions at the bargaining table," said Tom Wroblewski, local president.

I don't quite understand...isn't Boeing able to open a plant wherever they want to? And now the NLRB has the authority to tell them to operate three lines, rather than two?
Someone familiar with labor law please help me understand. Is NLRB binding?

 

[Paxil]

I don't quite understand...isn't Boeing able to open a plant wherever they want to? And now the NLRB has the authority to tell them to operate three lines, rather than two?
Someone familiar with labor law please help me understand. Is NLRB binding?

I am an ex-Boeing employee... and I just have to say the Union is just shooting themselves in the foot. The reason so much of the 787 was outsourced is because they got tired of the labor stoppages... then of course they are going to look at a non-union plant. And while I may defend a unions right to exist and negotiate... I do know firsthand how they can be counterproductive to the efficiency of a company. Instead of working with the company too often they work against it. (BTW... I wasn't in a union there, but my father worked their his whole life and was)

Just filing that complaint doesn't mean they will win.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

This is whack. Boeing should be able to close or open plants whenever they want to.

 

[MARIS61]

This is whack. Boeing should be able to close or open plants whenever they want to.

Not if simply done as a union-busting tactic, which this clearly was.

My brother-in-law was a longtime Boeing employee and member of IAM. He died of a heart attack at work while running his machine. I heard on a regular basis the myriad of petty schemes and conspiracies Boeing would inflict on union employees.

The NLRB has been practically dormant for the past decade. Nice to know someone there is at least still alive.

 

[Paxil]

Not if simply done as a union-busting tactic, which this clearly was.

My brother-in-law was a longtime Boeing employee and member of IAM. He died of a heart attack at work while running his machine. I heard on a regular basis the myriad of petty schemes and conspiracies Boeing would inflict on union employees.

The NLRB has been practically dormant for the past decade. Nice to know someone there is at least still alive.

In Gresham? Or up north. I certainly heard a lot of it both before and after I worked there, and I will just say that my view changed quit a bit when I could see a better picture. My father worked at the Gresham plant before it was even owned by Boeing.

 

[MARIS61]

Gresham, I guess. I thought it was in Troutdale? He died about a dozen years ago.

He was very popular at work. Boeing gave the whole plant the day off to attend his funeral.

 

[Paxil]

Gresham, I guess. I thought it was in Troutdale? He died about a dozen years ago.

He was very popular at work. Boeing gave the whole plant the day off to attend his funeral.

I am sure my father knew him. He retired a few years ago but has Alzheimer's now and would have trouble recalling. He was a machinist... worked graveyard shift though so he may not have known eveyone who worked during the day. Hell I may have known him... went fishing as a kid with lots of people from Boeing.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Not if simply done as a union-busting tactic, which this clearly was.

My brother-in-law was a longtime Boeing employee and member of IAM. He died of a heart attack at work while running his machine. I heard on a regular basis the myriad of petty schemes and conspiracies Boeing would inflict on union employees.

The NLRB has been practically dormant for the past decade. Nice to know someone there is at least still alive.

It doesn't matter.

If employees have the right to unionize anywhere (and they do), then owners have an equal right to close and open businesses where they want to.

You want to have it all one way, but that's just not what the word "fair" means. If owners of a business are bound by the courts to maintain a business at a particular location because it is unionized, then there's something fundamentally wrong with this country.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://freeadvertise.sforum.biz/t83...est-run-companies-collins-business-essentials

 

[MARIS61]

It doesn't matter.

If employees have the right to unionize anywhere (and they do), then owners have an equal right to close and open businesses where they want to.

You want to have it all one way, but that's just not what the word "fair" means. If owners of a business are bound by the courts to maintain a business at a particular location because it is unionized, then there's something fundamentally wrong with this country.

That's illogical.

Boeing had a contract with the union to pay them x to do y.

Boeing welched on the deal and paid someone else to do y.

 

[MARIS61]

I am sure my father knew him. He retired a few years ago but has Alzheimer's now and would have trouble recalling. He was a machinist... worked graveyard shift though so he may not have known eveyone who worked during the day. Hell I may have known him... went fishing as a kid with lots of people from Boeing.

Charlie Cremona. A really good guy. Worked there for 20 years or so as a machinist.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's illogical.

Boeing had a contract with the union to pay them x to do y.

Boeing welched on the deal and paid someone else to do y.

Boeing was forced to pay 2x to get y when they could have paid x to get y all along. While paying 2x, the unions demanded 3x and stopped y from being done altogether.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Boeing was forced to pay 2x to get y when they could have paid x to get y all along. While paying 2x, the unions demanded 3x and stopped y from being done altogether.

In a way, I kinda of see Maris' point. But just because a business is being ripped off by a union doesn't mean it has to accept that as the gospel and live with it forever.