Obama Bureaucrat Tells Boeing Where to Expand

Obama Bureaucrat Tells Boeing Where to Expand

Company Prodded to Abandon New Aircraft Plant in Right Work State (Source: May 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) To a rational observer, it's obvious that the antics of the strike-happy union bosses at Boeing's West Coast facilities over the past few decades have been detrimental to the interests of the aerospace company's rank-and-file domestic employees as well as its shareholders. Since 1975, International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union bosses have ordered employees at Boeing's Washington State and Oregon facilities out on strike five times. The most recent strike, in 2008, lasted 58 days and cost the company $1.8 billion. In a highly competitive, globalized industry like aircraft production, such costly labor stoppages put Boeing jobs at risk. The potential harm to workers is far greater than any economic gain they could possibly reap from a strike. Obama NLRB's Top Lawyer: Sensible Business Decision Driven by 'Anti-Union Animus'

Where the Boeing Controversy Was Born

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page connects the dots to discover that the NLRB's complaint against Boeing and companies moving to Right to Work states is not the actions of a rouge General Counsel but the suggestion of the Chairman of the Committee Wilma Liebman. The Obama-era National Labor Relations Board has tilted so heavily toward union interests that companies might be forgiven for thinking the process is rigged against them. A recent missive from one of the agency's top lawyers shows why. In a May 10 memo to regional staffers, Associate General Counsel Richard Siegel discusses a March case in which the NLRB sided with telecommunications company Embarq Corp. in a dispute over its decision to close a Las Vegas call center and open a bigger facility in Florida. The company refused to explain to its union the rationale for the move. In America, business decisions are made by owners or executives and are rarely subject to compulsory bargaining, while unions confine their concerns to working conditions, pay and benefits. NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman, a long-time union lawyer, doesn't like that balance. "The Board's task would be easier, and more importantly, the [National Labor Relations] Act's policy of promoting collective bargaining might well be better served, if employers were required to provide unions with requested information about relocation decisions whenever there was a reasonable likelihood that labor-cost concessions might affect the decision," she wrote in her concurrence to the Embarq case. Translation: Ms. Liebman wants to force far more companies to consult unions when they want to relocate, because unions might theoretically be able to offer concessions to avert a move if they had more information. Never mind that such a rule change would be an unprecedented intrusion into boardrooms, or that unions might use collective bargaining to request reams of data, such as payrolls and tax returns, to increase their negotiating leverage. In a "future case," Ms. Liebman added, "I would be open to modifying" the rule. Wink, nudge.

U.S. House Representatives Grow Weary of NLRB's Truncated Responses

From the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce (5/24/2011): Kline and Roe Express Disappointment with NLRB's Inadequate Response to Congressional Inquiry   “The general counsel's office has offered to discuss our request further, and we intend to take them up on their offer.” Today, Republican leaders on the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce responded to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) failure to provide requested documents related to its complaint filed against The Boeing Company. On May 5th, Chairman [John] Kline and Representative Phil Roe, M.D. (R-TN) requested information from the NLRB to address questions surrounding the timing of the Boeing complaint, as well as concerns about public statements made by NLRB officials. "The NLRB is not immune from congressional oversight or public scrutiny," said Chairman John Kline (R-MN). "While this insufficient response is not entirely unexpected from todays board, it is still extremely disappointing. In the case of Boeing, there are legitimate questions over public statements made by NLRB officials and the timing of its complaint. The American people deserve a full explanation and Congress has a right to a complete response. The general counsel's office has offered to discuss our request further, and we intend to take them up on their offer."

U.S. House Representatives Grow Weary of NLRB's Truncated Responses

From the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce (5/24/2011): Kline and Roe Express Disappointment with NLRB's Inadequate Response to Congressional Inquiry   “The general counsel's office has offered to discuss our request further, and we intend to take them up on their offer.” Today, Republican leaders on the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce responded to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) failure to provide requested documents related to its complaint filed against The Boeing Company. On May 5th, Chairman [John] Kline and Representative Phil Roe, M.D. (R-TN) requested information from the NLRB to address questions surrounding the timing of the Boeing complaint, as well as concerns about public statements made by NLRB officials. "The NLRB is not immune from congressional oversight or public scrutiny," said Chairman John Kline (R-MN). "While this insufficient response is not entirely unexpected from todays board, it is still extremely disappointing. In the case of Boeing, there are legitimate questions over public statements made by NLRB officials and the timing of its complaint. The American people deserve a full explanation and Congress has a right to a complete response. The general counsel's office has offered to discuss our request further, and we intend to take them up on their offer."