Over the past few days, a number of media reports have called public attention to the fact that local and international machinists union bosses are at odds with one another about whether rank-and-file union members in Washington State’s Puget Sound…
Apologists for government-imposed forced unionism today still uphold a vision of “freedom” for employees reminiscent of the one once propagated by Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin. After seizing control of Russia in 1917, Lenin almost immediately ordered the destruction of all…
Pro-Right to Work Congressman Darrell Issa wants to know more about why the Boeing complaint was filed. Credit: www.businesspundit.com House Oversight Chairman Seeks Answers From Board's Top Lawyer (Source: January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) The legal blitz launched against Boeing and its Palmetto State employees last spring by Lafe Solomon, the President Obama-appointed acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is now over. Unfortunately, the grave threat to American employees' Right to Work stemming from this case is unabated. Last April 20, Mr. Solomon, the board's top lawyer, asked an NLRB administrative law judge to block Boeing from initiating a second Dreamliner 787 aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina. Mr. Solomon's case was built on a complaint filed by International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union bosses. Employees in Right to Work States Are Mr. Solomon's Principal Targets Boeing had no right, union officials claimed, to expand production in a Right to Work state so as to cut the cost to customers, employees and shareholders of the disruptive strikes that the union brass had repeatedly instigated at the company's west coast facilities over the years.
Pro-Right to Work Congressman Darrell Issa wants to know more about why the Boeing complaint was filed. Credit: www.businesspundit.com House Oversight Chairman Seeks Answers From Board's Top Lawyer (Source: January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) The legal blitz launched against Boeing and its Palmetto State employees last spring by Lafe Solomon, the President Obama-appointed acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is now over. Unfortunately, the grave threat to American employees' Right to Work stemming from this case is unabated. Last April 20, Mr. Solomon, the board's top lawyer, asked an NLRB administrative law judge to block Boeing from initiating a second Dreamliner 787 aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina. Mr. Solomon's case was built on a complaint filed by International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union bosses. Employees in Right to Work States Are Mr. Solomon's Principal Targets Boeing had no right, union officials claimed, to expand production in a Right to Work state so as to cut the cost to customers, employees and shareholders of the disruptive strikes that the union brass had repeatedly instigated at the company's west coast facilities over the years.
E-mails Reveal Why Top NLRB Lawyer 'Screwed up the U.S. Economy' Internal NLRB e-mails show Lafe Solomon (pictured) was disinclined this March to target Boeing for expanding production in Right to Work South Carolina. Then IAM union chiefs, led by Tom Buffenbarger, apparently got to him. Credit: AP/Bruce Smith (Source: November-December 2011 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) This April 20, Acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon ignited a public-policy firestorm by filing a complaint against Boeing for initiating a second Dreamliner 787 aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina. In several public statements, Boeing executives had made no bones about the fact that their decision to expand in a Right to Work state was prompted largely by their desire to avoid or at least mitigate multi-billion-dollar revenue losses stemming from disruptive strikes. Agreeing with International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union kingpins who had repeatedly ordered employees at Boeing's west coast facilities out on strike, Mr. Solomon claimed these statements showed Boeing was motivated by "anti-union animus." Consequently, the South Carolina expansion was illegal, declared Mr. Solomon. Mr. Solomon's complaint asked an NLRB administrative law judge to stop Boeing's South Carolina production. Former Clinton-Appointed NLRB Chairman: Boeing Complaint Didn't 'Make Sense'
E-mails Reveal Why Top NLRB Lawyer 'Screwed up the U.S. Economy' Internal NLRB e-mails show Lafe Solomon (pictured) was disinclined this March to target Boeing for expanding production in Right to Work South Carolina. Then IAM union chiefs, led by Tom Buffenbarger, apparently got to him. Credit: AP/Bruce Smith (Source: November-December 2011 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) This April 20, Acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon ignited a public-policy firestorm by filing a complaint against Boeing for initiating a second Dreamliner 787 aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina. In several public statements, Boeing executives had made no bones about the fact that their decision to expand in a Right to Work state was prompted largely by their desire to avoid or at least mitigate multi-billion-dollar revenue losses stemming from disruptive strikes. Agreeing with International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union kingpins who had repeatedly ordered employees at Boeing's west coast facilities out on strike, Mr. Solomon claimed these statements showed Boeing was motivated by "anti-union animus." Consequently, the South Carolina expansion was illegal, declared Mr. Solomon. Mr. Solomon's complaint asked an NLRB administrative law judge to stop Boeing's South Carolina production. Former Clinton-Appointed NLRB Chairman: Boeing Complaint Didn't 'Make Sense'
The Wall Street Journal looks at the political decision to file a complaint against Boeing and the political decision to withdraw it: What a sham, or scam, or choose a synonym. On Wednesday, the International Association of Machinists approved a new contract with Boeing in which the company agreed to make its 737 Max jet with union labor in Washington state. Yesterday, after getting the machinist all-clear, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dropped its lawsuit against Boeing's investment in South Carolina. Has there ever been a more blatant case of a supposedly independent agency siding with a union over management in collective bargaining? Boeing says the new contract wasn't tied directly to a settlement of the NLRB complaint, and that it always made sense to build the 737 Max in Renton, Washington because its work force has experience on the current 737 and offers natural efficiencies. But it's hard to resist the conclusion that Boeing felt obliged to make the agreement to save its more than $1 billion investment in South Carolina, where it is building 787s. Boeing might have won a legal battle in the end, but first it would have to run through an administrative law judge, then the politicized and Obama-stacked NLRB, and only then would it get to an appellate court. Meanwhile, its investment was in jeopardy and its legal bill was rising.
The Wall Street Journal looks at the political decision to file a complaint against Boeing and the political decision to withdraw it: What a sham, or scam, or choose a synonym. On Wednesday, the International Association of Machinists approved a new contract with Boeing in which the company agreed to make its 737 Max jet with union labor in Washington state. Yesterday, after getting the machinist all-clear, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dropped its lawsuit against Boeing's investment in South Carolina. Has there ever been a more blatant case of a supposedly independent agency siding with a union over management in collective bargaining? Boeing says the new contract wasn't tied directly to a settlement of the NLRB complaint, and that it always made sense to build the 737 Max in Renton, Washington because its work force has experience on the current 737 and offers natural efficiencies. But it's hard to resist the conclusion that Boeing felt obliged to make the agreement to save its more than $1 billion investment in South Carolina, where it is building 787s. Boeing might have won a legal battle in the end, but first it would have to run through an administrative law judge, then the politicized and Obama-stacked NLRB, and only then would it get to an appellate court. Meanwhile, its investment was in jeopardy and its legal bill was rising.