Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Boeing: Dismissing workers rights or practicing good business? [The Conversation]

Boeing-South Carolina

Boeing's new nonunion plant in "right-to-work" South Carolina has landed the company in a controversial federal lawsuit. The National Labor Relations Board contends that Boeing is punishing its  union workers in Washington for going on strike, and that the move to South Carolina was an illegal one. Boeing is saying that it acted in the best interest of the bottom line. (In other words: With its new plant, it didn't want  to factor in the cost of employees who go on strike.) The company's Republican supporters agree: Boeing made a strategic decision during a down economy, and it deserves praise for creating jobs in U.S. The moral quandary is where to side now that the plant is open and employing 12,000 people in South Carolina?

Boeing isn't committing an anti-union jihad

The key difference between the two Boeing locations is the cost of doing business. The unionized workforce in Everett has walked the picket line five times since 1975, most recently in 2008, where the strike lasted 52 days. As Boeing's Executive Vice President Jim Albaugh told The Seattle Times, "we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years." […]

[K]eep in mind that Boeing hasn't fired a single unionized employee in Washington or shifted a single piece of existing union work out of state. In fact, the company has added an additional 2,000 union jobs in Washington since announcing its plans for the South Carolina facility last year and says it plans on hiring more. Not exactly an anti-union jihad.

--Damon W. Root, Reason

NLRB is killing jobs

Vulnerable Democrats face an almost impossible choice: Side with Boeing and buck not only the White House but also ditch the unions that have long contributed to Democratic campaigns. But side with the unions and the federal government in a lawsuit challenging Boeing's move into anti-union South Carolina, and you run afoul of Big Business in many Southern and Midwestern right-to-work states. […]

"We live in the United States of America, and people shouldn't be forced to belong or be a member in any organization," said former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. "And the government has no business telling people what group you have to be a member of or not."

"The right-to-work states are creating a lot more jobs today than the heavily unionized states," added former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

And businessman Herman Cain said the Obama administration -- through the actions of the NLRB -- is "killing our free-market system."

--Scott Wong and Laura Hautala, Politico

If President Obama really cares about the U.S. economy, he'll get involved

Did you hear what President Obama said about the National Labor Relations Board's complaint against Boeing Co.? We didn't either.

Mr. Obama has been touting his plan to double the country's export growth by 2015, thereby creating two million new jobs. Now one of the country's foremost exporters is under assault for seeking a lower-cost venue for manufacturing to stay globally competitive, and the President has had nothing to say. […]

The President isn't above wading into labor disagreements in the states. When unions objected to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's plan to reform his state's arrangement with public employee unions earlier this year, Mr. Obama said he didn't like to see unions "denigrated or vilified" or have their "rights infringed upon."

So here is a seminal case about the ability of a corporation to manage its own assets and decide where to locate its business. Should the NLRB be able to block an American company's domestic expansion? Mr. President, how are your labor appointees assisting American jobs and exports?

--Wall Street Journal editorial

NLRB gets it wrong

Employers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors -- including potential work disruptions -- when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business.

--Washington Post editorial

This could end up hurting union-friendly states

Even if the judge rules against Boeing, though, the remedy sought by the complaint -- moving the second production and supply lines for the Dreamliner back to Washington and Oregon -- would be too draconian a response. Local 751 can be assured of its right to strike after its contract expires next year without dictating where Boeing expands its operations. Otherwise, companies may be reluctant to locate in union-friendly states for fear of being trapped there.

--Los Angeles Times editorial

MORE CONVERSATIONS:

The war on 'the war on drugs'

Michele Bachmann: The anti-Mitt Romney

Lowering California's prison population is good for the state

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photos: Boeing Co.'s new 787 Dreamliner plant in Charleston, S.C. Credit: Stephen Morton/Bloomberg

 

Comments () | Archives (6)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mike

Not exactly a wide range of viewpoints there. Reason, WP, WSJ, and Politico? You should have just asked FOX for their view instead of pretending you're fair and balanced too.

Neil

"Right to work" is Orwellian newspeak. It does not mean that every man has a right to work in that state. It means that every employer has the right to FIRE every employee at a moment's notice for no just reason whatsoever. I think the US is the only advanced country to have such an inhumane law. Canadians and Europeans can only pity the poor bastards who live in the constant shadow of the guillotine in "right to work " (ho ho ho) states. Is this the American dream?

Alexandra LeTellier


TypePad HTML Email


The post also includes an excerpt from our editorial board

P J Evans

Funny thing: all those 'right to work' states have lower pay scales than states that aren't 'right to work'. They have more under-educated employees, too, meaning more training is needed (and sometimes it means remedial education). Boeing will end up paying more for that move in the long run than if they'd left things as they were.

supergringo

This whole conversation is ridiculous.

madsircool

There goes PJ Evans with his geographic profiling. Like there arent methed out drop outs in the Nortwwest.


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...