NLRB Admits Boeing Complaint Applies To Every Business & State

Fred Wszolek
May 23, 2011
Townhall

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision to issue a complaint regarding the Boeing facility in South Carolina is a poorly veiled act of revenge against a company that refused to let Big Labor bosses decide its future. As seemingly ridiculous and unbelievable as the attack on the part of the U.S. Government against an American corporation seeking to create jobs at home is, the consequences that this precedent sets for businesses and their right to work is downright dangerous.

The case in question came up when, Boeing, after negotiations with their union in Washington State broke down, decided to build a factory in South Carolina in order to meet demand for their 787 Dreamliner aircraft. Boeing had hoped to stay in Washington, and even opened up negotiations with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) as a show of good faith. When the union demanded a seat on the board and a promise that all facilities would stay in Puget Sound forever, the negotiations broke down and Boeing began to look elsewhere.

Boeing decided to build the new facility in South Carolina, a right-to-work state with more business friendly labor laws. While choosing to build in a new state did not take any Boeing jobs away from Washington, which has actually seen 2,000 jobs created since the new facility in South Carolina was announced; union bosses felt slighted and demanded their friends at President Obama’s labor board intervene on their behalf.

The NLRB complied and almost two years after the new facility was announced, and as construction was concluding and hiring commencing, the regulatory agency told Boeing that they could not extend operations to South Carolina because it was retaliation against Big Labor. This is a blow to South Carolina. It is a swipe to freedom. And it sends a chilling message to any company seeking to relocate in the United States: you are better off moving to Canada or Mexico than creating news jobs in your own country.

But the true damage of this political power play on behalf of Big Labor and against Boeing and South Carolinagoes much farther. An NLRB spokesperson recently stated, “The effect would have been the same if the line had been moved to a nonunion facility in any state.

This is a more straightforward way of saying that the NLRB can tell any business anywhere in our nation and at any time where it can and can not go. This incredible overreach by a little known agency owned by labor bosses seeking “payback” having expended nearly half a billion dollars electing President Obama is simply shocking. The NLRB is clearly saying their complaint against Boeing applies to every company and state in the union.

It also effectively outlaws businesses from moving into any of America’s 22 right-to-work states if a union boss takes issue with their decision.

If unionized companies can’t move into right-to-work states, why would non-unionized companies ever consider moving to unionized states? If this matter is able to set this precedent, America’s economy will suffer as both right-to-work and unionized states will lose jobs, while countries abroad will gain them.

Where did the NLRB get the authority to control commerce in our country? Why isn’t the White House stepping forward to address this gross overreach? President Obama not only agrees with the NLRB’s actions, but has put in place the individuals to create such a system rewarding the union bosses who bankrolled his campaign.

For instance, a Democratically-held Senate in 2010 did not have the stomach to confirm labor radical and union lawyer Craig Becker to the board, yet Obama recess appointed him. And now, Obama has appointed the architect of the Boeing complaint – Lafe Solomon to serve as the regulatory agency’s general counsel.

President Obama clearly believes the NLRB has the power to control American businesses, enabling them to kill jobs as our nation continues to fight through a difficult economic period. By supporting the NLRB’s decision, President Obama has endorsed the idea that bureaucrats in the pocket of Big Labor can make better business decisions than employers. While this may be business as usual for this administration, it is hurting job creators at home and giving greater hope to America’s competitors abroad that they can lure jobs away from our shores.

Tell Congress: Stop the PRO Act

WFI is working to prevent passage of the so-called Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act)—a wholesale labor reform package that takes the current careful balance of labor rules and tips it greatly in the favor of labor bosses and forced collective bargaining.

The PRO Act robs workers of the right to a secret ballot to form a union, forces union contracts on workers without a vote of approval, and expose workers’ personal contact information to union bosses seeking to organize a workplace. And that’s just the start.

Help us speak out against this woefully misguided and blatantly anti-worker legislation. Review and send the message below to your members of Congress today.

Read More »

Not a member? Sign up and become one today.

Featured Blog

WFI Key Vote Letter: Opposition to PRO Act

— 02.10.2020 —
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: On behalf of the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), I am writing to share our organization’s vehement opposition to H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). WFI has serious concerns with the broad, overreaching nature of this legislation and the many ways in which it would undermine worker freedom and privacy, while simultaneously threatening businesses and entire industries that keep America’s economy thriving. Please note that WFI will include votes on the PRO Act and its amendments on our Congressional Labor Scorecard, which scores and ranks legislators based on their activity associated with workplace issues. WFI was established to fight for American employees and employers as well as our entire economy. We believe in worker empowerment, the right of workers to be fully informed of the options available for worker-involvement in the workplace, and the right to freely choose whether to organize or not. No individual or group – government, a union or an employer – should be able to intimidate or restrict workers’ in exercising these rights. In an attempt to boost flailing union membership at the expense of workers’ rights, the PRO Act would upend decades of established U.S. labor law and institute myriad anti-employee and anti-employer policies that have already been soundly rejected—by Congress, various federal agencies, or the courts. Among its most blatant affronts to workers’ rights, the PRO Act would eliminate the right to a secret ballot when determining whether to unionize and enforce a “card check” system, exposing workers to the potential for harassment, intimidation, and coercion. The PRO Act would also enforce binding arbitration in union negotiations by a government- appointed bureaucrat; repeal and eliminate right-to-work laws in 27 states, force workers to fund union activities regardless of whether they support them; and threaten the ability of individuals to operate as independent contractors, eliminating traditional economic and employment opportunities and threatening the independence and flexibility of the emerging gig economy. On top of all that, the PRO Act would force all workers’ personal and home contact information to be provided to a union during organizing campaigns – in an electronic, searchable format no less, with no limit on what a union can do with that information. WFI believes in advancing sensible policies that protect and preserve the rights of both employees and employers, and we welcome the opportunity to work with legislators who also support these efforts. However, the PRO Act does not achieve these goals and would instead threaten the rights of both while jeopardizing our entire economy. WFI urges members of the House to strongly oppose the PRO Act. Sincerely, Heather Greenaway Executive Director Workforce Fairness Institute See the letter here.
Read More