US House passes bill restricting action against Boeing's 787 Charleston line

[scoreboardII]

Would it be best to have the government COMPLETELY deregulate the airline industry? How safe would it be then? ..

Safer than it is now, just like since deregulation there have been fewer major accidents than before deregulation.

You think a CEO is going to say "skimp on safety" to make a buck? then lose a billion and the company when his airline is front page/top of the hour "breaking news" via a crash? Think about that.

How long do crappy bush pilot operations last? Till the first crash. reputable ones have ben flying since the 40's.

 

[redflyer65]

This couldn't possibly be political..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Becker

and from Big Government..


Becker will be the third person on the five person Board and the second Democrat thus giving them majority on the Board. To say that Becker’s views are “extreme” would be an insult. His views of employer-employee relations invites thoughts of hammers and sickles.

As the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Associate General Counsel, Becker has regularly advocated for inappropriate use of the NLRB’s power. In an instant of uncensored honesty, Mr. Becker wrote that employers should be barred from NLRB proceedings:

“On these latter issues employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practice case, even though Board rulings might indirectly affect their duty to bargain.”
​

In Becker’s opinion, business owners, many of whom are small business owners that collectively employee 50 million Americans, have “no legally cognizable interest” in one of the most significant decisions impacting the potential future success of their company. But Becker takes his views one step further and would even deny employers the ability to alert authorities to illegal union activity during an election campaign saying:

“Similarly, employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct. Because employers have no right to vote, they cast no ballots the significance of which can be diluted by the inclusion of ineligible employees. … Because employers lack the formal status either of candidates vying to represent employees or voters, they should not be entitled to charge that unions disobeyed the rules governing voter eligibility or campaign conduct. On the questions of unit determination, voter eligibility, and campaign conduct, only the employee constituency and their potential union representatives should be heard.”


Really interesting Obama appointment to say the least..

RF
​

 

[scoreboardII]

And there you have it, the NLRB is made up of Socialist Commies.

 

[UALRATT]

You got a f*ckin dart in your neck, you should pull that schhhitttt out. That schhhittt is not cool.

Booy, were your abused as a child? Sounds like you're quoting your old man right before he handed you a can-o-whoop hA$s. Guess he succeeded with beating the common sense out a ya.

As I was saying... US House passes bill restricting action against Boeing's 787 Charleston line

 

[Flyer1015]

Why is the government interfering? Since when is it ok for the government to run a private organization and tell them what to do, business-wise? If I was a Boeing executive, I'd heavily consider moving the whole operation overseas just to prove a point.

 

[PCL_128]

Why is the government interfering? Since when is it ok for the government to run a private organization and tell them what to do, business-wise? If I was a Boeing executive, I'd heavily consider moving the whole operation overseas just to prove a point.

Read the Wagner Act, commonly known as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It's been the law of the land since 1935.

 

[densoo]

Why is the government interfering? Since when is it ok for the government to run a private organization and tell them what to do, business-wise? If I was a Boeing executive, I'd heavily consider moving the whole operation overseas just to prove a point.

I say again,

The government has done nothing but tell companies how to run their businesses. When they approved NAFTA they were telling companies to move their labor south. When they don't tariff Chinese products while China won't import ours they were telling companies to move their labor to the far east. When they permit a P.O. Box HQ somewhere in Wyoming they're telling them not to pay taxes. When the allowed them to break communications unions they were telling them to use Bombay customer service reps to answer our phone calls.

 

[flyguy75000]

Booy, were your abused as a child? Sounds like you're quoting your old man right before he handed you a can-o-whoop hA$s. Guess he succeeded with beating the common sense out a ya.

As I was saying... US House passes bill restricting action against Boeing's 787 Charleston line

Or maybe it sounds like I was quoting Old School, since I was. Nice try though, Ratt-boy.

 

[pilotyip]

I say again,

When they approved NAFTA they were telling companies to move their labor south.

a lot of them moved north to support the union jobs in Canada.

 

[jhill]

Wouldn't it be interesting if SWA opens a base in a right-to-work State and pays it's pilots based there a much lower payrate? What if SWA lobbied the Republicans to do just that, following Boeing footsteps???

By the way, you are enjoying the benefits gained under the same piece of legislation that the NLB is operating under, aren't you???

Just asking...

While your point seems resonable the pilots at SWA have never gone out on strike or disrupted service. If we had shut down the company multiple times we would deserve such treatment. While I enjoy the benefits of working unnder a CBA it is easy for unions to go to far. Don't forget we work for a living and that means we take what they are giving. The way to get better pay is through productivity and increasing your value to the company. If you can't tolorate taking orders you need to be self employed and assume all the risk that goes with it.

 

[pilotyip]

While your point seems resonable the pilots at SWA have never gone out on strike or disrupted service. If we had shut down the company multiple times we would deserve such treatment. While I enjoy the benefits of working under a CBA it is easy for unions to go to far. Don't forget we work for a living and that means we take what they are giving. The way to get better pay is through productivity and increasing your value to the company. If you can't tolorate taking orders you need to be self employed and assume all the risk that goes with it.

nice touch of reality, don't see a lot of this with many unions members, they push the envelope so far they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs

 

[igneousy2]

It seems like most Americans are missing the forest for the trees.

The free-market is there whether you like it or not. The Global Market is there whether you like it or not...Whether you believe in it or not...kind of like Plate Tectonics.

You can erect barriers to people making money in this country "to protect the little guy" but all you get, if anything, is a short term fix, but long-run it causes an even faster rush for the exits and prevents capital from flowing in.

If you build the cars in China and just sell them here...you say "then who will buy them if we don't have jobs"...the question shoud be who IN AMERICA is going to buy them if we don't have jobs...and the answer is eventually NOBODY but the most wealthy. But the part you are missing is that from the viewpoint of Chrysler it sells as much or more cars at higher margins, making more money. CHRYSLER DOES NOT CARE IF IT EVENTUALLY SELLS ANY CARS IN THE US.

You See Chrysler's plant in China just increased the standard of living in China. That small change in the global allignment of capital increased the demand for things the Chinese want....causing factories and stores to be built supplying things that Chinese want...making more and more Chinese wealthy as they satisfy the Chinese workers demand for more and more stuff...allowing more of them, at first just the wealthy but it will trickle down later, to buy more and better Chrysler cars...RIGHT THERE IN CHINA.

Remember,selling anything to the wealthiest 20% of Chinese is the same as selling to the entire US population sheer numbers wise.

If the general public continue to believe the continued rantings of the media, unions, and politicians, we are in real trouble.

 

[pilotyip]

It seems like most Americans are missing the forest for the trees.

The free-market is there whether you like it or not. The Global Market is there whether you like it or not...Whether you believe in it or not...kind of like Plate Tectonics.

You can erect barriers to people making money in this country "to protect the little guy" but all you get, if anything, is a short term fix, but long-run it causes an even faster rush for the exits and prevents capital from flowing in.

If you build the cars in China and just sell them here...you say "then who will buy them if we don't have jobs"...the question shoud be who IN AMERICA is going to buy them if we don't have jobs...and the answer is eventually NOBODY but the most wealthy. But the part you are missing is that from the viewpoint of Chrysler it sells as much or more cars at higher margins, making more money. CHRYSLER DOES NOT CARE IF IT EVENTUALLY SELLS ANY CARS IN THE US.

You See Chrysler's plant in China just increased the standard of living in China. That small change in the global allignment of capital increased the demand for things the Chinese want....causing factories and stores to be built supplying things that Chinese want...making more and more Chinese wealthy as they satisfy the Chinese workers demand for more and more stuff...allowing more of them, at first just the wealthy but it will trickle down later, to buy more and better Chrysler cars...RIGHT THERE IN CHINA.

Remember,selling anything to the wealthiest 20% of Chinese is the same as selling to the entire US population sheer numbers wise.

If the general public continue to believe the continued rantings of the media, unions, and politicians, we are in real trouble.

another guy who gets it. It is a flat world and to erect barriers destroys the very things you are try to protect. If a trade union erects a barrier and prevents a company from competitive in a world wide market, that company will fail. See my previous post about well this worked for England following WWII when the labor unions run the country.

 

[Smarta$$]

Another idiotic statement. Can't sell them here if no one is employed. Short-term thinking, free-market circle jerkers at their finest.

Exactly, no American jobs, no American consumers... Good luck selling cars, or airplane tickets (Boeing) to the unemployed Americans.

Suing Boeing sucks, but the company was trying to avoid their union workforce. If your airline opened a new plant (base) and attempted to staff the shop floor (cockpit) with non-union pilots, your union would file a law suit, and the federal government would back your contract. And YOU would be an anti-American socialist thug.

But, you will deny it, or try to blur the lines to make yourself feel better so that when you listen to Rush go on about the Boeing unions, you can trick yourself into believing he isn't talking about you. Denial is a powerful thing.

Typical Republicans... As long as you get YOUR huge union paycheck...

 

[Smarta$$]

Say, didn't I see you with anti-free market anarchists on Wall St. today? Camping out in tents and doing Yoga in the park....Priceless

Come on Sacha, I have read your dribble before but come on. He has a VERY valid point. No American workers (from outsourcing, globalization and layoffs) means NO American consumers...

It is a ticket to a failed country and failed economy.