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

[flyguy75000]

As a matter of fact Red it is quite easy to find examples of the US government telling companies how to run their business. Doesn't it tell companies who it can hire as in the case of employing illegals? Shouldn't it then not have influence on how workers are treated especially understanding the nature of corporations? At least the founding father of the Republican party believed that. Think of another example that might be close to home. Would it be best to have the government COMPLETELY deregulate the airline industry? How safe would it be then? You're bright enough to know.

The problem is your point is laced with political undertones and that $hit is eating away at our country's fundermental existance. If you begin to think for yourself I am sure you will reregister as an independent...

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

 

[Daytonaflyer]

They are trying to employe workers in SC because they can pay them less than half what they must pay in Washington. This is an obvious attempt to circumvent labor contracts with cheap labor. Be very afraid of any aircraft built in South Carolina, they are built by uneducated, inexperienced, underpaid workers.

 

[shootr]

The purpose for opening an A/C plant in SC his singular. The word is WHIPSAW.

 

[pilotyip]

They are trying to employe workers in SC because they can pay them less than half what they must pay in Washington. This is an obvious attempt to circumvent labor contracts with cheap labor. Be very afraid of any aircraft built in South Carolina, they are built by uneducated, inexperienced, underpaid workers.

shame on cheap labour, we should be like England where the unions run the gov't.

From conpilot

Anyway, yes I lived in England from 1956 until 1962. One way I can tell you just how the Labour Party was running England into the ground, was that World War Two rationing was still in effect. That's right, all rationing in England finally ended in July, 1958. The rationing of food had ended in 1954, however, coal which 90% of homes in the UK were heated by, was still rationed until 1958.

The primary reasons for this was the price controls and production limits put into place by the Labour Government. Due to the artificial price controls, wages were held low due to those price controls. Because of this England could not compete in the open market competing against more open free world markets. Because of union protectionism by the Labor Party coal prices were, by law, kept at unrealistic high levels, much higher than the prices in Europe.

Prior to and during World War Two English steel was one of England's most sought after exports. After the war due to the artificial high price of English coal the British Steel Industry could no longer compete on the open market. To make up for the lack of profit due to declining export of steel, the Labour Party forced all of the English Industries to only use English coal, coal imports from Europe were banned.

Thus the once mighty steel industry of the UK was doomed and the trickle down effect started the destruction of the UK auto industry, aircraft industry and the once mighty maritime industry. In a futile attempt to offset this trend, the Labour Party raised taxes on everything to subsidize the industries, to keep the Labour unions happy.

Make no mistake about this, really until Thatcher and the Tory Party took power, the labor unions controlled Great Britain through the Labour Party. The Labour Party was a combination of socialists and union leaders. As long as the Labour Party gave what the union leaders wanted, the rank and file union members voted straight Labour.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL,

This whole thing is a political stunt by the Obama administration. The NLRB righ now is completely slanted toward the unions. This hasn't always been the case, but it is now.

What better way to lose American jobs than by clamping down on Boeing? I don't mean this to sound anti-union, but this is a witch hunt against Boeing.

Just as Raoul states above..Boeing could easily start a plant in Mexico or wherever. But the larger elephant in the room is this...do you seriously think other large American companies are looking at this and saying WTF?

This goes waaaay beyond Boeing. Be prepared for large American companies to just go overseas. I mean why deal with this?

Question....At what point is this NOT the union trying to tell Boeing how to operate their business? Shouldn't Boeing be able to run there business as they see fit? Optimally working together with the union.

RF

Red, you demonstrate that you aren't informed on the issues in this case. I suggest you do a little more reading on the NLRA, the jurisdiction of the NRLB, and statements made by Boeing. After you do, I'm sure you'll figure out that what Boeing has done is blatantly illegal, and the NLRB is only doing its job under the law.

 

[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.