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

[Sacha]

Keynesian economics is a ticket to a failed Economy and a Failed country.

Your leftist whining dribble is entertaining though.....

 

[Smarta$$]

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.

The problem with that is there will eventually be less and less opportunity for people to become rich in the US, and thus less rich people, and less American companies to sell things to foreigners. You still MUST have a viable middle-class, and that means not ********************ting on American workers, something the GOP hasn't figured out how to do.

 

[pilotyip]

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

and the perfect union country of England does not result in the same thing? Unions have a good track record of destroying companies with unsustainable demands, reference GM, US Steel, Wyandott Chemical, etc

 

[Dornier 335]

and the perfect union country of England does not result in the same thing? Unions have a good track record of destroying companies with unsustainable demands, reference GM, US Steel, Wyandott Chemical, etc

If it all would be so simple... If I look at big $$$ industry in another country, like the car industry in Germany, manufacturers like Audi, BMW, Opel (GM), Porsche, VW etc. and their rather strong unions, your argument of blaming unions for a company heading south just doesn't cut it...

If I look at your text book example UK, it appears that UK companies couldn't compete with the rest. How can that be just the unions fault?

 

[pilotyip]

If it all would be so simple... If I look at big $$$ industry in another country, like the car industry in Germany, manufacturers like Audi, BMW, Opel (GM), Porsche, VW etc. and their rather strong unions, your argument of blaming unions for a company heading south just doesn't cut it...

not an expert of German unions, but I read someplace there is an agency in Germany that has final say on union contracts. The contract must increase productivity to offset any wage/benefit increases. Unlike the UAW where you got paid for not working. Yes they are a very strong union country, but are bound my tradition to Trade Craft, where going to a trade school after a few years of High School is a chosen career path. As opposed to the US where if you don't go to college you are looked down upon.

 

[Flyer1015]

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

How are they threatening/interfering with union members rights? If I was a corporate management, and it was cheaper for me to run an operation out of CHS, then SEA, then I'd move the operation to CHS. As for those unionized workers, they should be offered to move with the job. If they don't want to move, then tough.

 

[Smarta$$]

and the perfect union country of England does not result in the same thing? Unions have a good track record of destroying companies with unsustainable demands, reference GM, US Steel, Wyandott Chemical, etc

You mean like SWA, Ford, Delta... Companies go bk from bad management first and foremost.

Tell me, are we doing so much better than England? How about Germany? How about Canada?

It is funny, the US is the most right wing of all industrialized nations, yet our advantage over those same industrialized nations continues to erode...

How does our quality of life ratings rank among industrialized nations? How about our education? Why is it that other nations with gobument education kick our ass? Why do we get less vacation time than other industrialized nations? Why is our health care system rated so low (except the Rush Limbaugh health care rating agency)?

Sorry, we are not losing our advantages because of center-left policies. The rest of the world is catching us, or passing us by using center-left policies. Hard right ideology is holding us back and killing our middle class. All income growth in America has gone to the top 2-3% of citizens. It is NO coincidence that this coincides with the decline in our nation generally.

 

[Smarta$$]

not an expert of German unions, but I read someplace there is an agency in Germany that has final say on union contracts. The contract must increase productivity to offset any wage/benefit increases. Unlike the UAW where you got paid for not working. Yes they are a very strong union country, but are bound my tradition to Trade Craft, where going to a trade school after a few years of High School is a chosen career path. As opposed to the US where if you don't go to college you are looked down upon.

Ford and GM are strong, Chrysler is coming back. All still union. Poor management and poor products ruin companies. You always conveniently seem to forget that management and product selection/development are important, only those darned line employees ruin companies.

 

[Smarta$$]

By the way, we have had the Bush tax cuts since 2001 and 2003. Obama extended ALL of them, and lowered payroll taxes. We have had all these tax CUTS in place for years. Tax rates on "job creators" have been far lower than Clinton era (good job creation under the higher tax rates) for a decade.

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

 

[scoreboardII]

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

Hey we are alpa, you need to read the Wagner act, it does not apply to the rights of a company to open plants, period.

The WA only applies to companies interfering in union business.

 

[lowtimedriver]

Hopefully it doesn't pass in the senate.

Here's an idea, put your employee's first, take care of them and you won't have to have unions.

Close the SC plant and then Boeing will open the 87 line up in China. Brilliant! That will help US employees.

 

[densoo]

By the way, we have had the Bush tax cuts since 2001 and 2003. Obama extended ALL of them, and lowered payroll taxes. We have had all these tax CUTS in place for years. Tax rates on "job creators" have been far lower than Clinton era (good job creation under the higher tax rates) for a decade.

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

+1

The governor of Michigan cut taxes 99 times under the principle of getting more capital into the hands of the job creators. When she left office the state was 48th in terms of tax burden among the 50 states.

And the jobs? Gone.

 

[bluesideup1]

+1

The governor of Michigan cut taxes 99 times under the principle of getting more capital into the hands of the job creators. When she left office the state was 48th in terms of tax burden among the 50 states.

And the jobs? Gone.

Ya, it was the tax cuts that killed the jobs in Michigan. It couldn't have been the massive unions and their giant pensions that caused most of the plants in Michigan to close or move somewhere else. It also couldn't have been the insane policy of the democrats to promote home ownership to anything with a pulse regardless of whether they could pay for it or not.

This policy lead to corrupt lenders which led to a housing collapse that put a bunch of the laborers/businesses out of work, created massive bank failures, restricted infusions of credit when other companies needed it, caused a trillion dollar bailout, increased the size of the government and created more job killing government regulation.

But no your right it was the tax cuts that killed the jobs and economy.

 

[pilotyip]

Ford and GM are strong, Chrysler is coming back. All still union. Poor management and poor products ruin companies. You always conveniently seem to forget that management and product selection/development are important, only those darned line employees ruin companies.

In 1994 the UAW pushed GM into a deal it knew it could most likely not fulfill. It gave unlimited medical and COLA to retirees. GM knew a lengthy strike might drive them into BK. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was the only solution. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work, but they knew in the end they were in trouble. The power of a potential union strike drove them to make a bad management decision.

As they lost market share to foreign rivals, Detroit's auto makers and the UAW lost the power to set standards on labor costs. Yet during the prosperous 1990s, they seemed reluctant to accept the fact that their business model -- with its expensive defined-benefit health and pension programs -- was driving the domestic industry toward ruin. The UAW and its biggest employer have effectively conceded that their golden age of dominance is over.

GM executives consistently acknowledged that it couldn't be competitive in North America without a fundamental change in its labor-cost structure.

The UAW got a harsh lesson in the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings when former GM parts unit Delphi Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in 2005, and pushed through substantial job and wage cuts under a deal subsidized by GM.

After 1994, GM's obligation to provide health care for 412,356 union members, retirees and surviving spouses drove them to BK. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits in 2005, GM still faced a $51 billion obligation to UAW members. Health-care obligations added more than $1,900 to the cost of every GM vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2006, a heavy burden given that many GM vehicles sold for less than competing Toyota vehicles.

Because of this burden they could not invest properly in future product(edited WSJ)

 

[redflyer65]

GM still carries some of that debt today. I remember when they recently had their IPO and some of the big money was staying away.

The worst of the whole deal back then were the 'Job Banks'. Get paid to sit at home and get full pay. They all loved it, but the reality is that it chokes the goose. They couldn't see the forest for the trees.

RF

 

[densoo]

Ya, it was the tax cuts that killed the jobs in Michigan. It couldn't have been the massive unions and their giant pensions that caused most of the plants in Michigan to close or move somewhere else. It also couldn't have been the insane policy of the democrats to promote home ownership to anything with a pulse regardless of whether they could pay for it or not.

This policy lead to corrupt lenders which led to a housing collapse that put a bunch of the laborers/businesses out of work, created massive bank failures, restricted infusions of credit when other companies needed it, caused a trillion dollar bailout, increased the size of the government and created more job killing government regulation.

But no your right it was the tax cuts that killed the jobs and economy.

It would be simpler just to say, "correlation does not equal causation." But I agree with you--tax cuts did not kill jobs in Michigan. However Michigan proves that tax cuts do not automatically save or create jobs either, as the D.C. hand puppets for the wealthy keep repeating as if this is some kind of mathematical certainty.

 

[pilotyip]

It would be simpler just to say, "correlation does not equal causation." But I agree with you--tax cuts did not kill jobs in Michigan. However Michigan proves that tax cuts do not automatically save or create jobs either, as the D.C. hand puppets for the wealthy keep repeating as if this is some kind of mathematical certainty.

GOP is running everything in Michigan now; enough people got tired of the same ole union reps running the state. The new governor accomplished more in his first 120 days that the previous governor accomplished in 8 years, but she was pretty so nothing else mattered. The state bond rating has been raised; the state has a balanced budget for the first time in 10 years. A pro-business climate is being established, public employee unions have pressure on them to reform pay and benefits, and state appointed emergency managers are stepping into BK school districts with dictatorial powers to make things right. The public employee unions tried to get a recall on the governor, but got only 300K of the 1.1M signature needed. They could raise no money because it was all going to Wisconsin.

 

[redflyer65]

I liked how Granholm moved to Berkley the day that Synder was sworn in so she could start her new job as a Professor at Cal Berkley.

She really did care about Michigan! Plus the fact that she was a liberal Canadian to start with..

RF

 

[densoo]

GOP is running everything in Michigan now; enough people got tired of the same ole union reps running the state. The new governor accomplished more in his first 120 days that the previous governor accomplished in 8 years ...

Maybe he'll run for president.

 

[PCL_128]

How are they threatening/interfering with union members rights?

Boeing made public statements that they were moving jobs to SC in retaliation for the union members going on strike in Washington. That is illegal. The NLRA prohibits companies from taking any action in retaliation for legal job actions. If Boeing had been smart, they would have just said that they were moving the plant to SC for purely financial reasons. But because they wanted to scare the union members into not taking any job actions in the future, they did a stupid thing and made public statements that got them in trouble under the law. They deserve all of the pain that they are getting from the NLRB.

Hey we are alpa, you need to read the Wagner act, it does not apply to the rights of a company to open plants, period.

The WA only applies to companies interfering in union business.

Under the NLRA, this is interference in union activities. Taking actions to suppress legal job actions, like retaliating for past legal job actions, is considered interference. Why? Because it suppresses union members from taking actions to protect themselves in the future with further legal job actions. Sorry, you may not like it, but what Boeing has done is illegal, and the NLRB is doing exactly what the law charges them with doing.

 

[Lowrider717]

Boeing made public statements that they were moving jobs to SC in retaliation for the union members going on strike in Washington. That is illegal. The NLRA prohibits companies from taking any action in retaliation for legal job actions. If Boeing had been smart, they would have just said that they were moving the plant to SC for purely financial reasons. But because they wanted to scare the union members into not taking any job actions in the future, they did a stupid thing and made public statements that got them in trouble under the law. They deserve all of the pain that they are getting from the NLRB.



Under the NLRA, this is interference in union activities. Taking actions to suppress legal job actions, like retaliating for past legal job actions, is considered interference. Why? Because it suppresses union members from taking actions to protect themselves in the future with further legal job actions. Sorry, you may not like it, but what Boeing has done is illegal, and the NLRB is doing exactly what the law charges them with doing.

Classic

 

[densoo]

The new governor accomplished more in his first 120 days that the previous governor accomplished in 8 years, but she was pretty so nothing else mattered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al2b-QJjISI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[scoreboardII]

Boeing made public statements that they were moving jobs to SC in retaliation for the union members going on strike in Washington. That is illegal. The NLRA prohibits companies from taking any action in retaliation for legal job actions. If Boeing had been smart, they would have just said that they were moving the plant to SC for purely financial reasons. But because they wanted to scare the union members into not taking any job actions in the future, they did a stupid thing and made public statements that got them in trouble under the law. They deserve all of the pain that they are getting from the NLRB.



Under the NLRA, this is interference in union activities. Taking actions to suppress legal job actions, like retaliating for past legal job actions, is considered interference. Why? Because it suppresses union members from taking actions to protect themselves in the future with further legal job actions. Sorry, you may not like it, but what Boeing has done is illegal, and the NLRB is doing exactly what the law charges them with doing.

As is expected you're fabricating what you want to "be" the truth. Boeing NEVER made a statement saying they are moving a plant to another state due to labor issues, NEVER.

Boeing never made the move during labor issues including strikes, so there is no direct retaliatory issues.

There is no indirect coercion, no union member was ever told "you struck so we are moving".

What has Boeing done? They have clearly explained to the union that unless they reduce their demands for wages, they will take the plant elswhere where labor costs are lower. THIS is totally legal and within their rights as a corporation and complies with all NLRB statutes, yet the socialists inside the NLRB are on a witch hunt. That is all you see here, a political witch hunt to rally the unions.

Here is what Boeing said to the NLRB:

Boeing responded that because the corporation is not closing its Puget Sound plant, the retaliation claims are "legally frivolous." Boeing recently issued a further statement claiming it would have opened its South Carolina line regardless of labor conditions in Washington state

Please get your facts straight even though they are counter to your desires.

 

[Sacha]

I liked how Granholm moved to Berkley the day that Synder was sworn in so she could start her new job as a Professor at Cal Berkley.

She really did care about Michigan! Plus the fact that she was a liberal Canadian to start with..

RF

most libs can barely contain their disdain and disgust for "flyover country"
The only reason she was in Michigan as long she was was because no other state would have her. Remember Obamas "clinging to God and Guns" reference. I think it's great that she is going to take her ignorance and stupidity to Berkley, she will fit right in. She will add another voice to the impending implosion of the great state of Kalifornia......

 

[densoo]

Thanks, Sen Pryor (D)

Split down the middle, the Senate Appropriations Committee narrowly rejected a GOP amendment to deny funding for the National Labor Relations Board to pursue any order threatening Boeing’s new non-union 787 production line in South Carolina.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) joined 14 Republicans on the 15-15 vote, which failed for lack of a majority after a strong push by labor.

To contact this senator, here's a link:

http://www.pryor.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm

 

[Dornier 335]

the saga continues ...

source

Labour relations trumped 787 profitability on line selection: Documents

By Jon Ostrower


Despite the conclusion that the establishment of the second Boeing 787 final assembly line in North Charleston, South Carolina presented a high risk and would erode the profitability of its long-delayed flagship programme, Boeing weighed its labour relations as its deciding factor, newly released documents show.


Ahead of the October 2009 decision, Boeing evaluated placement of its second 787 line - dubbed Project Gemini - duplicating its already existing Everett, Washington final assembly line, "establishing long-term manufacturing capability outside of Puget Sound, starting with a second 787 final assembly line and progressing to the next new airplane programme," reads one 27 April 2009 presentation by then-Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson.


The package of documents from Boeing's Board of Directors and strategy meetings was released today, just days before the delivery of Boeing's first 787 to Japan's All Nippon Airways, by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), the company's largest union.
One of Boeing's chief considerations, the documents show, focused on its labour relationship with its unions, with the decision following the 57-day September-October 2008 IAM strike.


A 26 October 2009 presentation, given just before the Charleston site selection by Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh to the Boeing Board of Directors identifies one of three objectives behind the South Carolina selection as "leverage 787 final assembly placement decision by rebalancing an unbalanced and uncompetitive labour relationship".


In its defence, Boeing claims the rationale for placing the second 787 line in South Carolina was driven by multiple considerations, including supporting customers with reliable deliveries and support and improving short and long-term cost competitiveness.


However, under the "cons" identified for placing the line in Charleston, Boeing said the $1.5 billion price tag for the line would reduce "earnings on 1/3 of the backlog" which stood above 850 aircraft.


Further, a 19 October 2009 presentation cites a "negative impact to 787 programme profitability" and a cost which stood "significantly greater than incremental capacity increase to Everett".


Bernstein Research now estimates the break even point on the 787 programme to stand at around 1,000 deliveries.


The move by the IAM comes as the US National Labour Relations Board is pressing its case against Boeing, alleging its second 787 line placed in North Charleston was retaliation for the 2008 strike.

 

[scoreboardII]

Lets see, who do Ii believe can do the math correctly to decide if a company is going to make money; Boeing, the technological and schedule driven corporation doing positive earnings for decades, or some liberal hack inside the beltway who couldn't balance his own checkbook and merely parrots what his bosses want him to say?

 

[UALRATT]

Lets see, who do Ii believe can do the math correctly to decide if a company is going to make money; Boeing, the technological and schedule driven corporation doing positive earnings for decades, or some liberal hack inside the beltway who couldn't balance his own checkbook and merely parrots what his bosses want him to say?

Which of the leather seats were you sitting in again??

 

[Dornier 335]

[...] or some liberal hack inside the beltway who couldn't balance his own checkbook and merely parrots what his bosses want him to say?

Maybe you should look across the party line. Liberal or conservative, it's all the same sh!t!

 

[densoo]

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.

And now unemployed. Note this has NOTHING to do with the 787. Good thing they contracted around all those high-quality engineers in Seattle so now the wrench-turners lose their jobs.

Boeing to cut 20% of workforce at S.C. 787 plant, report says
Reuters
7:49 pm, February 28, 2013

Boeing Co. will cut hundreds of jobs at a South Carolina plant that makes 787 Dreamliners this year, but the move has nothing to do with the grounding of the troubled jetliner, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The cuts, which chiefly target contract workers, are not uncommon as productivity improves on an airplane program and were conceived before major problems with the 787s battery surfaced, the Journal said. Two high-profile battery malfunctions led to international aviation regulators grounding the jetliner in mid-January.

The cuts could account for up to 20 percent of the workforce in some teams at the plant in North Charleston, the Journal reported, citing an unnamed source familiar with the plan. Overall, the plant employs more than 6,000 people.

Boeing did not confirm the layoffs, but did tell Reuters it plans to reduce reliance on contract workers in South Carolina.

"Boeing regularly uses contract labor and 'industry assist' to supplement its workforce during surge activities and on development programs that require a production ramp up - that's standard practice in the aerospace industry," said Marc Birtel, a Boeing spokesman. "As we progress in improving efficiencies in our processes, training our entry-level employees and growing the experience of our team in South Carolina, we expect to continue to reduce reliance on contract labor/industry assist to meet our production objectives."

The South Carolina plant is the second Boeing facility where 787s are assembled after the larger Everett, Washington, facility north of Seattle. Between them, Boeing turns out five Dreamliners per month.

So far, the plane maker has said production has not been slowed by the grounding of the 787 and it aims to fulfill its plan to ramp up to 10 787s per month by the end of 2013.