Jobs or union jobs>>>?

[ssd]

Boeing is trying to relocate a second line of production in South Carolina in a just built $2 billion plant that would employ 1000 workers. SC is a right to work state. Boeing's main plant is in Washington and they use union workers there.

The NLRB complaint contends that Boeing is fleeing it?s Washington State headquarters?in retaliation for past strike activity and to chill future strike activity by its union employees.?

This is the federal government stating that a private company can not relocate it?s operations.

Boeing wants to create 1000 jobs. FEDS say no.

So, is it about jobs or union jobs? Boeing has another option - build a new plant OUTSIDE the US and make the planes there.

 

[Duff Miver]

Boeing is trying to relocate a second line of production in South Carolina in a just built $2 billion plant that would employ 1000 workers. SC is a right to work state. Boeing's main plant is in Washington and they use union workers there.

The NLRB complaint contends that Boeing is fleeing it?s Washington State headquarters?in retaliation for past strike activity and to chill future strike activity by its union employees.?

This is the federal government stating that a private company can not relocate it?s operations.

Boeing wants to create 1000 jobs. FEDS say no.

So, is it about jobs or union jobs? Boeing has another option - build a new plant OUTSIDE the US and make the planes there.

You're misstating facts.

Boeing is charged with retaliation against protected union activities, a violation of law, specifically NLRB Act 29 U.S.C. Section151.

Whether Boeing is guilty is a matter for the courts to decide, not right-wing politicians, not Faux News, and not uninformed internet posters with an agenda.

Nobody is saying Boeing can't create 1000 jobs, however they are saying Boeing can't violate the law.

Now stop sounding like an ignorant Teapartier. Boeing will have their day in court. Sheesh!

 

[Skulnik]

Duff towing the UNION LINE, PITY REALLY.

 

[Duff Miver]

Duff supporting the rule of law

But you're right Skulnutz. You are pitiful.

 

[Skulnik]

But you're right Skulnutz. You are pitiful.

Go back to FRANCE.


TIA


:142smilie

 

[Chadman]

Before I comment, let me say I'm ignorant to the facts in this situation. But it seems the language being used is arguable. SSD, you say Boeing is going to create 1,000 jobs at the new plant. And I see that they are also "relocating" a second line of production from Washington, which I assume essentially is the same number of jobs, except the jobs would be in a different place.

Am I missing something here? Quite possible, I don't know the story. But it seems to me that the company is trying to establish a second line of production in a new place, which puts people in the old place out of work or requires them to uproot and move their families from Washington state to South Carolina. Maybe there are more jobs in the new facility, I could assume that. But to say they are creating new jobs, when it would seem to be obvious that many people in the original spot would be out of a job doesn't add up.

And of course, this new state is a right to work state, meaning any new employees could be fired at the drop of a hat, for no reason - like, say, moving the second line to another state...

Help me understand, if you can, or care to. Or anyone... seems essentially like Union busting - not job creation.

 

[Duff Miver]

Go back to FRANCE.


TIA


:142smilie

I believe I will. And you can crawl back up Glenn Beck's asshole.

 

[Duff Miver]

Help me understand, if you can, or care to. Or anyone... seems essentially like Union busting - not job creation.

You don't need any help. You understand the situation perfectly. The only question, to be answered by the courts, not Faux Newz, Rush Limbaugh or ssd, is whether Boeing has violated the law.

 

[Mags]

Before I comment, let me say I'm ignorant to the facts in this situation. But it seems the language being used is arguable. SSD, you say Boeing is going to create 1,000 jobs at the new plant. And I see that they are also "relocating" a second line of production from Washington, which I assume essentially is the same number of jobs, except the jobs would be in a different place.

Am I missing something here? Quite possible, I don't know the story. But it seems to me that the company is trying to establish a second line of production in a new place, which puts people in the old place out of work or requires them to uproot and move their families from Washington state to South Carolina. Maybe there are more jobs in the new facility, I could assume that. But to say they are creating new jobs, when it would seem to be obvious that many people in the original spot would be out of a job doesn't add up.

And of course, this new state is a right to work state, meaning any new employees could be fired at the drop of a hat, for no reason - like, say, moving the second line to another state...

Help me understand, if you can, or care to. Or anyone... seems essentially like Union busting - not job creation.

Actually none of this is true. No jobs have been lost in WA. In fact, they've added jobs. But they did decide to build an ADDITIONAL plant in SC - but the union is pissed cuz they wanted the ADDITIONAL plant in WA.

Boeing didn't want to do it - and they've been hurt by strikes in the past, so why build were workers can/will cost you a lot of money by striking?

And what about the SC workers? Don't they have rights? Oh yea, maybe SC didn't vote for Obama - so that is why he is punishing them via the NLRB??? Could that be?

The union and NLRB are way off base here. It would be different if they closed the WA plant and just used the SC one (it would be very understandable, but THEN the union would have a beef). There is no requirement that a company can never expand anywhere else once they build a plant in a union state. I would think unions would not want that either - otherwise no company in their right mind would ever build a plant or run a company in a non right to work state.

 

[Mags]

You don't need any help. You understand the situation perfectly. The only question, to be answered by the courts, not Faux Newz, Rush Limbaugh or ssd, is whether Boeing has violated the law.

Busting unions is not much different than stopping racial discrimination..... time to end both practices, instead of continually catering to an entitled class of people (whites and union members).

I like that: unions = racism.

Neither are good for this country.

 

[Duff Miver]

Actually none of this is true. No jobs have been lost in WA. In fact, they've added jobs. But they did decide to build an ADDITIONAL plant in SC - but the union is pissed cuz they wanted the ADDITIONAL plant in WA.

Boeing didn't want to do it - and they've been hurt by strikes in the past, so why build were workers can/will cost you a lot of money by striking?

And what about the SC workers? Don't they have rights? Oh yea, maybe SC didn't vote for Obama - so that is why he is punishing them via the NLRB??? Could that be?

The union and NLRB are way off base here. It would be different if they closed the WA plant and just used the SC one (it would be very understandable, but THEN the union would have a beef). There is no requirement that a company can never expand anywhere else once they build a plant in a union state. I would think unions would not want that either - otherwise no company in their right mind would ever build a plant or run a company in a non right to work state.

Tell it to the judge. :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

 

[The Sponge]

Right to work State :mj07: :mj07: What a pretty way to say it. Right to work. Lets call a spade a spade here. Call them scab wage busting states. hey lets let Boeing make even more billions of tax payers money while crushing middle class wages. This has always been great for the country. More money in fewer hands :0074

 

[bleedingpurple]

Mags--

what do you think would happen if we got rid of all unions?

 

[ssd]

No agenda here. Just posting what I read. I do not follow mainstream media.

I do not see how it is the Federal Gov't's job to tell a private company where they can build a second line of operations. This should not be an issue in a federal court. It is free enterprise.

No jobs lost in WA. Adding 1000 jobs in SC.

Right to work state is a common term, Sponge. Maybe not liked by you but a commonly used term.


Shit right out of Atlas Shrugged.


Again - the point is here TO ADD JOBS. Or is it to add UNION jobs. Which is more important?

If they stop the production facility (which has already been built to the tune of $2B) from operating, will Boeing just move those jobs to another country?

Vote Governor Gary Johnson

 

[Chadman]

Thanks for the thoughts, guys. I should look more into it - it sounds funny (still) to me, and I'll educate myself to the history of this before commenting more. I doubt it's as cut and dried as it's being made to sound, though. Probably truth to both sides of the discussion.

 

[Duff Miver]

Again - the point is here TO ADD JOBS. Or is it to add UNION jobs. Which is more important?

Union jobs @ $28/hr or non-union @ $14/hr. Tough choice for you, ssd?

 

[ssd]

Bottom line is putting people to work in THIS country, making stuff.

 

[Trench]

Busting unions is not much different than stopping racial discrimination..... time to end both practices, instead of continually catering to an entitled class of people (whites and union members).

I like that: unions = racism.

Neither are good for this country.

Once again, WTF are you talking about?

Unions = Racism?

What???

 

[Trench]

Boeing is trying to relocate a second line of production in South Carolina in a just built $2 billion plant that would employ 1000 workers. SC is a right to work state. Boeing's main plant is in Washington and they use union workers there.

The NLRB complaint contends that Boeing is fleeing it?s Washington State headquarters?in retaliation for past strike activity and to chill future strike activity by its union employees.?

This is the federal government stating that a private company can not relocate it?s operations.

Boeing wants to create 1000 jobs. FEDS say no.

So, is it about jobs or union jobs? Boeing has another option - build a new plant OUTSIDE the US and make the planes there.

On the surface, it may appear the NLRB has overstepped their authority, but who are you to say this issue doesn't belong in the courts? I don't have all the facts, nor do you. As Duff said, it's up to the courts to decide the merits of this case. If the court rules in Boeing's favor, it will mean what Boeing did was legal, but that doesn't make it ethical.

Since the Citizens United ruling, I've lost any faith in our Judicial System I once had, so I suspect the court will rule in Boeing's favor on this and it will be yet another example of corporatists trampling upon the labor movement that built the middle-class in this country.

It was a bold experiment but so long middle-class... :sadwave: We hardly knew ye... :sadwave:

 

[ssd]

A private company should not need government permission to open a new production facility.

We are (supposedly) a free, capitalistic society.

Since when can the government mandate where a company opens up a facility?