NLRB Puts Boeing's SC Factory in Jeopardy

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has told Boeing that it cannot build a factory in South Carolina.  The NY Times has the full story here.

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s general council, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in reallocation against workers for exercising their right to strike. (Source: NY Times)

One thing I will have to say about this decision is that it does meet the “transparency” requirements so often talked about by President Obama. The transparency lies in that the decision is so obviously pro-union. Obama hired radical pro-union people to run the NLRB through recess appointments. The NLRB has become increasingly hostile towards businesses that don’t have unions. Here is an example:

Information on proposals expected from the Office of Labor Management Standards that would require employers to disclose the details of when the engage in “persuader activities” and plans to “reconsider” (i.e. limit) the types of efforts engaged by employers to comply with labor laws that are not currently required to be disclosed. Note: the administration previously removed a set of disclosure requirements for union organizations citing the burden they posed for labor leaders to comply. (Source: The Blaze)

South Carolina is a “right-to-work” state, i.e. you don’t have to join the union to work if you don’t want to. Non-union shops are cheaper to operate. Not so much because labor is cheaper, which arguably it isn’t, but ideas from workers flow easier to management without the interference of the shop stewards.  Rather than working for the unions as union members feel they do, the employees work for the company, which gives them a vested interest in seeing the company prosper.

As Obama continues to reward the unions that elected him, the rest of American continues to push back against that tide. The only question is who will win the narrative? Will Obama and his crew be able to continue to make a case that this is a supposed fight against the middle class? Or will those of us who know the unions have long outlived their usefulness be able to show the American people just how much damage the unions have done to America?

Unions are a dying institution, not necessary anymore. There are so many federal agencies that regulate safety and working conditions that the original reasons for the unions disappeared long ago. While is true that unions forced wages up in all sectors, whether unionized or not, there is now a back lash in the business community. Jobs are being forced overseas as union wages became too high. Whole industries have shutdown. We are no longer the leader in manufacturing automobiles. Even though the US imposes HUGE tariffs on foreign automobile makers, they are more than able to cover the cost because labor costs are lower elsewhere. Ford has moved a major factory to Brazil (Fiesta, I believe) because the labor force is cheaper. And Brazil is glad to have the jobs as they are very paying in comparison. We no longer are the leader in the production of steel. Japan and China took that from us long ago. Even though Japan has to import nearly all the raw materials to make steel, they still make it cheaper (even with additional shipping cost for the finished product) than we do. Heck, when the incandescent bulb was outlawed, it only impacted one small company. Most light bulb manufacturing moved overseas long ago because it was too expensive to make them here.

If the unions have their way, our last truly great industry, airplane building, will go the way of steel and automobiles.  Can you imagine having the 787 built in China?