David Frum: "NLRB decision is extreme!"

[IBCoupe]

Me: "Extremely good at catching stupid corporate officers being stupid."

Here's a link. My comments are below. You shouldn't have trouble spotting me.
http://www.frumforum.com/frum-boeing-ca ... aw-shakeup

Here's what happened:
Boeing has factories for its new 787 Dreamliner in the Seattle area and in South Carolina. Boeing wants to create two new factories, and because the union in Seattle has instituted strikes a few times, Boeing decides it's going to build both new factories in South Carolina.

I should say that this reasoning right here is patently illegal. Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act states that it shall be an unfair labor practice to discriminate against employees to discourage union participation or support.

But while it's illegal, it's also a bit hard to prove. The Union needs to show intent, and if Boeing does the expansion as planned, the factories will be spread pretty evenly. There would be five factories in the Seattle area and four in South Carolina. So what's the union that suspects foul play to do?

Well, you open a newspaper and turn on your TV, where the Boeing Vice President in charge of the expansion decision is publicly stating, on the record that the reason the expansion is being done in South Carolina is because there have been too many strikes in Seattle.

Lesson learned, Corporate America: clear your talking points with general counsel before you go running your mouth, admitting to having committed an unfair labor practice.

[stebo0728]

I think I would take issue with your assessment of that action being illegal, at least illegal supported by the clause you quoted.

The company isnt necessarily trying to discourage union participation, its just making a business decision based on activity.

[IBCoupe]

I think I would take issue with your assessment of that action being illegal, at least illegal supported by the clause you quoted.

The company isnt necessarily trying to discourage union participation, its just making a business decision based on activity.

Union: *Strikes*

Boeing: "There are too many strikes, so we're not going to create any more job up up here."

Union: "You know it's illegal to take action meant to discourage the exercising of Section 7 rights, right?"

Boeing: "Why, we're not saying you shouldn't strike. We're only saying we won't give you a whole slew of new jobs if you do."

Union: "Pretty sure that's exactly what the law had in mind, bro."

[stebo0728]

Sure thats one way to sum it up, but I would argue the law was intended to keep companies from using discriminatory measures with existing facilities. Boeing is not saying "we wont give you jobs because you strike too much", they are saying "we're not going to risk another business venture in a more volatile area when we can have a less risk venture somewhere else". That Seattle lost an opportunity could be viewed as a consequence of overbearing union involvement.

[IBCoupe]

But that's not how the law was intended. A classic enforcement of this portion of the law is where a company shuts down in response to union activity and starts up the next state over.

[telcoman]

Me: "Extremely good at catching stupid corporate officers being stupid."

Here's a link. My comments are below. You shouldn't have trouble spotting me.
http://www.frumforum.com/frum-boeing-ca ... aw-shakeup

Here's what happened:
Boeing has factories for its new 787 Dreamliner in the Seattle area and in South Carolina. Boeing wants to create two new factories, and because the union in Seattle has instituted strikes a few times, Boeing decides it's going to build both new factories in South Carolina.

I should say that this reasoning right here is patently illegal. Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act states that it shall be an unfair labor practice to discriminate against employees to discourage union participation or support.

But while it's illegal, it's also a bit hard to prove. The Union needs to show intent, and if Boeing does the expansion as planned, the factories will be spread pretty evenly. There would be five factories in the Seattle area and four in South Carolina. So what's the union that suspects foul play to do?

Well, you open a newspaper and turn on your TV, where the Boeing Vice President in charge of the expansion decision is publicly stating, on the record that the reason the expansion is being done in South Carolina is because there have been too many strikes in Seattle.

Lesson learned, Corporate America: clear your talking points with general counsel before you go running your mouth, admitting to having committed an unfair labor practice.

Of course Boeing wants to be in South Carolina. They want their executives to be in a conservative state where the married governor runs off to visit his hot mistress. So much for setting an example of moral family values.

They are following Walmart that closed stores where employees voted in unions.

One solution might be for the prevailing wages that Boeing must pay their employees if they move would be double the highest rate paid for union jobs in the United States as well as increasing taxes on all executives to 60%.

That might make them change their mind.

Telcoman

[IBCoupe]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that, "It will cost us less there" is fair game under the NLRA. If you're a thoughtful businessman, the union won't be able to interfere with your decision.

If you go out in public, microphone in hand, and shout "Because unions" then you shouldn't be surprised if the NLRB slaps you with a ULP.

[stebo0728]

Stupid exec? Yes

Valid argument? No

Corporate America has been telling union goons for decades that increased union strong arming was only going to lead to more anti-union decision making. Answer honestly, if you were faced with an option of opening business in a mandatory union state, or a right to work state, what would you choose?

[stebo0728]

And Telco, you're simply beautiful

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, that it makes business sense doesn't mean it's legal. The NLRA establishes affirmative rights for individuals, and limits an employer's (and a union's) power to infringe upon those rights.

You can't make your business decisions as retribution for union activity. That's what this was. I know that's what it was because that's what Boeing said.

[stebo0728]

Thats just it, you heard the words of an ill informed, misguided individual. The decision, I would expect to find out, was not as retribution, but as a reaction to influences in the market place. It sounds like a good business plan, and I don't view it as discriminatory in any way. Now had the company said, "you know, these guys strike an aweful lot, lets close the factories down here and move them somewhere better" then you might have an argument. I would argue still that it was good business, unions be damned, but at least in that case your argument would be more valid.

[IBCoupe]

Ill-informed and misguided? From the NLRB complaint:

On or about the dates and by the manner noted below, Respondent made
coercive statements to its employees that it would remove or had removed work from
the Unit because employees had struck and Respondent threatened or impliedly
threatened that the Unit would lose additional work in the event of future strikes:

(a) October 21, 2009, by McNerney in a quarterly earnings conference
call that was posted on Boeing's intranet website for all employees and reported in the
Seattle Post Intelligencer Aerospace News and quoted in the Seattle Times, made an
extended statement regarding "diversifying [Respondent's] labor pool and labor
relationship," and moving the 787 Dreamliner work to South Carolina due to "strikes
happening every three to four years in Puget Sound."

McNerney is the President, Chairman, and CEO of Boeing.

(b) October 28, 2009, based on its October 28, 2009, memorandum
entitled 787 Second Line, Questions and Answers for Managers," informed employees,
among other things, that its decision to locate the second 787 Dreamliner line in South
Carolina was made in order to reduce Respondent's vulnerability to delivery disruptions
caused by work stoppages.

(c) December 7, 2009, by Conner and ProuIx in an article appearing in
the Seattle Times, attributed Respondent's 787 Dreamliner production decision to use a
"dual-sourcing" system and to contract with separate suppliers for the South Carolina
line to past Unit strikes.

Conner is the VP of Supply Chain Management.

Proulx is the Boeing Spokesman.

(d) December 8, 2009, by Conner in an article appearing in the Puget
Sound Business Journal, attributed Respondent's 787 Dreamliner production decision
to use a "dual-sourcing" system and to contract with separate suppliers for the South
Carolina line to past Unit strikes.

Again, Conner is the VP of Supply Chain Management.

(e) March 2, 2010, by Albaugh in a video-taped interview with a Seattle
Times reporter, stated that Respondent decided to locate its 787 Dreamliner second line
in South Carolina because of past Unit strikes, and threatened the loss of future Unit
work opportunities because of such strikes.

Albaugh was/is the "Executive Vice President, Boeing; President and CEO of Integrated Defense Systems (until late August 2009); CEO, Boeing Commercial Airplanes (as of late August 2009)."

These guys might very well be great businessmen, but they need to start listening to their lawyers. If they were listening to their lawyers, they need to fire them and hire somebody competent.

[stebo0728]

Meh, ok so maybe they are well informed. I'd agree that in todays climate, any outright anti-union action is going to look bad, even if those are your true motives, it might not be in your best interest to make it known. Even if they had withheld the true motive, the goons would have assumed it anyway and spread the dogma, so they just saved them the trouble. Anti union sentiment is growing, and anti corporate attitudes are growing as well. We are gearing up for quite a labor battle in the coming years. With that said, whether that was their true motivation or not matters not to me, and my original argument stands, its not discriminatory when considering new ventures. Moving existing facilities, again you might have a good argument, but not in this case. I would have a real problem forcing a company to ignore ANY market forces when planning new business ventures. In essence here they are being asked to ignore the fact that their new company faces more risk in one place, rather than another, solely because the reasons are union related.

And again, even in the case of them deciding to move existing facilities due to union activity, I have no problem with that either. Overbearing unions leave companies with no escape, an escape plan would be nice.

[IBCoupe]

It's a much harder to case to make by the Union if they don't say it outright. It probably wouldn't have succeeded. If it was their true intention and they didn't say it, it'd still be illegal, but the Board probably wouldn't have ruled against them.

Closing down the factory and rebuilding elsewhere would have been an easy case to make, and only slightly less easy without the blatant statements. But here, it's an implicit threat of future action in response to the union activity, even if this isn't, on its own, enough to harm Washington employees.

[telcoman]

And Telco, you're simply beautiful

[stebo0728]

And Telco, you're simply beautiful

Dont get too excited, I wasnt referring to aesthetic beauty

[AZhitman]

My day isn't complete without reading another installment of "Hopeless Howie Misses The Point".

Isaac nailed it. While I disagree with the outcome, from a purely legal standpoint, the Boeing VP just made the Union's case for them.

Hope he's got a good resume, because if I were the CEO, he'd be gone yesterday. Idiot.

[IBCoupe]

Thanks, Greg, though it looks, upon closer analysis of the complaint, to be the case that most of Boeing's executives are too dumb to live. A wide swath of them contributed to the stupidity.

[AZhitman]

Ooof.

As much as it pains me to say it, then, I hope the Union mops the floor with them.