Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Biggest U.S. economic story of the year: Federal Government v. Boeing

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Biggest U.S. economic story of the year: Federal Government v. Boeing

    Buried in the ocean of news regarding our three wars has been what I think is the biggest U.S. economic story of the year: the federal government’s lawsuit against Boeing, seeking to prevent the opening of its $2 billion factory in South Carolina, for which 1000 workers have reportedly already been hired (in case you missed the news altogether: story, story, story).

    Whatever the ultimate decision in the lawsuit, the very existence of the dispute will change the business landscape here in the U.S. for the next decade or two. First, the fact that this happened to Boeing, a company with vastly more political power than average (you might say that it is practically an arm of the federal government itself) is significant. There are hardly any U.S. or foreign companies that can rely on similar influence. For a U.S. company, for example, the prospect that Boeing’s $2 billion investment might be effectively confiscated by the government will be one more reason to build the next factory in a foreign country. The U.S. government won’t be able to sue to prevent the startup of production in Mexico, Canada, China, etc. For a Chinese investor, for example, contemplating investing in the U.S., imagine the impact of the story. The Chinese investor has no political influence in the U.S., a tenuous grasp of American geography and language, and no hope of getting the ear of politicians who take calls every week from Boeing and its lobbyists. Given the vicissitudes of American politics and this unpredictable aggression against investors by government, the Chinese businessman is not going to finance the U.S. project unless it can deliver a rate of return comparable to what would be expected in other countries where there is a lot of risk from capricious governments (historically these have been Third World countries led by dictators or owned by families).

    The Chrysler and GM bankruptcies already showed bond investors that the black letter law may not have as much to do with how their investment works out as the sentiments of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. (link). Now the federal government is stirring up uncertainty among those who would directly operate factories in the U.S. How to price that uncertainty is going to be a huge challenge, but the price is certainly not going to be $0.

    http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2...ment-v-boeing/
    News story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/business/23labor.html

    Basically, the government entity that regulates unions/employer relationships (NRLB) is charging that Boeing building a production facility in a right-to-work state constitutes undue punishment of unions.

    Am I crazy, or is this a major overreach for a labor relations board? Adjudicating labor disputes is one thing. This seems to basically be coercing a business into not moving to states with more favorable labor laws.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    News story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/business/23labor.html

    Basically, the government entity that regulates unions/employer relationships (NRLB) is charging that Boeing building a production facility in a right-to-work state constitutes undue punishment of unions.

    Am I crazy, or is this a major overreach for a labor relations board? Adjudicating labor disputes is one thing. This seems to basically be coercing a business into not moving to states with more favorable labor laws.
    I can't speak to the legal side of whether it's in NRLB's purview or not, but I've been very intrigued with this case. I can't imagine how it's going to be a win for the feds, though. Boeing has every right to relocate operations to a location with friendlier laws, and they have every reason to do so, as well (given some serious lost revenue over strikes a few years back).

    Oh, I kinda see the argument: Boeing is punishing their unionized workers by taking work away from their factories and moving it to a friendlier locale. This gives the company undue leverage during collective bargaining or somesuch. But I can't think of any way to make rules to that effect stick.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    News story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/business/23labor.html

    Basically, the government entity that regulates unions/employer relationships (NRLB) is charging that Boeing building a production facility in a right-to-work state constitutes undue punishment of unions.

    Am I crazy, or is this a major overreach for a labor relations board? Adjudicating labor disputes is one thing. This seems to basically be coercing a business into not moving to states with more favorable labor laws.
    Crazy. Its like we live in a communist country. I'm just waiting until the conversation with the government and Boeing turns into this.

    Government: OK if you want to get a contract for stuff you got hire the workers I want you to hire.
    Private Company: Ah I see. So I can't bribe you directly but if I ensure X number of your favored people get a job, you give me a contract and you are paid the kickback via union political campaign contributions.
    Taxpayer:

    Cronyism and corruption at its finest.

  4. #4
    Sounds to me like a simple over-reach of federal government. The states have the right to regulate union law, I thought... you know.... tenth amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  5. #5
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    shhhhh...a lot of people are doing a very good job of ignoring the 10th thank you very much.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  6. #6
    Opinion piece from the governor of South Carolina.

    Obama's Silence on Boeing Is Unacceptable
    The president's appointees have moved to block the company from building planes in my state. He owes us an explanation.
    By NIKKI HALEY

    In October 2009, Boeing, long one of the best corporations in America, made an announcement that changed the economic outlook of South Carolina forever: The company's second line of 787 Dreamliners would be produced in North Charleston.

    In choosing to manufacture in my state, Boeing was exercising its right as a free enterprise in a free nation to conduct business wherever it believed would best serve both the bottom line and the employees of its company. This is not a novel or complicated idea. It's called capitalism.

    oeing has since poured billions of dollars into a new, state-of-the art facility in South Carolina's picturesque Low Country along the Atlantic coast. It has created thousands of good jobs and joined the long tradition of distinguished and employee-friendly corporations that have found a home, and a partner, in the Palmetto State.

    This a win-win for South Carolina, for Boeing, and for the global clients who will see Dreamliners rolling off the North Charleston line at the rate of 10 a month, starting with the first one next year. But, as is often the case, a win for people and businesses is a loss for the labor unions, which rely on coercion, bullying and undue political influence to stay afloat.

    South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and we're proud that within our borders workers cannot be required to join a labor union as a condition of employment. We don't need unions playing middlemen between our companies and our employees. We don't want them forcefully inserted into our promising business climate. And we will not stand for them intimidating South Carolinians.

    That is apparently too much for President Obama and his union-beholden appointees at the National Labor Relations Board, who have asked the courts to intervene and force Boeing to stop production in South Carolina. The NLRB wants Boeing to produce the planes only in Washington state, where its workers must belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

    Let's be clear: Boeing is a great corporate citizen in Washington and in South Carolina. The company chose to come to our state because the cost of doing business is low, our job training and work force are strong, and our ports are tremendous. The fact that we are a right-to-work state is an added bonus.

    The actions by the NLRB are nothing less than a direct assault on the 22 right-to-work states across America. They are also an unprecedented attack on an iconic American company that is being told by the federal government—which seems to regard its authority as endless—where and how to build airplanes.

    The president has been silent since his hand-selected NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon, who has not yet been confirmed by the United States Senate as required by law, chose to engage in economic warfare on behalf of the unions last week.

    While silence in this case can be assumed to mean consent, President Obama's silence is not acceptable—not to me, and certainly not to the millions of South Carolinians who are rightly aghast at the thought of the greatest economic development success our state has seen in decades being ripped away by federal bureaucrats who appear to be little more than union puppets.

    This is not just a South Carolina issue, and President Obama owes the people of our country a response. If they get away with this government-dictated economic larceny, the unions won't stop in our state.

    The nation deserves an explanation as to why the president's appointees are doing the machinist union's dirty work on the backs of the businesses and workers of South Carolina.

    Ms. Haley, a Republican, is governor of South Carolina.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...266016016.html
    I think Obama is politically weak on this one, I'm surprised more national Republicans aren't putting pressure on the issue.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post

    I think Obama is politically weak on this one, I'm surprised more national Republicans aren't putting pressure on the issue.
    Yet, you'd likely condemn Obama as a SSSocialist if he said anything at all. That's giving more influence to a central gummint figure than the states' leaders.

  8. #8
    I'm curious what his views on this actually are. His unconfirmed appointee at the NRLB has staked-out what is arguably a very extreme position that could potentially be challenged on constitutional grounds. I'd like to actually hear what he has to say.

    Do you think companies in Pennsylvania should be banned from opening up operations in South Carolina?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I'm curious what his views on this actually are. His unconfirmed appointee at the NRLB has staked-out what is arguably a very extreme position that could potentially be challenged on constitutional grounds. I'd like to actually hear what he has to say.
    Obama's opinion is irrelevant. This would be challenged on legal grounds, that's what matters.

    Do you think companies in Pennsylvania should be banned from opening up operations in South Carolina?
    Of course not.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Obama's opinion is irrelevant. This would be challenged on legal grounds, that's what matters.
    HIS appointee made the decision.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Obama's opinion is irrelevant. This would be challenged on legal grounds, that's what matters.
    His appointee -- who was recess-appointed because there wasn't enough support in the Senate to confirm him -- is filing the case. It's clear the administration is advocating a policy that has massive implications. It's the kind of thing that does merit some kind of comment.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    His appointee -- who was recess-appointed because there wasn't enough support in the Senate to confirm him -- is filing the case. It's clear the administration is advocating a policy that has massive implications. It's the kind of thing that does merit some kind of comment.
    Obama has more important things on his plate, than commenting on one of his appointee's decisions. That's the point of delegating to others.

  13. #13
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    It will fail in the courts, but they have to look tough for their Union constituents.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  14. #14
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Oh come on. He is the one ultimately responsible for what his minions do. It's not that he has more important stuff to do than comment (he does though), BUT you can bet blue lips that this move was not taken with out his knowledge...it too freaking big. (and stupid)
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Oh come on. He is the one ultimately responsible for what his minions do. It's not that he has more important stuff to do than comment (he does though), BUT you can bet blue lips that this move was not taken with out his knowledge...it too freaking big. (and stupid)
    Did you take this same stance when Bush I and Bush II were in power? How about Reagan or any POTUS moving forward in time? Does that apply to their SCOTUS appointees as well?


  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Did you take this same stance when Bush I and Bush II were in power? How about Reagan or any POTUS moving forward in time? Does that apply to their SCOTUS appointees as well?

    Just where, exactly, is it that the buck stops?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Just where, exactly, is it that the buck stops?
    Good question. I've tried not to give credit or blame to any one person, or any one president. Most decisions are delegated to others and our representatives, as part of our democratic republic. Sometimes that means appointees. Including life term SCOTUS justices appointed by a president, and confirmed by congress.

  18. #18
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Did you take this same stance when Bush I and Bush II were in power? How about Reagan or any POTUS moving forward in time? Does that apply to their SCOTUS appointees as well?

    So we are at the 2 wrongs make a right defense?

    But I'll play. Any President should have control over his administration (minions) (and sorry, SCOTUS does not count a POTUS has NO control over them once they are enshrined er, I mean in place). This is a bonehead move by an appointed bonehead put there by the Big Guy himself. So when Bush II puts a nitwit in charge of FEMA...everyone was correct to boggle at it. This is the same (with less disasterous results) thing. You are responsible for the nitwits you inflict on the populace.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  19. #19
    Yeah, I suppose Libya, bin Laden, Iraq and Afghanistan, massive tornado damage in the US south, Mississippi and Ohio rivers flooding, the economy/unemployment and rising gas prices leaves Obama plenty of time to discuss his "minions". Priorities and all that.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Yeah, I suppose Libya, bin Laden, Iraq and Afghanistan, massive tornado damage in the US south, Mississippi and Ohio rivers flooding, the economy/unemployment and rising gas prices leaves Obama plenty of time to discuss his "minions". Priorities and all that.
    He did put him in charge in the first place.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  21. #21
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    He did put him in charge in the first place.
    Well, it appears that once done, the appointee had total autonomy.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  22. #22
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Actually, I'm not looking for a statement on the news channels.

    I'm just expecting him to control and monitor his people.

    Yes the Pres is a busy man re: all the above. BUT fucking with Boeing ain't small beans either. So why take that on that stupid maneuver in the middle of all the above, is the guy HE appointed that freaking stupid?

    And really there ain't jack he can do about gas prices but make empty speeches about commissions to make sure every thing is on the up an up...we get that every time prices go up like this.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •