Friday's NLRB overreach roundup

Boeing headquarters, Chicago

The National Labor Relations Board-Boeing controversy has entered its second month. Here is today's round-up of overreach stories:

The Economist:

The factory squats on 610,000 square feet of land in North Charleston, South Carolina, and represents an investment of over $1 billion. It is scheduled to begin producing aeroplanes in July—Boeing's 787 Dreamliners, 835 of which have already been ordered for around $162 billion. It will employ thousands of workers: good news in a state where unemployment hovers around 10%. Unless, that is, the federal government shuts it down.

From The Hill:

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley should take a leave of absence from the White House if the National Labor Relations Board's allegations against Boeing are true, Sen. Jim DeMint said Thursday.

The NLRB is suing Boeing for allegedly retaliating against strikes at a unionized plant in Washington state by opening a new facility to build 787 airplanes in South Carolina.

DeMint (R-S.C.) called the lawsuit "anti-American and anti-democratic," pointing out that Daley was on Boeing's board of directors when the decision was made to place the new plant in South Carolina.

"If the president really believes Boeing broke the law as is contended by the National Labor Relations Board, he should ask his chief of staff [Bill] Daley to take a leave of absence," DeMint said Thursday on a conference call with reporters, organized by the right-leaning Workforce Fairness Institute.

The Washington Examiner:

NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland is not helping the NLRB decision to sue Boeing for building a new factory in South Carolina look any smarter. Cleeland told The Street today:

We are not telling Boeing they can't build planes in South Carolina. We are talking about one specific piece of work: three planes a month. If they keep those three planes a month in Washington, there is no problem.

Boeing 787s cost around $200 million a piece. Boeing can't just magically sell three more Dreamliner’s a month because the NLRB tells it to. That's not how business works. This is exactly why governments shouldn't force unions into company board boardrooms.

And once again, the Economist:

If you book a holiday and the flight is cancelled, you may decide to use a different airline the next time. Airlines know this, which is why Sir Richard Branson, the boss of Virgin Group, was so angry when Boeing failed to deliver the planes he needed to ferry thousands of passengers to sunny climes one Christmas. He blamed a strike by Boeing workers in Washington state. "If union leaders and management can't get their act together to avoid strikes, we're not going to come back here again," he told reporters. "We're already thinking: 'Would we ever risk putting another order with Boeing?'"

No one disputes a traveller's right to switch airlines, or an airline's right to switch suppliers. But woe betide an aircraft-maker that tries to shift production from a strike-plagued American state to a more business-friendly one; at least, if the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) gets its way. Under President Barack Obama, the federal agency charged with policing interactions between firms and employees has started to interpret old laws in new and troubling ways.

Later the in article the Economist scolds the NLRB, stating "...the agency's recent militancy is shocking, reminiscent of "loony-left" posturing in Britain in the 1970s."

Technorati tags: politics Democrats gop Republican unions news organized labor jobs economy law legal business Boeing aviation nlrb south carolina