Still more media outrage over NLRB overreach

The uproar over the radicalized NLRB continues.

From the American Spectator:

Since the National Labor Relations Board announced its complaint against Boeing last week, members of the National Association of Manufacturers have expressed alarm at what the outcome of the complaint would mean for their companies, their ability to create jobs and compete in a global marketplace and our nation's economy as a whole.

They, and all Americans, should be concerned about the impact of a negative outcome in this case. If the NLRB succeeds, no company will be safe from them stepping in at any time to second-guess their business decisions on where to locate and whom to hire.

At the heart of the debate on this issue is whether an employer has the right to consider past work disruptions in decisions about where to expand or locate new operations.

The law and past NLRB decisions on these matters is clear: Employers have the right to make these type of business decisions and consider all manner of factors, including the prevention of potential economic harm from a work stoppage.

The Herald of Everett, Washington:

Acting on a complaint filed by the Machinists last year after Boeing decided to open a second line of 787 production in South Carolina, the National Labor Relations Board has charged that Boeing's decision was an illegal act of retaliation against the union for striking -- which it has done four times since 1989. The NLRB says Boeing should have to operate the second line in Washington. (Even though the 787 "surge" line it's already operating in Everett is likely to become permanent.)

That's a remarkable position. A government agency believes it should be able to tell a company where it can and can't build a factory. Its implications for business growth in strong union states like Washington are sobering: Why would a new company locate here if it knows it might never be able to expand to another state, like South Carolina, where laws protecting unions are much weaker?

Bad precedent. The sooner a judge throws this case out, the better.

More immediately, the NLRB's action, and the Machinists' accompanying tone, threaten to set back the company-union relationship just as both sides are preparing for next year's talks on a new contract. The success of those negotiations is bound to go a very long way -- no matter how the NLRB case is decided -- toward deciding whether the next generations of the 737 and 777 will be assembled here or elsewhere.

Charleston Post and Courier:

Organized labor's political supporters took a beating in last year's elections at every level throughout the nation. Now the unions are fighting back -- and the "right to work" states of the South and West are rhetorical and actual targets, especially South Carolina.

Consider the latest threat by the National Labor Relations Board. Acting General Council Lafe Solomon wrote attorneys general in South Carolina, South Dakota, Arizona and Utah on April 22 that constitutional amendments requiring a secret ballot for union elections adopted by voters in all four states last year are a violation of federal law, and that he plans to sue them in federal courts to invalidate the state laws.

The constitutional amendment requiring that the decision to form a union must be reached through secret ballot was approved by 86 percent of South Carolina voters last November. Voter approval rates were 79 percent in South Dakota, 61 percent in Arizona and 60 percent in Utah.

The Solomon threat comes on top of a complaint by the NLRB against Boeing for opening a production line for the 787 Dreamliner in North Charleston, claiming that it was illegal retaliation against unionized workers in Washington state.

The Detroit News:

What new firm would invest in Michigan knowing that its union could then block its expansion to a less unionized state such as Tennessee or Alabama? The better course would be to start a new firm in a right-to-work state from the beginning.

This move by the NLRB is part of its new, more aggressive tactics, including suits against Arizona and South Dakota seeking to strike down state constitutional amendments that guarantee workers secret ballots in unionization elections.

President Barack Obama has made conciliatory sounds seeking to reassure business, but the actions of the NLRB illustrate the real face of his administration. Congress ought to hold hearings on reining in the NLRB.

Publius Forum:

Barack Obama thinks he has the power to tell companies where they are "allowed" to build new facilities and, shock of shocks, Obama wants all those facilities to be in union controlled states.

Last week Obama's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced its plans to force Boeing to keep building its aircraft in union plagued Washington State instead of building its planned new facility in South Carolina — a right to work, union free state.

How did Obama justify this unprecedented move to stop a company from building facilities in any state it wanted? Obama's power-mad NLRB claims that Boeing is being "retaliatory" against Washington State’s International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and that is why Boeing is choosing to open its newest facility in a right to work state.

The only response to this is, "yeah? So what?"

The Denver Post:

With the economy still limping, and President Obama promising to create jobs, why on earth are his appointees killing jobs in South Carolina?

A common refrain among recession-weary Americans is that we don't make anything in this country anymore. However, workers in South Carolina have a chance to make something — Boeing 787 Dreamliners that would be flown around the world — and yet Obama's labor-cozy appointees to the National Labor Relations Board are intent on scuttling it.

Boeing, a vital U.S. company, wants to build a plant in South Carolina and bring good-paying manufacturing jobs to the state. They've already poured billions into the facilities and have hired 1,000 workers. But the NLRB filed a lawsuit last month to force Boeing back to Washington state, where workers would be represented by a union. The NLRB claims Boeing decided to open a non-union plant in South Carolina in retaliation for past strikes in Washington.

So what if it did?

Related posts:

Obama's radical NLRB: Killing off right-to-work
Two newspapers sound off on NLRB overreach in Boeing case
Media scolds NLRB for inventing labor law in Boeing case
More media scolding of NLRB for inventing labor law in Boeing case
More media outrage on NLRB law inventing
Pawlenty rips NLRB overreach in Boeing case
From Sen. Lamar Alexander: The White House vs. Boeing, a Tennessee tale

Technorati tags: business Boeing aviation jobs economy news government politics labor unions nlrb south carolina