Obama's assault on jobs: "What I learned from fighting the NLRB"

Much of last year I wrote about the the radicalized National Labor Relations Board's attempt to block Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, that will employ 1,000 workers.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled "What I Learned Fighting The NLRB," William J. Kilberg, the lead counsel for Boeing in its struggle with Obama's far-left agency, tells his story.

Paid-subscription required for the article:

To the American public, it seemed beyond imagination that a federal agency could prohibit a unionized company from opening a nonunionized plant in a right-to-work state. Boeing believed the NLRB would be unable to prove either of two essential elements of its case: (1) that Boeing's action adversely affected the terms or conditions of employment of union members, and (2) that it acted with the intent to discourage union membership. My law firm represented the company, and I was lead counsel.

Boeing's new assembly line did not cause any union members to lose their jobs, have their wages or benefits reduced, or suffer any change in status or working conditions. Indeed, the labor board's complaint did not allege that. It simply asserted that Boeing had "transfer[red]" its second line from Everett to Charleston. Not so—this was a new line. Boeing decided to increase its rate of production of 787s. That increase was new work, not existing work transferred away from Everett.

Boeing also did not act with an unlawful motivation. Perhaps recognizing as much, the NLRB's complaint sought to avoid that legal requirement by alleging that Boeing's second-line decision was "inherently destructive" of employees' rights.

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