dagblog - Comments for "Boeing VS National Labor Relations Board"

It happens, and you never

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 14 May 2011 00:49:35 +0000

In reply to Coulda fooled me. In fact he

It happens, and you never know around here!!!! Hah!

Have a great weekend Flavius.

Coulda fooled me. In fact he

Flavius — Fri, 13 May 2011 20:09:00 +0000

In reply to Brew is just joking with you,

Coulda fooled me. In fact he did.

Brew is just joking with you,

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 13 May 2011 17:57:52 +0000

In reply to Maybe I'm missing something.

Brew is just joking with you, he isn't annoyed with you in the slightest, he is making fun of those who say Obama is exactly the same as GWBush, even though there is much evidence to the contrary.

It is just good old fashioned snark.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Flavius — Fri, 13 May 2011 17:33:20 +0000

In reply to You just don't get it,

Maybe I'm missing something. Tmmccarthy0 in this post and bslev in some earlier ones describe an important way in which Obama and the Democrats are completely different from George W. Bush and the Republicans.

If you want to maintain that this is an exception we could discuss that. And Lord knows when you claim I don't get it, join the crowd..

But just ignoring the information they presented seems odd. Maybe you simply forgot the original post because you were so annoyed by my comment- in which case, as I say, join the crowd.

You just don't get it,

brewmn — Fri, 13 May 2011 13:25:38 +0000

In reply to An example of how we're just

You just don't get it, Flavius. Obama = George W. Bush, and the two parties are exactly the same. EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An example of how we're just

Flavius — Fri, 13 May 2011 06:13:01 +0000

In reply to Boeing VS National Labor Relations Board

An example of how we're just now beginning to get some of the benefits of having a democrat in the White House. .

As Bruce described a few weeks ago(he should correct where I get this wrong )there were opening on the Board which theoretically should have allowed Obama to appoint enough new members to end the long period under which it was controlled not just by Republican appointees but by Republican appointees some of whom were virulently anti union. But his appointees were blocked by Republican senators.So it's taken two full years before Obama's view on Labor Relations are finally reflected in more union friendly decisions by the Board.

I'm sure there are other cases scattered through the Government, If I can find a reliable analysis I'll provide a link. .

Now that the next election is appoaching the Republicans are showing an interest in reducing the number of positions which require Senate approval. So if Obama loses in Nov 2012, perhaps as a by product of the ill will resulting from primary opposition or because of progressives staying home, the incoming Republican president will be able to hit the ground running.

But we can take satisfaction out of having taught the democratic party a lesson . And probably come 2020 we'll get a candidate we're satisfied with. Pity the Republicans won't indulge themselves unseating the president they'll elect in 2012 , so it will cost us 8 years of anti union decisions by the NLRB, cancellation of Obamacare, Medicaid made optional for the States who will cancel it , Medicare replaced by vouchers of declining value, the Income Tax replaced by a national sales and an occupation of Iran.( the part we're able to control).

And of course our chosen Democratic 2020 candidate will be handicapped by Cory Booker's run as the candidate of the People's Party largely composed of blacks insulted by the Proressive's treatment Obama. Oh well, we gotta get a winner some day.

Here's a link to the

Bruce Levine — Thu, 12 May 2011 20:10:27 +0000

In reply to Boeing VS National Labor Relations Board

Here's a link to the NLRB's fact sheet on the Boeing complaint.

Thanks for the link Donal. I

Bruce Levine — Thu, 12 May 2011 19:34:51 +0000

In reply to This sorta jumped out at

Thanks for the link Donal. I think Boeing's CEO is casting the case differently than what is alleged in the complaint. Boeing has the absolute right to relocate work based upon labor costs or any other lawful factor. The only limitation is that it would have to bargain with the union about the decision itself if the relocation were motivated by labor costs, or in the alternative just about the effects of the decision on the existing labor force if it were motivated by other factors (such as techological issues, etc.). But the complaint alleges that Boeing is moving to avoid the potential consequences of having a unionized workforce, i.e. it is giving the Washington workers a choice to agree to a long-term no-strike clause or else. And the NLRB is saying that that type of a threat, i.e. relinquish your federal right to strike or we're leaving, is unlawful.

Another thing that pops out at me is the CEO's assertion that no existing work is leaving Washington. But it is and has been absolutely lawful for a union to bargain about the scope of work that the workers they represent have the right to perform, including new work. So I think he's arguing on the one hand that the Board is changing policy and urging, on the other hand, that existing policy be changed.

Hah, of course they are

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 12 May 2011 19:01:00 +0000

In reply to This sorta jumped out at

Hah, of course they are pro-growth, it's a positive slant on union busting!

This sorta jumped out at

Donal — Thu, 12 May 2011 18:55:37 +0000

In reply to Boeing VS National Labor Relations Board

This sorta jumped out at me:

Boeing Is Pro-Growth, Not Anti-Union