I don't quite understand...isn't Boeing able to open a plant wherever they want to? And now the NLRB has the authority to tell them to operate three lines, rather than two? Someone familiar with labor law please help me understand. Is NLRB binding?
I am an ex-Boeing employee... and I just have to say the Union is just shooting themselves in the foot. The reason so much of the 787 was outsourced is because they got tired of the labor stoppages... then of course they are going to look at a non-union plant. And while I may defend a unions right to exist and negotiate... I do know firsthand how they can be counterproductive to the efficiency of a company. Instead of working with the company too often they work against it. (BTW... I wasn't in a union there, but my father worked their his whole life and was) Just filing that complaint doesn't mean they will win.
Not if simply done as a union-busting tactic, which this clearly was. My brother-in-law was a longtime Boeing employee and member of IAM. He died of a heart attack at work while running his machine. I heard on a regular basis the myriad of petty schemes and conspiracies Boeing would inflict on union employees. The NLRB has been practically dormant for the past decade. Nice to know someone there is at least still alive.
In Gresham? Or up north. I certainly heard a lot of it both before and after I worked there, and I will just say that my view changed quit a bit when I could see a better picture. My father worked at the Gresham plant before it was even owned by Boeing.
Gresham, I guess. I thought it was in Troutdale? He died about a dozen years ago. He was very popular at work. Boeing gave the whole plant the day off to attend his funeral.
I am sure my father knew him. He retired a few years ago but has Alzheimer's now and would have trouble recalling. He was a machinist... worked graveyard shift though so he may not have known eveyone who worked during the day. Hell I may have known him... went fishing as a kid with lots of people from Boeing.
It doesn't matter. If employees have the right to unionize anywhere (and they do), then owners have an equal right to close and open businesses where they want to. You want to have it all one way, but that's just not what the word "fair" means. If owners of a business are bound by the courts to maintain a business at a particular location because it is unionized, then there's something fundamentally wrong with this country.
That's illogical. Boeing had a contract with the union to pay them x to do y. Boeing welched on the deal and paid someone else to do y.
Boeing was forced to pay 2x to get y when they could have paid x to get y all along. While paying 2x, the unions demanded 3x and stopped y from being done altogether.
In a way, I kinda of see Maris' point. But just because a business is being ripped off by a union doesn't mean it has to accept that as the gospel and live with it forever.
