NLRB Bullying

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThinkSnow99. Show ThinkSnow99's posts

    NLRB Bullying



    Lafe E. Solomon, Esquire

    Acting General Counsel

    National Labor Relations Board

    1099 14
    th Street, NW, Suite 8600

    Washington, DC 20570


    Dear Mr. Solomon:

    As Attorneys General of our respective states, we call upon you, as Acting General

    Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), to withdraw immediately the

    complaint numbered 19-CA-32431 against Boeing. This complaint represents an assault upon the

    constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states to create jobs and recruit industry.

    Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens’ right to work. It is South

    Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees,

    tomorrow.

    The right to work, uninhibited by compulsory unionism, is a precious right and is

    constitutionally enforceable through our states’ right to work laws. See Retail Clerks Int’l v.

    Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96 (1963). Such laws are designed to eliminate union affiliation as a

    criterion for employment. However, the NLRB, through this single proceeding, attempts to

    sound the death knell of the right to work. Additionally, this tenuous complaint will reverberate

    throughout union and non-union states alike, as international companies will question the

    wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry without

    cause or justification.

    Furthermore, this complaint disrupts, and may well eliminate, the production of Boeing

    787 Dreamliners in South Carolina. In fact, Boeing has expanded its operations to meet product

    demand in South Carolina, while adding new jobs in Washington State. The complaint charges

    Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal and

    factual foundation. This unparalleled and overreaching action seeks to drive a stake through the

    heart of the free enterprise system. The statements of Boeing officials cited in your complaint are

    the innocent exercise of the company’s right of free speech. The Supreme Court long ago made

    it clear that the NLRA does not limit, and the First Amendment protects, the employer's right to

    express views on labor policies or problems.
    N.L.R.B. v. Va. Electric and Power, 314 US 469,

    Hon. Lafe E. Solomon

    April 27, 2011

    Page 2

    477 (1941). As the Court recently reiterated in
    Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 899-90

    (2010), a corporation is not a second class citizen in terms of First Amendment protection.

    Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the

    Depression. Your complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal

    bureaucracy on behalf of unions will not create a single new job or put one unemployed person

    back to work.

    The only justification for the NLRB’s unprecedented retaliatory action is to aid union

    survival. Your action seriously undermines our citizens’ right to work as well as their ability to

    compete globally. Therefore, as Attorneys General, we will protect our citizens from union

    bullying and federal coercion. We thus call upon you to cease this attack on our right to work,

    our states’ economies, and our jobs.

    We look forward to your immediate response.

    Sincerely,

    Alan Wilson

    Attorney General

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: NLRB Bullying

    South Carolina Governor Nikkey Haley has a great Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal today about this...
    It is an outrage.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: NLRB Bullying

    Unions are destructive, counter-productive, useless, and have no place in todays society.

    They exist solely for the purpose of extorting employers and donating to democratic candidates who will give them more power and more money.  They handicap companies and governments of the ability to excel and adapt to changing business environments and economies.  Unions like socialism promote and set conditions for institutionalized mediocrity, or worse.  There's a reason why non-union organizations outperform their union competitors.

    If you don't like your job or your conditions of employment...GET A NEW JOB!!!!

    Unions are for cry-baby hacks who are afraid to be judged based on merit.

     
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: NLRB Bullying

    Dear firefighters, teachers, police, construction workers, manufacturing workers, and any other union members regardless of location or job affilitation:

    You are cry-baby hacks who are afraid to be judged based on merit.

    Thanks

    The Right Wing of the Political Spectrum
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: NLRB Bullying

    In Response to Re: NLRB Bullying:
    [QUOTE]Dear firefighters, teachers, police, construction workers, manufacturing workers, and any other union members regardless of location or job affilitation: You are cry-baby hacks who are afraid to be judged based on merit. Thanks The Right Wing of the Political Spectrum
    Posted by DamainAllen[/QUOTE]

    The right sure likes to lay down when corporations tell them to. Its incredible the GOP today gets one worker fighting with another worker in defense of a job they want to take away to give to someone else in this case in another state. This isnt about union or non union this is about people trying to keep their jobs from going to another state and a senator named Graham trying to ruin peoples lives to hold his job in congress. GOP at its finest.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: NLRB Bullying

    In Response to NLRB Bullying:
    [QUOTE]Lafe E. Solomon, Esquire Acting General Counsel National Labor Relations Board1099 14 th Street, NW, Suite 8600 Washington, DC 20570 Dear Mr. Solomon: As Attorneys General of our respective states, we call upon you, as Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), to withdraw immediately the complaint numbered 19-CA-32431 against Boeing. This complaint represents an assault upon the constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states to create jobs and recruit industry. Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens’ right to work. It is South Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees, tomorrow. The right to work, uninhibited by compulsory unionism, is a precious right and is constitutionally enforceable through our states’ right to work laws. See Retail Clerks Int’l v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96 (1963). Such laws are designed to eliminate union affiliation as a criterion for employment. However, the NLRB, through this single proceeding, attempts to sound the death knell of the right to work. Additionally, this tenuous complaint will reverberate throughout union and non-union states alike, as international companies will question the wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry without cause or justification. Furthermore, this complaint disrupts, and may well eliminate, the production of Boeing 787 Dreamliners in South Carolina. In fact, Boeing has expanded its operations to meet product demand in South Carolina, while adding new jobs in Washington State. The complaint charges Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal and factual foundation. This unparalleled and overreaching action seeks to drive a stake through the heart of the free enterprise system. The statements of Boeing officials cited in your complaint are the innocent exercise of the company’s right of free speech. The Supreme Court long ago made it clear that the NLRA does not limit, and the First Amendment protects, the employer's right toexpress views on labor policies or problems. N.L.R.B. v. Va. Electric and Power , 314 US 469, Hon. Lafe E. Solomon April 27, 2011 Page 2477 (1941). As the Court recently reiterated in Citizens United v. FEC , 130 S. Ct. 876, 899-90 (2010), a corporation is not a second class citizen in terms of First Amendment protection. Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the Depression. Your complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal bureaucracy on behalf of unions will not create a single new job or put one unemployed person back to work. The only justification for the NLRB’s unprecedented retaliatory action is to aid union survival. Your action seriously undermines our citizens’ right to work as well as their ability to compete globally. Therefore, as Attorneys General, we will protect our citizens from union bullying and federal coercion. We thus call upon you to cease this attack on our right to work, our states’ economies, and our jobs. We look forward to your immediate response. Sincerely, Alan Wilson Attorney General
    Posted by ThinkSnow99[/QUOTE]

    Law360, New York (April 20, 2011) -- The National Labor Relations Board slapped Boeing Co. with a complaint Wednesday over the aerospace giant's decision to open a production line at a South Carolina nonunion facility, alleging the move was retaliation for strikes by unionized Washington state employees.

    The board claims Boeing brass made public comments about moving a 787 Dreamliner production line to South Carolina in response to strikes by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers members in Washington's Puget Sound area.

    “A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act,” said Lafe Solomon, acting general counsel for the NLRB. “We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.”

    Boeing, a Chicago-based company that has long been a fixture in Washington state, criticized the NLRB's complaint and promised to contest the allegations.

    "This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent," said Boeing Executive Vice President and general counsel J. Michael Luttig. "Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region."

    Solomon said he had met with Boeing and IAM, who filed its complaint with the NLRB in March 2010, to reach a settlement and remains open to that possibility.

    Boeing decided to launch a second 787 Dreamliner line to assemble three airplanes a month in order to tackle a backlog of orders. In October 2009, the company picked a facility in North Charleston, S.C.

    In the complaint, the NLRB lists numerous statements from Boeing executives that bringing the assembly line to South Carolina was in response to strikes by employees represented by IAM in Washington.

    Boeing President, Chairman and CEO Jim McNerney said in an October 2009 conference call that moving the line to a nonunion South Carolina facility was due to “strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound,” the complaint said.

    Later that month, a Boeing memo sent to its employees noted that moving the line to South Carolina would reduce delivery disruptions caused by work stoppages, it said.

    The comments were “discouraging” membership in a union and considered unfair labor practice, according to the complaint.

    In response to NLRB's complaint, Boeing defended its decision by noting that none of the production jobs created in South Carolina come at the expense of its Washington employees. Boeing was unable to reach an agreement with IAM leadership that would allow the company to be competitive globally, the company said.

    According to IAM District 751, which represents 25,000 Boeing employees, leadership offered Boeing an 11-year agreement to maintain labor stability in order to keep the assembly line in Washington.

    “Boeing’s decision to build a 787 assembly line in South Carolina sent a message that Boeing workers would suffer financial harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights,” IAM Vice President Rich Michalski said. “Federal labor law is clear: it’s illegal to threaten or penalize workers who engage in concerted activity.”

    The NLRB is seeking an order to move the 787 Dreamliner assembly line to Washington. But Luttig seemed bullish on a successful launch of the South Carolina facility, which is expected to produce its first airplane in July.

    "We fully expect to complete our new state-of-the-art facility in South Carolina in the weeks ahead, and we will be producing 787s — America's next great export — from our factories in both Puget Sound and South Carolina for decades to come," Luttig said.

    Boeing spokesman Tim Neale declined to identify the company's outside counsel for the matter.

    The case is The Boeing Co. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 751, case number 19-CA-32431, before the National Labor Relations Board, Region 19.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: NLRB Bullying

    In short these AG's should not be involved in this matter until the NLRB and Boeing sit down and address the labor issue and the claimed violation by Boeing on the labor law. Like unions or not no corporation no matter who it is should be allowed to punish workers for fighting for their jobs.  

    You guys defending taking jobs away from people need to think . What if it was your job that might leave that you worked at for years ? You wouldnt like it and you know it union or not. You start not defending workers you will be facing these same problems at your jobs sooner or later.  
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share