Tyrant Obama Admin: Files lawsuit to force Boeing to use union labor!!! WOW!!

[Meister]

The beginning of the end of union labor was also the beginning of the end of the middle class.

Why is it ok for the capitalists to keep a such a disproportionate amount of the profits? Why is it ok for the wealthy to possess such a disproportionate amount or our nations wealth? What did they do to earn it?

Unions are just one way to help ensure the working class is not reduced into serfdom.

Oh brother.

Labor unions in the past have kept management from offering poor wages by forcing them to level the playing field. But since union membership has been in decline over the past ten years, ironically, that's also the period we've seen wages either stagnate or get reduced and jobs shipped overseas due to cheap labor. So which is the better alternative? Keep the jobs here and pay more money? Or pay cheap labor and expect cheap products in return?

And before people start yelling, I'm fully aware that there are exceptions as well as other factors that enter into the job security area.

I don't think anyone can link the unions decline in numbers to jobs being shipped overseas, nor stagnation in wages, Maggie.

 

[Charles_Main]

Why has Walmart been kept out of New York City for decades, if they have the right to locate ANYWHERE THEY WANT??

Frankly, that's blatantly unconstitutional. However, that's the action of the city or state government, not the federal government.

That makes no sense. It could only be blatantly Unconstitutional if the Federal Government was the one keeping them out.

NYC has every right to block stores like Walmart.

 

[MaggieMae]

The beginning of the end of union labor was also the beginning of the end of the middle class.

Why is it ok for the capitalists to keep a such a disproportionate amount of the profits? Why is it ok for the wealthy to possess such a disproportionate amount or our nations wealth? What did they do to earn it?

Unions are just one way to help ensure the working class is not reduced into serfdom.

Oh brother.

I'm sure you meant to say: Oh Comrade.

Equating Communists to American workers who get their hands dirty and expect to be paid a reasonable amount therefor is an example of why I'll never accept you as a serious debater.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think anyone can link the unions decline in numbers to jobs being shipped overseas, nor stagnation in wages, Maggie.

It can, but she has the cause/effect relationship reversed. As union thugs destroyed one corporation after another, workers came to realize that unions were not in their best interests and voted not to certify in greater and greater numbers.

 

[MaggieMae]

I know it boggles the mind doesn't it. The more efficient way would be to do like Reagan did with the air traffic controlers.

Your rotted liberal brain missed a few key differences:

1- The air traffic employees are GOVERNMENT employees, thus, under Reagan's charge. And those employees refused to come to work. So he fired them.

2- Boeing is a PRIVATE company. So long they follow laws, they can operate their business anywhere they please, and hire anyone they want. They chose South Carolina over Seattle. Now, Tyrant Obama is punishing them for that move.

Is that more clear now?

Actually, what the article said is that Boeing violated the law by retaliating against the workers in WA, which it cannot do.

Now, I don't know if the allegations have merit or not. I don't even know if the law has merit. Generally, companies should be able to relocate plants to wherever they wish. And on its face, I would generally back Boeing. But that is what the suit is about.

And it's going to be arbitrated by the NLRB, which is what it does. One Republican is on the board, by the way, which is now back up to five when it was shy 3 members during Bush's terms.

 

[blu]

Oh brother.

I'm sure you meant to say: Oh Comrade.

Equating Communists to American workers who get their hands dirty and expect to be paid a reasonable amount therefor is an example of why I'll never accept you as a serious debater.

simple minds can only remember a few buzzwords

 

[MaggieMae]

We live in a Gangsta Gubmint Thugocracy these days, donchanow?

If you can find a better place to live, then move, bitch.

 

[MaggieMae]

We live in a Gangsta Gubmint Thugocracy these days, donchanow?

As the rich get richer and the wealth gap grows.

What did the wealthy do to deserve such a disproportionate amount?

Sounds like class envy to me. Most of the wealthy didn't break any laws, paid their taxes.

top 5% of wage earners pay 44% of all income taxes.
bottom 47% of wage earners pay nothing

27,000,000 Americans receive $55,000,000,000 from taxpayers in "earned income credit"

And the upper crust aren't paying a whole helluva lot either.

Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically - Yahoo! News

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.
There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.

But you don't see that part on FoxNews. It's only the poor (the slackers) who get the breaks, right?

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh lets be a little trueful guys. The south is not full of qualified workers and they are using the downturn in the economy to attract good paying jobs to a low paying area and give them little of anything other than a place to show up and do what they are told for the amount that the company want to give them.

But the truth is 15 years down the line we will see that people will want more things than just a job and all of a sudden these companies will move again. When they see a company that is making billions and paying top exc's 100 to 500 times the workers will start to look around and say why are we worth crap, living like dogs with no benefits.
But lets tell the truth about how this factory was built, because most likely the state gave big incentives for them to build, low taxes and cheap property.

But can one of you idiots that wants a company to pay less and screw their workers while they pad their coffers tell us that what this new company will do will cause any tax payer or any citizen who might fly in any plane they make to pay less.

It's a lot like Nike and their 10 cents an hr labor producing tennis shoes that have a cost from production to sold of like 22.00 being sold for 122.00 a pair. Sure cut the cost of those shoes didn't it.
Kinda like the TV's that used to be made in USA by good american workers are now made in sweat shops overseas and sold for 1000.00 when the cost of labor and parts is around 100.00 maybe.

Isn't it a little funny why the price of a loaf of bread or a gal of milk or a gal of gas cost just as much in a non union state as it does in a union state. Why aren't cars that are made by workers who make half as much with little benefits cost the same as it did when it was made in by Unions.

Excellent point and good question.

 

[Political Junky]

The beginning of the end of union labor was also the beginning of the end of the middle class.

Why is it ok for the capitalists to keep a such a disproportionate amount of the profits? Why is it ok for the wealthy to possess such a disproportionate amount or our nations wealth? What did they do to earn it?

Unions are just one way to help ensure the working class is not reduced into serfdom.

If the Right has it's way, industry won't have to export jobs to Mexico ... Americans will work for the same low wages that they'd pay the Mexican workers.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh lets be a little trueful guys. The south is not full of qualified workers and they are using the downturn in the economy to attract good paying jobs to a low paying area and give them little of anything other than a place to show up and do what they are told for the amount that the company want to give them.

But the truth is 15 years down the line we will see that people will want more things than just a job and all of a sudden these companies will move again. When they see a company that is making billions and paying top exc's 100 to 500 times the workers will start to look around and say why are we worth crap, living like dogs with no benefits.
But lets tell the truth about how this factory was built, because most likely the state gave big incentives for them to build, low taxes and cheap property.

But can one of you idiots that wants a company to pay less and screw their workers while they pad their coffers tell us that what this new company will do will cause any tax payer or any citizen who might fly in any plane they make to pay less.

It's a lot like Nike and their 10 cents an hr labor producing tennis shoes that have a cost from production to sold of like 22.00 being sold for 122.00 a pair. Sure cut the cost of those shoes didn't it.
Kinda like the TV's that used to be made in USA by good american workers are now made in sweat shops overseas and sold for 1000.00 when the cost of labor and parts is around 100.00 maybe.

Isn't it a little funny why the price of a loaf of bread or a gal of milk or a gal of gas cost just as much in a non union state as it does in a union state. Why aren't cars that are made by workers who make half as much with little benefits cost the same as it did when it was made in by Unions.

What the fuck does that have to do with obama becoming a dictator?

Is your head so far up your ass you refuse to see what's going on?

What does OBAMA have to do with ANY of this???????

 

[MaggieMae]

The beginning of the end of union labor was also the beginning of the end of the middle class.

Why is it ok for the capitalists to keep a such a disproportionate amount of the profits? Why is it ok for the wealthy to possess such a disproportionate amount or our nations wealth? What did they do to earn it?

Unions are just one way to help ensure the working class is not reduced into serfdom.

Because this is America, where it's okay to make evil profits. It's okay to make so much money that you can bury yourself in a mountain of coke.



Oh, cut the fucken shit and get real numb-nuts.

The Dems get their cash from union dues so they don't give a flying-fuck if the wealth is spread around as long as their coffers are full.

And the Republicans get theirs from the US Chamber of Commerce, Big Oil and big defense contractors, among others with "special interests." Your point is moot.

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

 

[MaggieMae]

We live in a Gangsta Gubmint Thugocracy these days, donchanow?

As the rich get richer and the wealth gap grows.

What did the wealthy do to deserve such a disproportionate amount?

I don't know.

Give me some examples of wealthy fuckers that don't deserve the big-bucks.

Or are you just trying to pass off something so general you can't nailed down on it?

Don't know if Nic did yet, but I will. There are 50 listed by name in this article alone:

Paid Off for Layoffs: CEOs at Pink Slip Leaders Earned 42% More in 2009 - DailyFinance

 

[sinister59]

The beginning of the end of union labor was also the beginning of the end of the middle class.

Why is it ok for the capitalists to keep a such a disproportionate amount of the profits? Why is it ok for the wealthy to possess such a disproportionate amount or our nations wealth? What did they do to earn it?

Unions are just one way to help ensure the working class is not reduced into serfdom.

Oh brother.

Labor unions in the past have kept management from offering poor wages by forcing them to level the playing field. But since union membership has been in decline over the past ten years, ironically, that's also the period we've seen wages either stagnate or get reduced and jobs shipped overseas due to cheap labor. So which is the better alternative? Keep the jobs here and pay more money? Or pay cheap labor and expect cheap products in return?

And before people start yelling, I'm fully aware that there are exceptions as well as other factors that enter into the job security area.

united we bargain divided we beg .

the repigs want two class here the rich and the working poor .
if unions wont wake up then workers better

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama is forcing more companies to send jobs out of the USA.

Big U.S. Firms Shift Hiring Abroad

U.S. multinational corporations, the big brand-name companies that employ a fifth of all American workers, have been hiring abroad while cutting back at home, sharpening the debate over globalization's effect on the U.S. economy.

The companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million, new data from the U.S. Commerce Department show. That's a big switch from the 1990s, when they added jobs everywhere: 4.4 million in the U.S. and 2.7 million abroad.

Obama's been in office since 2000?

 

[MaggieMae]

Boeing lawsuit: South Carolina vs. big labor | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment

My God, are we now the USSA?? (For stupid libs, thats akin to USSR, which to also add, is bad).

The Obama Admin has now filed a lawsuit against Boeing. Why? Boeing was tired of dealing with unions in Seattle. So, they took their new Dreamliner production planet, and built it in non-union North Charleston, South Caroline, bringing 5,000-8,000 good paying jobs to the area. The planet in SC is almost finished, with work about to start.

Now Tyrant Obama has filed a federal lawsuit claiming, get this, DISCRIMINATION!!!! They say Boeing is discriminating against union workers.....by daring build a plant in non-union South Carolina. Our federal government is trying to force a private company to use their preferred labor pool. The lawsuit seeks to force Boeing to relocate that new plant in SC back to Seattle.

Never in my wildest imagination could I have thought the United States government would begin filing lawsuits to force a private company to locate it's operations in the politicially preferred choice of the US government. It's basically a political assault on right wing South Carolina. Tyrant tactics, no doubt about it. Chicago thuggery in plain sight.

So now, even if Boeing wins that lawsuit, which they will, Boeing is gonna have to shell out millions of dollars to defend this suit.

Is this how Obama's Admin is gonna do business? SUE companies that provide jobs....for daring not use union labor? Punish states that voted against him with lawsuits against any non-union company within it's borders?

How anyone can continue to support Tyrant Obama baffles me.

The "Obama Administration" did not file the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was triggered by a March 2010 complaint from the IAMAW, which has engaged in five strikes against Boeing between 1977 and 2008.

The NLRB said its investigation found that the company violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act in 2009 when it picked Charleston International Airport as the site of its second 787 assembly plant, rather than expanding its existing factory in Everett.

Get your facts straight before you go off half-cocked.

Why should the government have any say at all on when, where and how a private company chooses to build products for sale if all of the HS about the environmental impact is equal between the sites?

Will the goernment also go to bat for the 8000 newly unemployed at the new location? This is a can of worms the government does not need to open.

A profitable American company wants to employ Americans and the Obama Administration is fighting to keep this from happening. That's all we need to know.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Oh I see. Now you're an expert on the purposes of the NLRB and the Taft-Hartley Act, and everyone should just do what you say and move on. Don't think so, bud.

lablaw4a

 

[Trajan]

Your rotted liberal brain missed a few key differences:

1- The air traffic employees are GOVERNMENT employees, thus, under Reagan's charge. And those employees refused to come to work. So he fired them.

2- Boeing is a PRIVATE company. So long they follow laws, they can operate their business anywhere they please, and hire anyone they want. They chose South Carolina over Seattle. Now, Tyrant Obama is punishing them for that move.

Is that more clear now?

Actually, what the article said is that Boeing violated the law by retaliating against the workers in WA, which it cannot do.

Now, I don't know if the allegations have merit or not. I don't even know if the law has merit. Generally, companies should be able to relocate plants to wherever they wish. And on its face, I would generally back Boeing. But that is what the suit is about.

And it's going to be arbitrated by the NLRB, which is what it does. One Republican is on the board, by the way, which is now back up to five when it was shy 3 members during Bush's terms.

I think arbitration may be the incorrect word or term. Arbitration is; To submit to settlement or judgment by arbitration based on contractual code and agreements etc.

Depending on the contract, the decision where to locate a work unit would be a part of negotiations, but the Union waived its right to bargain on that issue in their last contract.

the dispute has been framed as; the co. is punishing workers becasue they have strike[d] in the past by; CREATING a work unit in SC.

Boeing is getting approx. 900 million dollars in incentives and tax breaks etc. from SC, it is a right to work state.

Sounds like a sound bus. decision to me.

 

[MaggieMae]

Boeing lawsuit: South Carolina vs. big labor | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment

My God, are we now the USSA?? (For stupid libs, thats akin to USSR, which to also add, is bad).

The Obama Admin has now filed a lawsuit against Boeing. Why? Boeing was tired of dealing with unions in Seattle. So, they took their new Dreamliner production planet, and built it in non-union North Charleston, South Caroline, bringing 5,000-8,000 good paying jobs to the area. The planet in SC is almost finished, with work about to start.

Now Tyrant Obama has filed a federal lawsuit claiming, get this, DISCRIMINATION!!!! They say Boeing is discriminating against union workers.....by daring build a plant in non-union South Carolina. Our federal government is trying to force a private company to use their preferred labor pool. The lawsuit seeks to force Boeing to relocate that new plant in SC back to Seattle.

Never in my wildest imagination could I have thought the United States government would begin filing lawsuits to force a private company to locate it's operations in the politicially preferred choice of the US government. It's basically a political assault on right wing South Carolina. Tyrant tactics, no doubt about it. Chicago thuggery in plain sight.

So now, even if Boeing wins that lawsuit, which they will, Boeing is gonna have to shell out millions of dollars to defend this suit.

Is this how Obama's Admin is gonna do business? SUE companies that provide jobs....for daring not use union labor? Punish states that voted against him with lawsuits against any non-union company within it's borders?

How anyone can continue to support Tyrant Obama baffles me.

The "Obama Administration" did not file the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was triggered by a March 2010 complaint from the IAMAW, which has engaged in five strikes against Boeing between 1977 and 2008.

The NLRB said its investigation found that the company violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act in 2009 when it picked Charleston International Airport as the site of its second 787 assembly plant, rather than expanding its existing factory in Everett.

Get your facts straight before you go off half-cocked.

Why should the government have any say at all on when, where and how a private company chooses to build products for sale if all of the HS about the environmental impact is equal between the sites?

Will the goernment also go to bat for the 8000 newly unemployed at the new location? This is a can of worms the government does not need to open.

A profitable American company wants to employ Americans and the Obama Administration is fighting to keep this from happening. That's all we need to know.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

There won't be any "unemployed" unless and until long after June, if then, so stop projecting already, and let the situation resolve (as these things always do). Goddammit, I am so fucking sick of this THE SKY IS FALLING bullshit.

NORTH CHARLESTON | Boeing-NLRB dispute could be long, costly fight | The Herald - Rock Hill, SC

The union-busting lawsuit targeting Boeing and its new South Carolina aircraft plant is likely to spur a protracted and costly legal battle that could wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But it's not expected to immediately affect the opening this summer of the $750 million assembly line in North Charleston.
...
The complaint seeks a court order forcing Boeing to establish the second 787 line in Everett, Wash., the unionized home of the company's commercial airplane business.
Workers at the aerospace giant's local plant are not represented by the IAMAW.
Boeing said this week that it will fight the lawsuit, calling the allegations frivolous. It also said the North Charleston plant would open on schedule.

The next step is a hearing June 14 in Seattle before an administrative law judge who works for the NLRB. The full board would then review that judge's decision, a process that could take months.

If the ruling is contested, the case would be transferred to the federal appeals court system and possibly be submitted for consideration to the Supreme Court if necessary, legal experts said. That would eat up at least two more years.

 

[manifold]

I'm definitely pro-union but I'm struggling mightily to find any merit whatsoever in the lawsuit. And believe me, I'm looking high and low for it. As best as I can tell, the entire complaint is that Boeing is building the plant in SC just to spite the union. While I'm sure it had more to do with fundamental business and economics than pure spite, I don't see that it matters. Since when is spite against the law?

 

[MaggieMae]

No, the jobs won't be "gone". They'll just be in Seattle. The suit seeks to force Boeing to relocate that plant to Seattle. The massive factory that was just built in North Charleston would just be a big ass vacant building. Read me upcoming thread regarding Boeing, SC, and green energy. It's gonna be epic.

The factory in SC is already built. Boeing spent $2 billion on it. Forcing them to move it back to Seattle would mean $2 billion flushed down the toilet. Plus it would mean delaying production of the 787 Dreamliner. I can't imagine a better way to destroy a great company. That's how Democrats create jobs.

It's not going to delay production, and the union doesn't want to shut down the NC plant. It wants a second plant in Washington to do other parts of production. Read some facts, would ya?