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

[Meister]

so you are familiar with the NLRB's investigation into complaints filed by the IAMAW against boeing for violations of the national labor relations act?

gosh, i wish we were all privy to the information you have. care to share it?

What I will share is common sense....use it.

A "private company" moves to another state....it's done all the time. Companies that have contracts with the government move to other states....it's done all the time.

What is it with being a union business or not have to do with it? Use your common sense and be honest.

in other words, no, you aren't familiar with the complaint, the law, or the results of the investigation. in place of that crucial information you've decided to fill in the gaps with what you like to call 'common sense' and i like to call bullshit based on ignorance.

you would be, therefore, the definition of a person talking out of their ass.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't a partisan hack Kool-Aid drinker....my mistake.


Talk about ignorance.....your reeking with it.

 

[Trajan]

So no law was broken, but it's a campaign year, nothing like rallying the union base.
Stevie Wonder can see through this stunt.

so you are familiar with the NLRB's investigation into complaints filed by the IAMAW against boeing for violations of the national labor relations act?

gosh, i wish we were all privy to the information you have. care to share it?

They're not listening...have you noticed?

have you read the entire thread or just passing through B..?no offense.

 

[The T]

The NLRA, as enacted in 1935, defined and prohibited five unfair labor practices. These prohibitions still exist, while others have been added under later legislation. The original employer unfair labor practices consisted of:

• Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in their rights under Section 7. These rights include freedom of association, mutual aid or protection, self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other protected concerted activities with or without a union. Section 8(a)(1)

• "Dominating" or interfering with the formation or administration of any labor organization . Section 8(a)(2)

• Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

• Discriminating against employees who file charges or testify. 8(a)(4)

• Refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of the employer's employees. 8(a)(5)

The key principles of the NLRA are embodied in its concluding paragraph of section 1 including:

encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.
​

The key principles also include:

• Protecting a wide range of activities, whether a union is involved or not, in order to promote organization and collective bargaining.

• Protecting employees as a class and expressly not on the basis of a relationship with an employer. Sections 2(5) and 2(9). link: Ellen Dannin, Not a Limited, Confined, or Private Matter: Who is an Employee under the National Labor Relations Act

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1115434

• There can be only one exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of employees.

• Promotion of the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.

• Employers have a duty to bargain with the representative of its employees.

_____________________

Source

_____________________

My guess is highlighted in red.

Seems they are pissed that the company chose to expand elsewhere in a right to work State...

 

[Antiderivative]

Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

This is what Boeing is doing. They are retaliating against the 2008 labor strikes.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

I don't see the parallel. The Air Traffic controllers were acting outside the law. Reagan informed them of this and warned them that if they did not return to work, he would find people who would work.

Why do Liberals not see Facism where it does exist, but do see it where it doesn't?

Reagan committed treason, violated the Constitution and was a terrible president.

His handling of the the Air Traffic controller's situation probably is one of the factors that contributed to 9/11.

That is stupid even for you!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Congratulations.

You have just proved you belong in the rdean-Truthmatters class of intellectual honesty and ability.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

how mentally ill do you have to be to want to use scabs instead of union labor.

what barn did you grow up in?

wackos.

Did you even read the story?

 

[boedicca]

Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

This is what Boeing is doing. They are retaliating against the 2008 labor strikes.

No, they are not.

They want to build a new plant in another state and create 3,800 new jobs.

The Union wants Boeing to promise that ALL JOBS will be located in WA.

In 2009 Boeing announced plans to build a new plant to meet demand for its new 787 Dreamliner. Though its union contract didn't require it, Boeing executives negotiated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to build the plane at its existing plant in Washington state. The talks broke down because the union wanted, among other things, a seat on Boeing's board and a promise that Boeing would build all future airplanes in Puget Sound.

...

Boeing says it will challenge the complaint in an NLRB hearing in June, but Big Labor also has sway at the five-member board. Recall that President Obama gave a recess appointment last year to Craig Becker, a former lawyer for the Service Employees International Union who once wrote that the NLRB could impose "card check" rules for union organizing even without an act of Congress. Even a Democratic Senate refused to confirm him.

Beyond labor politics, the NLRB's ruling would set a terrible precedent for the flow of jobs and investment within the U.S. It would essentially give labor a veto over management decisions about where to build future plants. And it would undercut the right-to-work statutes in 22 American states—which is no doubt the main union goal here.

With a Republican House, Mr. Obama's union agenda is dead in Congress. But it looks like his appointees are determined to impose it by regulatory fiat—no matter the damage to investment and job creation.

Review & Outlook: The Death of Right to Work - WSJ.com


The Obamanoids are abusing the power of the government in order to benefit their union cronies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That would be the National Labor Relations Act. Whether or not they did violate the act is something for the court to decide, but since the NLRB conducted an investigation based upon a complaint by the IAMAW it is my belief that they have a responsibility to sue.

So every time some disgruntled union thugs complain to their toadies in the Obama regime, the government is obligated to sue?

i'm sorry, i originally neglected to say that based off their investigation they believed boeing had violated the law - and i believe that when a regulatory agency finds a company to be in violation of the law they have a responsibility to sue.

What law does the NRLB think they violated?

 

[boedicca]

So every time some disgruntled union thugs complain to their toadies in the Obama regime, the government is obligated to sue?

i'm sorry, i originally neglected to say that based off their investigation they believed boeing had violated the law - and i believe that when a regulatory agency finds a company to be in violation of the law they have a responsibility to sue.

What law does the NRLB think they violated?

The one that the Obama Administration has not been able to get passed by Congress. So, they are determined to thwart Congress by making law via regulatory fiat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so you are familiar with the NLRB's investigation into complaints filed by the IAMAW against boeing for violations of the national labor relations act?

gosh, i wish we were all privy to the information you have. care to share it?

What I will share is common sense....use it.

A "private company" moves to another state....it's done all the time. Companies that have contracts with the government move to other states....it's done all the time.

What is it with being a union business or not have to do with it? Use your common sense and be honest.

in other words, no, you aren't familiar with the complaint, the law, or the results of the investigation. in place of that crucial information you've decided to fill in the gaps with what you like to call 'common sense' and i like to call bullshit based on ignorance.

you would be, therefore, the definition of a person talking out of their ass.

The thing I find most amusing about this whole thing is that by challenging other people on their knowledge of the complaint and the law you manage to imply that yuou actually know what you are talking about. Unfortunately for you, their is somebody on this board who actually know what they are talking about, and you obviously do not.

If you actually read the NLRB complaint here you will see that they are alleging that Boeing is not allowed to take into account the effect of strikes when making business decisions about where to build new plants. Can you show me a law that actually says that anywhere, or are you just posting in order to see the words you type magically appear on your screen?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

This is what Boeing is doing. They are retaliating against the 2008 labor strikes.

How are they retaliating? They actually expanded their business operations in Seattle and hired 2000 more union members. Explain to me, using extremely small words so you do not get confused, how hiring more people now counts as retaliation.

 

[ogibillm]

What I will share is common sense....use it.

A "private company" moves to another state....it's done all the time. Companies that have contracts with the government move to other states....it's done all the time.

What is it with being a union business or not have to do with it? Use your common sense and be honest.

in other words, no, you aren't familiar with the complaint, the law, or the results of the investigation. in place of that crucial information you've decided to fill in the gaps with what you like to call 'common sense' and i like to call bullshit based on ignorance.

you would be, therefore, the definition of a person talking out of their ass.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't a partisan hack Kool-Aid drinker....my mistake.


Talk about ignorance.....your reeking with it.

perhaps. i don't know the law or the complaint. but i do admit to that.

you on the other hand have decided that the facts of the case are unimportant and that since you have 'common sense' you know all you need to know.

again, i don't know if they have violated any law or not, but i do believe that they have a responsibility to sue based on the outcome of their investigation.

the court will decide the merits of that investigation.

 

[Meister]

in other words, no, you aren't familiar with the complaint, the law, or the results of the investigation. in place of that crucial information you've decided to fill in the gaps with what you like to call 'common sense' and i like to call bullshit based on ignorance.

you would be, therefore, the definition of a person talking out of their ass.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't a partisan hack Kool-Aid drinker....my mistake.


Talk about ignorance.....your reeking with it.

perhaps. i don't know the law or the complaint. but i do admit to that.

you on the other hand have decided that the facts of the case are unimportant and that since you have 'common sense' you know all you need to know.

again, i don't know if they have violated any law or not, but i do believe that they have a responsibility to sue based on the outcome of their investigation.

the court will decide the merits of that investigation.

refer to post #312.

I will stand with my common sense anyday against what you have going for you.

 

[ogibillm]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't a partisan hack Kool-Aid drinker....my mistake.


Talk about ignorance.....your reeking with it.

perhaps. i don't know the law or the complaint. but i do admit to that.

you on the other hand have decided that the facts of the case are unimportant and that since you have 'common sense' you know all you need to know.

again, i don't know if they have violated any law or not, but i do believe that they have a responsibility to sue based on the outcome of their investigation.

the court will decide the merits of that investigation.

refer to post #312.

I will stand with my common sense anyday against what you have going for you.

and that's why you're likely to remain ignorant. you have no interest in actual knowledge, your 'common sense' will do just fine by you.

 

[Meister]

perhaps. i don't know the law or the complaint. but i do admit to that.

you on the other hand have decided that the facts of the case are unimportant and that since you have 'common sense' you know all you need to know.

again, i don't know if they have violated any law or not, but i do believe that they have a responsibility to sue based on the outcome of their investigation.

the court will decide the merits of that investigation.

refer to post #312.

I will stand with my common sense anyday against what you have going for you.

and that's why you're likely to remain ignorant. you have no interest in actual knowledge, your 'common sense' will do just fine by you.

So you didn't refer to post #312 huh?

My common sense has paid dividends if you know what I mean.

Please drink some more of that orange Kool-Aid and thank God you weren't in Jonestown.

 

[The T]

in other words, no, you aren't familiar with the complaint, the law, or the results of the investigation. in place of that crucial information you've decided to fill in the gaps with what you like to call 'common sense' and i like to call bullshit based on ignorance.

you would be, therefore, the definition of a person talking out of their ass.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't a partisan hack Kool-Aid drinker....my mistake.


Talk about ignorance.....your reeking with it.

perhaps. i don't know the law or the complaint. but i do admit to that.

you on the other hand have decided that the facts of the case are unimportant and that since you have 'common sense' you know all you need to know.

again, i don't know if they have violated any law or not, but i do believe that they have a responsibility to sue based on the outcome of their investigation.

the court will decide the merits of that investigation.

If you haven't read the law or the complaint? How can you then claim that the poster doesn't/hasn't read it, (Facts of the case), and has come to a 'common sense' opinion...when you claim not to know?

 

[manifold]

Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

This is what Boeing is doing. They are retaliating against the 2008 labor strikes.

Yes. This exactly what I found as well. And the evidence they cite is conversations between boeing execs and union leaders where the execs essentially threatened to take their business to another state. And they then proceeded to make good on the threat.

But I disagree 100% that what they did violates that statute, and furthermore, I question the wisdom and sanity of anyone that thinks otherwise.

 

[The T]

Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

This is what Boeing is doing. They are retaliating against the 2008 labor strikes.

Yes. This exactly what I found as well. And the evidence they cite is conversations between boeing execs and union leaders where the execs essentially threatened to take their business to another state. And they then proceeded to make good on the threat.

But I disagree 100% that what they did violates that statute, and furthermore, I question the wisdom and sanity of anyone that thinks otherwise.

Like i eluded to...sour grapes by that Union...and since Obama has launched his election tour of '11? It's plain to see that this is pure politics.

 

[Antiderivative]

Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage acts of support for a labor organization. 8(a)(3)

This is what Boeing is doing. They are retaliating against the 2008 labor strikes.

Yes. This exactly what I found as well. And the evidence they cite is conversations between boeing execs and union leaders where the execs essentially threatened to take their business to another state. And they then proceeded to make good on the threat.

But I disagree 100% that what they did violates that statute, and furthermore, I question the wisdom and sanity of anyone that thinks otherwise.

I really don't care. I'd be happy if the government got out of Boeing's life. However, this is not what Repukes are proposing. Instead, they are advocating for more personal involvement and favoritism. I really disagree with you voodoo supply-side economics.

You think that the taxpayers' money only should go to executives. I disagree that the executives should be the only recipients who capture the economic rents due to their relationship with the government.

We obviously have a severe disagreement here. You think that Boeing executives should only benefit from taxpayers' money and I strongly disagree.