Just an aside on the Boeing case:

Boeing recently signed a huge contract for some jetliners. They have to be able to guarantee delivery. When they don't deliver on time, they're penalized monetarily and jeopardize future contracts. Past strikes by the union have caused such delays/financial penalties.

Before duplicating facilities in South Carolina, they attempted to get a no-strike agreement from the union for the period of time it would take to complete the contract. The union refused - not wanting to give up the advantage that being able to use the threat of delays/financial penalties gives them.

If you want to call that "retaliation", fine. I call it a stubborn union not looking out for the best interest of its members.

@Bob McBride...Boeing's openly stated retaliation for the union's legal action is in fact against the law and the NLRB have a mandated responsibility to become involved.

Because Boeing is on the line to meet contractual obligations, which if they don't meet will cost them financially, is not sufficient reason to strip the NLRB of it's legislated power.

Lyle,

NLRB has the ability to make a judgement call on it and they (big surprise under this administration) sided with the union.

Boeing attempted to negotiate with the union on it, the union refused, Boeing took what only could be considered a logical move in light of the competitive nature of their business.

The days when companies couldn't take such actions, due to technology constraints, have long since passed. Unions either need to recognize it or accept the consequences. The consequences of the NLRB decision will serve no one well, neither Boeing corporate or its employees, if the union once again decides to strike because it feels it has the upper hand.

The next alternative backup facility won't be South Carolina, it will be out of the country. Companies can and will do what they have to to survive in this global market. Unions operating like it's still the '60s or '70s won't be able to stop them, even with the help of a union friendly administration.

Boeing's stated that they cannot tolerate periodic work stoppages and would build a second facility where such a risk was low. I've not seen 'any document' stating that this was being done on the basis of retaliation. In fact, the original WA 787 assembly facility is in operation;no jobs have been lost in WA;2000+ jobs have been added on the WA 787 line. So, I would assume that the NLRB is claiming retaliation against workers, not yet hired, for jobs that don't yet exist, in WA. This is a strange and tortured interpretation of 'retaliate.'

@bob McBride...What did Boeing offer?

Boeing asked for an agreement not to strike for the duration of the contract. Are you suggesting there should have been some sort of reward offered (beyond maintaining jobs) in exchange for that?

The union refused. Boeing took steps to assure that, in the event of a work stoppage on the part of the union, they have another plant geared up and ready to go in order to fulfill their contract with their customer.

Frankly, it would have been irresponsible of them to do otherwise.

Perhaps what they should have done is turned down the order due to an inability to guarantee that they could meet delivery dates and idled some employees due to a lack of work. Would that have made the unions happy?

@Bob McBride...Time to dig a little deeper my friend. In the labor negotiation 0f 2009 between Boeing and AMI 751, Boeing asked for a "no work stoppage clause" that was open ended. Boeing was already doing the majority of sub assemblies and components off shore. Boeing has already found that the offshore work is sub standard and has had to rework the parts. What Boeing has done is a direct violation of the "runaway shop law". That's what the suit is all about. I suggest you speak to a labor attorney.

I'll take your word for it.

Was Boeing asking for any other concessions besides the work stoppage concession? Frankly, I don't find that unreasonable. We've got local examples of companies who no longer are a fraction of what they were, due to regular (in some cases, annual) strikes during peak season.

My point that what applied in the 60s and 70s no longer applies given the world economy stands. While Boeing may have found stuff sub-contracted outside the country inferior, it's only a matter of time before production of that nature meets or exceeds that available domestically.

If we're going to continue to play this game by shielding ourselves from the very real effects of a global economy, we will ultimately lose. If we want to effectively increase the rate of job migration, we need more rulings like this one.

On the other hand, if unions want to do a true service to the Amercian worker, they should attempt to unionize the workforces of those nations where most of this work is going. Granted, that's not as easy as getting a friendly administration to side with you in a dispute like this one, but until there's something approaching parity in wage scales between nations, they'll be left to resort to tactics like this one - the equivalent of attempting to put out a fire with gasoline.

@Bob McBride....There is a great many things wrong with your argument. It is time to hold companies' accountable and not let them off the hook.

Something to consider, Boeing's chief competitor, Air Bus, is more unionised than Boeing and they still are able to compete.

Feel free to point out, specifically, what parts of my argument are wrong.

If you want to compare them to Airbus, it's worth noting that they're the recipients of low interest government loans (below market rate) which caught the attention of the WTO - and here's another interesting tidbit, in the event you think they should be a model for Boeing:

From Wikipedia:

"Airbus opened an assembly plant in Tianjin, People's Republic of China for its A320 series airliners in 2009.[117][118][119] Airbus started constructing a $350 million component manufacturing plant in Harbin, China in July 2009, which will employ 1,000 people.[120]"

Think that's a unionized plant? Think it couldn't happen with Boeing?

Again, tell me specifically what's wrong with my argument.

@Bob McBride...Boeing is in China also. Do you think it's OK that we're locked in a race to the bottom?

Lyle, do you think I'm endorsing it? It is what it is. How does the NLRB action in any way, shape or form stop this freight train?

Serious answer, not just wishful thinking or the usual corporation bashing.

You brought up Airbus - why do you think they're building one plant for parts and built another for the assembly of the A320 in China? From what I can see, the A320 is their big seller. Do you think they're doing it just to throw the Chinese (who certainly don't need one) a bone?

Like I said Lyle, and if you think this is wrong, show me how it's wrong: Get the unions to work on organizing the Chinese labor forces. Bring them up to a level where we can compete.

The only other alternatives are to make some minimal concessions (like a prohibition against work stoppages), or just throw in the towel, close up shop here and move it all somewhere else.

That's what we're up against Lyle, that's what we've been up against since GE established the first successful light bulb factory in China (and trust me, the stuff coming out of there was defective initially as well) and it's only going to get worse.

You can't regulate, tax and penalize companies that you have no control over. Heaping on more of the same on what we have left here only makes it harder for us to compete.

Apparently, the same goes for European entities like Airbus, as well.

Let's be clear about the difference between what we have and may have in our future:
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/naomi-kleins-alternative-history-of-present-day-capitalism/

Please watch and read the very well written book that this documentary is based on. One seriously determined conservative Republican voting friend is disturbed re this history (in the book). Watching the documentary is a good first choice due to the 'real time' archived videos used.

Let's all understand people are judged by the company they keep and the Koch brother's will not be buying another election for Mr. Walker ( my hometown neighbor).
Sensebrenner is not true to his oath to represent his constituents. He's not doing his job. Any company would have fired him.

Amazing Donny. If this is correct then the decline in unions over the past 30 years by your reasoning should have enlarged the middle class during that time period, rather than the opposite.

Not at all Keith. The middle class has shrunk because Unions have killed business and sent so many jobs overseas. Simple enough. Unions were great 100 years ago. There is no need for them now. Where are jobs being created? Union-happy states?

And CEOs have not gotten obscenely wealthy off of this at all have they Donny.

Why do you defend this?

Both sides of the spectrum are making taking an overly simplistic approach to a very complicated problem. First, let's address the unions killing American business. Certainly, that is a factor. Unions for the longest time through the 60s, 70s and even into the 80s pushed onerous deals on their employers. And also put onerous constraints on who could be hired, fired and how they could be compensated. All leading to very mediocre quality in many industries(automotive being the poster child). Now let's address the other end of the spectrum: CEO pay. First, the shareholders of these companies are the ones that decide if a CEO's pay is acceptable. There has to be some value proposition there to the shareholders where, say we're paying a CEO $10M in compensation, the shareholders can project a value add to the organization >$10M. Otherwise, why do it? We have extreme and obscene examples such as GE/Jack Welch. But now look at the growth curve of GE under Jack Welch. You can make an argument that what he was paid was worth every penny(or every $100Ms as the case may be). I know the left would love to be able to legislate CEO/executive pay. That isn't happening and further, it would be a huge mistake. Organizations can and do extract competitive advantage putting the right executives in place and paying them well. Yes, it looks bad but until shareholders feel the value proposition is poor those CEO pay scales aren't going anywhere.

Globalization is simply taking away most of the union jobs that fueled the middle class. If there is someone in China or India that can do the same job for 1/10 the price well then you can guess where that job is going. You simply cannot get a high school diploma and move into a factory job that pays well these days. The factory jobs that pay well require some higher level skill, whether it be welding or other special skills. The easy pathway to the middle class is gone. Thus, you either choose to sit at the bottom and do menial labor or some other low end job(and all the wonderful benefits that come with this lifestyle choice) OR you push yourself to get an education beyond high school(and no it doesn't have to be college). This is the new global reality. As soon as everyone involved gets on this bus the better off we will be. But fighting tooth and nail for the union jobs that no longer exist is counter productive. It delays meaningful dialog that will solve the problem.

@235301...In the 1960s and 1970s the unions contributed to the wage price spiral, but it was runaway inflation. Beginning in the 1970s wage and true purchasing power fell behind the curve and have never caught up. I was active in business when all the corporate takeovers were going on in the 1980s stripping the value out of companies. This was the same period of time when companies began moving with abandonment offshore. Unions haven't been a real factor in the equation for nearly thirty years other than being large contributors to the Democratic Party.

Traditionally shareholders have depended on the board of directors to look out for their interests. As long as they received an expected ROI, they could care less what the executive staff compensation was. However, one of the biggest unpublished scandals have been the commiseration between governing boards and executives. The way the system works is they create incestuous relationships. One CEO may sit on a number of boards and the CEOs of the other companies sit on his board. It's a scam and I thought it was going to end when this finally came to light a couple of years ago. But it has continued as before. I also thought the large institutional investors would put a stop to it, but they haven't. I don't know the current ratios, but European CEOs on average make only 10 times as much as the average employee, but in the US, up to 400 times as much. It is high time capital gains is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

Donny's comments are a robo call ! ANNOYING

@Terry Burkett...
The NLRB ruling is not obscure and, if it holds, is precedent setting;it appears to reach significantly beyond the scope of any previous 'retaliation' or 'run away shop' rulings.
On tax levels and or tax cut effectiveness: Sure, we need regulations and taxes in order to operate, safely and successfully, in an industrialized world. However, we do have a significant understanding on setting tax laws to maximize government revenue; evidenced by the 1960's Kennedy playbook, Laffer Curve, and Hauser's Law.

@The Donny Show...Seems that you like to rewrite history. Get your story straight and quite promoting fallacious facts.