Boeing Complaint: Solomon, NLRB Dig In Against Republican Critics

Facing an onslaught of criticism from Republican lawmakers and corporate interests, National Labor Relations Board acting general counsel Lafe Solomon today defended his decision to file a complaint against Boeing after the company made plans to move a production line for its new 787 Dreamliner from Washington state to South Carolina.

In the complaint filed last month, the board said Boeing's move broke the law because the company was retaliating against its Washington workers for past labor strikes. The complaint could potentially scuttle the aerospace manufacturer's plans in South Carolina and force the company to bring the assembly line back to Washington.

The NLRB move has infuriated Republicans and perhaps revealed a significant shift from the pro-management labor board of the Bush era. Last week Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that the Boeing complaint indicated the board had a pro-union "agenda" under the Obama administration. Graham cosponsored a bill he claimed would strengthen states' "right-to-work" laws and said he plans on introducing legislation that would "defund" the Boeing complaint.

"I'm afraid the NLRB has an agenda that is not healthy for the country," Graham told reporters.

Solomon fired back at his critics in a statement today, saying, "There is nothing remarkable or unprecedented about the complaint issued against the Boeing Company on April 20. The complaint involves matters of fact and law that are not unique to this case, and it was issued only after a thorough investigation in the field, a further careful review by our attorneys in Washington, and an invitation by me to the parties to present their case and discuss the possibility of a settlement."

Boeing executives have explicitly cited the strikes as a reason for moving the production line in both company documents and news interviews. Solomon recently told the New York Times that he had no choice but to file the complaint given the evidence, noting that workers' right to strike is federally protected.

On Thursday a group of 19 Republican senators sent a letter to President Obama announcing their intention to "vigorously oppose" his nominees to the labor board in light of the Boeing complaint, which they viewed as an attack on right-to-work states like South Carolina. "If the NLRB prevails, it will only encourage companies to make their investments in foreign nations, moving jobs and economic growth overseas," the letter read.

In his statement today, Solomon asked that "all interested parties respect the legal process, rather than trying to litigate this case in the media and public arena.”

Comments

[Clearbrook]

03:26 PM on 05/16/2011

Although there might be some merit *if* Boeing has any basis in making their decision as *pure* retaliation for past strikes and other "protected" rights, but that is a stretch. Granted, that is the story Solomon is trying to sell as Boeing's driving reason to open a plant in SC. You have to be pretty dim to think that will really fly very far. Even if significant portions of Americans are bamboozled, the Judges are not usually that stupid, and everyone now is suspicious of payoffs in the courts from the Unions, or improper pressure from the Feds.

An even *easier* stretch to make is that the IAM acted in *pure* retaliation when the workers in SC *decertifie­d* the union as quickly as they could according to the "rules" -- citing the union didn't represent their best interests.

IAM organized in SC when the plant first opened. The complaint had no basis *until* the *workers* themselves showed the Union Thugs the door. There *is* a right to organize that is protected. There is also a right to *not* have such organization specifically spelled out in the very same law. IAM sued only *after* they were decertified.

That very same *fact* makes it an even *further* stretch for the claim that Boeing's choice was made in retaliation, because WHY? There *was* going to be a Union there *before* the move was made, and *still* they went forward with it! Those are *facts* that Solomon will not want to have mentioned!

[Clearbrook]

02:45 PM on 05/16/2011

"...company made plans to move a production line for its new 787 Dreamliner from Washington state to South Carolina."

Sorry, but that is a pure B.S. talking point. There is *no* production of 787 currently going on to "move" to any other state (or country -- if you get the drift, oh you most slow to catch what is going down lately...) and in fact, in these dire times, Boeing has been doing some crazy stuff *for* those Unions, who obviously want *more* and can *not* suffer at all like the rest of the unwashed masses of out of work labor.

Boeing chief McNerney said Boeing's union contracts "expressly permit" the company to locate new work at its discretion. Boeing considered Everett, Wash., an attractive option for the plant, he said, and "engaged voluntarily in talks with union officials to see if we could make the business case work..." They couldn't, and North Charleston was selected as the site.

McNerney said "no existing work is being transferred to South Carolina, and not a single union member in Washington has been adversely affected by this decision. In fact, we've since added more than 2,000 union jobs there, and the hiring continues."

Supreme Court: First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB. I suggest you read it. SCOTUS found that Congress "limited the mandate or duty to bargain to matters of ‘wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.'" Solomon crossed a SCOTUS "bright line" incorrectly.

[gingerred]

01:13 PM on 05/13/2011

"The complaint could potentially scuttle the aerospace manufacturer's plans in South Carolina and force the company to bring the assembly line back to Washington. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I had any say in Boeing if I could not put it in SC it would go to Mexico or India
NOT WA and then the WA would close and move too.

[RussDole]

07:53 AM on 05/12/2011

Another example of the lie Obama makes every time he meddles with private industry... He doesn't care about "hard working" Americans unless they are union members from a blue state.

Boeing will be forced to relocate off-shore. Nice job voters. Put a community organizer in a real job & he fails miserably.

[Paul Tioxon]

09:49 AM on 05/11/2011

Boeing is the 2nd largest military contractor, receiving annual contracts in excess of $30 BILLION AND JUST RECEIVED A NEW $35 BlLLION CONTRACT for USAF REFUELING TANKERS.
If Boeing and corporations who benefit from the Uniform Commercial Code of limited corporate liability and all of the court protection for their profits can NOT provide a simple justification for their existence such as providing stable work sites without punitive retaliation against citizens of the USA then they will face the consequences. Almost half of Boeing business year in and year out is from the Federal Government, my tax dollars. Air Force One, is a Boeing Jetliner. If they can't obey the law, and stop outsourcing jobs from their home base in Seattle, then maybe they can get all of their business from the Chinese Air force. Americans are not corporate peons, especially when a business is so heavily subsidized by the government, its largest customer.

[capercaper]

02:37 PM on 05/11/2011

What Boeing employee lost a job over:

1) Their strikes [none]

2) The opening of new production lines in SC [none]

Does Boeing continue to hire union employees [yes]

Does Boeing now hire non union employees in new worksites in right to work states? [yes]

What labor law did they break?

[traceymarie]

03:58 PM on 05/11/2011

500 people in seattle will lose their jobs when the positions are eliminated and tranfered to an anti-union state.

[6079 Smith W]

12:35 AM on 05/12/2011

Why are the people in SC more worthy of jobs than people in WA?

[phydeaux2000]

08:12 PM on 05/10/2011

Yes, hate unions. I hate anything that takes away from the personal freedom of all citizens. Jobs will migrate to the lowest cost source. Drive your jobs away. Then get on the government dole for unemployment benefits and food stamps. Live like a second or third class citizen, and give up your personal freedoms, and all feelings of self worth. Become a slave of the government. You give up and foresake the sense of self worth. And, you will always be subject to the will of the people. Maybe sometimes you will feel good, and then sometimes you will feel bad. But, you will never be free again, and feel like a man. Will always be a ward of the state, and live on the toils of others.

[traceymarie]

03:59 PM on 05/11/2011

so i assume you will never let a nurse, EMT, fire fighter or police officer ever help you, right bagger.

[capercaper]

03:50 PM on 05/13/2011

That's public sector unions, a different kettle of fish.

As state govts go bust, the public sector unions will be curtailed significan­tly, either by loss of bargaining power or by loss of jobs.

[Brian Crawford]

07:47 PM on 05/10/2011

Republicans hate American workers, especially those that are unionized. I'm sure they'd ship these jobs to China too if they thought Chinese workers were capable of working with such high tech. I guess South Carolina is the next best thing.

[mwat35]

08:37 PM on 05/10/2011

"Republican­s hate American workers"

Are those South Carolinians who would work in these plants not REAL American workers?

[laura r]

05:58 PM on 05/12/2011

The GOP stands for "Grumpy Old Peoples" party. They hate everything.
I wish the sheeples would wake up and stop voting for them.

[gingerred]

01:23 PM on 05/13/2011

F&F

[phydeaux2000]

07:35 PM on 05/10/2011

Unions, and their minions, are evil. Nobody owes you anything special or different from the rest of the American people. Why should we give to you takers? Why should you deserve better wages, benifits, etc. than the rest of the American people? That is why the good jobs are going to right to work states, or even worse, offshore? Unionize the fast food resteraunts, or other low paying, low benefit jobs, and drive them out of business also.

[traceymarie]

04:00 PM on 05/11/2011

so make sure you never need a nurse, fire fighter, EMt or police officers skills and help since they are minions of the evil unions.

[capercaper]

01:18 PM on 05/13/2011

That's public sector unions, a different kettle of fish.

As state govts go bust, the public sector unions will be curtailed significantly, either by loss of bargaining power or by loss of jobs.

[Howiedodat]

04:19 PM on 05/11/2011

You are truly clueless. The question SHOULD be why should American workers accept LESS ? The jobs this Country enjoyed are be moved off shore so the corporations can make more money, no other reasons. If Boeing didn't need the "made in the USA" tag they would have been gone long ago. By the way, they don't give us a damn thing. We don't take. WE DEMAND, WE BARAGAIN, WE HAVE A AGREED TO CONTRACT THAT BOTH SIDES AGREE TO FOLLOW. SOLIDARITY !!!

[capercaper]

04:44 PM on 05/11/2011

They were moved offshore so the company could stay in business and expand, increasing their revenue and at least maintaining their profitability.

[dmurrah]

05:12 PM on 05/10/2011

Don't worry SC. This is only a complaint. Boeing will fight this to the Supreme Court if they need to. And we all know how that will go. And don't worry SC taxpayers, you will eventually get back your $170M+ investment in incentives and tax breaks given to Boeing.

[6079 Smith W]

09:16 PM on 05/12/2011

Why is labor in South Carolia more worthy of work than labor in Washington?

[capercaper]

01:05 PM on 05/13/2011

It is AS worthy, and more flexible.

[gingerred]

01:26 PM on 05/13/2011

Why is labor in Wa more worthy of work than labor in SC?

[Leah Vollmer]

02:32 PM on 05/10/2011

"I'm afraid the NLRB has an agenda that is not healthy for the country," Graham told reporters.

I'm pretty sure it's corporations & the GOP that have an agenda that's not healthy for the country.

[jestanle]

04:59 PM on 05/11/2011

Yeah that EVIL corporation trying to bring all those EVIL jobs to South Carolina......jeesh

[6079 Smith W]

09:17 PM on 05/12/2011

While not expanding jobs in Washington. Why is South Carolina labor more worthy?

[gingerred]

01:31 PM on 05/13/2011

They are REPAY THE UNIONS for the Massive Contributions to DIMS Campaign fund.
this is simply Old fashioned kickback politics.

[Liberals Are Intolerant]

01:23 PM on 05/10/2011

This is a call to battle. For the union-friendly NLRB to try and stop Boeing from building a second factory in another part of the country is outrageous. Furthermore the machinists union filing the case is clearly trying to penalize the South Carolina workers for voting to de-certify their union, which is against the law.


Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

This means that these workers have a right to not join the union. If the workers in South Carolina were union, believe me, they would not have any grounds. And that means that they are penalizing the non-union workers for decertifying. There is just no getting around this.

[dee50]

07:46 PM on 05/10/2011

Boeing is not above the law.........

[GodBlessAmerica]

10:37 PM on 05/10/2011

Actually, yes, they would still have grounds for this suit based on retaliation upon the local union. It's not where they are moving to that is at issue - that's not relevant. What's relevant is Boeing's stated - STATED! - reason for moving: to avoid and retaliate against the local union for unionizing and striking, both of which are federally protected rights.

Whether or not the law should is unfair and should be changed is a slightly different subject. The NRLB and the DOL Solicitor General have an obligation to enforce the laws as written on the books.

[capercaper]

02:44 PM on 05/11/2011

Link pls to your claim of retailiation. [HInt, there is none]

Has a single striking worker lost his/her job as a result of the strike?

Has a single Boeing worker lost their job due to the new production lines in SC?

Was the IAM allowed to organize a union in SC upon it's opening? Did they? [yes]

Did the workers decertify the union as quickly as they could under the rules, citing the union didn't represent the workers interests? [yes]

Unions fail, workers prevail.

Does the IAM (union) have an agreement with Boeing that permits Boeing can open production lines in right to work states? [yes]

[fnlook4]

12:14 PM on 05/10/2011

There are things this article doesn't discuss. 1) Boeing isn't moving any current facilities outside of Puget Sound. 2) Since Boeing made the decision to open the plant, in 2009, they have added 2,000 jobs at the Puget Sound plant. 3) There are 10 Democratic Senators that represent the right-to-work states. 4) Peter Schaumber a former chairman of the NLRB, has called the complaint "frivilous". ---- In my opinion the government doesn't have the right to tell a company where it can or can't open a plant. If the complaint is upheld and Boeing moves the line overseas, who will get the blame that big business is moving jobs overseas? I've seen a comment referring to the people in these states as illiterate. Do you know which state makes Toyotas? Do you know which state FedEx is located in? Do you know which state the USPS calls home? Please don't assume people are illiterate because of their home. Also, don't forget which state President Clinton & Carter came from. Do some research before you complain about Boeing and this complaint brought by the NLRB.

[cmr11]

12:54 PM on 05/10/2011

ummmmmmm..... you conveniently left out the part where boeing broke the law........ there.... i fixed that for you......

[fnlook4]

01:12 PM on 05/10/2011

Ahhh, but you can't dispute the items I stated. Boeing hasn't broken the law. They haven't shut down the Washington plants, only tried to open a new plant where they know they can build planes on schedule. Also don't forget that the Chairman and one other member of the NLRB are both former top union lawyers.

[Cwalshjr]

01:22 PM on 05/10/2011

Do you know that or are you just listening to the Union. It has not been proven yet.

There, I fixed that for you.

[traceymarie]

02:31 PM on 05/10/2011

wrong...They are cutting 500 jobs in Seattle and transferring them to S.C which has anti-union laws enacted to make it difficult to create a Union. Lower wages and zero benefits to the workers.

[capercaper]

02:49 PM on 05/11/2011

Silly. Check out the employment ads for Boeing in SC and the job board discussions.

Excellent bennies. Average salary $56K. Employee community discounts, including for childcare.

As for the unions in SC. IAM organized is SC when the production line first opened.

The workers decertified the union as quickly as they could according to the "rules" -- citing the union didn't represent the best interests of the workers.

[capercaper]

03:57 PM on 05/11/2011

Not true -- the layoffs are from a separate part of the business, nothing to do with the SC production line and there will be no "transfer of jobs" to SC:

Boeing Co. said Tuesday it would restructure its military aircraft business, which will lead to the loss of over 400 jobs.

The aerospace and defense company will shrink Boeing Military Aircraft to four divisions from six, eliminating its stand-alone helicopter unit and combining part of the unmanned aerial-vehicle business established last year with its missile operation.

Jim McNerney, Boeing's chairman and chief executive, said last month it would cut jobs in the defense unit, which faces growing budget pressures from the Pentagon and overseas customers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575477991008174242.html

[AmPat]

12:04 PM on 05/10/2011

This is just another pathetic overreach of the administration. Why in God's name would a compnay wnat to do business with a bunch of over entitled, self-indulgent, cry babies when they can go to a state that has people that want to actually work? Just might find some people who will take pride in the product they produce and produce a better product. Just might find some people who will take pride in having a job and instead of trying to do the least they can might actually work. I also find it very bigotted or racist to think that just because they live in South Carolina you are assuming they are uneducated compared to you know the union thugs who must have all graduated college with what masters degrees.

I cannot express my disgust at this overreach of power by this administration.

[tinwhistler]

12:36 PM on 05/10/2011

You are absolutely correct.

[cmr11]

12:56 PM on 05/10/2011

really? obama wrote a labor law that has been on the books for decades? really? man you people will go to any lengths to discredit the first black president won't you........

[fnlook4]

01:36 PM on 05/10/2011

So, who brought up the race card here? I see where they talked about the "administration" but never mentioned his color. When you were against Bush, were your views racist or did you just disagree with him. I'm not sure of others, but I disagree with the Presidents views and I could care less about his color.

[Chuckles71]

03:02 PM on 05/10/2011

R@ce C@rd....Drink! Not worry, I don't like his white-half either!

[dee50]

11:55 AM on 05/10/2011

Does anybody know what the wage is for the S.C. Workers?

[traceymarie]

02:33 PM on 05/10/2011

the research can't be definitive, but WSJ/Economist and Boeing say the wages will be between 22%-40% lower with benefits virtually zero.

[dee50]

07:50 PM on 05/10/2011

Figures....

[cowpunkrva]

06:30 AM on 05/12/2011

Cost of living is about 50% lower in South Carolina.

[Leah Vollmer]

02:35 PM on 05/10/2011

Pretty sure the wages of non-union SC workers are lower than the wages of unionized WA workers. Funny how the people who claim to be all "Pro-America" totally endorse corporations oppressing American workers.

[Chuckles71]

03:05 PM on 05/10/2011

So I guess "No Jobs" in SC is better than 2,000 jobs, right?
"oppressing American workers." just silly.....

[jestanle]

05:04 PM on 05/11/2011

So a 56K a year job is oppressed? We should all be so lucky.

[krazzicraig]

11:09 AM on 05/10/2011

There are good reasons for the Dept. of Labor . What many here do not understand is the history behind how it came to be . Some here over simplify . All here have lived their whole life under the protection of the Dept. of Labor to some degree.The issue is not about unions . Unions are not a by-product of the Dept. of Labor.