More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Leo Hindery, Jr.

GET UPDATES FROM Leo Hindery, Jr.
 

Note to Boeing's Jim McNerney: All We Are Saying Is Give the Truth -- and Your Union -- a Chance

Posted: 05/24/11 10:30 AM ET

Back in 1969, John Lennon famously wrote, "All we are saying is give peace a chance."

Well, here in May 2011, while labor peace is not always at hand, maybe we can at least give labor truth a chance. Unfortunately, telling the truth seems to be increasingly difficult for the CEOs of our multinational corporations when talking about "Making It In America" and saving and creating American jobs. And Exhibit A right now is Jim McNerney, who is the Chairman, President and CEO of the Boeing Company.

The reason I am picking on Mr. McNerney is that he is defending Boeing's decision to retaliate against its union workforce in Everett, Washington, by moving thousands of jobs to a non-union location in South Carolina, with statements that are among the most misleading and disingenuous by a major American CEO ever. And I've been around long enough to have heard a lot of statements by a lot of big company CEOs.

Compounding my dismay with Mr. McNerney is that he also happens to currently hold a very senior economic advisory position in the Obama administration as head of the President's "Export Council." He holds this position of crucial influence despite the fact that for years he's been exporting thousands of his American manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China.

The facts of this dispute are pretty simple.

As reported by Hal Weitzman and Jeremy Lemer in the Financial Times, "nineteen [Republican] Senators are threatening to block President Barack Obama's two appointments to the National Labor Relations Board...after the organisation filed a complaint last month against Boeing that seeks to force the manufacturer to transfer 787 production from the non-union factory in South Carolina to its unionised facilities in the Seattle region." The NLRB believes that Boeing selected South Carolina -- a right-to-work state -- purely in retaliation for a strike in 2008 at the Everett facility.

To attack the NLRB's conclusion, Mr. McNerney, in a preferentially placed op-ed in the Wall Street Journal , said the following (the underscoring is mine):

"We viewed Everett as an attractive option and engaged voluntarily in talks with union officials to see if we could make the business case work. Among the considerations we sought were a long-term 'no-strike clause'.

"Despite months of effort...union leaders couldn't meet expectations on our key issues.

"We hold no animus toward union members, and we have never sought to threaten or punish them for exercising their rights, as the NLRB claims. About 40% of our 155,000 U.S. employees are represented by unions - a ratio unchanged since 2003."


Now, for the truth:

  • The most important right any union has is the right to strike. Without this right, what real opportunity does it have to ensure fair and balanced treatment for workers? Thus it is at once irresponsible for McNerney to make this unreasonable demand and disingenuous for him to then say that union leaders couldn't meet his "expectations on key issues." As Christopher Corson, General Counsel of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, wrote on May 9, "In every state in our nation, the law provides important protections for individual workers when they act together to improve their work lives for themselves and their families...If retaliation were permitted, there would be no protection."
  • McNerney says that "Boeing never sought to threaten or punish [workers] for exercising their rights." Yet the NLRB based its finding on the very specific comment by Boeing executives that "avoiding strikes was a central reason for the decision."
  • Yes, "40% of Boeing's [overall] U.S. employees" today may be "represented by unions", and yes, this ratio may be "unchanged since 2003." However, in the late '60s when I was in college in Seattle and working nights as a Sheetmetal Workers journeyman, the number of Machinists and other union members working for Boeing in the greater Seattle-Everett area was around 22,000, and by the year 2000 it was around 50,000. Now just a decade later, with McNerney as CEO for the last five years, the number of union members at Boeing in the Pacific Northwest has shrunk to around 35,000, with at least 20,000 of these jobs having moved to China.
  • In just 15 years or so, using an initiative benignly called "systems integration mode of production" which entails providing foreign suppliers and overseas subsidiaries with massive amounts of business knowledge, management practices, training and other intangible exports, Boeing has gone from producing nearly 100% of its commercial aircraft and parts in America to today producing only a small fraction of that work here. The workhorse 727 airframe, launched in 1963, had just a 2% foreign content; the 777 airframe, launched in 1995, has about 30% foreign content; the new 787 Dreamliner, officially launching this year, will have nearly 70% of its manufacturing content coming from foreign sources, with workers in Everett accounting for only about 4% of each aircraft's value. This massive transfer by Boeing, and by almost every other American corporation committed to offshoring, of intellectual property that took decades to develop with internal investment and support from government-funded research laboratories will, with its massive ripple effects throughout our economy, ultimately be an even bigger 'drain' on America than even the direct offshoring of millions of American jobs over the last 15 years.


Jim McNerney's very public and cynical efforts, however, are just another egregious example of the broad opportunism that many American multinational corporation CEOs have embraced in their continuing efforts to offshore American jobs, cut the wages and benefits of the American workers whose jobs are not being shipped overseas, and, whenever they can, BUST UNIONS.

As reported by David Wessel (Wall Street Journal, 4-19-11), "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." According to the Commerce Department, these companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the last decade while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million, which is a big shift from the '90s when they added 4.4 million jobs in the U.S. and 2.7 million abroad. In just the year 2009, they cut 1.2 million, or 5.3%, of their workers in the U.S. but only 100,000, or 1.5%, of their workers abroad. Three highlights:

  • Between 2005 and 2010, General Electric, the nation's largest industrial conglomerate and #6 on the Fortune 500 list, cut 28,000 workers in the U.S. but only 1,000 workers overseas. This notwithstanding that GE's Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, now heads President Obama's "Council on Jobs and Competitiveness", which is supposed to help create jobs in the United States and not ship them overseas.
  • Cisco Systems Inc., the Fortune #62 company that makes networking gear, has also been creating jobs much more rapidly overseas. Over the past five years, it has added 21,350 employees overseas, but only 10,900 in the U.S. At the beginning of the last decade, 26% of Cisco's work force was overseas; today, around 46% is.
  • Oracle, the Fortune #96 company that makes business hardware and software, added twice as many workers overseas over the past five years as in the U.S. At the beginning of the last decade, it, like Cisco, had many more workers at home than abroad; today, however, around 63% of its employees are located overseas.


McNerney and his fellow CEOs tout many global 'differentials' as the reasons why they've been economically 'downgrading' some jobs (with moves to South Carolina and other right-to-work states) and offshoring others (to China and elsewhere). Wessel further wrote that American multinationals repeatedly say in justification that it is the "combination of the U.S. tax code, the declining state of U.S. infrastructure, the quality of the country's education system, and barriers to the immigration of skilled workers [that is] making the U.S. less attractive to multinationals." Yet it is these very multinationals which every day support and maintain these differentials by:

  • Fighting to preserve the corporate tax practices that favor overseas earnings and employees (read "The Tax Man Cometh - Just Not For Everybody");
  • Resisting efforts to couple government infrastructure investments with 'Made in America' requirements that are no more demanding than every other member of the G-20 has for its own infrastructure investing;
  • Fighting the adoption of our own Manufacturing & Industrial Policy, which we need in order to compete with the mercantilist practices of our major trading partners, often by blaming the relatively poor state of American public school education, which, while of grave concern, has absolutely no correlation; and
  • Manipulating our immigration practices so that these companies can continue to hire employees from India, Taiwan and China at the expense of qualified American job seekers.


At the end of the day, as I noted earlier, what's really going on here is a massive, nation-wide attempt to bust unions in order to further enrich our nation's multinational corporations. Yet this is happening at precisely the point in time when the United States needs millions more, not millions fewer, union jobs in order to stabilize our middle class.

For our country to be ascendant again, American workers everywhere -- at Boeing and hundreds of other major corporations -- must be treated as the highly skilled, enormously productive and wealth-producing 'assets' they are. We need more union-made quality goods to sell abroad and many more union paychecks producing fair incomes here at home if we are to grow ourselves out of the dismal ongoing jobless recovery we are experiencing.

Expanding union membership will be one of the surest signposts on the road back to a vibrant, consuming middle class, more income equality, and fairness in employment. And when we have all of this again, along with fairer trade practices, our nation will prosper as it did for the half century before unfair globalization and union-busting practices began to run amok twenty or so years ago.

In all of our manufacturing industries -- not just in aircraft manufacturing -- we must ensure that American workers compete on level-playing fields. Right now, however, our workers are forced to compete against foreign workers, many of whom work for American multinational corporations, who are the indirect beneficiaries of illegal subsidies, massive currency manipulation and shameful environmental practices that swamp any measure of true country 'comparative advantage'. All the while here at home, with very limited mobility in general but especially in this distressed economy, workers must confront the enormous power that multinational corporations' almost unlimited geographic, capital and technology mobility gives them.

The members of America's unions are skilled, resilient and tenacious. They did not win the 40-hour work week, benefits and safer working conditions in one fell swoop. These integral pathways and others to the middle class lifestyle -- a lifestyle that is now being challenged in so many of our cities and towns -- were hammered out over years of negotiations with very powerful corporations. And sometimes these women and men had to strike to ensure fair dealing. But in exchange for their skills, hard work and productivity, these unionized workers produce real wealth that's been shared for generations across our entire economy and society.

I can't envision a day when unions don't represent the best path to fair and balanced dealing between companies and workers, for without union voices workers have little or no say in their future. And no worker anywhere should have to work without organizing protections, which is why Jim McNerney's and Boeing's demand that Boeing workers now agree to "a long-term no-strike clause" is so obviously unfair.

Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.

 

Follow Leo Hindery, Jr. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/leohindery

 
 
  • Comments
  • 105
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
04:17 AM on 05/28/2011
Dear Mr. McNerney,

How's that outsourcing of American union jobs on the 787 (Seven Late Seven) "Nightmareliner " working out for you, Sir?

For over five decades Boeing's highly productive and innovative "unionized" workforce in the Pacific NorthWest created the greatest commercial airliners the mankind had ever flown.
I was fortunate to have commanded every one of those magnificent flying machines during my 40 year commercial career as an airline pilot.

Then greed, right wing extremism and stupidity took over the Boeing's Boardroom in Chicago.
In order to destroy the unions on the property they totally outsourced the design and manufacturing of their newest state of the art creation overseas!

The extremely educated, tech savvy and productive workers in Washington State agreed to match every Penny of those so called savings to the company in wage reductions and productivity increases in order to preserve American jobs in America. The vindictive and hardline management refused to listen. They literarily drove the unions into a costly strike.
The rest is a sad story at once a proud American manufacturing company. Despite the fantastic enthusiasm and reception by the customer airlines, 787 may go the same route Concord traveled. I suspect it may even take Boeing down with it!

I just wonder if it was such a great idea, Mr. McNerney?

Captain Ross "Rusty" Aimer
UAL Ret.
ATP B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707/DC-10/-9/-8/EMB-500
07:19 PM on 05/27/2011
If S.C did not vote out the union they would have never moved the plant there...not a good move S.C you will pay for it in the end.
04:34 PM on 05/26/2011
Um, he's not moving jobs - he's creating new jobs.

Isn't this what we want business to do?
redonthehead
Winning trophies for my game face alone
03:12 PM on 05/25/2011
I couldn't find the spot in this article discussing how much the strike cost Boeing or it's shareholders. I guess that's not important. I couldn't find the part discussing how much money Boeing is saving by moving part of it's operation to South Carolina. I guess that's not important either. Perhaps these unions are figuring that they will bankrupt Boeing like UAW did to GM and Chrysler and ultimately end up owning the company.
02:38 PM on 05/25/2011
Many comments here are reflective of what's good for business, and only business, with very few that speak to what is good for America and its citizens.

Real Patriots understand that American Citizens are far more important than some multinational corporation that cares only for bottom lines and members of the Board.

Unions have not lost their place, in fact, they are needed now more than ever. We are turning into the Mexico for Europe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Skeptical Patriot
08:37 AM on 05/25/2011
The author uses off shore outsourcing as justification to bash a move between locations in the US. That aside, I have see no evidence that unions have contributed to employment success in any competitive industries or assisted in growth industries in this country. Quite the contrary unions have made short-sighted demands that have resulted in companies becoming less competitive and ultimately resulting in the demise of entire industries. From auto to textiles, unions have hastened job loss. Further in virtually any competitive growth industry from Intel, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, to biotech companies, unions have not been a part of the innovation cycle of the industries. It is only in gov't where or in monopoly industries where unions can impose unfavorable cost structures.
08:17 AM on 05/25/2011
Correct me if I'm wrong, But South Carolina is a part of the United States. Apparently this author, in his effort to condem Boeing, he has forgotten that Boeing could have moved their plant overseas. At least we (the U.S.) didn't lose those jobs all together!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Republican = FAIL
12:37 PM on 05/25/2011
They couldn't move the plants overseas and retain Government contracts.

South Carolina is a 'right to work' state.

The author is spot on with his comments.
07:41 AM on 05/25/2011
Boeing has hired more workers in washington state factory after the strike. This most not be important as it was not in the article. Boeing built a plant in south carolina, last I checked that was still a state. NLRB have a member that was the lawyer for seiu. This is to be a non bias organization but now trys to keep companies from building in right to work states. Should the country divide in to two countries so the states that have right to work are not discriminated against. What one states choose as right to work should not be penalized by democrats for union donations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Republican = FAIL
12:38 PM on 05/25/2011
This won't be allowed to stand.

Boeing violated long held promises to its workers.

This undermines every worker in the United States. Where's your patriotism?
02:10 PM on 05/26/2011
Unfortunately, the author isn't being truthful. Boeing isn't moving jobs to SC, they are adding jobs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
benfunks
04:32 PM on 05/26/2011
How does hiring 2000 more workers under a negotiated contract violate promises to its workers. Boeing didn't fire anyone. It just decided that instead of hiring 8000 more people in WA, it would split that new hire into two locations.

If it was arguing that it located it's second plant in South Carolina to diversify against the risk of a West Coast earthquake, or volcano would there be a problem?

The NLRB went way too far, and I support unions.
photo
Liberals Are Intolerant
fiscal conservative, social libertarian
12:34 AM on 05/25/2011
What a ridiculous article.
First- the Boeing case- the machinists union is clearly retaliating against the now non-union workers in the SC plant, since they voted to DECERTIFY the union. Just as Boeing retailating against their union workers striking is illegal, so is the union retaliating against their former workers who voted to recertify them.

That aside, unions no longer "represent the best path to fair and balanced dealing between companies and workers, for without union voices workers have little or no say in their future. " How anyone, even the most hardened union member, could think that in 2011 unions could represent a fair and balanced dealing between companies and workers. They have become a hijacker that takes over their employers with legal backing and thuggery.

As a manufacturing engineer, after seeing the two unions in action at my last two jobs, I will continue to speak out against them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Republican = FAIL
12:39 PM on 05/25/2011
Your username and avatar say it all.
11:11 PM on 05/24/2011
The writer forgot to mention what the unions bring to the table. They want big salaries and big benefits but are unwilling to do anything in return. Apparently the unions haven't been told that the world now has a global economy.

The sad reality is unions will cure (disappear) themselves. The question remains how many companies will they take with them during the process.
10:58 PM on 05/24/2011
Are South Carolina jobs not American jobs? Same old union nonsense.
photo
William1950
everything I say could be wrong
10:41 PM on 05/24/2011
For any working person to be anti union is crazy... look at the average wage in the so called "right to work" states... they are around seven thousand thousand dollars less.. all of them. That is the wage for hourly workers.. and at the same time, big corporate profits are at the highest they have EVER been... I take some heat here for saying this, but look at the facts.. Right to work (for less) states tend to have lower education metrics.. worse health states.. lower life expectancy, higher crime... now I am not saying that unions are the answer to all of that, but there is a corelation to be made.
Companies want nothing more than to increase profits.. and that in itself is good cause that is why they are in business, understood... but if they do not pay their workers- who with their skill and comitment enable the profit to be made - enough to live on.. enough to save a few bucks and send the kids to school then the whole economy will see the effects.. Union workers historically have been the highest skilled and most productive and have been instrumental in many safety and work practices that we all take for granted today..
now it seems many folks would like to see the standard of living shrink to the lowest denominator, rather that seeing all rise..
10:59 PM on 05/24/2011
Uh, William? The competition is no longer "right to work" states.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:19 PM on 05/24/2011
From the article: , "Compounding my dismay with Mr. McNerney is that he also happens to currently hold a very senior economic advisory position in the Obama administration as head of the President's "Export Council." He holds this position of crucial influence despite the fact that for years he's been exporting thousands of his American manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China."

It seems there is a decidedly un-American slant to Obama's advisory panel when you add in Jeffery Imelt of GE, who exports jobs from America quicker than a cat can do what's natural for cats to do.

The coincidence of these mens corporate memberships in the CFR, my favorite (not !) globalist Governance slam the door on freedoms and prosperity group is surly just that, a mere coincidence.
So what they represent corporate powers of the MIC, it's only right that Obama hand picked these stalwarts of industry to lead his blue ribbon panel on job creation.

Unions, whom I feel should exist on a local employee/ employer level are angry because a Freeman no long HAS to join to have a job. But a Union does make the employer more likely to play fair, or at least they did at one time.

Neither Imelt, nor McNerney have sterling reputations as jobs builders, Imelts GE has lost nearly 30,000 American jobs this year alone. One wonders what Obama is thinking, and that adds to the wonder, Who's really the boss?
photo
William1950
everything I say could be wrong
10:45 PM on 05/24/2011
Who indeed is really the boss?... I'll give you a hint.. follow the money of the lobbyists who are writing many of our laws, follow the money that is paid into the campaign funds of democrats and republicans alike.. We like to paint our differences in swaths of red and blue.. when our real enemy is painting in one shade of green...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hrpmap
Retired man still active..
08:34 PM on 05/24/2011
Give truth a chance? Okay! Boeing isn't laying off or replacing ay of  their Washington employyes, in fact they are hiring another 3K here. The fact that the unions are trying spin it otherwise is deceitful.
09:11 PM on 05/24/2011
Plus he leaves out a bunch of the facts. Like they were still planning on building it there. Boeing was just opening up a second plant for assembly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fgbouman
Curmudgeon & Designer
07:32 PM on 05/24/2011
Employees of private organizations, having no opportunity of affecting their destinies via the ballot box, must be given a constitutional right to organize and strike, one that overrides state "right to work" laws. Unions aren't always judicious in the use of this power but it is very easy to make the case that the leaders of private organizations have been far less judicious and have caused far more damage than any non-public sector union ever has.
T-Haight
What was wrong with federalism?
08:49 PM on 05/24/2011
Good luck with that. You need 37 states to agree to a constitutional amendment (3/4 of the states). 22 states currently have right-to-work laws, making it only 28 states for your amendment.

Odds don't look good for you.
11:15 PM on 05/24/2011
They affect their destinies by be hard working, safe and productive employees. In other words, they excel at what they were hired to do.

Doubtful we will ever see hard working union memebers.