Now when you hear the words “Right to Work”, what comes to mind?
The right to work at any job no matter what age, sex, race, religion, etc. etc.? Or, as to the liberals, the right to work as long as you belong to a union?
Well it seems to our “friends” in Washington (who claim to want to create jobs) may stop job creation in South Carolina, a Right to Work state. South Carolina protects workers’ rights not to join a union nor to financially support a union (and their political cronies in Washington).
Boeing is a great American company. Recently it built a SECOND production line for its 787 Dreamliner aircraft in South Carolina, creating over 1000 jobs there so far. The other production line is in Washington State. But the National Labor Relations Board, created in 1935, has taken exception to this decision by Boeing. Washington state does not support the workers’ rights as does South Carolina. The general counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This favorable decision (to the unions) would be an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that would appear on its face “un-American”. But it is an act long in the making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom. What is it called when the government controls the means of production? But I digress…..
It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in America. Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the AFL wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of the worker”. Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can “suggest” or “recommend”, but the “cannot command one man in America to do anything”.
Just after WWI, Gompers opposed various government mandates being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain provisions for manual labors and other select groups of workers: “The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.
Fortunately, there are signs that voters are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism. As we have seen in Wisconsin and Ohio, the state legislators have revoked compulsory powers of government union bosses. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and unconstitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s SC plant is sure to strike fair-minded Americans as what it is – a blatant power grab and its ability to determine where private companies can locate. The attempts by the pResident and the Democrat Congess (before 2010 elections) at passing card-check and eliminating the unionizing secret ballot was another attempt at grabbing power for their special interest group cronies.
All American workers in all 50 states should be granted the full freedom to associate and not to associate in the area of union membership.
Blogs For Victory 
boeing to union goons and their govt lapdogs.
S. Carolina,
OR Mexico for the ENTIRE operation………your choice.
NEXT?
How about if every state just becomes a “right to work” state? Or as I prefer to call it, a “right to join” state. That way, unions can compete for membership, rather than mandating membership. If union membership was everything liberals, and union bosses, claim it to be, wouldn’t everyone want to belong to a union?
Any guesses on Boeing’s biggest customer by far?
Any guesses who makes up the true sales force for Boeing?
Hundreds of cables from WikiLeaks reveal that Boeing had a leg up in its corporate rivalry with European competitor Airbus in the form of a sales force of U.S. diplomats that went up to the highest level of government. Like other WikiLeaks cables, these don’t offer much of a surprise. But they do unveil the extent to which diplomats act as de facto marketers, sweetening deals with letters from the president and state visits and a willingness to trick out planes.
There is a complex relationship between Boeing and the government which can’t be reduced to TiredofcomplexsituationsLibbs facile remark
“This favorable decision (to the unions) would be an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that would appear on its face “un-American”
Inevitably the unions will be completely defanged and a right wing talking point will die. Can’t wait until everyone in the world has a right to work and the American consumer can benefit from the increased standard of livings which will certainly accompany the competition.
Wow, all over the place again. More verbage that is so irrelevant to the topic it is ridiculous.
What does the “diplomatic sales force” have to do with the government perhaps dictating where Boeing can locate a plant in favor of a special interest group (not to mention very large campaign contributors)?
Nothing. Why do you deem it necessary to deflect from the topic.
You imply that Boeing is a typical run of the mill company that wants to move to SC and so the government has no business dictating where Boeing can locate a plant.
Bluntly put, without the US military buying planes during downturns in the economy, Boeing would not exist. A company that wouldn’t exist without government contracts is not a run of the mill company. A company that needs to US diplomats to offer White House visits as perks in a sales negotiation is not a run of the mill company.
All the bluster is really about a GOP politician trying to bring jobs to his state of SC in exchange for Boeing being able to reduce its labor costs. Nothing deep is involved. That doesn’t sound so convincing so a talking point is made up about ‘right to work’ blah blah blah.
I say let SC have the jobs.
Ah—“IMPLYING”
In other words, dolf is imagining things again and then trying to fit his fantasy world into the real world, ending up all tangled in his own inventions.
That’s OK–it’s just dolf, dolfing again.
The rest of us can address what was actually SAID, without benefit of imaginary statements never made. It really is so much easier that way.
The real issue is the United States government, currently in office due in very large part to union support and contributions, using its power and authority to interfere in the operations of a private business to benefit those same unions.
And it is wrong.
But then stripping equity ownership in GM from stockholders to hand over to unions was wrong, too, and they got away with that.
Amazona Dictionary
“Great American company” – n. a company which is largely dependent on the US government for a major source of its revenues.
Amazona in Wonderland
“the United States government, currently in office due in very large part to union support and contributions, using its power and authority to interfere in the operations of a private business to benefit those same unions.”
1. The GOP controls the congress
2. OBama is president because Bush got the US into 2 wars, drove the economy into the ground and GOP put forth McLame
Given that the GOP hates the unions as evidenced on the blog, why would the unions give a dime to the GOP?
As GMB might say, I’m not afraid of the collapse of what little is left of the unions. AFSCME, NEA, SEIU are paper tigers which can be tossed aside at any time via budget cuts.
“Great American company” – n. a company which is largely dependent on the US government for a major source of its revenues.
Dolf, you don’t seem to have the faintest clue as to how business operates. My company is a tiny fraction of the size of Boeing, but I recently went through something similar, albeit from a different angle. My largest single customer until two years ago purchased a proprietary product from me that was essential to their operation. The manufacturer I represent discontinued the product, and there was no replacement — 30% of my business down the toilet in the blink of an eye. I went out and knocked on some doors, drummed up additional business; my old customer retooled the way they did things, and life went on.
Currently, 25% of my business is with county governments in Indiana. If that business went away tomorrow, I’d find new customers to replace it. If Boeing’s government business went away, they might have to get leaner and meaner, but they’d survive. They’d probably tell the NLRB to pound sand (at least that’s what I’d do) and close the plant in Washington in favor of the S.C. plant.
Spook
It is precisely because your company is small that it is not comparable to a behemoth like Boeing. It is a quasi-religious belief that Boeing would survive without government funding by becoming leaner and meaner. Companies go out of business all the time as the result of a single large customer dropping orders. Do you deny that?
This hypocrisy of taking government contracts or subsidies and then complaining about government rules and interventions is getting old. It’s like food stamp people complaining they can’t use them for alcohol. Well, duh, they’re called FOOD stamps.
“Great American company” – n. a company which is largely dependent on the US government for a major source of its revenues.
This is cattily labeled as coming from the Amazona Dictionary, yet I have never called Boeing a “great American company” and it is Boeing, and its relationship with the government, that has dolf so disturbed. I don’t think I have ever called any company a “great American company”. dolf does enjoy the freedom of just inventing his own facts, doesn’t he?
He goes on to whimper about a comment I made, trying, I guess, to demean it by claiming it comes from “Amazona in Wonderland”. What did I say?
The real issue is (which dolf left out..) the United States government, currently in office due in very large part to union support and contributions, using its power and authority to interfere in the operations of a private business to benefit those same unions.”
Yet after a childish simpering about this being proof, I guess, of “Amazona in Wonderland” he doesn’t say a thing to rebut my statement. I guess he is starting to recognize facts even when he doesn’t like them.
Then there is some odd unrelated stuff, but my favorite is:
The GOP controls the congress
Fascinating stuff. I wonder how the GOP controls the Senate. Secret brain waves? Hypnotic messages buried in everything that goes through the speaker systems?
“Any guesses on Boeing’s biggest customer by far?”
Any idea why this is supposed to be relevant to the topic of whether or not the company should be allowed to operate wherever it wants to?
<i. Any guesses who makes up the true sales force for Boeing?"
Again—-?????
There is a complex relationship between the government and any international business.
And who cares if American diplomats facilitate American business over foreign companies?
And what does that kind of facilitation abroad have to do with the government interfering with business to benefit unions?
Amy
There are laws in this country that people/companies have to obey even if they don’t like them.
On April 20, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board’s Acting General Counsel issued a complaint against the Boeing Company, alleging that the company’s decision to assemble large commercial aircraft (787 Dreamliners) at a new final assembly plant in South Carolina violated the National Labor Relations Act.
See the allegation is that Boeing is violating a law. If Boeing isn’t violating the law it can be decided in court. If people don’t like the law they can overturn it via a democratic process.
I know you’re wondering why the government should be interested in people obeying the law. I wonder why the government should shill for a private business.
Well, dolf has actually stumbled upon an actual fact for a change. There are laws in this country that people/companies have to obey even if they don’t like them.
Good for you, dolf! (BTW, he calls me Amy but denies that he says that is my name.)
Anyway, now you can start to work on the fact that a NLRB opinion is not a law.
Ouch.
Nope, it’s just an allegation.
What you “know” about my attitude toward the government and the law is no more accurate or relevant than any of your other wild fantasies.
As for “shilling for a private business” maybe—just maybe—there is a feeling in at least some levels of government that bringing business to the United States instead of letting it slip away to foreign companies might be a good thing.
OR….we could let Airbus prevail and then send dollars out of the country to buy their product. Maybe that would satisfy your personal grudge against Boeing.
Amazona
I don’t know your ‘real name’ thank goodness. I know your pen name is Amazona. Amy for short. Like dolf.
If there is no law that Boeing might potentially be violating they should proceed with haste. Why the thread on B4V at all? But Amazona digresses.
You really have a tin ear for sarcasm. I’ll take the blame on assuming too much from you. I should assume you don’t know anything. I could play the Lib who thinks you’re a hillbilly cracker if that fits into your little box.
Finally, the job of the government is to govern. Not to babysit individuals like a nanny state. Not to do PR for companies. It is to govern. You really need to distinguish yourself more from the looters who are ruining this country.
Finally, the job of the government is to govern,not to act as enforcer for unions to force companies to knuckle under so they can retain their stranglehold on those businesses.
Even when those unions donate millions to the current administration and provide muscle of their own when uppity citizens act like they actually have some Constitutional right to free assembly and freedom of speech.
Part of the job of governing is to enforce laws. It’s called law enforcement. Regulations like health codes are meant to protect people not to put companies out of business. If a restaurant can’t stay in business without violating health codes or paying below minimum wage to its employees it is not a business. If Boeing is not breaking a law then the government has nothing to ‘enforce’.
Union muscle? Someone needs to take a closer look at the actual members of AFSCME, SEIU and the NEA and turn off the black and white TV. Union membership in manufacturing companies (not the service sector) has gone from 40% to 7% in two generations.
Great excerpt from the sycophantic media:
JOE KLEIN: And, and, when he says things like “Eat your peas,” that’s language Americans can understand.
KELLY O’DONNELL, NBC NEWS: People do like that.
KLEIN: The real important thing to understand about the whole debt ceiling business is that no one in America really knows what it means and they care less about it. They care about the economy and jobs.
BORGER: Well, they care about Social Security.
KLEIN: He seems to be a guy who’s trying to do, well they don’t understand that’s a consequence. They didn’t understand it until this week.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/17/times-joe-klein-obamas-winning-debt-ceiling-debate-americans-understa#ixzz1SOXwEKRN
So, according to our liberal pundits, Americans are so stupid, that dumbed down language is all they can understand, forget about complexities like social security checks. That’s a concept far above their grasp.
And this is how they think they will win 2012?
And rilly, Kelly,what does national debt have to with the economy? And, like, rilly, what does the economy have to with jobs?
And, you know, Obama is just trying to do, well, they don’t understand.
What a brilliant synopsis of what passes for political discourse on the Left.
rilly? You have a tin ear fer sure.
Maybe a refresher course in creative writing from Bozeman community college is in order. Reeeeely would be the proper terminology.
Meow
What is the defined role of a diplomat? What are the parameters of diplomatic duties? What restrictions are there on diplomatic duties? What restrictions are there on activities of diplomats outside their professional scope?
Is there anything in the description of the duties of a diplomat which would restrict him or her from trying to advance national economic interests, such as trying to promote a multi-billion-dollar American company over a foreign business interest?
Is there something inherently wrong with having representatives of the United States promoting American interests abroad? Can it be determined that attempting to have foreign dollars spent in American business should be discouraged?
Is there possibly any relationship between business with American companies and other relationships which are connected with international diplomacy?
Is there any possible downside to designing American military aircraft, to highly confidential and even top secret criteria, and then releasing these specifications to foreign nations so they can build those aircraft for us?
Is it unreasonable to believe that there is a benefit to keeping top secret military data confined to domestic companies instead of being released to foreign companies?
Can it reasonably be determined that there is an element of national security involved in keeping such top secret and proprietary information and specifications closely held in carefully vetted domestic companies, with direct military and government oversight capabilities?
Can it reasonably be determined that such national security interests might intersect with the duties of American diplomatic personnel?
What is the actual ratio of commercial/private to government contracts with Boeing?
What is the acceptable ratio?
If Boeing did not get these government contracts, who would?
I see dolf dropped in but managed to ignore my questions.
Is there anything in the description of the duties of a diplomat which would restrict him or her from trying to advance national economic interests, such as trying to promote a multi-billion-dollar American company over a foreign business interest?
Depends on your definition of ‘national economic interests’.
Is there something inherently wrong with having representatives of the United States promoting American interests abroad? Can it be determined that attempting to have foreign dollars spent in American business should be discouraged?
Again, depends on your definition of ‘American interests’. I would expect weapons sales might help some American business but get US soldiers killed later.
Is there possibly any relationship between business with American companies and other relationships which are connected with international diplomacy?
I think your friends from South America would be willing to answer that one for you.
Is there any possible downside to designing American military aircraft, to highly confidential and even top secret criteria, and then releasing these specifications to foreign nations so they can build those aircraft for us?
We could just buy French aircraft if you prefer.
Is it unreasonable to believe that there is a benefit to keeping top secret military data confined to domestic companies instead of being released to foreign companies?
We are selling F/18’s to Brazil and lots of other countries. You don’t need to worry about the James Bond stuff. 9/11 was executed with box cutters. No country is planning a military assault on US interests. Terrorists aren’t buying what Boeing is selling.
Can it reasonably be determined that there is an element of national security involved in keeping such top secret and proprietary information and specifications closely held in carefully vetted domestic companies, with direct military and government oversight capabilities?
Again, no need to bring up the spy vs. spy scenarios. Boeing is using governmental officials as top notch salesmen. Shouldn’t they pay for their sales force?
What is the actual ratio of commercial/private to government contracts with Boeing?
Depends on the state of the economy. Strange that the saying the ‘customer is always right’ doesn’t apply when the customers are the taxpayers.
What is the acceptable ratio?
If Boeing doesn’t have to follow federal law the acceptable ratio is zero. If men don’t register with selective service they don’t get financial aid.
If Boeing did not get these government contracts, who would?
These contracts aren’t filling a pressing need necessarily. It is like saying if person X wasn’t designing the Obamacare plan who would?
In truth Right To Work really means ,…The right to work for substandard wages, with no benefits. Big Business along with entities like the KOCH BROS have been trying to destroy unions for years.
Primary reason?
Out of the top 10 contributors to political campaigns
only 3 are unions and contribute to the Dems. If they bust the unions there is no competition for the Republicans. They will OWN every election.
Wages for the non union worker in America have been FLAT for 30 years.
Unions gave us 5 day work week. Over time, health care, vacation time, and sick leave.
When union jobs are gone minimum wages will be gone too.
They want desperate people working for 4.00 per hour.
Right To Work Means Right to Work for SLAVE WAGES.
baldork
Those who CAN….DO
those who CANT…..TEACH
what is it YOU “do” again??
Neoconehead
Currently, I am being paid to do research in numerical analysis. The teaching doesn’t start again until the Fall.
I am being paid to do research in numerical analysis
a fake “job” for a loser.
johnShead
When union jobs are gone minimum wages will be gone too.
They want desperate people working for 4.00 per hour.
BS
I have worked both sides guess who I had to get a lawyer and fight for a tiny pension from????
The UNION;
a bunch of racketeering thieves,
nothing but a non tax paying corporation of the mafia and money laundering machine for the communist party/democrats..
If what you are saying is true then you worked for a bad company like most non-union companies are. Unfortunately this one was union, probably trying to get rid of the union because they are too cheap to pay real wages.
The real mafia lies within the Republican fascist party know as the “tea party” who’s non tax paying corporations are trying to get rid of minimum wage due to their greed to pay worker practically nothing to work for them. While putting in regulations that hurt small businesses.
Wow. Now I see an example of the rhetoric used in rabble-rousing.
SLAAAAAAVVE WAAAGES !!!!
(“Wages for the non union worker in America have been FLAT for 30 years.” Yet union membership is going down. Hmmmm.)
That’s the point, when you have unions you have higher wages, without unions, the Wages are like they’ve been for 30 years. Low.
But what’s really interesting is the admission that unions will fail and be “busted” if people are not FORCED to join them.
And who knew the right to work without belonging to a union would somehow, magically, repeal the Minimum Wage LAWS ?
With these Republican goons in running a muck in the house anything bad is possible.
And let’s be more like John S and pretend that union greed, thuggery, graft and corruption have had nothing to do with the growing disgust for them.
Nah, how could THOSE make any difference?
It HAS to be Republican chicanery and the Republican desire to ENSLAAAAAAAVE the poor mindless sheeple who make up the American work force.
What a proper gander. Where is the evidence for a GROWING disgust for unions? We know the GOP has always been disgusted and ready to demonize the eeeeevil unions.
Just curious, is it the service unions that people are becoming disgusted with or the manufacturing unions or both?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-seiu-intimidation-manual-uncovered-detailing-unions-dirty-tactics/
you mean these GOONS?
Read your hyperlink, neocon1 the real story they are leaving out is that workers are reluctant to form a union at work because of the fear of termination. Thank God for organizations like SEIU for stepping in and giving employees a fighting chance.
The case in the NLRB has nothing to do with right to work. The case is about the right to strike. It is against the law to threaten retaliation if a group goes on strike. The case is about a claim made by the Union that Boeing threatened to remove the work to another location if the Union went on strike. The Union did go on strike and the work was relocated.
The case against Boeing would be the same whether the work went to a right to work state or the Moon.