NLRB vs. Boeing

[guido911]

Not sure if anyone has been following this, but I found what the NLRB is attempting to do is unbelievable. First, the background:

While politicians and pundits rant and rave about acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon's decision to issue a complaint against Boeing for moving production away from a unionized facility in Washington state to a nonunion facility in South Carolina, (an understanding of the applicable law) shows this a fairly straightforward case ["Boeing vs. the NLRB: unscabbing old wounds in South Carolina," Opinion, April 25].

The National Labor Relations Act gives workers the unequivocal right to engage in concerted activity — including the right to strike. Boeing stated publicly that it was moving production away from Washington because its workers there previously went on strike and could go on strike again in the future.

Such comments amount to an admission from the company that it was intentionally retaliating against employees and trying to limit their rights — a clear affront to the law that the NLRB is charged with enforcing.

At the end of the day, what we are seeing is the agency carrying out its congressionally mandated mission to protect the right of workers to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. The agency is simply enforcing the law, providing balance and fairness for workers and businesses alike.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2014910359_nlrbcomplainsaboutboeingsmovetosouthcarolina.html


It looks like Boeing is going to fight hard, as they should since its their business--not the unions, and almost 10 state AGs are getting involved.
http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=611904

[Red Arrow]

Not sure if anyone has been following this, but I found what the NLRB is attempting to do is unbelievable.

Why do you find it unbelievable?

[guido911]

Why do you find it unbelievable?

Seriously or sarc.

[Red Arrow]

Seriously or sarc.

Seriously.  If find it to be not in the interest of either the country or Boeing but quite believable.  I expect that you should find it reprehensible, disgusting, etc but quite believable.

[guido911]

Seriously.  If find it to be not in the interest of either the country or Boeing but quite believable.  I expect that you should find it reprehensible, disgusting, etc but quite believable.

This is very serious because apparently now Obama's government can dictate the particular state where a private business can do business. I want this argument just to show the lefty love circle (save RM, Sheen, Ed, Swake, and others) defends this sort of anti-business BS crap.

[nathanm]

This is very serious because apparently now Obama's government can dictate the particular state where a private business can do business. I want this argument just to show the lefty love circle (save RM, Sheen, Ed, Swake, and others) defends this sort of anti-business BS crap.

Change the law if you don't like it, but retaliation for striking has been against the law for nearly a century. Sorry.

Weren't you the one getting pissy when Holder said the DOJ wouldn't prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries in California, or was that someone else?