IDBillzFan Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 If they were TRULY making this move for reasons other than a retaliation against unionized workers in Washington State for striking. Although, they already did say that they were worried about production and striking. This is why everything you write on this topic is considered whining. Is Boeing doing this just to bust balls (retaliation), or because striking workers cost Boeing billions of dollars and this is a way to avoid that headache in the future? Here's a great article by George Will that spells it out. Yeah, I know. George Will. But some of what he says is absolute fact and should help clamp your piehole with the whining. The NLRB complaint fictitiously says Boeing has decided to “remove” or “transfer” work from Washington. Actually, Boeing has so far added more than 2,000 workers in Washington, where planned production — seven 787s a month, full capacity for that facility — will not be reduced. Besides, how can locating a new plant here violate the rights of IAM members whose collective bargaining agreement with Boeing gives the company the right to locate new production facilities where it deems best? The NLRB says that Boeing has come here “because” IAM strikes have disrupted production and “to discourage” future strikes. Since 1995, IAM has stopped Boeing’s production in three of five labor negotiations, including a 58-day walkout in 2008 that cost the company $1.8 billion and a diminished reputation with customers. The NLRB uses meretricious editing of Boeing officials’ remarks to falsely suggest that anti-union animus motivated the company to locate some production in a right-to-work state. Anyway, it is settled law that companies can consider past strikes when making business decisions to diminish the risk of future disruptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 This is why everything you write on this topic is considered whining. Is Boeing doing this just to bust balls (retaliation), or because striking workers cost Boeing billions of dollars and this is a way to avoid that headache in the future? Here's a great article by George Will that spells it out. Yeah, I know. George Will. But some of what he says is absolute fact and should help clamp your piehole with the whining. When I was whining? If boeing isn't negotiating in good faith when contracts come up, yeah that can cause problems. Even though you would never believe me, no one wants to strike. It's not good for either party. Interesting Article. You may enjoy this one as well. Read on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 When I was whining? If boeing isn't negotiating in good faith when contracts come up, yeah that can cause problems. Even though you would never believe me, no one wants to strike. It's not good for either party. Interesting Article. You may enjoy this one as well. Read on. They asked the union to bring them a deal. The union brought them a deal. It fell short. Union lost. Boeing goes to right-to-work state. And somehow this is Boeing's fault. Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) They asked the union to bring them a deal. The union brought them a deal. It fell short. Union lost. Boeing goes to right-to-work state. And somehow this is Boeing's fault. Awesome. The deal they wanted was a no strike deal, a deal where wages and benefits would have been extremely limited if not frozen for years. Again, negotiating in good faith. When was I whining again? You seem to be the one whining. Edited May 16, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 The deal they wanted was a no strike deal, a deal where wages and benefits would have been extremely limited if not frozen for years. Again, negotiating in good faith. When was I whining again? You seem to be the one whining. So, Boeing has a plant in Washington State. They open up another plant in South Carolina to handle the need of increased production. They also hire 2000 more employees for the Washington State plant. The NLRB sues them because they can use the SC plant as leverage in case they can't make a deal with the union in Washington State? Who do you think this hurts?If I was starting up a company I would never locate it in a state that was not a right to work state. If I located it in Washington State for example I would be afraid I could never set up an additional operation in a right to work state if I so desired. So who gets hurt? Union states do. BS like this is what helps to drive business from this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 So, Boeing has a plant in Washington State. They open up another plant in South Carolina to handle the need of increased production. They also hire 2000 more employees for the Washington State plant. The NLRB sues them because they can use the SC plant as leverage in case they can't make a deal with the union in Washington State? Who do you think this hurts?If I was starting up a company I would never locate it in a state that was not a right to work state. If I located it in Washington State for example I would be afraid I could never set up an additional operation in a right to work state if I so desired. So who gets hurt? Union states do. BS like this is what helps to drive business from this country. This has nothing to do with the reason why companies are leaving the US. Union or not companies are using ridiculously cheap labor overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 This has nothing to do with the reason why companies are leaving the US. Union or not companies are using ridiculously cheap labor overseas. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAHHAAHaHAHA!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 This has nothing to do with the reason why companies are leaving the US. Union or not companies are using ridiculously cheap labor overseas. That because policies that hurt business have no consequences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAHHAAHaHAHA!!!!! awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 The deal they wanted was a no strike deal, a deal where wages and benefits would have been extremely limited if not frozen for years. Again, negotiating in good faith. When was I whining again? You seem to be the one whining. Look, people and companies lose deals all the time. It happens every single day in the business world. To that end, the union lost this deal. In any OTHER world, that's the end of the story and the loser would pick themselves up, dust themselves off, learn from the loss and move on to the next battle. But no. Not unions. When a union loses, it's not the end, but the beginning of a new fight. Remember what happened when the state of California was cutting wages and bennies to balance the budget a couple of years ago? SEIU cried and whined so loudly that the WH actually threatened California: exempt the unions or you get no stimulus money. Remember? So California had to spend time, money and energy to visit the WH and explain what they were doing, and in the end the same result came about (SEIU lost, state got its stimulus money)...only it cost everyone unbudgeted time and money because unions never know how to just lose graciously. They always have to ensure a few other bodies get wrecked in the process. Fast forward to the Boeing isue. Boeing works with the union. The union loses. Does the union, like millions of other companies every day, say "Well, we lost. Time to move on to the next job?" No. They cry and whine and throw a temper tantrum until the NLRB gets involved. And once again, instead of losing graciously, NLRB forces Boeing to spend more money, time and effort just to end up in the exact same place it was when it decided to move operations to SC. Whinyass sore-losing crybabies. Every last one of you. It's no wonder you all get united; individually you couldn't last 10 minutes in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 This has nothing to do with the reason why companies are leaving the US. Union or not companies are using ridiculously cheap labor overseas. That's just brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 This has nothing to do with the reason why companies are leaving the US. Union or not companies are using ridiculously cheap labor overseas. Seriously? Please tell me you are joking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Seriously? Please tell me you are joking... You know what the best part is? It was only a few posts after he posted The deal they wanted was a no strike deal, a deal where wages and benefits would have been extremely limited if not frozen for years. And he doesn't even see the relation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 You know what the best part is? It was only a few posts after he posted And he doesn't even see the relation. Of course some companies do not want to deal with unions. But unions are NOT the only reason companies are moving overseas moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 Of course some companies do not want to deal with unions. But unions are NOT the only reason companies are moving overseas moron. I stated something like "BS like this is what helps to drive business from this country". Unions are not the only reason, but the cost of doing business in this country is a large factor in driving business from this country. So, do you think unions make it more expensive to do business in this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Of course some companies do not want to deal with unions. But unions are NOT the only reason companies are moving overseas moron. Not what anyone said, nitwit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts