The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Boeing vs Obama
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6261		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Fri May 13, 2011 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Boeing vs Obama
So Boeing is expanding and building a new plant in South Carolina, while still expanding in Washington, but done explicitly as to not be vulnerable to union strikes... Enter the labor board ordering Boeing to undo it's already one billion investment and do all its production in Washington.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... rich-lowry

Yeah I will say it, **** union's economic dinosaurs that are not content until they have ruined whatever business they existed in. :popcorn:

Right to work states can only benefit from this. Seeing how the labor relations board acts, what company will want to start any new start up in a pro union state.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Fri May 13, 2011 9:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wow.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri May 13, 2011 9:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Let it have it's day in court?

Maybe if Obama keeps doing stupid stuff like this he'll actually loose the election in 2012
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Fri May 13, 2011 9:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Diamondeye wrote:
Wow.



To which part?
Author:  Diamondeye [ Fri May 13, 2011 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
All of it.
Author:  darksiege [ Fri May 13, 2011 10:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
This is especially despicable since the issue was caused over a dispute where Boeing gave the union consideration and increased business even though it as not contractually required to do so.
Author:  Rynar [ Fri May 13, 2011 10:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wow... atleast before you used to be able to pack up shop and move away...

Terrible...
Author:  Squirrel Girl [ Fri May 13, 2011 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing vs Obama
This is a gross violation of interstate commerce clause.
Author:  Midgen [ Sat May 14, 2011 12:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Boeing has also hired more union workers and added additional lines at the existing assembly plants...

Apparently that isn't enough....
Author:  Hannibal [ Sat May 14, 2011 6:19 am ]
Post subject: 
Shut them both down and move to Canada. Or Mexico.
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Sat May 14, 2011 8:06 am ]
Post subject: 
And then the libs get another line about evil corporations moving their companies away....to make a profit!
Author:  Hannibal [ Sat May 14, 2011 9:48 am ]
Post subject: 
Libs are like goldfish, mouths always moving, nothing of substance coming out and usually can't tell that they are eating their own ****. Ie chuck schumer
Author:  Wwen [ Sat May 14, 2011 7:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
I love how making a profit is always considered bad. I think I know another reason why the economy is tanking.
Author:  darksiege [ Sat May 14, 2011 7:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Please... anyone from the pro union stance please explain how this is a good thing for people? How is this is not a bunch of bullshit?
Author:  Müs [ Sat May 14, 2011 11:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Because without the unions, the little guy wouldn't have a chance against the big bad corporations.
Author:  Midgen [ Sun May 15, 2011 12:36 am ]
Post subject: 
The only people it's 'good' for are the people IN the unions, and that is only until the companies that employ them go out of business or move overseas because they can't compete here...
Author:  Wwen [ Sun May 15, 2011 3:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
That's when they make legislation that stops the evil companies from doing trade abroad. That totally helps consumers and raises the standard of living for everyone. The economy is a zero-sum situation.

I was listening to NPR last week and, I think it was a pro-union state representative, stated that he straight up wanted to end "free trade."
Author:  Aizle [ Mon May 16, 2011 9:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Jesus that is a partisan article.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Mon May 16, 2011 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Aizle wrote:
Jesus that is a partisan article.


I don't doubt it. Post the other side so we can assess from both angles.
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Mon May 16, 2011 10:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing vs Obama
Aizle wrote:
Jesus that is a partisan article.


Bring out the other side? I did not realize in Hellfire we are required to post conflicting views on the original post. Let's see the leftist side of this? "The evil company expanded in BOTH the union and non union area's! It has to be all union!!"
Author:  Aizle [ Mon May 16, 2011 11:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing vs Obama
Uncle Fester wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Jesus that is a partisan article.


Bring out the other side? I did not realize in Hellfire we are required to post conflicting views on the original post. Let's see the leftist side of this? "The evil company expanded in BOTH the union and non union area's! It has to be all union!!"


There aren't any requirements of anything. I'm just posting my opinion of the article.

Part of my annoyance with so obviously partisan reporting like that is I can't trust the commentary provided. There are very few facts listed in the article, so it makes it impossible to make up my own mind about the infomation, and requires me to have to go looking for alternate sources if I want to get a balanced view. That annoys me, because frankly I don't give a **** about Boeing or unions, and it takes what should have been a 5 minute read to educate myself of what's happening in the US into a much longer, painful and boring process. Which, being completely honest, I won't do because of the afore mentioned not giving a **** about Boeing or unions.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Mon May 16, 2011 11:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing vs Obama
Aizle wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Jesus that is a partisan article.


Bring out the other side? I did not realize in Hellfire we are required to post conflicting views on the original post. Let's see the leftist side of this? "The evil company expanded in BOTH the union and non union area's! It has to be all union!!"


There aren't any requirements of anything. I'm just posting my opinion of the article.

Part of my annoyance with so obviously partisan reporting like that is I can't trust the commentary provided. There are very few facts listed in the article, so it makes it impossible to make up my own mind about the infomation, and requires me to have to go looking for alternate sources if I want to get a balanced view. That annoys me, because frankly I don't give a **** about Boeing or unions, and it takes what should have been a 5 minute read to educate myself of what's happening in the US into a much longer, painful and boring process. Which, being completely honest, I won't do because of the afore mentioned not giving a **** about Boeing or unions.


Fair enough.
Author:  Vindicarre [ Mon May 16, 2011 3:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Here's the other side:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/1 ... ng-vs-NLRB
That has even less fact and even more partisanship.

Here's a decent overview:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ton21.html

Boeing built the additional plant in SC because the worker in WA have gone on strike 4 times since 1989, and the company sought to maintain it's ability to function when the WA plant goes on strike.

Two 1965 U.S. Supreme Court cases affirm employers' right to consider potential strikes in making business decisions.

Seems as if Boeing was going to build 7 of their 787's a month in WA.

Then they announced that they are going to build 3 of their 787's in SC, in the process hiring 1000 more workers in SC.

They're still building the original 7 in WA and have hired 2000 more workers there.

NLRB say's Boeing can't go through with their plans because their plans are due to the strikes of unionized workers in the WA plant.
Author:  Uncle Fester [ Mon May 16, 2011 8:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
So forcing Boeing to go to court for a nonsensical issue, and trying to intimidate other buisness that want to get away from the claws of unions.
Author:  darksiege [ Mon May 16, 2011 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing vs Obama
Subject: Someone tell me why unions are good for the country again?


other thread wrote:
Union files complaint against Boeing for opening a plant in South Carolina

exert from link wrote:
In 2009 Boeing announced plans to build a new plant to meet demand for its new 787 Dreamliner. Though its union contract didn't require it, Boeing executives negotiated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to build the plane at its existing plant in Washington state. The talks broke down because the union wanted, among other things, a seat on Boeing's board and a promise that Boeing would build all future airplanes in Puget Sound.


This breaks down to they decided to do something that we were not required to do, the unions decided they wanted to be owners of the company and to guarantee that they would build no where else, so they said no. And when Boeing said no, the unions got all pissy, sucked some more governmental cock and got the recipient of their mad head binge to tell Boeing they have no choice in the matter...

Does anyone pro-union (on the Glade) actually support this action?
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/