Now We Know: Obama Supports NLRB
File this under good to know. For months we have been hearing about the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) lawsuit against Boeing for opening up a new facility in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, instead of Washington, which is not a right-to-work state.
The crux of NLRB’s case hinges on proving whether unionized workers were adversely affected when Boeing decided to open up a new facility in South Carolina. Whether or not Boeing opened up the new facility to avoid dealing with unions which have struck several times in the past decade (costing the company billions) is irrelevant, unless existing union workers lost their jobs due to the move.
There was no signed contract with the unions to build a facility in Washington State. Therefore, there is no relocation because the site was not planned in one state and then moved to another state. NLRB’s complaint claims that Boeing admitted to opening up the new facility in South Carolina due to past union strikes. One complaint even alleges that Boeing threatened future union jobs due to past strikes.
However, the NLRB cannot point to one union worker in Washington State that was adversely affected by the decision to open a new facility in another state. In fact, Boeing added 2,000 jobs to their Washington facility, and seven planes will still be built a month. That doesn’t sound like retribution against the unions; in fact, their numbers will be bolstered.
Boeing has already built its new facility in South Carolina and hired over 1,000 workers for that facility. Three planes a month will be built there. It has already brought tremendous life into South Carolina and had a positive rippling effect on the surrounding economy. One thousand more people are employed, which means one thousand more people are spending money at nearby shops and businesses. NLRB seemingly wants to take that prosperity away from South Carolina. It would devastate its revived community.
But that doesn’t seem to matter to the NLRB. In its view, those jobs rightly belong to union workers and should be taken from the men and women in South Carolina and given to Washington State unions. Here’s the kicker: President Obama agrees with the NLRB.
As is common with this President, his position seems to have flip-flopped. At first he said “as a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate.” Which seems like he supported Boeing, right?
Well, in a “formal statement of Administration policy, the White House opposed a bill sponsored by South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott.” Scott’s (R-SC) bill would have effectively barred the NLRB from pursuing Boeing and prohibiting it “from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any circumstance.”
Seeing as President Obama opposes this bill, he is effectively lending his support to the Obama-appointed NLRB at the expense of the men and women of South Carolina.