6
Boeing versus the National Labor Relations Board
Commentator David Frum.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Kai Ryssdal: The world's largest aerospace company reported stellar profits this morning. Boeing says earnings rose 13 percent in the first quarter.
But the skies aren't entirely clear. Last week, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against the company over questions of work practices. It sounds fairly bureaucratic, but it could represent a new direction in labor law in this country.
Commentator David Frum says we should all be paying attention.
David Frum: Let's go to the bottom line: the National Labor Relations Board's headline-making complaint against Boeing for investing in South Carolina is almost certainly going nowhere.
The complaint involves Boeing's decision to expand production of its 787 Dreamliner aircraft in South Carolina rather than in Washington. Boeing's union and the NLRB allege that the decision to expand in South Carolina amounts to illegal "retaliation" for past strike activity by Boeing unions.
The NLRB has in the past acted against companies that close one location after a strike in order to open another. But it's unprecedented for the NLRB to act against a company that -- like Boeing -- maintains existing production but expands somewhere else. The NLRB has never before attempted to assert authority over investment and expansion decisions.
For that reason, it's generally believed by labor lawyers that Boeing will prevail, and probably sooner rather than later.
The South Carolina congressional delegation is enraged by the NLRB's action against Boeing's expansion in their state. Senator Lindsay Graham points out that one of the Boeing board members who voted for the South Carolina expansion was William Daley, now President Obama's chief of staff. Is the Obama administration suggesting that its own chief of staff engaged in illegal anti-union retaliation?
But the issue here is not South Carolina. The issue is: what does the NLRB think it is doing by attempting to reinvent labor law in this radical way?
Perhaps the NLRB hopes that by administrative action they can somehow hold the line against outsourcing, and thus compel American corporations to place investment in future where investment went in the past.
If so, those hopes are worse than futile. They represent a tragic distraction from the challenge of sustaining middle-class incomes in a globalized era. The NLRB's high-handed actions will achieve nothing but enriching Boeing's lawyers on the way to the inevitable outcome.
Ryssdal: David Frum was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Today he's the editor of FrumForum. Next Wednesday, Robert Reich's up in the rotation. In the meantime, send us your comments.
The last two paragraphs are totally contradictory; so trying to get American corporations to invest domestically is futile and distracts us from the task of sustaining middle class incomes?
Uhhh, so David, if the Corporations (private sector) won't do that then it pretty much leaves the job to the Government, eh ?
Guess it depends on ones point of view. The merits of Frum, or not, aside, Boeing could have established the second line totally elsewhere. South Carolina is at least part of the U.S.A. Its still Made in America.
It also seems that employment at both locations, Washington and South Caroline have increased.
There is also merit in diversifying away from the earthquake prone North West Coast of the USA.... Of course South Caroline has hurricanes, tornados and floods.
I think there are two sides to this story... Meanwhile Frum continues to be a bad joke played on Marketplace Listeners.
What the NLRB is trying to figure out here is how the rules of the game are played. Can a company avoid collective bargaining when it is a right that working people have? Airbus is highly unionized and they seem to just fine, thank you very much. It's an interesting subject and I'll be watching how this gets played out.
David Frum has distorted the fact of the NLRB decision beyond recognition. Any moderately competent lawyer can explain how to build airplanes in South Carolina without violating US labor law. Lacking legal counsel, you can read the NLRB decision or the NLRB fact-checker press release, which make clear how simple it is to comply with our very modest worker protections.
David Frum must know that, so what reason can he have for misrepresenting the facts so outrageously?
Hmmmm, let me see. What about discrediting the NLRB, the labor movement, and any institution of civil society that might speak for the 140 million Americans who work for a living?
