discuss

[slngsht]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576317140858893466.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[yellowss7]

Ok, I'll bite. As a former VP of HR, I had some dealing with the NLRB in my 20 years. It's a strange agency, who's members are appointed by the current administration, hence it is very politically driven in it's interpretation of the regs.

 

This ruling will not stand IMO as there was no real basis for the decision other than the statement that Boeing made that "it was tired of work stoppages every three years" A company certainly has the right to determine where it will do business, otherwise the goverment could stop all the jobs going overseas.

 

Just wait until congress gets involved in this, that's when the fireworks will begin.

 

Tom

[slngsht]

Congress will side with Boeing - for all the wrong reasons... Every state wants a piece of that action, so they'll do whatever to get some jobs, a contract, whatever to their districts.

 

I'll be shocked if Boeing does not prevail.

[Automoda]

....or whether they want to adopt laws that afford their workers the right to join a union or not. The only alternative is to build a regulatory Berlin Wall around their borders to keep their businesses from leaving.

 

Well, I'm not sure a state can do a thing to stop a company from moving out. The original purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to prevent states from limiting free movement of trade between the states. (It has been abused to a diabolical level with black=white interpretations over the years). Considering that big business in America owns the government, I expect the union complaint to be squashed. (In China, the government owns big business. I wonder which is worse). Also the right-to-work states will eventually gang up on the union states at a Federal level.

 

Quite honestly the idea that I'd be forced to join some union (which may or may not even benefit me) by LAW pisses me off in an almost unlimited way. Government needs to stop impinging on people's pursuit of happiness. (Being free to pursue whatever line of work you want is what that phrase means). Remember that guy that flew a plane into the IRS? He did it because it was against the law to be a private contractor programmer in his state. He was pissed off in an unlimited way.

[Mondo]

More downward spiraling for the middle class.

The article tries to imply workers are better off in "Right to Work" states. I guess citizens of those states are better off than not having those jobs available but as a nation we're worse off... any way you look at it, those workers in Right to Work states get less compensation. Could be in salary, healthcare, retirement etc.. That's why companies move there.

It's only a matter of time before that same company moves to Mexico or India... for the same reasons. Then who are North Carolina workers going to complain to; the same policitians that are bought by these corporations.

We had a "closed shop" where I worked. All it meant was if you didn't want to be associated with the union, the amount equal to union dues was taken out of your paycheck and given to a charity of your choice. Seemed fair to me as that person was getting the same wages/benefits that the union negotiated for. Kept him/her from having a "freeloader" image. I wouldn't call that "forced to join a union".

[Arya Ebrahimi]

More downward spiraling for the middle class.

The article tries to imply workers are better off in "Right to Work" states. I guess citizens of those states are better off than not having those jobs available but as a nation we're worse off... any way you look at it, those workers in Right to Work states get less compensation. Could be in salary, healthcare, retirement etc.. That's why companies move there.

It's only a matter of time before that same company moves to Mexico or India... for the same reasons. Then who are North Carolina workers going to complain to; the same policitians that are bought by these corporations.

 

Would you rather they go straight from the closed-shop states to Mexico or India?

 

Can someone explain to me what unions do these days to protect workers besides artificially inflate their wages to the point that corporations can't afford to employ them anymore?

 

I'll be the first to acknowledge that unions did GREAT things 100 years ago. Not so sure they're anything more than extortionists these days.

 

We should export them to China :flag:

 

 

 

 

Hey, this is the "controversy" forum after all :jester:

[slngsht]

It's only a matter of time before that same company moves to Mexico or India... for the same reasons.

 

In essence, that's the issue. We want:

1. higher wages and better working conditions (both translate to higher operating costs) than workers in India, Mexico, China, etc...

2. Compete with those countries in the global marketplace so our economy does not collapse.

 

Any barriers we put up that helps with #1, hurts #2. This is completely obvious. By barriers I mean government regulations (good or bad - like worker rights, EPA regulations, unions...). We all want those barriers to some extent. Some more, some less. I doubt anyone here would want to work in the same conditions as the Chinese.

 

There are only two ways I can see to meet both #1 and #2:

Innovate - so you're not just trying to beat your competition at producing the same widgets. And,

Play hard ball in global economics -the way Japan has stuck it to us in the past.

[Off Road SHO]

For every American that designs, builds, manufactures or replaces a product with American labor or resources, there are 10 Americans who will try and get that same product made by someone else, in a location that pays less wages, has fewer laws to adhere to and fewer hoops to jump through than we have here. It's easier to earn money off of third world ( or second world for that matter) countries than it is to earn it off of 1st world countries.

 

Americans are above all else, NOT nationalistic. Unfortunately.

 

Tom

[powderbrake]

Having been through union elections, and negotiating contracts, and seeing recall elections, I never saw any benefits accrue to the workers, only the transfer of their dues to the union coffers.

 

That was the sad part for the workers, the sad part for management is the cumbersome rules and roadblocks to productivity and innovation. In addition the corrosive attitude of "for the worker to win, the company must lose" comes along with the union.

 

My labor attorney told me two remember basic truths:

 

1) It's called the National Labor Relations Board, and they are out to get you.

(So Boeing better be prepared to get screwed)

 

2) No good deed goes unpunished.

[MHKflyer52]

For every American that designs, builds, manufactures or replaces a product with American labor or resources, there are 10 Americans who will try and get that same product made by someone else, in a location that pays less wages, has fewer laws to adhere to and fewer hoops to jump through than we have here. It's easier to earn money off of third world ( or second world for that matter) countries than it is to earn it off of 1st world countries.

 

Americans are above all else, NOT nationalistic. Unfortunately.

 

Tom

 

I would have to say GREEDY and LAZY by most other countries standards but that is just my belief even though the USA has more millionaires that any other country in the world with Japan being second and China third and growing as they expand their economy even thought everything is government controlled.

[Automoda]

To boil it down, I'm fundamentally against anyone or any group of people (governments, unions) staking a claim to my lifespan (labor == money). Whether its a union, your boss saying it has to go to charity for fairness' sake, and even income taxes on money earned by my own sweat. Its just slavery with a disguise.

 

This outsourcing would not be a problem if the US stuck to the tariff plan that they were originally using to fund government instead of making us work till July to cover our tax burdon (And they're still running a balanced budget). Free trade with 2$ per day countries is not going to work and they know it. 3rd world wages will go up and ours will go down. We'll probably meet at 20$ per day. Then we can have free trade. Yay! But thats what we get for becoming "consumers" instead of pitchfork and torch carrying citizens. Yet it sure is nice to get a 50$ bicycle at walmart... but hurry, its 500$ soon ;o)

[Mondo]

Obviously there are no easy answers when it comes to the global market. But it does seem we shoot ourselves in the foot with our "free trade" agreements. There's definately no respirosity in many of them.

It would also seem to be in our best interest (as a nation) to get back to more of a manufacturing base over a service base economy.

There's kind of a double-whammy on workers too as labor is outsourced and technology is eliminating jobs. I'm not sure college is keeping up with what will be in demand... I think a business degree is going the way of a liberal arts degree.

It's easy for me to complain but I don't really have any solutions.