What’s Wrong with the World

Other than thinking it should be "NLRB", kudos to you for bringing this to people's attention. In all of my political libertarian and conservative law blogs, not a single one (that I have seen) has noted this. Thanks, Lydia!

So the next time you want to start telling me that I shouldn't buy at WalMart, the next time you start talking about the greed and disloyalty of multinationals, you'll pardon me if I point you to the case of the NRLB, Boeing, and South Carolina and ask you, "What is your opinion on that?"

What's the connection here? Wal-mart relies on government to operate in several ways: eminent domain for cheaper land in many locales, Medicaid to fund healthcare for its employees and our trade policies with China to get cheaper goods (combined with Wal-Mart's vendor policies which crush profit margins, it's particularly toxic for manufacturers). Wal-Mart is, in many respects, now a symptom of the same disease.

I'll fix it, Jonathan. Fast typing.

Mike, my mention of Wal-Mart there stands in for an argument that is typically made against WM, among others, to the effect that we should have tariffs against companies that manufacture their goods abroad. Typically those making this argument are not focusing specifically on things like human rights abuses in China (which I'd be willing to listen to) but rather merely on the fact that the goods sold are "made in" fill-in-the-blank--China, Guatamala, etc. That's supposed to be an evil _in itself_--the loss of "American jobs" and the like. I wasn't here introducing the subject of any other wrongs that Wal-Mart allegedly commits.

That's supposed to be an evil _in itself_--the loss of "American jobs" and the like.

Well, freeish trade hasn't actually worked at all like the theorists argued that it would. It has been a net negative that has sacrificed the employment of the many for the profitability of the few.

The first clue to libertarians and conservatives that there is something fundamentally wrong with free trade is that the biggest 19th century and early 20th century proponents of it weren't capitalists, but communists.

Pragmatic arguments are interesting and can be worth discussing.

Arguments of the "wicked greedy unpatriotic corporate capitalists who want to exploit workers and who selfishly go abroad to avoid our noble labor laws" variety I'm starting to get hostile to. And this story confirms that inclination.

TEXTILE WORKERS UNION V. DARLINGTON MFG. CO., 380 U. S. 263 (1965)

"2. Closing part of a business is an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(3) of the Act if the purpose is to discourage unionism in any of the employer's remaining plants and if the employer may reasonably have foreseen such effect. Pp. 380 U. S. 274-275.

Page 380 U. S. 264

3. If those exercising control over a plant that is being closed for anti-union reasons have an interest in another business, whether or not affiliated with or in the same line of commerce as the closed plant, of sufficient substantiality to promise a benefit from nonunionization of that business, act to close their plant for that purpose, and have a relationship to the other business which makes it probable that its employees will fear closing down if organizational activities are continued, an unfair labor practice has been made out. Pp. 380 U. S. 275-276."

This sounds like typical union busting and as such it is part of the race to the bottom that is killing the American middle class.

"wicked greedy unpatriotic corporate capitalists who want to exploit workers and who selfishly go abroad to avoid our noble labor laws"

Capitalists have never been patriotic. It's always about profit and they could care less about nations or workers anywhere. If (when) Boeing could make planes in China and cast the SC workers aside it would in a heartbeat.

Al, they aren't closing the Washington State plant. But that shouldn't matter. Frankly, I am disgusted to the point of literally making a face as at a bad smell at the very thought that someone would consider trying to punish Boeing for opening the SC plant. I couldn't care two cents whether you think of it as "union busting" for them to do so in response to the work stoppages in Washington; it is arrogant totalitarian wickedness for the government to attempt to punish it. Talk about greed and racing to the bottom.

And by the way, what is the NLRB attempting to "bust"? I'll tell you: Right to work states. The idea is to make it less attractive for states like SC to do anything the unions don't happen to like, because companies will be punished by the feds for opening businesses there anyway. So punish SC for the fact that the plant there would be non-union.

Sickening.

That last is a great point, Lydia.

The NLRB is going to win this one most likely. Boeing explicitly told investors, media, and employees that the second line was being built in South Carolina because of the previous union action and threatened future loss of work because of said union action. Union busting like that happens to be illegal.

Lydia, some of the context you're missing for why the left is particularly opposed to Boeing expanding in SC is because the plant there used to be unionized but the workers voluntarily decertified because they knew that it would help keep production at that plant. ( http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009843246_boeing11.html ) The NLRB's action is as much about punishing blue collar South Carolinians for leaving the Machinists union as it is about punishing Boeing.

The NLRB is going to win this one most likely. Boeing explicitly told investors, media, and employees that the second line was being built in South Carolina because of the previous union action and threatened future loss of work because of said union action. Union busting like that happens to be illegal.

I'm guessing they won't, but they can damage the company a good bit and they'll try and may. This is a critical time for Boeing and the unions know how to inflict maximum pain. Notice how Obama is staying silent, even though everyone knows he's a supporter of the NLRB action. This just shows it is politically unpopular. This isn't a year when the NLRB can get away with this. There is little sympathy left for unions, and we know that union membership is now heavily public sector.

There isn't anything illegal about what Boeing has done, or if there is the laws are very bad. It seems to me the NLRB is claiming that avoiding strikes is inherently retaliatory. This is the worst possible time for them to do this, and the union moment has passed. If you've ever tried to do business with one of these unions as I have you'd know that the members have the most detestable attitude toward their jobs and their work. Good riddance.

Pragmatic arguments are interesting and can be worth discussing.

Arguments of the "wicked greedy unpatriotic corporate capitalists who want to exploit workers and who selfishly go abroad to avoid our noble labor laws" variety I'm starting to get hostile to. And this story confirms that inclination.

Exactly. I happen to think that everyone should be paying attention to how they treat political dissidents. They condemn people to death and then take their organs and sell them. To be honest, the whole open trade with China thing was a gamble. It has been said that China may be or become the first mature fascist state that the world has known. No one knows how this story will end, and trade won't avert war if that is the case. But these are all practical questions that few are talking about unfortunately. Saying we shouldn't be trading on the grounds the unions always say is entirely self-serving and from what I've seen the unions don't care much about anything but increasing their own retirement benefits at any price to the company and without regard to market wages.

In Indianapolis a union refused a deal that would have allowed a buyer to continue production. Par for the course. The rust belt is the rust belt for a reason.

BTW, where a product is built and/or assembled isn't really very important. Where it is designed is everything. All Apple products say in large visible letters "Designed by Apple in California". There is a reason for this. It matters little where a product is made or assembled, but where it is designed is everything. That's where all the money goes, and that is why multinationals can build products off-shore if they have to and still be a tremendous national asset. Besides which, you need to build some goods near where you sell them. Anyway, the unions are a holdover from pre-WWII practices, and they are fighting the same old depression era battles.

The old fights over local content were silly too. Where a car had to be made of X% local parts. I've never bought a foreign car and I probably never will. I'm not saying others shouldn't, but I don't. A Toyota or BMW built in the Southwest U. S. is still a foreign car --that is where all the capital (financial and otherwise) goes.

Actually, production facilities are important. Just remember that the Chinese government has been successfully hacking terabytes of sensitive data from "secure" sites in the US and Europe for years now. From national defense and power grids to software manufacturers and banks, they have been mining us unopposed.

All our intellectual property is as good as theirs. Our secrets are theirs too. Our prototypes and designs that haven't been patented yet - yup, theirs too. This doesn't count the vast amount of data and technology that we willingly have sent offshore because the engineers and computer scientists are cheaper there too.

It's great too have ideas. It's great to have paper assets. Just remember that China can turn around tomorrow, nationalize everything, not pay a penny claiming it as collateral for our trade and government debts, sabotage the entirety of our infrastructure from satellites to power to bank accounts, and what's left of us? America has become a paper tiger, literally.

Now don't get me wrong. Trade is trade, and I'm not keen on tariffs to protect fat, lazy, goldbricking, sheltered, union goons. However our entire governmental apparatus from federal to local levels and economic system is so heavily compromised and corrupted that we are in an unwinnable position before we even show up in each and every negotiation. Of course, any working solutions would never be popular enough to enact. Therefore, I'll just make a batch of popcorn and watch the disaster continue to unfold.

The NLRB's action is as much about punishing blue collar South Carolinians for leaving the Machinists union as it is about punishing Boeing.

Thanks, Brian. One could have figured just from the story that the majority of the workers in the SC plant were non-union for a reason, so this _is_ about punishing them, but in fact I did not know the background of their having voluntarily decertified.

That just makes the point stronger, as you say: This is a power grab for unions nationwide. The workers themselves are not allowed to decide for themselves and to gain any advantage from being non-union, because the federal government has decided that the companies will be punished for providing jobs for those willing-to-work-and-not-strike non-union workers.

It seems to me the NLRB is claiming that avoiding strikes is inherently retaliatory.

Mark, that's exactly what they are saying and what two commentators on this very thread have said. Amazing. The power hunger and willingness to do harm is just raw. Production is to be brought to a halt, willing workers in other states are to be penalized (and all this in our present anemic economy, too). Everything else goes to the wall for the sake of forcing a company anywhere in the U.S. to kow-tow to the unions.

"Al, they aren't closing the Washington State plant..."

I know but the case still fits. As usual the right has overreacted based on lots of ideology, few facts, and no historical context.

I happened on this by way of Brad Delong.

"Legal procedure professors who taught current members of Congress must be pulling their hair out. Lately their former students sound more like the Queen of Hearts with their threats to execute the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by defunding it and taking away the power of the NLRB’s General Counsel to enforce the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Wild claims – without any basis in fact – are being made that the NLRB has already made a decision that Boeing violated the law and that the NLRB is going on a rampage against “right to work” states. If you listened to Congress’ version of events, you would think that the NLRB has become the major threat to the economic life of this country. Think a fire-breathing Godzilla administrative agency smashing businesses with its mighty tail.

Of course, none of this is true. In fact, it is just Plane Nonsense.

Meanwhile, Congress does nothing to discipline the banks and speculators who actually did destroy millions of jobs, savings, lives, and hope for the future. These real villains are not only free but are again being rewarded for risky behavior..."

Read the whole thing at,

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/execution-first-trial-later-congress-and-the-national-labor-relations-board

Here is Boeing Complaint Fact Sheet at the NLRB site,

http://www.nlrb.gov/boeing-complaint-fact-sheet

Think a fire-breathing Godzilla administrative agency smashing businesses with its mighty tail.

No, that's the EPA's job. Oh, and OSHA; they like to play their games too.

Meanwhile, Congress does nothing to discipline the banks and speculators who actually did destroy millions of jobs, savings, lives, and hope for the future.

Now banks are a different problem. I think that they will not be disciplined, just as they were not disciplined by the Left during their period of rare, unstoppable political power. They own your side too. Of course, if you want to talk banks, that's a subject for the Usury Crisis. Let's get back to the knuckle-dragging thugs and protectionism, which is the current topic. (Yes, I am a former union member. My loathing was earned.)

I read the NLRB statement. Looks just like what I said. The only _very mildly_ interesting question is whether a second line ever existed in Washington State or whether the NLRB's references to "transferring" a line are wholly deceptive, where all that was "transferred" were plans to build the line, with Boeing's having originally _thought_ of placing a second line in Washington State and never having done so.

It doesn't really matter to me. I think the NLRB's actions are sickening either way. But if the word "transferred" is indeed a lie, then that's even worse.

And the arrogance of their idea that Boeing should have negotiated with the union in Washington State before opening a production line in South Carolina takes the breath away.

Oh, and Al, youse guys are so good at changing the subject: "Quick! Let's talk about banks and speculators instead."

Bag it. Take it to someone else's thread or just take it away. Off-topic.

The following paragraph is from the NLRB's own page:

Boeing announced in 2007 that it planned to assemble seven 787 Dreamliner airplanes per month in the Puget Sound area of Washington state, where its employees have long been represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The company later said that it would create a second production line to assemble an additional three planes a month to address a growing backlog of orders. In October 2009, Boeing announced that it would locate that second line at the non-union facility.

Looks like the phrase "transfer the production line" is, indeed, deceptive.

Actually, production facilities are important.

Patrick, you misunderstood my point. Yes, production facilities are important. I spent my early career in manufacturing plants. My point was that the location of production or assembly isn't nearly as important as where a product is designed, given that things that you mention such as intellectual property are shared values of the location. Frankly, in China they aren't and that is one reason companies are foolish to relocate production to China without understanding this. Motorola got taken to the cleaners in China as other Chinese companies used techniques such as stealing their IP by having their employees to work undercover to find their IP and methods and then quit. But Motorola should have known better, and would have known better if they'd known something about Chinese culture before they did it. Only companies that can protect their IP without outside assistance from the law or government are truly safe.

But the danger to companies doing production is China isn't because of the location. It is because of the regime and the values of the citizens, or lack thereof.

It's great too have ideas. It's great to have paper assets. Just remember that China can turn around tomorrow, nationalize everything, not pay a penny claiming it as collateral for our trade and government debts, sabotage the entirety of our infrastructure from satellites to power to bank accounts, and what's left of us? America has become a paper tiger, literally.

This is all true, except for the part about America being a paper tiger. It has been said many times in history; it has never been true.

The conundrum for China is how to be a powerful country (this being what they want) in the long run without treating its citizens with respect. Can it be done without consensual government? I don't think it possible, but they do. If they don't give up on this old experiment it will probably lead to war. We've seen this story before.

The general consensus inside Boeing is that the NLRB is right. Whatever the law should be, Boeing pretty much did exactly what they said. The real kicker is that the NLRB will win, and Boeing will just say 'ok, you got us' and pay the measly fine...and continue to operate the plant. No one will make them shut it down. So if you're worried about Boeing, don't be. They won't suffer.

This sounds like typical union busting and as such it is part of the race to the bottom that is killing the American middle class.

So Al, I've heard this from many pro-union folks, but it puzzles me. Do you work for a union? If not, do you think you would be better off it you had a union job? If unions are the answer, what was the question?

That's all I need, someone to skim my paycheck and use the money for whatever they wish without my approval and contribute most of it to political causes with which I don't agree.

The general consensus inside Boeing is that the NLRB is right.

How do you know this?

By working there.

If only that answered my question. How do you know the general consensus of Boeing?

Whatever the law should be, Boeing pretty much did exactly what they said.

Oh, horror, horror, horror! You mean, they actually, really, truly did decide to start a new line in South Carolina because of the dreadful motivation that they were fed up with strikes in Washington State and therefore decided not to open it there??? Oh, my goodness! I'm shocked. Well, that changes my opinion entirely!

Matt, please: The facts aren't really much in question here, except for the NLRB's possibly deceptive use of the term "transfer" for a production line that never existed.

And as for what the law "is," it's pretty obvious that this is not what normal human English speakers would understand by "retaliation." If the original authors of the law intended courts to interpret it this way, then this is another cynical law written deliberately vaguely so that courts and bureaucrats can "create meaning" in postmodern fashion as they went along.

Another thing that pretty much everyone understands is that this is exact type of case (no facility being closed, even) is fairly new ground for the NLRB to be breaking, in other words, they're trying it on to see if it'll fly in the court. Which makes the whole self-righteous talk about things that just "are illegal" pretty empty and meaningless.

But, yes, a vaguely-worded law that gives that kind of power to unelected bureaucrats and judges to keep pushing the envelope shouldn't exist.

Even if these trade unions don't win in court, they're on a scorched-earth policy of damaging the company if they can drag it out. As far as they're concerned, the company deserves to lose sales to Airbus if they don't want union plants to produce their planes. It's a losing battle for the unions, but theirs is a righteous cause.

So if you're worried about Boeing, don't be. They won't suffer.

And this is the attitude of the typical trade unionist: "The company get hurt? Nah, they are flush with cash and just don't want to pay us our fair share of it. Believe me, they will never go out of business." As if employees who think this way can ever sustain a viable business long-term.

The dirty secret is it is less about the money than flexibility required for modern business and productivity. I've seen this first-hand in the auto industry. Unions are fighting the last battle over wages, meanwhile companies need employees that are motivated, flexible, and see themselves as contributing to the success of the company, and they will be rewarded with a competitive wage based on a free-market. When too many people say "It's all about money," you can be sure it isn't about the money. It's about power and control.

BTW, where a product is built and/or assembled isn't really very important. Where it is designed is everything.

As I've said several times before on this blog, the fact that people gloss over about this sort of work is that it requires an above average IQ. A guy with a 90-100 IQ will never be able to learn even basic software or hardware engineering. Biotech? Fuggedaboutit...

As I've said several times before on this blog, the fact that people gloss over about this sort of work is that it requires an above average IQ. A guy with a 90-100 IQ will never be able to learn even basic software or hardware engineering. Biotech? Fuggedaboutit...

Mike, it isn't glossing over anything if one disagrees with your basic assumptions. I just don't agree with the way you divide vocations, and don't even get me started on IQ theory. I come from a blue collar family, worked my adolescent and teenage years driving a tractor, began my first outside the family job as a mechanic, and my oldest and best friends are back home and all blue collar. Some of the brightest and sharpest folks I have ever known happen to be blue collar, and the nation's work depends on them. You might enjoy the book "Shopcraft as Soulcraft" to see the folly of thinking that certain jobs as "thinking jobs." I can attest to its truth.

I have no idea why you idealize biotech or software or hardware engineering as requiring some rare innate abilities. Aptitude yes. I have worked in a technical field for years, and I can count on one hand the persons that had lots of real raw talent. The vast majority are able to do what they do because of a lot of hard work that builds over time into valuable experience. I've never known anyone with experience in a given field who would dispute this. The few that are especially bright will rise to a higher positions or faster in the same jobs as the rest of us, but to divide vocations up by a supposed understanding of "intelligence" is a grave mistake. I would advise doing some research into IQ theory before accepting it. Level of skill is a basic differentiator for obvious reasons, and for 98% of folks being able to perform a given job will come down to aptitude, desire, and the humility to do something poorly until the time you when you have learned to do it well.

You, the evil business owner, are a slave.

The officers of Boeing must be the richest slaves in all of history.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003633653_boeing24.html

And I'll be much less inclined to listen to anything else you say about the greed of companies who don't run their operations on American soil.

Because you have proven that those companies aren’t being greedy? No you haven’t.

Boeing is a corporation. Corporations have an amazing special privilege (limited liability) which is for some reason completely uncontroversial, and even more strangely hardly anybody ever seems to wonder whether maybe they should have to pay something for that privilege. If you gave Boeing the choice of going along with the unions or reorganizing as some kind of complicated partnership between their shareholders without the limited liability, I'm pretty confident I know what their choice would be.

Boeing also has lots of government contracts, and the amount of competitive bidding involved in many of those contracts is pretty laughable. Again, would Boeing rather follow union rules or do without the government's business? Another one that would be an easy decision for them.

I'm certainly not saying that there's nothing wrong with Boeing's relationship with the government; I'm inclined to think that in many ways it's surely very unhealthy. But describing it as the government imposing tyranny on Boeing seems to involve ignoring most aspects of a relationship which is no doubt far too close, and involves countless trade-offs and sacrifices, but is overall much more favorable to Boeing than otherwise.

Because you have proven that those companies aren’t being greedy? No you haven’t.

step2, can you tell us what would constitute evidence of greed?

The officers of Boeing must be the richest slaves in all of history.

Step2, while the officers of Boeing do own shares of Boeing stock, as a publicly traded stock, it's ownership includes every stockholder. Not all of them are anywhere near as wealthy as the corporate officers and board members that they elect. Regardless, I thank you for reminding me that liberals can never look beyond their own envy.

I'm certainly not saying that there's nothing wrong with Boeing's relationship with the government; I'm inclined to think that in many ways it's surely very unhealthy. But describing it as the government imposing tyranny on Boeing seems to involve ignoring most aspects of a relationship which is no doubt far too close, and involves countless trade-offs and sacrifices, but is overall much more favorable to Boeing than otherwise.

Aaron, there's a lot of truth to this, and you're not the first to point it out. I agree with you on this, but that is a separate question as to whether or not a company can legally produce product without a union if they wish.

But as to that point, companies often want government assistance when it is to their benefit, and then cry foul when it isn't to their benefit. This is deplorable. In Boeing's case the nature of their work makes it hard not to develop close relationships to government and military agencies so I'm not sure of a good answer there. But to the extent that they have curried government assistance, they should expect that those who think they did them a favor will want one in return. The problem is that Boeing is a national asset and has a unique position, so that we just can't say "well they deserve what they get and some other competitor less foolish can now reap the benefits of their wisdom." There aren't other competitive domestic plane manufacturers, and the Europeans with Airbus in terms of government involvement rise to the level of outright subsidy, where they pay for airlines to fly their planes with European taxpayer money. So let's celebrate Boeing for the valuable asset it is, and fight one battle at a time.

Aaron, every word you say could be true, and it would still all just be changing the subject. The NLRB has this power over all companies, not only those that have the special properties you ascribe to Boeing, and certainly not only those that have the government's business.

The problem is the attempt to squelch productivity in the other state in the name of forcing the company to deal with the union for its every unit of production. That's an absolutely dreadful attitude. It reeks of envy, control freakishness, a willingness to shut down production rather than to allow production to proceed in any way the union doesn't want, an attempt to block the profitability of the free choice to work by the workers in South Carolina. It's a parasitical and totalitarian, dog-in-the-manger attitude.

The responses by leftists on this thread have been typical and revealing: "Who cares about Boeing? They're rich." (Okay, do you care about the people who want jobs in SC and are willing to work and not strike? Not really. Not if they're non-union.) "Boeing gets a lot of favors from the government" Irrelevant. "This is union-busting." If so, then this sort of "union-busting" should be just fine if people had any sense.

Regardless, I thank you for reminding me that liberals can never look beyond their own envy.

Patrick, bingo. Exactly.

And the reason I wrote the post is because I tend to hang out with some slightly non-mainstream types of conservatives who are, sometimes because of legitimate concerns about American jobs, a little atypical on some of these issues. I think it's important to remind such conservatives to be careful. We must never fall into the envious mental tropes of the left. We should keep the invisible man in mind--e.g., the non-union guy who wants a job and whom the unions would like to force to be in a union or not have work.

Greed is when someone you don't like, or some organization, makes more money then a frustrated moralist cares for. The amount matters but is always flexible, and irrelevant. The means, its' purpose, social utility, moral action or influence are totally irrelevant. It is sufficient that you not like the person/organization, no other justification is required, bile will do just fine.
If any of this is bothersome or confusing I suggest you do the Koch Brothers/ George Soros test, no explanation necessary. Clarification will descend like tongues of fire.
I may add that suspicions of pettiness and envy never enter the mind here, introspection being the enemy of indignation.

And the reason I wrote the post is because I tend to hang out with some slightly non-mainstream types of conservatives who are, sometimes because of legitimate concerns about American jobs, a little atypical on some of these issues. I think it's important to remind such conservatives to be careful.

I think I understand. This isn't uncommon. In my family are a number of UAW retirees living out a posh retirement, and most of them have those attitudes in spades. So I feel your pain. Ross Perot in '92 got a lot of votes over this. Remember the giant sucking sound? Demagoguery, xenophobia, it was all there. We see this now post 9/11 in the "seal the border" crowd, whereby they hide their hostility to trade behind security concerns.

I'll definitely listen to security concerns. It's the alliances with the "punish the greedy corporations for going away" types I'm wary of.

Greed is unrestrained acquisitiveness. It is synonymous with avarice. One aspect is hoarding. Another is found in the Usury Crisis posts. Regardless, it is a bad thing, leading to poor judgement. It infects at all levels, and that point should not be forgotten. If someone acts in a way to increase wealth that is contrary to natural law, such would be greed. Everything else is whining.

Luxury is a form of gluttony, such that the offender spends for pleasures beyond his means. See spendthrift.

Jealousy is covetousness, that is to desire what someone else has, irregardless of his own blessings. See David and Bathsheba.

Envy is the worst of them all, which is saying something. Envy is the desire to ruin someone else, simply because he has something nice. See Cain and Abel, or watch Amadeus. Either way, it is poisonous, it is corrosive, and it can and will destroy empires in short order, no matter how mighty. This is the foundation of the Left.

The facts aren't really much in question here

Then why the outrage? Your position seems to be that Boeing did exactly what the NLRB said, but that it shouldn't be illegal. Ok, but I never even took a position on whether it should be illegal or not. I'd be content for it to be agreed that Boeing is indeed guilty.

And this is the attitude of the typical trade unionist: "The company get hurt? Nah, they are flush with cash and just don't want to pay us our fair share of it. Believe me, they will never go out of business."

I'd be the strangest trade unionist ever, not actually being in a union. I have no particular opinion on the Boeing union, knowing almost nothing about it. But trust me, Boeing loses more money every month on the ongoing 787 debacle than they ever could in labor fines. And in the end they still have the Charleston plant, and may actually get serious about making it work one of these days. Nope, Boeing's gonna be just fine, don't worry.

I'd be content for it to be agreed that Boeing is indeed guilty.

"Guilty" of what? I've already addressed the postmodern nature of the approach to law in such cases. We've reached almost the perfect position where the positive written law is meaningless and where "the law" refers simply to a prediction about the future--what new thing a court will decide. In this case, what a court will decide is the meaning of the term "retaliation," whether or not that has any obvious connection to the normal meaning of the term "retaliation" in the minds of lawmakers and ordinary people at the time that the law was passed. This makes it fairly pointless even to talk about "whether Boeing broke the law." We can take one of two positions. On the one hand, we can argue that, given the normal meaning of the term "retaliation," Boeing is not guilty, because opening a new plant elsewhere is not what would have normally been understood as "retaliation." "Retaliation" would normally have had to do with _doing something_ to the actual unionizing or striking workers, like firing them. Opening a new plant elsewhere has not previously been understood to constitute retaliation against striking workers, and Boeing couldn't have been expected to think that it would be doing something against a meaningful, existing law. On the other hand, we can argue that there is a very real, and scandalous, sense in which there _is_ no law in this matter. There is a vague stand-in for law which has been left for the bureaucrats and the courts to fill in. In such a legal context, who in the world should care what some court will decide later?

If we are talking about morality, then, no, Boeing isn't guilty of doing anything wrong. Instead, to the contrary, it is the NLRB that is guilty of doing something wrong. Nor (see above) are they somehow, poor things, forced by clear-cut existing law to try to penalize not only Boeing but workers in right-to-work states. Rather, they are doing so because they are ideologues, and their ideology is evil.

If that doesn't answer your question about outrage, I don't know what will.

The desire to stop production by others through envy, to control all the means of production and force all workers to be part of one's own type of organization as a condition of livelihood, the willingness to bring productive activity to a halt rather than to let things be otherwise, is wicked. Unfortunately, that entire approach seems to be the foundation of pro-labor activity in our country.

The laws certainly need to be reformed. But the laws didn't force the NLRB to extend its totalitarian control in this direction.

The problem is the attempt to squelch productivity in the other state in the name of forcing the company to deal with the union for its every unit of production.

No, it is about unlawful retaliation for union activity.
http://www.nlrb.gov/boeing-complaint-fact-sheet

Envy is the worst of them all, which is saying something.

FYI, to the limited extent that the deadly sins are ranked, pride is usually placed first. Besides that, I was merely pointing out the rhetorical absurdity of calling a group of multimillionaires slaves. Although I find it amusing that some conservatives are very close to defending a famous movie villain line:
“The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.” – Gordon Gekko, Wall Street vampire

Some of the brightest and sharpest folks I have ever known happen to be blue collar, and the nation's work depends on them. You might enjoy the book "Shopcraft as Soulcraft" to see the folly of thinking that certain jobs as "thinking jobs." I can attest to its truth.

I have no idea why you idealize biotech or software or hardware engineering as requiring some rare innate abilities. Aptitude yes. I have worked in a technical field for years, and I can count on one hand the persons that had lots of real raw talent. The vast majority are able to do what they do because of a lot of hard work that builds over time into valuable experience.

I never said anything about blue collar vs white collar here. What I said is that most people don't have the mental hardware to do the advanced STEM work that the pols and wonks think will dominate our country. Some dude with a 90 IQ is simply not going to have even a shot of doing ground-breaking engineering or scientific research. The average intelligence, I believe, is 100 across this country as a whole.

This presents a problem for our country. Neither conservatives nor liberals want to face this profound limitation to equality and its implications for our economy.

I'll definitely listen to security concerns.

After all, it's all fun and games until the (Chinese) Ministry of State Security starts toying with the firmware in your devices made in China.

Opening a new plant elsewhere has not previously been understood to constitute retaliation against striking workers, and Boeing couldn't have been expected to think that it would be doing something against a meaningful, existing law.

It has been legally understood as retaliation when management openly provides that reason for it.

Most companies don't have someone from senior management give a videotaped interview where he admits that the new plant was built on the overriding reason of responding to past strikes and curtailing speculative future strikes. Nor does management typically state this motive explicitly in company memos and earnings conference calls. But alas, they can't all be genius Galtian overlords who keep their contempt for union workers buried under economic jargon.

Step2, the nearest case Al, yea, even Al, was able to cite, concerned closing an existing plant.

But you obviously believe in the bellman's rule: If I say it three times, it's true.

There's apparently some other rule at work here, too: If I take a completely harmless, legitimate, and even valuable action, give it a nasty-sounding label, and keep saying that over and over again solemnly, that makes the action wrong.

Not that I would have been antecedantly much inclined to take your views on trade and unions very seriously anyway, Step2, but in case I would ever have slipped into that by accident, please see the last sentence of the main post. The fact that you take this despicable government act to be justified and keep repeating an entirely interpretive and largely meaningless legal mantra in an attempt to shut down all thinking on the matter tells me all I need to know. Perhaps in your case it's simple legal positivism (in the sense that I use that word, to mean something like "whatever, as far as it seems to me, the law is, is right"), but if so, you need to snap out of it.

I never said anything about blue collar vs white collar here. What I said is that most people don't have the mental hardware to do the advanced STEM work that the pols and wonks think will dominate our country. Some dude with a 90 IQ is simply not going to have even a shot of doing ground-breaking engineering or scientific research. The average intelligence, I believe, is 100 across this country as a whole.

This presents a problem for our country. Neither conservatives nor liberals want to face this profound limitation to equality and its implications for our economy

What pols and wonks are saying that people don't have the mental capacity for modern jobs? I have never heard anyone say this, and I find your claim quite incredible. Can you cite a credible source for this? The argument, such that it is, is that Americans aren't interested in doing the difficult work required to prepare for certain of them in sufficient numbers, mainly the hard sciences.

Mark,

I know this is a bit off topic, but I have to come to Mike T's defense. I think what he was saying is that "pols and wonks" want and hope the American economy will provide lots of STEM jobs and that Americans will fill those STEM jobs in increasing numbers. His contention, a contention I share with him because I have studied the subject of IQ and believe in the infamous bell curve, is that these "pols and wonks" ARE WRONG! He and I are disagreeing with the pols and wonks and we don't think that there will be the requisite numbers of Americans who have the IQ to do the "ground-breaking engineering or scientific research" that will be important to our future economic growth.

By the way, somewhat related, I suggest you check out some recent posts by Vox Day attacking free trade -- I'm generally a neo-classical orthodox economics guy, but I have to admit Vox makes a strong case:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/06/mailvox-free-trader-defends-hazlitt.html

If I take a completely harmless, legitimate, and even valuable action, give it a nasty-sounding label, and keep saying that over and over again solemnly, that makes the action wrong.

Like arrogant, disgusting totalitarian impulses and slavery I imagine.

The fact that you take this despicable government act to be justified and keep repeating an entirely interpretive and largely meaningless legal mantra in an attempt to shut down all thinking on the matter tells me all I need to know.

It happens to be a well-supported mantra :)

I have studied the subject of IQ and believe in the infamous bell curve

Jeff, there are few people that have read that book that looked past its conclusions to examine its central premise. The central premise is assumed to be true uncritically. Have you examined the history of IQ theory? And exactly how did you study it? Donald D. Dorfman, professor in the graduate program in applied mathematical and computational sciences at the University of Iowa, and the author of the chapter "Group Testing" in the Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, showed conclusively in the 70's that there is no natural bell curve. It is easily demonstrated by examining how IQ tests are made. The curve comes from doing lots of sampling and removing questions that would not form a curve, and adding questions in the right mix until you get one. He stated it bluntly this way:

"The distribution of IQ test scores cannot be expected to follow a bell curve unless it is constructed by the tester to do so." --Dorfman.

Any study of IQ theory itself (rather than the conclusions reached by the book based on it) would also lead you to Thomas Sowell, who did his own studies long before Herrnstein's book was published and came to different conclusions. It isn't to say the book has no other merits; Sowell points out in his critique that one must distinguish political judgements from scientific ones, but the (unstated) scientific assumption in the books central premise of a natural bell curve is an assumption without any supporting evidence, and believing it requires one to overlook the commonsense reasons to think it untrue that whatever "intelligence" is that it is distributed among folks in a curve as is height or weight. If that were true there would be no massive sampling as there is to make an IQ test.

Whether or not Americans will fill STEM jobs or not has nothing to do with the innate mental capacities of Americans. Do you understand that IQ theory is about that? That whatever "intelligence" is, it can be measured independently of knowledge? I don't believe this, but that is the claim.

By the way, somewhat related, I suggest you check out some recent posts by Vox Day attacking free trade -- I'm generally a neo-classical orthodox economics guy, but I have to admit Vox makes a strong case:

I don't think it is wise to get too ideological about this issue. I think the idea that the "nations don't exist" idea is a bad one. Of course they exist in terms that might matter to economics at a given point for given reasons. I could go on with his other points but I won't. To the extent that I believe in "free trade," it is generally because I think the alternatives are worse. Once you get regulatory regimes embedded into industries you have some pretty serious political corruption to deal with that can be quite pernicious. It is usually a matter of avoiding bad things rather than trying to control who gets what that makes me a free-trader.

What pols and wonks are saying that people don't have the mental capacity for modern jobs? I have never heard anyone say this, and I find your claim quite incredible. Can you cite a credible source for this?

I'm not going to cite a source for something you misread.

"So Al, I've heard this from many pro-union folks, but it puzzles me. Do you work for a union?"

No.

"If not, do you think you would be better off it you had a union job?"

No, if I had a union job it would mean I had a job which would mean I was working which would mean alarm clocks, scurrying about, dealing with others on an involuntary basis, and the like which would be a huge step down.

"If unions are the answer, what was the question?"

The question is decent working conditions at a wage that allows one to live a life and raise a family with a modicum of dignity and comfort. People were murdered fighting for things you take for granted, fail to understand, and appreciate, and, apparently, would throw away without much reflection.

As a lad I had a neighbor who was in the Colorado National Guard in 1914. He was at the Ludlow Massacre; going to school I worked in a warehouse for awhile and knew teamsters who talked about before and after the union - you and I are likely on separate sides of a "knew not Joseph" divide and you have no idea of the actual implications of your ideology.

Take a look at the various charts on income by decile and unionization over time and the link between the war on the middle class and uionization becomes obvious.

Where American unions failed was in not developing as a political force. We needed a Labor Party and America has suffered for the lack of one.

Unions, like all things human, aren't perfect and there are better ways of organizing things,

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_64a08afc-942c-5c29-ba4a-4d57719b02aa.html

but as long as we insist on our outdated attitudes towards things corporate we are forced to take our cue from Florence Reese and choose the least worse side (or in the case of the right, the wrong side).

"Bag it. Take it to someone else's thread or just take it away. Off-topic."

Wow, a little harsh - that paragraph was part of the article - no evil intentions on my part. Your passion on things of this nature continues to amaze me.

When you write,

"But, yes, a vaguely-worded law that gives that kind of power to unelected bureaucrats and judges to keep pushing the envelope shouldn't exist,"

you seem unaware that all you are doing is preferring one set of bureaucrats over another.

Judges and government bureaucrats have various levels of accountability. Top executives are turning into a new nobility and would be accountable to no one once the government you so despise is sidelined by the manufactured outrage you have bought into..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-executive-pay-rich-pull-away-from-rest-of-america/2011/06/13/AGKG9jaH_story.html?wprss=rss_business

Jim McNerney came from a privileged background, went to Ivy League schools and has always been in management. He has never worked an assembly line or designed an airplane. South Carolina played beggar they neighbor to get the plant and is part of the race to the bottom.

Your outrage rang a bell so I stepped into the way back machine and found this excerpt from a letter by railroad executive George Baer (a fellow conservative) back in 1902 ,

""The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for -- not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the country, and upon the successful management of which so much depends."

I don't know if Mr. McNerney is a Christian but he certainly is of property. Oh, here is another of Mr. baer's thoughts - perhaps this is why we have state and federal laws on mine safety (more pesky bureaucrats),

"These men don't suffer. Why, hell, half of them don't even speak English."

Anyway, what is a perfectly reasonable reading of the law has been ginned up by the right-wing noise machine into an issue because, with a Republican majority in the House, your masters see an opportunity to gain a little more advantage.

(Those who bridle at my reference to "your masters" should reflect on the recent comments by U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue,

"In one of the funnier moments during his Rotary talk, Donohue was asked if Congress was going to raise the debt ceiling.

"Yes, it will be raised, Donohue answered, mainly because the country can not afford to not pay its bills. To those newly-elected representatives who say they aren’t going to raise the debt ceiling and will shut down government, Donohue said the U.S. Chamber has its own message: “We’ll get rid of you.”

"He then went on to praise U.S. House Speaker John Boehner for his Congressional leadership.

“He’s growing into his shorts,” Donohue said. “He’s put on his big boy pants.”

As I said, your masters.)

I don't know if Mr. McNerney is a Christian but he certainly is of property. Oh, here is another of Mr. baer's thoughts - perhaps this is why we have state and federal laws on mine safety (more pesky bureaucrats),

"These men don't suffer. Why, hell, half of them don't even speak English."

More change of subject. Meanwhile, the people you, Al, really don't care much about are the people who would rather not be in unions but to whom the unions would rather not give a choice. As I say, the obvious purpose of the NLRB's new action is to lower the profitability of a state's being a right-to-work state.

Well, there ain't no property right like the right to hold human flesh as property; which "right" today constitutes a central organizing principle of the Left, so long as it's understood that only the unborn (and maybe the aged or disabled) are afflicted by it.

In other words, it's worth keeping in mind that, whatever perfidy Boeing is guilty of, it pales in comparison to the crimes of Al's masters, whose own ugly business was most recently exposed at the house of horrors in Philadelphia.

Put still another way, if Al can play these associative tricks, by which he ties a website like W4 (which has of course never printed a word that is critical of corporations; no, not once) to some obscure industrialist a century ago, then we can all go home content to mark Al as the true inheritor of the tradition of John C. Calhoun and the "positive good" school. Early pro-choicers always carefully refrained from saying that abortion is a positive good; the modern Left has long abandoned that. Abortion is their sacrament now.

For the Left, crossing a picket line is to breach a fundamental principle of natural law--a self-evident truth incapable of being pierced by reason or argument. On the other hand, marriage is just anything we want it to be--a self-evident lie capable of being shaped by our wills in whatever way we choose. Remember, for the Left, the union card is sacrosanct, the marriage certificate, just a piece of paper.

I don't really mind Al's taking pot-shots at me as the big, bad, anti-unionist and citing the Evil Capitalists of long-past centuries. When he does so, it just makes it more evident that he has no intention of living in and coping with the present reality. The present reality is that unions survive by means of not giving people a choice on membership. Which is why right-to-work rules and laws, including such simple and obvious things as the secret ballot, are considered "union-busting" by their leftist opponents. (Intimidation and retaliation, anyone? Oh, no, that applies only to employers.) And which is why the NLRB does things like this. If a large company can be forced into literally _negotiating_ (I still can't get over how crazy that suggestion is) with a union as to whether or not to open an entirely new line in a different state with non-union workers, then the unions have a legally enforced hammerlock over the non-union workers. It's that simple. That's why Al would rather get us to talk about the past rather than the present.

If we are talking about morality, then, no, Boeing isn't guilty of doing anything wrong.

Well we are at an impasse then. While I can understand why someone might not want labor laws like the one Boeing has run afoul of, I can't understand why a blatant attempt by a corp. to hurt its employees is not morally foul.

"...and citing the Evil Capitalists of long-past centuries."

Speaking of citing the evils of decades past, right here in Illinois it turns out that the caricature of "labor good, capitalist bad" is much more complicated even when we go back to the glory days of labor in the roaring 20s. In fact, one could even say that the Herrin coal mine massacre was the "most brutal and horrifying crime that has ever stained the garments of organized labor" which is exactly what the St. Louis Globe-Democrat said on June 24, 1922:

http://www.oocities.org/heartland/7847/massacre.htm

I can't understand why a blatant attempt by a corp. to hurt its employees is not morally foul.

I can't see why a blatant attempt by the NLRB to hurt the SC employees (they are real people who exist right now) is not morally foul. Aided and abetted, of course, by the union in Washington State.

My goodness! (And I'm tempted to say something stronger but am restraining myself.) "An attempt to _hurt_ its employees"??? To hear you talk, Matt, one would think the unionized Wash. State employees were _entitled_ to have Boeing open its future lines in their state or open in another state only with their consent. The arrogance here on the part of the WA union is just incredible.

Thanks, Jeff. That's some story.

As a lad I had a neighbor who was in the Colorado National Guard in 1914. He was at the Ludlow Massacre; going to school I worked in a warehouse for awhile and knew teamsters who talked about before and after the union - you and I are likely on separate sides of a "knew not Joseph" divide and you have no idea of the actual implications of your ideology.

Know not Joseph? Oh please. I'll bet I know the history of anti-union violence as well as you do, and I'll bet I know more union members personally than you.

The question is decent working conditions at a wage that allows one to live a life and raise a family with a modicum of dignity and comfort. People were murdered fighting for things you take for granted, fail to understand, and appreciate, and, apparently, would throw away without much reflection.

But the problem is that there is nowhere in the world than one can own a home and live for the price you can in the great majority of places the US. Nowhere in the world where you can raise a family for what you can here. You can have a decent place and pay good prices from food, clothes, to building supplies. Other places that have what you want to impose don't have it as good. Most other places have high taxes *and* low wages. I just returned from such a place, Finland and the Nordic countries. I talked to some expats and I was told if the low wages are referred to the justification is "Look, we have good schools and good healthcare, so why would you need more?" See, they've got your life managed for you. Stop wanting more income, because the wages are managed in a distributionist fashion . . . that contributes greatly to the high prices.

Take a look at the various charts on income by decile and unionization over time and the link between the war on the middle class and uionization becomes obvious.

Like I've already said, take a look at comparisons to other nations. Which one is your model Al? And how is that working out for its citizens?

I intended to limit my comments to Finland.

So because of violence in the past, we must support unions now? Isn't this the same logic that says we must support reparations over slavery?

If a large company can be forced into literally _negotiating_ (I still can't get over how crazy that suggestion is) with a union as to whether or not to open an entirely new line in a different state with non-union workers, then the unions have a legally enforced hammerlock over the non-union workers.

Lydia, have you read the complaint or any of the documents? Because the NLRB counsel expressly rejected that claim in this case. While he affirmed that Boeing can locate new work facilities for any lawful reason, and with no negotiation of any kind because the union waived that right in its collective bargaining agreement, he also recognized that there are unlawful reasons that are discriminatory and inherently destructive of employee's rights. We can debate all week about whether or not those actions were "sufficiently" discriminatory and destructive, or whether or not you think employees actually have rights, but not if you are going to misstate basic facts about the case.

Step2, perhaps you can brief us on the supposedly illegal motives of Boeing, so we don't have to read a hundred pages of a legal brief?

Since when is it good law to decide that an act, neutral in itself, is going to be illegal based on "bad" motives? Well, not to speak too broadly, I suppose that there might be cases where it is OK to write law that way, but probably not with respect to business. For a large company, with many executives and tens of members of the board of directors, there are ALWAYS MANY motives, not just one or two. Of these motives, it will ALWAYS be the case that some of them veer toward the edge of "profit always and all other interests be damned", but these motives are nearly always tempered in some measure or other in each responsible person individually, and collectively they are tempered in ways that cannot be spelled out in any document - there are always moderating and correlative motivations alongside.

Please explain how it is that Boeing can be destroying an employee's rights when Boeing has not yet hired that employee yet, and WON'T hire that employee because it cannot afford to open a new line of production unless it can find employees that reside in a state that does not penalize that new line of business. I suppose that I damage Walmart's rights when I decide to shop at the locally-owned store? Or, Ford damages employee rights when it decides NOT TO OPEN a new plant because it cannot afford to do so in the given legal climate?

If Labor has a natural right to collectivize and negotiate en-mass, (which I do not dispute), the prospective employer has a natural right to seek employees who have not yet unionized. The only reason any employer would fail to hold such a natural right would be because the law took it away from him, and such a law appears to constitute a bias in favor of labor on the part of the government. Let us pretend for a moment that I know nothing about the history of the labor movement: why would such a bias from the government toward one sector of the people against another sector of the people be appropriate? Isn't the law supposed to establish level playing fields, biased toward nobody?

Since when is it good law to decide that an act, neutral in itself, is going to be illegal based on "bad" motives?

That's the nub of the whole thing, Tony. To hear Boeing's opponents talk, one would think that that's completely uncontroversial. They are positively...solemn about the terrible, illegal motives here. It's supposed to have been positively outrageous that Boeing personnel told the news that they "can't have work stoppages every couple of years."

Step2, the suggestion that negotiation was required was directly made by the union itself, as found on the NLRB's own site:

The union also charged that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by failing to negotiate over the decision to transfer the production line.

If the NLRB has rejected this demand by the union, I'm unable to find the statement that it has rejected it, after searching the commplaint itself and a number of fact sheets and statements, including the general counsel's statement, on the NLRB's own site for "negotiate" and cognates thereof. But suppose that you are right that the NLRB isn't prepared to go quite as far as the union on that point. The union displays the astounding arrogance I have attributed to it by making this demand, and Matt, above, by referring to Boeing as "hurting" the Wash. State workers, displays the same attitude of entitlement. Moreover, negotiating with the union about the location of the second line is definitely being held up as a cover-your-posterior move for companies in similar situations.

I note, too, that in the complaint, the NLRB seeks to have Boeing forced to move its second line to Wash. State! This isn't, contrary to Matt's statements, a mere matter of a "measly fine." Even a so-called "measly fine" would, of course, be a coercive attempt to punish companies for locating some of their business in right-to-work states when this could be spun as "retaliation." But it's even more direct than that--an unequivocal attempt to have Boeing forced to remove business from the non-union workers and transfer it (and this would be a real transfer) to the union workers! Simply amazing.

I can't resist, after pondering the horrifying story to which Jeff Singer linked, making the following comment: If, after having all his equipment destroyed and his non-union workers murdered before many witnesses with no repercussions, Mr. Lester the mine owner had decided to open a second mine with non-union workers in a different state, perhaps this would have been _retaliation_ against the murderous union workers in Illinois! An unlawful motive, for sure. "We can't have sieges, total equipment destruction, and mass murders every couple of years," Mr. Lester was overheard to tell a news reporter. The NLRB has filed a complaint.

It appears that the unions (at least), and probably the NLRB, think that all changes in the company's practice toward all workers and all potential workers must be a matter for negotiation with the union, unless the union waives that right explicitly. As if the union as a matter of general principle automatically must represent ALL POSSIBLE worker interests, (and be the SOLE party to so represent) including those of people not yet members of the union nor members of the worker class. But that is simply wrong. The union cannot possibly be the proper body to represent those people whose jobs with the company will never happen if the company cannot achieve a location and conditions where it anticipates making a profit off those jobs. The union's interests and those potential employees' interests simply do not coincide. Even in the ideal, if the union has the right to dictate terms of benefits and such, it is impossible that the union have the capacity to dictate whether the company anticipates making a profit from some new POSSIBLE line of work under those conditions. There is an expression for such a failed notion: centrally planned communist economy.

Further, although law supports this, it OUGHT to be against labor law and violate contract law that a union agreement can make it so that the union "represents" a worker who actively rejects its representation, and (much worse) force all workers of a given job class to be members of the union. What ever happened to the "right to associate", which logically implies the right to NOT associate? The employees ought to have the right NOT to associate with the union if they don't want to.

I don't much like the "at will" standard that reigns in most non-union places, either. I tend to think that every employer over a certain size (maybe, 10 or 15 employees) should have a written contract with EACH employee, individually negotiated with that employee. I am fine with the concept that a union should negotiate with the employer about some of the _general standards_ of the contracts, but that the union agreement controls the entire contract between the employer and employee cannot but have a damaging effect on the employer / employee relationship, which ought to be personal - a relation of a person to a person springing out of human love. After the union / employer construct a general framework for contracts, a framework that provides lots of opportunity for the employee and employer to choose various options in how they wish to relate, THEN the employee and employer should be free to hammer out an individual contract that stays within the general guidelines but allows the two parties to negotiate matters of compensation, benefits, working conditions, working hours, off-hours constraints, promotions and terminations, etc - all matters that may fall on one employee's interests in a different way than they fall on another employee's interests and therefore CANNOT be controlled by the union itself as such.

I am fine with the concept that a union should negotiate with the employer about some of the _general standards_ of the contracts

I'm even a little more radical. :-) I'm not fine with that if it's closed shop, no secret ballot, etc.

The question is decent working conditions at a wage that allows one to live a life and raise a family with a modicum of dignity and comfort. People were murdered fighting for things you take for granted, fail to understand, and appreciate, and, apparently, would throw away without much reflection.

Al, that is so lame. First of all, until you can come up with an economic theory that shows how a person's labor MUST, of natural force, produce enough new wealth to allow one to live a life and raise a family with a modicum of dignity and comfort, then this level of benefit is no natural right, it is an aspiration. Since it isn't a natural right, the only reason the government should be getting into the thick of "making sure" about it is to make sure that you have a level playing field to make the attempt to fulfill your aspiration. If an employer is tilting the field in their favor, then the government should tip it level again. Other than that, the government has no natural authority to enforce that you or an employer make the correct choices that actually ensure that your labor really does produce enough wealth that matches your aspiration. What the government instead has is the natural obligation to ALLOW you and said employer to engage your capacities, at mutual consent, to enable each other to mutually fulfill both aspirations if you can, or not if you cannot. Thousands of patriots died as volunteers to ensure that freedom. Apparently you would throw that freedom - the freedom to make your own choices to fulfill your aspirations or fail in the attempt - away without much reflection.

If a union wants to bargain collectively, it has the right to attempt such bargaining. It cannot then avoid the natural repercussions of such attempts: that the employer suddenly undergoes a change in the method and cost of his doing business, which means he may or may not be able to make a profit anymore, which means he may re-evaluate whether to continue that business. If he takes his capital and walks away, the union cannot say: "you have to bargain with us about whether you are better off taking your capital away", that's just stupid. The natural consequence of insisting on an increase in outlays for employees is a change in the investor's risk/benefit ratio.

Collective bargaining via the unions was part and parcel of a long process society underwent to curb some of the excesses of the change to mass production. Other mechanisms than unions could have achieved some of those results, and other SORTS of union arrangements could have also. State and federal laws against child labor militated a portion of the change even apart from any change brought about explicitly through labor unions. So did the increase in schooling that went with banning child labor. It is entirely possible that although the unions were, historically, responsible for some of the change in standard of living for most blue collar workers during the 60 years from 1890 to 1950, it is not logically ascertainable that those changes could not have come about through other models than OUR specific model of labor practice. We are suggesting that the model we have now (which is the grandchild of the sets of choices made back then) has serious defects that should not be ignored merely because the unions were in fact responsible for much of the change half a century ago and more. They are ALSO responsible for much of the stagnation of the rust belt decline in standard of living, and they generally constitute an anti-freedom force in the current environment. That is, anti-freedom both for employers (which is not surprising) and anti-freedom for employees, which should give ANY union supporter pause for reconsideration.

That is, anti-freedom both for employers (which is not surprising) and anti-freedom for employees, which should give ANY union supporter pause for reconsideration.

Preach it!

This thread is a hoot. "Labor bad, corporation good" vs. "Corporation bad, labor good." In other words, Right-liberal vs. Left-liberal knee-jerkism with neither side able to see the obvious: big business and big labor are both irredeemably corrupt (especially when you throw the State into the mix) and in the larger picture this little Boeing/NLRB skirmish means diddly. Ya'll can just keep fighting one another while the managerial state just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

We now return you to today's fruitless internecine squabble...

CTY,D: You didn't even read the thread.

To hear you talk, Matt, one would think the unionized Wash. State employees were _entitled_ to have Boeing open its future lines in their state or open in another state only with their consent. The arrogance here on the part of the WA union is just incredible.

And to hear you talk, you would think Boeing hadn't gone and admitted the whole plan. You don't see anything wrong with punishing a union, indeed seem actually glad it is happening, but at least acknowledge that it is happening.

"Admitted the whole plan." I mean, that's almost funny. They talked about possibly opening a second line in Wash. State, but when they had all these work stoppages, they decided instead to open it in a different state with non-union workers. This is a nefarious plot? I can only shake my head. You know, it isn't _unreasonable_ to prefer to get work done without stoppages every couple years, and if the people in SC want the work and won't cause the stoppages, this should be a win-win situation. The union in Wash. State isn't entitled to hold the jobs hostage, make everyone dance to their tune, and have no work done when they don't want it done. You call the change of initial plans "punishing the union." I call it "normal life."

You know, there's this notion one has to teach to children--that what one does has consequences. This isn't always a matter of punishment. It can just be, "Well, you know, if you do that, people won't be motivated to deal with you anymore. The world doesn't revolve around you." Union advocates and willing members appear not to have progressed in maturity past spoiled brat-hood. Perhaps this has something to do with their being perpetually cosseted by the federal government.

Looks like someone wasn't completely vetted prior to being nominated: Obama's Commerce Pick Criticizes Federal Fight With Boeing.

This thread is a hoot. "Labor bad, corporation good" vs. "Corporation bad, labor good." In other words, Right-liberal vs. Left-liberal knee-jerkism with neither side able to see the obvious: big business and big labor are both irredeemably corrupt (especially when you throw the State into the mix) . . .

Now this is suspicious. If you take the letters from the phrase "Calmer Than You" and merely add the letters k, z, s, and i you can spell Kaczynski. Coincidence? I don't think so. Watch your mailboxes.

Mark, that's pretty darn funny.

I'll be here all week. :)

Matt seems oblivious to the fact that Boeing has finally started treating its commercial employees the way most government contractors treat their government contract employees (two weeks after your last billable hour, you're fired). It was only a matter of time before the culture spilled over.

Todd, great article, great quote here:

The nominee, John Bryson, recently stepped down from Boeing's board.

I've read about half the thread, and it's infuriating. Regardless of the topic, I keep wondering: is it possible that Progressives don't realize how utterly dishonest they are? That they really think it is morally acceptable to change the meanings of words to win arguments? They're not conscious of abusing the language?

Step 2 wrote:

It has been legally understood as retaliation when management openly provides that reason for it.

If you hit me, and I hit you back, that's retaliation.

If you hit me, and I run away and play somewhere where you cannot hit me again, that is not retaliation. That is good sense.

End of discussion. Boeing choosing to open the new line in South Carolina is not retaliation in any meaningful sense of the word. Their action is entirely legal and above board. Unless, as Lydia so aptly pointed out, the rule of law has been corrupted by vagueness, in which case the law is evil and must be changed.

Step 2 also wrote:

I was merely pointing out the rhetorical absurdity of calling a group of multimillionaires slaves.

I nearly exploded when I read this. What does the amount of money I have in the bank have to do with whether my legitimate liberties are being removed or not? If the wealthy Jews being moved to the labor camps by the Nazis had been permitted to keep their fur coats, diamond rings, and priceless art, would that have made the labor camps appropriate?

The liberal mindset maintains that so long as a group has some sort of advantage -- wealth, or in the case of Christians, majority status -- it's perfectly acceptable to do evil things to that group. It's rationalization, and genuinely evil.

Tony,
It appears that the unions (at least), and probably the NLRB, think that all changes in the company's practice toward all workers and all potential workers must be a matter for negotiation with the union, unless the union waives that right explicitly.

Because it is entirely possible for a union to negotiate with the corporation, not just a local affiliate, and thus have a binding legal contract on all workers and potential workers of particular class(es) of job. By your reasoning, a union contract only covers workers at the time the contract was signed, management can simply hire additional workers at the same location who will not be covered. Let me clear up a few things that should be obvious but are apparently not:
1. The right to strike is a legally protected right for each private sector American worker, union or non-union.
2. The right to organize a union and collectively bargain is a national and international legal right. No American state has the standing to overturn that right, so all the right-to-work laws do is to make it more expensive to operate the union.
3. The collective bargain agreement, so far as it doesn't violate federal or state laws, is a binding legal contract between management and the union. As such, it can cover or exclude any range of employment related matters, both current and future.

It cannot then avoid the natural repercussions of such attempts: that the employer suddenly undergoes a change in the method and cost of his doing business, which means he may or may not be able to make a profit anymore, which means he may re-evaluate whether to continue that business.

If you could show me where Boeing was running a deficit due to their union contracts, instead of just having a lower profit, that would be a valid point.

I am fine with the concept that a union should negotiate with the employer about some of the _general standards_ of the contracts, but that the union agreement controls the entire contract between the employer and employee cannot but have a damaging effect on the employer / employee relationship, which ought to be personal - a relation of a person to a person springing out of human love.

So, it's out of human love that Boeing wants to pay workers less and slash their benefits. Pray tell, what would an employment relationship springing from spite look like?

Lydia,
If the NLRB has rejected this demand by the union, I'm unable to find the statement that it has rejected it, after searching the commplaint itself and a number of fact sheets and statements, including the general counsel's statement, on the NLRB's own site for "negotiate" and cognates thereof.

"The investigation did not find merit to the union’s charge that Boeing failed to bargain in good faith over its decision regarding the second line...in this case, the union had waived its right to bargain on the issue in its collective bargaining agreement with Boeing." equals lawyer speak for "this claim is denied."

The union displays the astounding arrogance I have attributed to it by making this demand, and Matt, above, by referring to Boeing as "hurting" the Wash. State workers, displays the same attitude of entitlement.

Obviously the union made a serious mistake in waiving that in their collective bargaining agreement, but their mistake isn't the NLRB's responsibility to fix. I wouldn't call it arrogant, just stupid.

"Admitted the whole plan." I mean, that's almost funny.

It is funny, because there are legal precedents that make their admitted plan illegal. Let me put it this way, Boeing's defense of these statements has them pleading the First Amendment. Which I challenge anyone to go up to their employer and say they are doing something illegal with company assets and then plead First Amendment protection when they get fired. No, I don't really want anyone to take this challenge because it is idiotic.

philwynk,
Comparison to slavery is rhetorically absurd, comparison to Nazi policies towards the Jews is unhinged.

I hope she pardons me if when she writes about "companies who even wish to spend their money to set up shop," I ask how many millions of dollars they received from the state government in grants and tax waivers in order to do so, and why I should side with one government puppet or another?

Subject-change much, Timon? You know, I'd say the ratio of subject-changing to on-point comments by people who disagree with me in this thread is higher than average. Which is kind of interesting in its own right.

If you hit me, and I hit you back, that's retaliation.

If you hit me, and I run away and play somewhere where you cannot hit me again, that is not retaliation. That is good sense.

Couldn't have put it better. Apparently the liberal take on this is, "If Joe says that he ran away and played somewhere else _because_ you hit him, then that makes it retaliation. See, Joe announced the whole plan!"

It cannot then avoid the natural repercussions of such attempts: that the employer suddenly undergoes a change in the method and cost of his doing business, which means he may or may not be able to make a profit anymore, which means he may re-evaluate whether to continue that business.

If you could show me where Boeing was running a deficit due to their union contracts, instead of just having a lower profit, that would be a valid point.

This is so wrong. First, as I've already said, anybody who has been near the UAW recognizes this kind of assertion: "They've got money, and there isn't any reason they can't give us a raise or whatever we're used to having." But the obvious problem with this is that companies that aren't bankrupt have money, but they have plans on using it in certain ways to maintain or grow the business.

If you were trying to sell me something and I said "I don't think I should have to to pay that much for it," what would you say if I said "But I'll bet you could easily afford it and you're being unreasonable. In fact, show me your bank accounts and asset statements and I'll prove it." Well you'd be shocked, because what does someone's net worth have to do with what they are willing to pay for a good or service? A fool and his money are soon parted. They have nothing to do with each other, unless it is a charity. Which is how most union members think of their employers. I've met and known quite a few UAW members, and precious few were concerned about how good the product was of company they worked for. They assumed the business would always be there for them and resented it like some sort of dependent teenager.

And there is the problem. Companies aren't charities. Companies that don't make profits don't continue to provide jobs. And then we have the "But they've got loads of money!" argument again. Rinse, wring, repeat. Aside from the GM example of how this drags companies down over time, once again the question isn't whether they have money now, or how well things are going now. But here's the reason that profits in the present don't tell the whole story at all, because the second point I wish to make is that much does not have to do with money directly, but whether the company is still in charge of its own destiny in terms of having a flexible posture that can respond to and take advantage of needs and trends that will protect and grow the business. If they don't, they are a company in decline and it's just a matter of time.

I worked for GM outside U. S. borders, and I can tell you how very infrequently the subject on money was even discussed. While union pukes back home were bitterly complaining that they lost that portion of the business to another country because of cheaper wages, the nationals and expats can see the main measures of success are matters of speed, flexibility, and customer satisfaction. Which are the factors that union workers in the U. S. can't be bothered to pay much attention to because they are convinced the company either a) can't fail, b) won't be allowed to fail, or c) if they fail it will only prove that management was corrupt as the union always claimed they were. Win-win-win. It's bizarre. That's why I say when people claim "It's all about the money," it's never about the money. The truth is unions with Byzantine rules aren't capable of doing what modern business demands, and they don't wish to change, and the truth is they aren't needed anymore as Toyota and BMW are clearly showing in the Southwest. The employees there do not favor unions because they know once you let a union boss skim your wages and set the rules, you are worse off than when employees deal with their company directly.

Lydia,
Couldn't have put it better. Apparently the liberal take on this is, "If Joe says that he ran away and played somewhere else _because_ you hit him, then that makes it retaliation. See, Joe announced the whole plan!"

Yep, asking for a fair portion of the profits that you helped contribute to, and withholding your labor if they refuse, is exactly like hitting someone. On the other hand, turning areas of the Rust Belt into ghost towns is just playing a nice game.

Mark,
If you were trying to sell me something and I said "I don't think I should have to to pay that much for it," what would you say if I said "But I'll bet you could easily afford it and you're being unreasonable. In fact, show me your bank accounts and asset statements and I'll prove it." Well you'd be shocked, because what does someone's net worth have to do with what they are willing to pay for a good or service?

Well, you've got the situation a little confused. This isn't some random stranger on the street, this is your employer that you help produce profits for, who has a business model and tax statements and (sometimes) an accounting department. Unless there is something going on in which the employer is intentionally hiding his real costs and profits, the employees with moderate research should have a pretty good idea about what their employer can and cannot afford.

Companies that don't make profits don't continue to provide jobs.

Is there anybody on this thread besides yourself who has made the sweeping claim that unions don't want the companies they work for to make a profit?

Step2, you have your ideas about what workers should make, and other people have theirs. If the union strikes to try to get _its_ idea, my contention just here is simply that Boeing shouldn't be punished for starting a new line in a state with workers who won't do that. As a commentator way up-thread pointed out, the workers in SC decertified their union. If you are going to claim that Boeing "retaliated" against the workers who had struck by opening a new line (to which the Wash. State workers did not have a God-given entitlement) in a different state, I can more readily argue that the union is "retaliating" against the workers in SC for decertifying. After all, the union wouldn't have a complaint if Boeing had switched to another union location. If the NLRB--this is the NLRB, not the union--gets what it wants, the line will be _transferred_ to Wash. State, thus "punishing" the non-union workers in SC!

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody gets the work and somebody doesn't. The only way to agree with the union here is to think they were entitled to the work produced by an entirely new production line that didn't even previously exist! Or even to _refuse_ to do that work and to prevent it from being done if they chose to strike! In other words, to control whether that work got done or not. Where you get the idea of that entitlement from is a mystery to me. If it's supposed to be some sort of basic ethical intuition, then God help the country that has to be run on your ethical intuitions.

"CTY,D: You didn't even read the thread."

On the contrary, I've read it since its beginning -- some of it twice and some posts even three times.

"If you take the letters from the phrase 'Calmer Than You' and merely add the letters k, z, s, and i you can spell Kaczynski. Coincidence? I don't think so. Watch your mailboxes."

Heh. Apparently to "Mark" anyone who finds both big labor and big business problematic thinks like an eco-terrorist.

Here's the gig in a nutshell, folks. Learn it now the easy way or later by necessity:

"Giant multi-national corporations dominate almost every area of life, from finance to farming. They do so with the full and enthusiastic encouragement of the State, whichever political party happens to be managing. Meanwhile, the same State busies itself enacting or enforcing laws which crush the life out of the small, the independent and the local. Those on the right who blame an over-mighty State for our national woes and those on the left for whom the villain is the over-mighty corporation are both right, and both wrong. These days they are increasingly one and the same." (emphasis mine).

Paul Kingsnorth, Real England: The Battle Against the Bland

The author is writing about England of course, but anyone who doesn't see the same trend happening here in the U.S. is either asleep or delusional. Wake up and smell the $tarbuck$, guys.

the employees with moderate research should have a pretty good idea about what their employer can and cannot afford.

Step2, that just isn't so. It's not so, about 5 ways from Sunday. The simplest is this: an employee CANNOT have a pretty good idea of how sensitive the profit margin is to this, that, or the other change that he might contemplate. It is hard enough for a really good management executive, with tons of training, to do it, and even then he often does it only by an intuition and seat-of-the pants feeling that cannot be put into a spreadsheet. That's why truly successful executives are unusual.

Proof positive: the employees and unions have maneuvered GM into enormous pension obligations that they simply cannot afford to maintain anymore, and into even worse retiree medical benefits that cannot be paid for under ANY POSSIBLE forecast of business plan. If the employees were capable of being able to see what GM can afford, they would have known 2 decades ago that they were setting the place up for impossible conditions down the road.

So, it's out of human love that Boeing wants to pay workers less and slash their benefits. Pray tell, what would an employment relationship springing from spite look like?

Interesting. I never once said (because I don't think it) that Boeing is a model corp, or that it runs things properly. I don't have any special knowledge about Boeing, so for all I know they may be a terrible company. In general I think that large multi-nationals have a fundamental problem that I don't think can be avoided - each and every relationship you have, including with your employer, ought to be founded in love. A corporate structure that precludes a boss acting out of love for his employees (and his customers, and his local community, and his investors) is, perforce, a defective arrangement.

That said, there are better and worse defective structures. An arrangement that BOTH precludes a boss acting with love toward his employees, AND prevents him from doing other constructive good with the investment assets by putting them to good use in generating new wealth, is worse than an arrangement that precludes the first but not the second. An arrangement that prevents the second but not the first might be better while it lasts, but it will be very short lived anyway, so why even argue the point?

Well, you've got the situation a little confused. This isn't some random stranger on the street, this is your employer that you help produce profits for, who has a business model and tax statements and (sometimes) an accounting department. Unless there is something going on in which the employer is intentionally hiding his real costs and profits, the employees with moderate research should have a pretty good idea about what their employer can and cannot afford.

The analogy wouldn't be any better if I had made it over transparency. You are quibbling over a pointless detail. To state the point bluntly, as far as cost is concerned, the only party fit to judge the value of something is the one paying for it, and it is the value of a good or service that is the heart of this matter rather than the ability to bear the cost.

Is there anybody on this thread besides yourself who has made the sweeping claim that unions don't want the companies they work for to make a profit?

Is there anyone else here that has actually had to do business with a union? My first job out of college was to work in a UAW plant, as a non-union member. My dealings with the union were never good or pleasant. And I know quite a few retired UAW members, some of them in my own family.

My claim is not that all unions are the same. I know they aren't. Small unions are a whole different thing. My claim is that the UAW (United Auto Workers) and the IAM (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) have similar motives, tactics, and effects on employees and business. If that is not the case, I am willing to listen to reasons why this might be.

Is there anybody on this thread besides yourself who has made the sweeping claim that unions don't want the companies they work for to make a profit?

I never said that they don't want the company to make profits. That's silly. In the minds of union members, the company is always either a) making a profit, b) has recently made a profit, or c) is about to make a profit so any claims that they don't want to increase wages and benefits could only be explained by a desire for excessive profits.

"On the contrary, I've read it since its beginning -- some of it twice and some posts even three times."

Seeing words without comprehending their meaning is not the same as reading.

So, it's out of human love that Boeing wants to pay workers less and slash their benefits. Pray tell, what would an employment relationship springing from spite look like?

Um, they want to hire people in South Carolina to work for them. When you choose to hire someone, you have turned down others to do so. They are paying the South Carolinians a competitive wage for their jobs, and they are glad to have them as I would be. This is just union propaganda that their desire is to screw people.

Look, all this "oh Boeing will do fine no matter what" isn't the point even if were true. The question isn't whether they'll be hurt by this or that, but whether they can meet the demands of their customers. When you have a hot product you have to move because airlines may not be able to wait for too many delays. In my opinion, Boeing calculated very wisely that the A380 was a blunder on Airbus' part and the trend was to smaller, more efficient planes that carry people closer to where they want to go rather than a huge plane that requires modified runways and tools to service. If so, it is just a replay of the old Concorde debacle from decades ago. So now it seems as if their gamble is paying off by increased orders for the 787 and a 748, the latter being a very conservative answer to the A380 with far less development costs. But you can't sell what you haven't produced, and orders very frequently get cancelled in the airline industry because the fulfillment process is long and airlines have shifting fortunes too.

So now that a shrewd gamble may start to pay off. But shipping a lot of product fast is the way the gamble pays off, and now that it is the IAM starts thinking about how it can use its leverage as to get more of the pie. But what did the IAM gamble? I don't see what, but someone with more knowledge than I and can inform me. But the shareholders sure did. Planning and building planes is a very slow process, and fraught with risks. When you take risks others don't, you expect returns others shouldn't when gambles work as you hope. When you are conservative and want the safety of a stable wage you have to settle with less in the good times, but you get steady income in the poorer ones. This is not rocket science. If union members were so hot for Boeing profits, they should be more interested in profit-sharing than they are. Unions typically turn down such things and try to obtain a guarantee of lifetime employment, or at least the illusion of one. It's the same old story. They don't want a job as much as a meal ticket where members can't be fired no matter what and where the market has no bearing on their pay. The upshot of all this is an embittered work force who always blames others for their troubles.

Proof positive: the employees and unions have maneuvered GM into enormous pension obligations that they simply cannot afford to maintain anymore, and into even worse retiree medical benefits that cannot be paid for under ANY POSSIBLE forecast of business plan. If the employees were capable of being able to see what GM can afford, they would have known 2 decades ago that they were setting the place up for impossible conditions down the road.

All true Tony. Yet many don't seem to understand that even if these calculations were made more shrewdly by the UAW, it still wouldn't be good enough for GM to thrive. Times have changed. Here is where I say it isn't true that I blame everything on the unions. Because in making these sorts of calculations as the first order of business, one has already abandoned a critical understanding of how to make excellent products. By focusing on the products! Bob Lutz is an old car guy that gets it.

"Giant multi-national corporations dominate almost every area of life, from finance to farming. They do so with the full and enthusiastic encouragement of the State, whichever political party happens to be managing. Meanwhile, the same State busies itself enacting or enforcing laws which crush the life out of the small, the independent and the local. Those on the right who blame an over-mighty State for our national woes and those on the left for whom the villain is the over-mighty corporation are both right, and both wrong. These days they are increasingly one and the same."

But how do you avoid getting pulled in? We all know foil hats only work for a little while, and it's so hard to explain it during a job interview.

Lydia, maybe, but you are the queen of "what I wrote isn't relevant!" Then why write it; why use rhetorical flair that is a blatant half-truth ("companies who even wish to spend their money to set up shop") and start whining about people opposed to shopping at Walmart? Aren't you the same woman who flipped out about homeless people in shelters who have laptops? But Boeing is one of your people and a hundred million from the gov't is no biggie.

And it is unfortunate for the SC workers (or wherever they come from) to lose their jobs, but if Boeing knowingly went there in violation of other agreements, that is obviously an evil Boeing wrought by involving other people in their unjust action. And it does seem an inherently immoral act to take the profit and goodwill established by the labor of the Washington union members and transfer it to a state on the other side of the continent as though the total benefit belongs to those who voted for board members who could grease gov't palms and later weasel their way into influential positions (like John Bryson) to benefit the company. If Boeing had received similar grants and tax breaks from Washington as they did from SC, that only increases the the offense.

That's adorable but typically vacuous. Until the right begins to do a little substantive self-criticism we're going to remain in actuality what we are in public perception -- the big business party.

What exactly is conservatism conserving? Capitalism. The rest is a sideshow, and a sad paltry one at that. If abortion is the sacrament of the left, the business transaction is the sacrament of the right. Neither is conducive to the furtherance of the republic (if indeed we still have a republic), and both sides need to wake up to that fact.

You, however, can keep on frolicking in your neocon Palin-land, while babies continue to die and the managerial state continues to expand.

That last post was addressed to 'Mark' not 'Timon.'

Step2 wrote:

philwynk, Comparison to slavery is rhetorically absurd, comparison to Nazi policies towards the Jews is unhinged.

Just saying "that's absurd" demonstrates nothing but your emotional reaction.

My point was logically sound. You premised your objection to saying the NLRB was attempting to "enslave" Boeing on the fact that Boeing's owners are millionaires. I pointed out correctly that their being wealthy does not justify enslaving them.

Here, you confirm my correctness by shifting your argument. Now, instead of it being ok to enslave them because they're wealthy, it's rhetorically absurd to say they're being enslaved.

You don't even have an argument until you provide a reason why it's rhetorically absurd, given that you've admitted (by tactical retreat) that your original argument was indefensible.

By the way, the honest response to having a reflexive argument smacked down is to rethink the position that caused you embarrassment. For some reason, though, political leftists never respond honestly, and never rethink their position; it's like Progressives' psychic defenses against being proved wrong are immune to assault by facts or, as in this case, logic.

And it is unfortunate for the SC workers (or wherever they come from) to lose their jobs, but if Boeing knowingly went there in violation of other agreements, that is obviously an evil Boeing wrought by involving other people in their unjust action. And it does seem an inherently immoral act to take the profit and goodwill established by the labor of the Washington union members and transfer it to a state on the other side of the continent as though the total benefit belongs to those who voted for board members who could grease gov't palms and later weasel their way into influential positions (like John Bryson) to benefit the company. If Boeing had received similar grants and tax breaks from Washington as they did from SC, that only increases the the offense.

Boeing just won the KC-46A contract and the planes are being built primarily in Washington (based on what I've gleaned online). Those poor, poor union employees working on a $35B DoD contract...

"as though the total benefit belongs to those who voted for board members who could grease gov't palms and later weasel their way into influential positions (like John Bryson) to benefit the company"

Timon, you obviously didn't get the memo. Repeat after me: "Crony capitalism is always the fault of the cronies, never the capitalists."

The latter are merely doing the right thing for the shareholders by taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them.

Here endeth the lesson. Go in peace to love and serve Mammon.

but if Boeing knowingly went there in violation of other agreements

They didn't. Even NLRB admits that they didn't agree to negotiate the opening of new lines. The NLRB is trying to lean on the word "retaliation" and create a new precedent.

And it does seem an inherently immoral act to take the profit and goodwill established by the labor of the Washington union members and transfer it to a state on the other side of the continent

So having had the term "transfer" shown to be false with regard to the actual line (even though the NLRB uses it), we're now fuzzifying things by talking about "transferring" "profit and good will." What this apparently means is that if you once set up a production line in Washington State you can never set up a different production line elsewhere far away! That seems to Timon an "inherently immoral act." Gosh, Timon, when there are so many real inherently immoral acts in the world, you sure have a strange set of priorities to include that in the list. By the way, if the Carolina workers had been union, this whole complaint would never have happened, so this isn't about some sort of "loyalty to place." It's supposed to be about being bound to continue using union workers only in secula seculorum. And, y'know, somehow it just doesn't seem to me to be anything remotely like an "inherently immoral act" to open a new, non-union production line with non-union workers instead of opening this new production line with the union workers. Nope, that just isn't sounding immoral _at all_.

Aren't you the same woman who flipped out about homeless people in shelters who have laptops?

I'm not recalling doing so at the moment, but it does seem rather absurd, come to think of it. God knows what the relevance is supposed to be here. I guess still trying to drag in, somehow, the fact that Boeing gets something from the government. Y'know, that really doesn't have anything to do with the NLRB's and the union's ridiculous complaint.

I must say, a couple of commentators on here are reminding me why I coined the word "paleo-leftist."

That's adorable but typically vacuous. Until the right begins to do a little substantive self-criticism we're going to remain in actuality what we are in public perception -- the big business party.

This is a canard. This is the old "Republicans are rich and/or businessmen." Have your reviewed the political contribution splits recently? It isn't true.

I have a friend who works for and in close contact with one of Hollywood's premier power couple, and I still have to endure the old "rich Republican businessmen" canard all the time. Funny how even ultra-rich left-wingers actually think this is still effective and don't get the self-parody.

Timon, you obviously didn't get the memo. Repeat after me: "Crony capitalism is always the fault of the cronies, never the capitalists."

Can we look forward to anything other than your "both sides are wrong, and I'm right simply for seeing this" schtick? Many here know quite well that the best course for most things in life are steering between two extremes in some way depending on the circumstance, so you're claims of their ignorance is pretty foolish.

Your position is one of nihilist superiority. This type of thing is a lot older and a lot more transparent than you seem to know. It isn't very interesting really, and that's why you can't get much of a response except from my rather mocking ones. What else can you say to a nihilist?

Say, that reminds me of a few nihilist knock-knock jokes.

-A man walked into a bar. It was pointless.

-Why did the chicken cross the road? It didn't.

-Patron: "Waiter, there's a fly in my soup." Waiter: "There is no fly and no soup."

And, last but not least . . .

Don't forget the punch line rimshot to get the full effect.

'Can we look forward to anything other than your "both sides are wrong, and I'm right simply for seeing this" schtick? Many here know quite well that the best course for most things in life are steering between two extremes in some way depending on the circumstance, so you're claims of their ignorance is pretty foolish.'

Nonsense. What I see here is that the typical conservatives are almost always willing to give the corporations a pass, while the typical leftists do the same with unions. This has nothing to do with 'steering between two extremes.' As a conservative I'm much more concerned with the right's lack of self-critique than I am with the left's. I'm suggesting we clean up our own house.

"Your position is one of nihilist superiority."

Frankly, that's ludicrous. Perhaps you can demonstrate how this is nihilistic?

And then, is the man who puts up a "No skating--thin ice" sign superior? The guy who pulls the fire alarm? The guy who calls 911 when he sees an accident? I can just hear it: "Well, you see, I was going to call the police because I realized the driver in front of me was drunk, but after I thought about it I didn't want to feel superior."

Boeing just won the KC-46A contract and the planes are being built primarily in Washington (based on what I've gleaned online). Those poor, poor union employees working on a $35B DoD contract...

I was so relieved they got this contract. That contract should have been no bid since they were the only reasonable choice for a replacement. The requirement to have it bid out made it so someone had to monkey with the specs to make sure the 46A won, and the whole process looked corrupt. Which it was in a way because they forced a corrupt process onto a simple choice. In the end the only way to prove that the contract wasn't rigged was to give it to Airbus. What a mess that was, and Airbus is probably still contesting it.

Tony,
The simplest is this: an employee CANNOT have a pretty good idea of how sensitive the profit margin is to this, that, or the other change that he might contemplate. It is hard enough for a really good management executive, with tons of training, to do it, and even then he often does it only by an intuition and seat-of-the pants feeling that cannot be put into a spreadsheet.

That is supposed to be a rebuttal? The "it's all a big mystery, only paranormal intuition allows some executives to have the magical ability to predict costs and earnings"? It is such a big mystery that nearly every publicly traded company is able to give earnings guidance and reports every single fiscal quarter. Of course, the longer the period the contract covers is the longer you are trying to peer into the future, so there ought to be some sort of mechanism within the contract that allows one or both sides to have the contract reviewed and temporarily modified by a mutually agreed arbitrator for extraordinary financial reasons. This process would have to be extremely limited in number to make sure it isn't abused, and whatever modifications were made would be automatically voided at the end of the contract, thus resetting the negotiations for a new contract back to the original framework.

Mark,
To state the point bluntly, as far as cost is concerned, the only party fit to judge the value of something is the one paying for it, and it is the value of a good or service that is the heart of this matter rather than the ability to bear the cost.

Mark, next time you want to sell a house or a car, please let me have a chance to be your first buyer. Please, please, please let me determine the real value of your house or car.

In the minds of union members, the company is always either a) making a profit, b) has recently made a profit, or c) is about to make a profit so any claims that they don't want to increase wages and benefits could only be explained by a desire for excessive profits.

I don't know if that is true for union members on average, but I very seriously doubt it is true of union leaders. They know that the jobs and benefits of their members are on the line, but you want me to believe that they are in a total state of denial about the fiscal footing of their employer. What's it supposed to be, they are playing conservative and thus seek stability or they are determined to gamble everything?

Wandering into some of the morality of protecting legal rights, I have to think that conservatives ought to be supportive of the tactics of strikes, even if they disapprove of what they imagine the motivations are, because a strike seems to be nothing more than an elaborate type of public shaming. Can a conservative be opposed to public shaming on general principle?

This is not rocket science.
This is Boeing we are talking about, so it probably is rocket science.

philwynk,
Just saying "that's absurd" demonstrates nothing but your emotional reaction.

On the other hand, saying how infuriating it is to read a comment thread and how you nearly exploded is a sign of cool logic.

My point was logically sound. You premised your objection to saying the NLRB was attempting to "enslave" Boeing on the fact that Boeing's owners are millionaires. I pointed out correctly that their being wealthy does not justify enslaving them.

If they were truly being enslaved, I would agree that their wealth would not justify it.

Here, you confirm my correctness by shifting your argument. Now, instead of it being ok to enslave them because they're wealthy, it's rhetorically absurd to say they're being enslaved.

I didn’t shift my argument, you misunderstood it.

You don't even have an argument until you provide a reason why it's rhetorically absurd, given that you've admitted (by tactical retreat) that your original argument was indefensible.

Honestly, you can’t tell the difference between jet-setting multimillionaires with billions of dollars under their direction and control and squads of lawyers and lobbyists to do their bidding, compared to someone physically restrained, often physically beaten and openly humiliated, considered to be little more than a farm animal by an entire Southern “culture”, who was not legally allowed to own property? If you cannot see the absurdity in making the comparison, you are beyond help. You might as well say that every politician on the planet is “enslaved” by his own people because they *gasp* make demands and engage in protest. Those nasty, wicked peasants.

" . . . the only party fit to judge the value of something is the one paying for it, and it is the value of a good or service that is the heart of this matter rather than the ability to bear the cost."

Mark, next time you want to sell a house or a car, please let me have a chance to be your first buyer. Please, please, please let me determine the real value of your house or car.

I said "judge" not "determine," silly. The buyer doesn't determine the price, he judges whether the good or service is a good value and decides whether to buy based on that. So if you don't like the price I'm asking (get it? the seller asks?) for a good or service, then you go buy it from someone else.

It is such a big mystery that nearly every publicly traded company is able to give earnings guidance and reports every single fiscal quarter.

Yeah, and it is a bad practice that focuses on short-term results, and this focus is very damaging to business. The more successful ones so lowball the guidance as to be a joke (cough Apple,) but they are probably very wise to do this if they can get away with it. Because they are basically telling Wall Street "you're on your own" and "we're not going to worry about you since we're thinking long-term of how to make the best products". In other words, the stock will take care of itself, thank you very much. Just so. For the impatient, skip to the 4:45 mark.

I forgot to say the forecasts are notoriously inaccurate long-term, but to give a short-term appearance of accuracy (later downgraded) of lot of money-shifting hide and seek goes on. It's not a good thing.

The buyer doesn't determine the price, he judges whether the good or service is a good value and decides whether to buy based on that. So if you don't like the price I'm asking (get it? the seller asks?) for a good or service, then you go buy it from someone else.

Let me see if I understand this. The buyer is the only party fit to judge the value, but only the seller can set the price. Where is your selling price coming from if not some subjective notion of fair value? Doesn't that interfere with my right as the sole judge of value?

step2, I'll review and add my final comment on this. You were telling Tony how it wouldn't make sense to claim, as he did (rightly,) that union collective bargaining techniques were often detrimental since they didn't account for the fact that an employer might "suddenly undergoes a change in the method and cost of his doing business, which means he may or may not be able to make a profit anymore." You said that it would be a valid point only "If you could show me where Boeing was running a deficit due to their union contracts, instead of just having a lower profit." Later, you said "Unless there is something going on in which the employer is intentionally hiding his real costs and profits, the employees with moderate research should have a pretty good idea about what their employer can and cannot afford."

I pointed out that looking to using profits at a given time to argue for the ability to pay higher wages (of course profit-sharing contracts are fine) that can only go up is improper. It is analogous to attempting to value according to the ability to pay, which is not is not at all the way things should work, or do work anywhere you'd want to live. If the buyer's ability to pay is supposed to have any significant weight for value, prices in stores would be set according to the income of the buyer. No, the key thing is the perceived value of the good or service by the consumer.

I put it this way: To state the point bluntly, as far as cost is concerned, the only party fit to judge the value of something is the one paying for it, and it is the value of a good or service that is the heart of this matter rather than the ability to bear the cost.

If it isn't self-evident that prices for goods and services aren't determined by one's ability to pay, except in the case of charities, then I can't help you. The only further thing I feel any need to add is this quote from Thomas Sowell on basic economics.

The first sentence of Smith’s classic The Wealth of Nations says: “The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes, and which consists always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.”

By the late nineteenth century, however, economists had given up the notion that it is primarily labor which determines the value of goods, since capital, management and natural resources all contribute to output and must be paid for from the price of that output. More fundamentally, labor, like all other sources of production costs, was no longer seen as a source of value. On the contrary, it was the value of the goods to the consumers which made it worthwhile to produce those goods—provided that the consumer was willing to pay enough to cover their production costs. This new understanding marked a revolution in the development of economics.

Lydia, is it really such a reach for you to grasp the similarity in closing a factory solely to retaliate against a union and the present situation?

Paul, the coal strike of 1902 was sort of important and Baer's quote is well known among folks who are culturally and historically literate. I posted it here because it is clear that certain of you all - and you know who you are - find the very notion of wage earners being able to stand on an equal ground with capital as a violation of the natural order.

If one has a visceral opposition to unions per se, it seems rather pointless to get in the weeds about a particular section of the Wagner Act as any law that makes effective unions possible will be seen as illegitimate.

It is irrelevant that the comment was made over a century ago as American Conservatism has always held dear certain core Darwinian concepts regardless of its meanderings over time into this fever swamp or that dark alley. The posts in this thread confirm this quite well.

Tony, if you had read my comments you would be aware that while unions are better than no unions, there are better ways than the way too adversarial American model. See Meyerson's article, linked to above.

It doesn't take too much theorizing to see that things go better for everyone when productivity gains are widely shared instead of concentrated in a few individuals in the top decile of the top decile.

Oh, and there are managers and sociopaths. Our system is structured so the sociopaths too often rise to the top.

"Which one is your model Al? And how is that working out for its citizens?"

Well, I already posted a link to Meyerson's article on German industrial policy and union-management Your comments have a certain "whistling past the graveyard" quality to them. Here is another chart for you,

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/06/20/charts-of-the-day-the-rise-in-structural-unemployment/

While I don't necessarily agree as to the structural nature of current unemployment we seem to be headed in that direction under current policies.

Oh, and contrary to the impression one might get from the comments above, the cars have been increasingly stacked against unions since 1947. Below is a modest proposal that might help rebalance things,

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/hey-the-nlrb-proposed-a-good-progressive-idea/#respond

"American Conservatism has always held dear certain core Darwinian concepts regardless of its meanderings over time into this fever swamp or that dark alley."

This is a commonly heard shibboleth from the Left but it is inaccurate. It is more correct to say that a certain strain of American conservatism, probably the majority strain, holds to certain core Darwinian concepts. But there always was a more "populist" strain which, while in the minority, protested against the dominance of industrial capitalism in both the GOP and the nation as a whole. As Pat Buchanan once said, conservatism should be about more than the constitutional right of big fish to eat little ones. Unfortunately there is a wide swath of the Right that makes that their central idea.

"Unfortunately there is a wide swath of the Right that makes that their central idea."

Which is what I believe I said. Note also that your other strains, more often than not will wind up supporting and voting for the choices of the plutocratic strain, which in the end, is all that matters to that strain.

Well, I already posted a link to Meyerson's article on German industrial policy and union-management Your comments have a certain "whistling past the graveyard" quality to them. Here is another chart for you,

The Meyerson article that implies that the U. S. hasn't "retained manufacturing -- even high-wage manufacturing"? Do you have any articles I can read that start with premises that are true?

You think I don't know and lament the rise of structural employment? Al, I think our economy is in the gutter. I'm terribly grieved about the direction of the country, and the economy. What the Hell are you talking about I'm whistling past the graveyard? Just like the Carter era, we'll find it is because of the President. Employers are not hiring, and they aren't going to hire under these conditions.

It's pretty funny that Myerson mocks the idea of deregulating business and reducing taxes. Not to worry, there's another model out there: Germany. Her economy and employment is better than ours and she doesn't believe in any of that crap! You see their practices are a "welcome change from the laissez-faire approach to globalization that has dominated U.S. policy and discourse for decades, dooming many Rust Belt denizens to lives of crystal meth and quiet desperation."

Yes, you see their solution is that 1) they don't seek "funding from capital markets" and "don't answer to shareholders." 2) "The key to both the retention and the continual upscaling of manufacturing in Germany is the composition of corporate boards, which are required by law to have an equal number of management and employee representatives."

Finally, he concludes that the "German model of corporate decision-making is the most successful -- and incomparably more successful than ours -- at creating and sustaining a dynamic, competitive, high-wage manufacturing sector."

It's centrally planning that is responsible for the success of Germany you see, and they just central-plan better than we do. Uh-huh.

And we should listen to Myerson, because, after all, who would know more about the German economy than a D. C. journalist? Seriously, I think we should see if he can find Germany on a map before taking his advice. Because in fact German unemployment was 9.7% in '04, and then the did what Meyerson says we shouldn't do and it is 6.8% now.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefan-Karlsson-s-Blog/2011/0106/How-Germany-defeated-unemployment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_2010

And then, when Obama (and to the extent that Bush did this with Tarp) tried to buy his way into employment . . .

. . . the Germans ignored Obama's pleas to follow him off the Keynesian cliff. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,699229,00.html

So don't tell me that we need to follow Germany in ways where they've always differed from us, and not to follow them when they follow the tried and true fiscal conservative ways proven to work, and have worked for Germany too. I suggest you ditch Myerson for your economic advice. He gets paid by the article, and telling a good story is all he needs to make money.

"The Meyerson article that implies that the U. S. hasn't "retained manufacturing -- even high-wage manufacturing"?

We've been losing manufacturing jobs since the peak in 1979 and have suffered a serious decline in manufacturing jobs since the early 2000s.

"It's pretty funny that Myerson mocks the idea of deregulating business and reducing taxes."

Well that worked out well. Mark, its 2011 - we know how the story ends. Deregulating the financial sector was a disaster. Slacking off on regulating deep water oil rigs led to some problems. The pro-cyclical Bush tax cuts failed to provide jobs and growth.

"He gets paid by the article, and telling a good story is all he needs to make money."

So tell us how that analysis should apply to conservative writers?

"So don't tell me that we need to follow Germany in ways where they've always differed from us, and not to follow them when they follow the tried and true fiscal conservative ways proven to work,"

Why not? If their industrial policy works better, why not?

Also German "austerity" seems to have differed in practice from what you imagine.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/keynes-in-asia/

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-takes-advantage-of-affirmative-action-for-conservatives

Oh, and how's that austerity thing working out for the UK?

As for your "tried and true fiscal conservative ways proven to work." Please share some examples and proof. Deregulation was a conservative idea. It worked in some areas but was a spectacular failure in the financial area. There was nothing "conservative" about Morning in America which was the result of the Fed having quite a bit of latitude with interest rates and Reagan engaging in some deficit spending along with a tax cut to support the safety net and increase demand. "Morning" was merely a synthesis of Friedman and Keynes.

Recall also that Reagan and Clinton both raised taxes to conservative predictions of disaster. The predictions were wrong. Surely you aren't referencing the Bush tax cuts which were pro-cyclical and were a disaster (as Keynesian analysis would predict).

It is analogous to attempting to value according to the ability to pay, which is not is not at all the way things should work, or do work anywhere you'd want to live. If the buyer's ability to pay is supposed to have any significant weight for value, prices in stores would be set according to the income of the buyer. No, the key thing is the perceived value of the good or service by the consumer.

In an indirect way, prices in retail stores are set according to the income of their preferred customers, which is to say the seller’s determination of which income bracket to target as buyers. You don’t think dollar stores are mainly trying to attract high end retail customers do you? When shopping at luxury stores you expect them to have higher prices, not simply because they have a higher cost, but also because their regular customers have higher incomes.

If it isn't self-evident that prices for goods and services aren't determined by one's ability to pay, except in the case of charities, then I can't help you.

The only thing that is self-evident is that your example depends upon a few assumptions that are at best contentious and at worst false. The first assumption being that employment is only a transaction and nothing more. The second being that the buyer should have an absolute advantage and the seller an absolute disadvantage in the transaction.

He gets paid by the article, and telling a good story is all he needs to make money.

Which is the same thing senior management does (according to you), when they make earnings forecasts. If they are willing to scam investors so easily, why do they get the benefit of the doubt in negotiations with their employees?

"The second being that the buyer should have an absolute advantage and the seller an absolute disadvantage in the transaction."

When pondering the lack of concern at the highest levels over the current high unemployment rate, we shouldn't forget that the only time individual employees,in general, have any sort of advantage is during times of full employment.

Al, I gave an example. Germany. Meyerson argument is incoherent so why you attached yourself to it is beyond me. You want to say we should do what Meyerson says supposedly based on Germany's example, but he ignores what Germany actually did. He mocks the ideas that Germany used to climb out of their hole.

The German economy is the strongest in Europe for a reason. The German's are famously wise financial dudes. It totally ignored Obama's pleading that they should Keynes their way out of the mess. It climbed out of high unemployment like we didn't by ignoring your, Meyerson's, and Krugman's advice. The US went the opposite direction and are still in high unemployment.

Germany's ways of corporate governance that Meyerson describes didn't change did it? So how the Sam Hill is that an explanation now for the difference in employment between Germany and the US? It isn't. If an explanation for their better situation compared to ours right now doesn't require any changes at all between countries, it makes as much sense to claim it their beer production methods are responsible for the reduced employment since that has always been different too.

Now you want me to read a Krugman article to explain why your argument is somehow coherent? Sorry. I have better things to do. The Meyerson article was a joke. I want ten minutes of my life back. If I read Kruman's I'd likely want twenty minutes back. Fool me once . . .

we shouldn't forget that the only time individual employees,in general, have any sort of advantage is during times of full employment.

You don't belong to a union and don't wish to. This is all on behalf of "the little guy," right. Yep. Whether the little guy likes it or not. Look at the Delta flight attendants who keep voting NO on a union and the union just seeks to nullify their vote by court order and any means at their disposal. They don't even respect the will of employees who consistently vote NO. But they just don't know what's good for themselves, do they Al? They are so dumb that attempts to nullify their desire not to work for a union are justified? Something like that? They should belong to a union, but you shouldn't. I have that right, don't I Al?

When can I look forward to hear that you trying to form a union in your workplace?

Mark, I think a reasonable inference can be made from an earlier comment as to why I'm not interested in joining a union or working for that matter.

If you bothered to read the above links you would find that Germany talked austerity but practiced something else. Your internal picture of what happened is a fantasy.

You also need to differentiate betwixt an ongoing industrial policy and fiscal policies that are designed to respond to the business cycle.

I note your inability to lay out and defend the "conservative policies" you earlier referenced.

"American Conservatism has always held dear certain core Darwinian concepts regardless of its meanderings over time into this fever swamp or that dark alley."

As opposed to the American left which enthusiastically embraced eugenics until Hitler put eugenics into perspective for humanity.

Al, I know I bailed on this thread, but here's the simple truth that I've observed but no one seems to acknowledge. Manufacturing is a low-wage job now. But the money flows just the same. No time or desire to argue this, but I know the details are correct because I've follow all things Apple very closely for over a decade.

http://blogs.forbes.com/timworstall/2011/07/03/ipods-who-gets-the-money-and-who-gets-the-jobs/?partner=yahootix

Cheers