Defending the NLRB from Romney Advisor’s Attack

[Omaha Steve]

http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/defending-the-nlrb-from-romney-advisors-attack/

Posted on July 23, 2012 by dsalaborblogmoderator

by Julius Getman

According to William Kilberg, a chief labor advisor to Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, President Obama and the National Labor Relations Board are engaged in a joint effort in violation of the law to limit the basic rights of corporate employers. He so states in an op ed that appeared recently in the Wall Street Journal, titled “What I Learned Fighting the NLRB.” His opening sentence states that the NLRB brought “a case against Boeing for opening a nonunion plant in South Carolina.” In fact, however, the case against Boeing had nothing to do with its opening a “nonunion plant.” Boeing had purchased a union facility months earlier from Vaught. No one contested its right to do so. Far from seeking to outlaw Boeing’s South Carolina facility, the complaint specified that “the Acting General Counsel does not seek to prohibit Respondent from making non-discriminatory decisions with respect to where work will be performed, including non-discriminatory decisions with respect to work at its North Charleston, South Carolina, facility.”

Mr. Kilberg was aware that the case was about the location of the second assembly line for Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, and not about Boeing’s ability to open a plant in South Carolina. But he chose to phrase the General Counsel’s case in more drastic politically potent terms. Mr. Kilberg failed to point out that the complaint by the General Counsel was never ruled on by the Nation Labor Relations Board itself and that the General Counsel acted independently of the five-member Board which exercises the agency’s judicial authority.

The basic concept of the General Counsel’s complaint is straightforward and supported by a long line of authority. It claims that Boeing retaliated against its workers in Everett Washington by shifting its second line of assembly on the787 Dreamliner to South Carolina. The basis for the retaliation according to the General Counsel was previous lawful strikes by unionized workers in Everett. Strikes are protected activity under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. According to well established law, management action that punishes workers for striking (with the curious exception of the hiring of replacement workers during a strike) is presumed to be an unfair labor practice, outlawed by the NLRA. The same is true of statements threatening retaliation for protected activity.

The complaint included a list of statements by Boeing officials asserting that the proposed move from Washington to South Carolina was retaliatory. One such statement that was posted on the company’s website was by Boeing President and CEO Jim Mcnerney, who stated that the Company was “moving the 787Dreamliner work to South Carolina due to ‘strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound.’” In addition, the complaint referred to a statement by Executive Vice President Jim Albaugh who, in a video-taped interview with a Seattle Times reporter, stated that “[Boeing] decided to locate its 787Dreamliner second line in South Carolina because of past …strikes…”

FULL story at link.

[Angry Dragon]

1. Facts -------- republicans do not need nor like them

[rickman jackson]

2. Speaking of facts

The only problem with this story -- the Vaught plant decertified a year before Boeing bought it -- meaning, the workers there threw the Machinists union out. Know why? Because the Machinists union was screwing over the Vaught workers when negotiating contracts for the plants in Washington state.

Check it out. The facts will set you free.