Boeing Builds Plant in SC to Avoid Unions.

[Simon_Jester]

I would dearly love to see saner unions, I'll say that. It's just that I see the entire institution of organized labor dying by inches, practically already dead, and I see so damned much corporate power in this country... well. I've said my piece.

[Sea Skimmer]

No. Not one with a workable air industry, anyways. Or so I thought.

Japan and Italy have giving Boeing about 2 billion for 787 work and both would be entirely capable of 787 assembly if Boeing would move the plant and bring in some of the specific assembly technology it has; others have also given them money but I can't put figures on it without research I don't feel like doing this late at night.

The US subsidizes Boeing to win in a strategic oligopoly competition with Europe and Airbus. For a foreign nation that would mean jack and shit; also, a foreign nation doesn't have that much money to throw around.

A lot of the stuff, actually the vast majority declared a 'subsidy' to Boeing is actually R&D money for projects which ended up canceled and which Boeing would do perfectly fine without, just as a smaller company. According to the World Trade Organization Airbus subsidies are significantly higher then those to Boeing despite the fact that Airbus as a whole makes a much smaller range of products; though a recent revision to the ruling reduced the disparity. Anyway Airbus has at times blamed Boeings success supposed subsidies going all the way back to R&D on the 707/C-135 project of the late 1950s, of which the US government bought over 600 of (so how is that a subsidy, they paid to get the product they wanted? I honestly don't know) and which occurred 15 years before Airbus even existed as a company, so I get very skeptical on some of the claims made on the topic. Anyway most of that is in the past and not very relevant to current business by either side.

I would dearly love to see saner unions, I'll say that. It's just that I see the entire institution of organized labor dying by inches, practically already dead, and I see so damned much corporate power in this country... well. I've said my piece.

How do you ever expect unions to become more sane if courts rule that they have an unlimited right to a companies work even with entirely new facilities. The end balance against a union monoploy is that if the union gets too crazy, the company will just collapse or close up and move. Take away that and industry will just disappear, this is not theoretical, its exactly what happened to the UK which as far as I can tell had by far the most insane unions ever, and lots of them. But you only avoid collapse like that if the union leadership see's it coming and convinces the union workers not to demand too much, and far too often they simply don't do that. Rather often they just lie to the workers until the bitter end and then make sure the remaining union funds go into a fat severance check.

In the case of my friends work the only reason the company didn’t go under was because it was providing services to a qausi public institution I’m not going to name, and had a long term exclusive contract awarded to do so in a state not exactly known for honest public affairs of that sort. If it was even remotely forced to compete it would be long dead. Might be by now; this was about five years ago.

Corporate power is only going to be effectively countered by massed political power. Unions have failed at that by failing to be seen as honest brokers who want to look out not just for themselves but everyone else. The fact is unions got going precisely because even the most basic protections did not exist. You had no workman’s comp or unemployment so companies could just fire workers mangled by early industrial machinery and dump them in a ditch to starve. Does stuff like that still happen, sure does, but not anywhere near like what it used to be. I mean seriously… coal mines used to exist in which average life expectancy of workers was as low as 17-18 years old, made possible by children starting work at age 10-12. Some unions try to act like that's still what they face and it has not worked out well.

[SirNitram]

The complaint filed makes this seem rather less asstarded(That is, it makes it seem less like two three year olds wanting the blanket on THEIR side, not the other), by showing an implied threat in communications by Boeing to various other groups, that the Union would be told to suck it if they dared exercise the still-legal rights to strike or collectively bargain, and fired.

[Jaepheth]

Would it make sense to make anti-trust laws apply to unions?

That way one organization could not monopolize a segment of the labor pool and corporations could bargain with a competing union to keep things fair for both sides.
You could allow workers to fluidly switch between unions so that there isn't a complete turn over if a company switches unions.

What would the problems with that setup be?

[evilsoup]

I was under the impression that anti-trust laws started out to try and bust unions?

Anyways, that's how it works in the UK. The different unions cooperate much more than compete, as they all have the same goal.

[Simon_Jester]

How do you ever expect unions to become more sane if courts rule that they have an unlimited right to a companies work even with entirely new facilities. The end balance against a union monoploy is that if the union gets too crazy, the company will just collapse or close up and move. Take away that and industry will just disappear, this is not theoretical, its exactly what happened to the UK which as far as I can tell had by far the most insane unions ever, and lots of them. But you only avoid collapse like that if the union leadership see's it coming and convinces the union workers not to demand too much, and far too often they simply don't do that. Rather often they just lie to the workers until the bitter end and then make sure the remaining union funds go into a fat severance check.

Fair enough.

Most of my concern, when I analyze it more closely, is about the absence of unions in the service sector, more than it is about the industrial unions which have basically won their war and are now running into trouble of the "adapt or die" kind.

Sorry. Reflex at the beginning.

The complaint filed makes this seem rather less asstarded(That is, it makes it seem less like two three year olds wanting the blanket on THEIR side, not the other), by showing an implied threat in communications by Boeing to various other groups, that the Union would be told to suck it if they dared exercise the still-legal rights to strike or collectively bargain, and fired.

...However, obviously yes this is still a concern.

Companies should have to deal with unions, but unions should have to deal with economic facts and not fantasies. I wish I knew a way to make this work, I truly do.

[Crown]

As a native Seattleite, I can tell you that here, locally, citizens have little to no sympathy for the Machinists Union. Their decision to go on strike in the middle of the Great Recession because Boeing didn't want to give them pay raises for a few years, coupled with decades of them pressing for benefits way out of balance with what anyone else in the private sector receives, really turned a lot of people off. That's not to say Boeing management are saints - as far as I can tell with the 787 they're a bunch of greedy, incompetent fuckwits.

Your entire post had a lot of merit, and I'm purposefully ignoring the rest since I have no disagreement, however regarding the bolded/highlighted section I wish to offer some insight; I work in the industry, and during the height of job cuts and lay offs a few years ago, we were hiring more people. This is for the simple reason that our industry 'cycle' if you like is like 10 to 15 and even 20 years.

Meaning the manufacturing of large airline planes that people are doing currently were on orders placed a decade ago. While their actions were crass in the sense that it displayed little care or empathy for the people that were losing their jobs, the economic situation that was affecting every one else hadn't yet hit the airline manufacturing industry, and it won't for another decade or so. So they weren't purposefully 'flaunting it' if you like.

[Big Phil]

As a native Seattleite, I can tell you that here, locally, citizens have little to no sympathy for the Machinists Union. Their decision to go on strike in the middle of the Great Recession because Boeing didn't want to give them pay raises for a few years, coupled with decades of them pressing for benefits way out of balance with what anyone else in the private sector receives, really turned a lot of people off. That's not to say Boeing management are saints - as far as I can tell with the 787 they're a bunch of greedy, incompetent fuckwits.

Your entire post had a lot of merit, and I'm purposefully ignoring the rest since I have no disagreement, however regarding the bolded/highlighted section I wish to offer some insight; I work in the industry, and during the height of job cuts and lay offs a few years ago, we were hiring more people. This is for the simple reason that our industry 'cycle' if you like is like 10 to 15 and even 20 years.

Meaning the manufacturing of large airline planes that people are doing currently were on orders placed a decade ago. While their actions were crass in the sense that it displayed little care or empathy for the people that were losing their jobs, the economic situation that was affecting every one else hadn't yet hit the airline manufacturing industry, and it won't for another decade or so. So they weren't purposefully 'flaunting it' if you like.

You are correct, although the general public doesn't really look at it that way. That being said, the general attitude here in the Seattle area is that the machinists union's demands have caused Boeing to become uncompetitive due to labor costs, as well as forcing Boeing to look to build planes elsewhere due to labor disruptions and cost. Right or wrong, people blame the IAM for Boeing management's decision to build planes elsewhere.

EDIT - people have been comparing Seattle to Detroit with regard to what "out of control" unions can do to a city. It's a bit simplistic, but the sentiment should be clear.

[Zinegata]

Given the facts of the case, shouldn't the title be something like "Abusive Union tries to Monopolize Boeing's Workforce."

Because really, it seems to me that the title is very misleading given the evidence that has been presented. Boeing isn't the bad guy here.