The House Tells Boeing Not To Fly Away

If things go as planned, the House of Representatives will vote today on slapping down the National Labor Relations Board for its attempt to curry favor with labor by determining where a company can decide to build its plants. The NLRB took it upon itself to pursue a suit against Boeing Corporation for alleged “unfair labor practices.”

In fact, Boeing merely attempted to expand, and made the mistake of expanding into a right to work state—South Carolina. For background on the original House investigations into the matter this past June, go here: Boeing, Boeing, Boeing. Nothing that the House committee has produced has detoured the NLRB juggernaut. In order for Boeing’s actions to be considered an unfair labor practice, the NLRB would have to prove that Boeing’s expansion plant in South Carolina was retaliation for union strikes in closed-shop Washington State. In addition, it would have to show that as a result of Boeing’s actions, union jobs were lost.

Boeing says that it was making a pure business decision. It needed additional space, and given the unavailability of large tracts of land in Washington necessary for major expansion along with the costs of doing business, South Carolina was an ideal choice. Equally importantly, not a single union job was lost in Washington as a result of the expansion. In fact, since the labor dispute, Boeing has expanded the Washington facilities to the maximum extent allowable, and has hired 2,000 more union laborers. The facts are clear and indisputable. Only the philosophy of unionism and government control of private business are at issue.

The Obama administration and its Congressional allies aren’t doing themselves any favors with this NLRB action. South Carolina is an early primary state, and at least one Republican presidential hopeful has already used the NLRB’s action as a campaign issue. Mitt Romney visited the new Boeing plant, and pronounced the NLRB’s action “political payback from the White House to the unions.” He may be the first, but he won’t be the last Republican to latch onto the issue.

Never daunted, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, who recently declared war on the Republican Party (those sons-of-bitches), said “the National Labor Relations Act prohibits companies from retaliating against workers who exercise union rights by moving their jobs away.” Trumka failed to explain how Boeing’s expansion of the Washington facilities and adding another 2,000 union employees “moved jobs away.”

In attacking the pending House bill, Trumka said: “This is sweeping legislation that would gut the NLRB and result in serious, harmful changes to jobs and workers’ rights across the country.” Well, it would be sweeping, it could potentially gut the NLRB (that’s a bad thing?), and it would damage the cause of forced unionism. How putting people to work is a harmful change remains a mystery to all but the union bosses and the Obama administration.

Trumka adds that if the bill becomes law, “a company could simply close a plant and move to another state if workers complained of unsafe working conditions or discrimination.” Two things immediately occur to me. First, every state, including South Carolina, has rigid laws against unsafe working conditions and discrimination, so what does the union have to do with it? South Carolina also has whistleblower statutes which prevent companies from retaliating against workers filing legitimate complaints about unsafe working conditions or discrimination. Therefore, what Trumka is actually talking about is cushy union work rules, not safety or discrimination.

Second, I turn his own argument back on him. If the NLRB ultimately prevails, Boeing would be within its rights and good business sense to move its offices and plants to some place more business-friendly like, say, Shanghai. If Boeing did indeed commit a labor violation (which I firmly say it did not), the government telling a company where it can locate its facilities is both unwise and unconstitutional.

This is another back-door, end-run around the Constitution and proper delegation of authority. The President exacerbates the problem by claiming to stay above the fray. Says Obama: “I am reluctant to interfere in a case brought by an independent federal agency.” In other words, he wants his dirty work to be done by somebody else so he can pretend his skirts are clean.

I wish the sponsors of this bill the best of luck. It does have a good chance of passage in the House. But that won’t be the end of it. The Senate is still controlled by pro-labor Democrats and the bill will probably not even get a debate in that chamber, given majority leader Harry Reid’s adeptness at parliamentary roadblocks. What is likely is that the legal battle will go on for years, adding to the very uncertainty that is crippling American investment in American business