Should the government decide where companies operate?

Maybe (hopefully?) that sounds a bit foreign to most of us, but that is exactly what they are doing, or trying to do.

http://www.salon.com/news/the_labor.../htww/2011/04/25/boeing_south_carolina_unions

 

As long the union gets what it wants, right? Screw the company, screw the other employees, screw the other states involved, screw fair enterprise, screw the customer, screw everyone else just as long as the union gets their way.

By the way, I heard Boeing lost several, if not all, of the orders BO supposedly secured for airliners from India...remember BO & Michelles grand tour de force a few months ago?

 

I think that these large companies should just keep playing one state off of another endlessly. The logical conclusion is that they will end up paying no taxes, continue to ship jobs overseas, keep pouring their profits into Cayman Island accounts, let the tax payers (if there are any left) pay for the air, water and soil pollution clean up left by these industries, and bankrupt the U.S. government so that they can become the only power that matters in this country. We have the National Labor Relations Act because of robber barons like Boeing that have no interest in labor, this country, or America in general. All they care about is their own interests. Why would I respect that?

 

You did not specifically say that you agreed or disagreed, but I think I get the general tenor of your post.

You bitch about companies continuing "to ship jobs overseas" yet you want the government to decide where they can do business in a less efficient operation. And then you wonder why companies continue to ship jobs overseas where they can work without interference.

 

My guess is that if they go back to Washington (the only other option they have at the present) they will move elsewhere in the near future. If they cannot move to a desired location in the USA, they will go where the atmosphere is more conducive. And, they just spent $2 Billion here only to have it taken from them, would you really expect them to want to stick around so we could take some more money from them?

 

Are you just ignoring that fact that Boeing broke the law in this situation and openly admitted doing so? Kind of dumb on their part eh?

As far as the NLRB is concerned, Boeing broke the law.


Boeing executives had publicly said they were making the move to avoid the kind of strikes the airplane maker had repeatedly faced in Washington; Lafe Solomon, the labor board's acting general counsel, said the company's motive constituted illegal retaliation against workers for exercising their right to strike ...

Mr. Solomon, who has worked for board members of both parties, said this case was straightforward: Boeing had retaliated against workers for exercising their federally protected right to strike. "They had a consistent message that they were doing this to punish their employees for having struck and having the power to strike in the future," he said. "I can't not issue a complaint in the face of such evidence."

 

That is an opinion - at best. Even if you could find the law you are referring to, my guess is that we will not have a definitive answer for several years. However, the mere fact that there is any doubt that Boeing can move to anywhere it pleases severely offends me and I will bet a lot of others out there. Obviously it does not offend a conspiracy theorists who believe that the Reps and all companies are out to bankrupt this country.

 

An opinion eh?

You did read this part then...

Boeing executives had publicly said they were making the move to avoid the kind of strikes the airplane maker had repeatedly faced in Washington; Lafe Solomon, the labor board's acting general counsel, said the company's motive constituted illegal retaliation against workers for exercising their right to strike ... Seems like more than an opinion. It seems like they are being charged.

Mr. Solomon, who has worked for board members of both parties, said this case was straightforward: Boeing had retaliated against workers for exercising their federally protected right to strike. "They had a consistent message that they were doing this to punish their employees for having struck and having the power to strike in the future," he said. "I can't not issue a complaint in the face of such evidence." Seems pretty strongly worded for an opinion.

 

Still did not find a law they broke, right?

And to top that off, you have them guilty until proven innocent. God old liberal law, huh? Why don't you come join the rest of the country.

 

Should the government decide where companies operate? I think that would depend upon whether the company gets any public funds, or subsidies, or bailouts, or loans, or tax breaks - and other things like those - things which all other businesses don't get.

 

There is little to nothing 'free market' about Boeing. Subsidies, loan guarantees, Presidents and diplomats selling their goods for them and making bargains and brokering deals for the company. Maybe Boeing needs to learn that when you make a bargain with the devil, he is going to want something in return.

 

Aren't they??

 

The NLRB dropped its suit today - apparently at the request of the IAM.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nl...-boeing-over-scfacility-2011-12-09?siteid=rss
I guess the law is dependent on how bad their (the unions) ox was being gored rather than whether or not the law was actually being broken.