Controversy Surrounding NLRB vs Boeing: Analysis and Opinions

[BobG]

I see it as unions thwarting the free market by being labor monopolies.

Of course you do. Do you see mega-corporations as thwarting the free market in labor by dwarfing the influence of small groups of laborers? US history is rife with examples of corporations hiring goons to break strikes. Here in Maine, that has involved violence, dynamiting, and personal intimidation, often targeting immigrants that came here to work in physically demanding industries.

Actually, both of these posts are citing ancient history.

Because of transportation and other reasons, particular industries tended to locate in the same region - rubber companies being the perfect example with Goodyear, Firestone, Goodrich, and General Tire all having their manufacturing centers in Akron. That set up a vulnerability in that all of the workers were located in the same place and found it very easy to band together in a single union that controlled workers for all the major tire companies.

I don't think too many large companies locate all of their own factories in the same region, let alone all of the major companies of a given industry (unless the industry is restricted by the location of natural resources). If the factory in Washington strikes, the non-union factory in South Carolina can work overtime to pick some of the slack. Just diversifying the location of Boeing's factories eliminates the monopoly that union workers used to have, which reduces the impact of a strike, even if it doesn't completely prevent a strike from having any impact.

Even with diversified locations, you still have the possibility of a single union encompassing all of the workers in a given industry - especially in a world made smaller by better communications - but it just makes it harder because of cultural differences, different cost of living, etc. It's harder to find common interests that union workers can gather around.

Even in a favorable labor market, spreading out the locations of your factories makes sense. In an industry where your potential locations are limited (oil refineries, for example), a natural disaster could be even more devastating than a labor strike.

 

[turbo]

Are you incapable of Googling anti-union violence? Let me Google that for you and put up a few links.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6466/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Lawrence_Textile_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/08/unions-receive-increasing_n_254704.html

Only takes a few seconds and an open mind... I hope you have both. Currently, the most deadly places for a labor organizer to live is in Latin America, and Columbia seems to be the worst at this time. Still, the creeps educated by the School of the Americas (US-trained terrorists) seem to be very effective.

 

[WhoWee]

Are you incapable of Googling anti-union violence? Let me Google that for you and put up a few links.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6466/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Lawrence_Textile_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/08/unions-receive-increasing_n_254704.html

Only takes a few seconds and an open mind... I hope you have both. Currently, the most deadly places for a labor organizer to live is in Latin America, and Columbia seems to be the worst at this time. Still, the creeps educated by the School of the Americas (US-trained terrorists) seem to be very effective.

I asked you about the past 50 years - not the 1940's or 1912 - and now you're talking about Latin America and Columbia?

 

[russ_watters]

Of course you do. Do you see mega-corporations as thwarting the free market in labor by dwarfing the influence of small groups of laborers?

When big companies become monopolies, I see them as monopolies. We have laws against monpolistic businesses and they work very well. We don't have laws against labor monopolies and we should.

US history is rife with examples of corporations hiring goons to break strikes. Here in Maine, that has involved violence, dynamiting, and personal intimidation, often targeting immigrants that came here to work in physically demanding industries.

What's your point? Labor unions sometimes hire/act as "goons" to do such illegal things too. I'm not even talking about those illegal things - I'm talking about what is considered legal!

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, both of these posts are citing ancient history...

Just diversifying the location of Boeing's factories eliminates the monopoly that union workers used to have, which reduces the impact of a strike, even if it doesn't completely prevent a strike from having any impact.

Even with diversified locations, you still have the possibility of a single union encompassing all of the workers in a given industry - especially in a world made smaller by better communications - but it just makes it harder because of cultural differences, different cost of living, etc.

It's not so much a problem with businesses because, as you say, they can just pick up and move. Yes, you're right, the power of unions has decreased due to globalization -- not to mention the failure of the many strongly-union companies (and I don't consider that a coincidence)!

But it is a big problem with governments and government services. An infamous example from philly:

Labor pricing and inefficiency become major issues in Philly three years later when the East Coast Volleyball Association, a nonprofit organization, documents that it took six union laborers and a couple plumbers two hours to set up a volleyball court. The association notes that the job takes eight 14-year-old girls one hour in any other facility. It costs the volleyball group $135,000 to hold an event in Philadelphia that usually averages $15,000 in other cities. They won't be coming back.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/sorry_its_not_my_job-38365189.html#ixzz1MkoXZFs2

Not ancient history.

Now whether that's due to true monopoly power or just political power is an open question.

 

[russ_watters]

I asked you about the past 50 years - not the 1940's or 1912 - and now you're talking about Latin America and Columbia?

I think that's turbo-1's way of acknowledging that anti-union violence is, for the most part, ancient history.

 

[CAC1001]

I can't say I see a substantive difference between these two cases, yet.

The difference is in the one case, the company is actually paying you below what your value is, whereas in the other case, the company is paying you what the market values your services at, but not at what yourself might think you should be valued at.

While this sentence raises one point of difference (industry vs single employer), I can't understand your contention that this is not a free market situation. After all, if there is no intervention by the state, any peaceful negotiations between employers and employees ought to constitute workings of a free market.

It's not a free-market because the forces of the market are no longer deciding the price of the workers. Instead, the workers have formed a cartel, which allows them to artificially increase their prices (wages and incomes). Now if all the local gas station owners decided to try doing the same thing, form a cartel so that they can yank up their prices beyond what the market sets them at, well they'd end up either sued or in jail. Worker cartels (unions) are permitted by law however.

Peaceful negotiations between employer and employee are not quite the same.

I see the difference, but I do not see that it is as bad a thing as forbidding free association of the people.

Forming a cartel I wouldn't call free association of the people. I mean "yeah," but that would be like a cartel of businesses saying, "Hey, all we are doing is engaging in free association of private businesses, and that is perfectly free-market." Free association of the people is if they form a union because the company is forcing them to work in unsafe conditions let's say. But in a free market, where the incomes are set by the market, workers will generally will be paid what they are worth.

 

[CAC1001]

Of course you do. Do you see mega-corporations as thwarting the free market in labor by dwarfing the influence of small groups of laborers? US history is rife with examples of corporations hiring goons to break strikes. Here in Maine, that has involved violence, dynamiting, and personal intimidation, often targeting immigrants that came here to work in physically demanding industries.

That kind of stuff occurred back during the 1900s and the early to mid twentieth century, much of it before there were labor laws and regulations, what few labors laws/regulations there were were not enforced, corporations could literally buy politicians, trusts were legal, etc...by the 1920s, unions were engaging in much of the same thuggery, much of organized labor being tied in with organized crime at the time. Not saying all organized labor was, just I mean both (organized labor and corporations) are subject to corruption. But I don't know of any cases in modern times of a corporation hiring thugs to go and bust up a labor demonstration.

 

[russ_watters]

But I don't know of any cases in modern times of a corporation hiring thugs to go and bust up a labor demonstration.

While at the same time, union thuggery is still pretty much standard operating procedure.

 

[AlephZero]

But it is a big problem with governments and government services. An infamous example from philly: http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/sorry_its_not_my_job-38365189.html#ixzz1MkoXZFs2

Not ancient history.

Everybody I know who has seen the assembly facilities at both Boeing and Airbus wa struck by the same thing: It appears to take about 10 times as many Boeing people to put an aircraft together as it does Airbus people. Or at the very least, you see lots of the Boeing people running around like a nest of ants poked by a stick, and the Airbus people are quietly getting on with doing some work, and so are much less visible.

I have no idea whether or not this is due to the unions. But strikes at Boeing (which don't just disrupt the assembly lines, but the whole of the engineering operation) seem to come round every few years for as long as I can remember.

 

[lisab]

Everybody I know who has seen the assembly facilities at both Boeing and Airbus wa struck by the same thing: It appears to take about 10 times as many Boeing people to put an aircraft together as it does Airbus people. Or at the very least, you see lots of the Boeing people running around like a nest of ants poked by a stick, and the Airbus people are quietly getting on with doing some work, and so are much less visible.

Keep in mind that Boeing has *many* different facilities; I assume Airbus does too.

More important, at neither company are people allowed to simply wander around observing what they wish. What visitors are allowed to see at Boeing, and I assume at Airbus too, is tightly controlled.

This makes it extremely difficult to draw any conclusions about any similarities or differences between the two companies based on such observations.

 

[CAC1001]

So it seems this could drag on for awhile, apparently whatever decision is made at the hearing could then be voted on by the NLRB itself, then that decision could be appealed to a federal circuit court. Wonder if it might go all the way to the SCOTUS?

 

[ParticleGrl]

While at the same time, union thuggery is still pretty much standard operating procedure.

Support this. What unions routinely employ "thuggery"? The largest union related protest I can recall recently was the Wisconsin teachers union protests, which were extraordinarily well behaved large crowds.

Also, at least where I live, unions have been declining for decades.

 

[mege]

Support this. What unions routinely employ "thuggery"? The largest union related protest I can recall recently was the Wisconsin teachers union protests, which were extraordinarily well behaved large crowds.

Also, at least where I live, unions have been declining for decades.

Thuggery is subjective. Personally, I think work stoppages, sit-ins, and strikes count as 'thuggery'. They're equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum to get their way, unfortunately the parents (businesses) cave in far too often to extreme demands. Skipping work and forcing a school district to totally reschedule their school year is thuggery. The amount of extra security called in for the WI protests cost various entities in the state several million dollars over the course of the month and half and all the state got from the protest-organizing unions was a note saying 'well worth it'.

Aside from 'normal union business' (as above) the glaring example from the recent Madison issues are several different reports of union members threatening Wisconsin businesses with boycots if they did not display support for their cause. It's not enough to let the opinionated 'duke it out' - these union members are of the mind 'if you're not with us, you're against us.' In some areas these boycott threats were not just a few disgruntled individuals - there was letters from union local lawyers and an organized movement for support. Unfortunately, this practice comes from the strong arm tactics that were used when the teamsters were closely associated with some of the mob familys. It's in the 'everyman's playbook' now to threaten another's livelyhood to push their own goals.

There are also several other protests which disrupted businesses this spring unrelated to the WI stuff. A mob of union workers, mid week mind you, shut down downtown Detroit for a whole day to protest... a policy that had been in effect for 2 years? Several bank-sit-ins were reported in April, and there was the Chase Bank board meeting crash last weekend. In the latter's case, several were arrested for trespassing and disobeying restraining orders.

Democracy is not chants, singing and pulling at emotional strings with children as human shields. Democracy is a leveled debate where policy is decided for the betterment of the whole society, and unionized workers are just a small part of that society. Unfortunately, organized labor, in the form of unions, have become the bad guys to many because of their tactics and extreme power grabs in politics and in business. If unions operated more closely to Germany's guild system (someone mentioned that earlier this thread) there wouldn't be the dissent. Instead, unions become self-serving and seek to protect the weak (ie: their dues paying members) rather than act in fairness for the betterment of their craft. Yes, organized labor in the past has gotten lots of good advances and worker protections, but what have unions done since WW2 except grab power?

 

[russ_watters]

Support this. What unions routinely employ "thuggery"? The largest union related protest I can recall recently was the Wisconsin teachers union protests, which were extraordinarily well behaved large crowds.

WhoWee already provided some examples. IMO, the fact that there are a lot of examples out there implies that it's accepted practice or, at least, a systemic problem.

I realize this is anecdotal, but I'm an engineer in the construction industry and union mischeif is an ever-present concern on all construction projects I've been associated with. As big of a problem as physical intimidation is sabbotage. It's easy to throw a handful of gravel into a pipe and impossible to tell who did it. I've seen it and more honest/upstanding union members are willing to talk about it off the record.

Here's a pretty ridiculous example of sabbotage:

Two striking Philadelphia Gas Works employees were charged yesterday with sabotaging two underground natural gas pipes, causing potentially explosive leaks similar to one that forced the evacuation of a South Philadelphia neighborhood on Sunday.

Patrick Vogelei, 39, of Annebella Street, Havertown, Delaware County, and William Williamson, 41, of Chelwynde Avenue near 69th Street, were each charged with two counts of risking a catastrophe, resklessly endangering another person, criminal mischief and interfering with public utilities in connection with the two separate gas leaks, police said.

http://articles.philly.com/1989-04-29/news/26144984_1_gas-leak-gas-line-pgw

Also, at least where I live, unions have been declining for decades.

They've been declining for the reasons Bob stated. That doesn't have much to do with their tactics.

And in certain industries like construction (specifically, on government work), they are fully entrenched and legally protected, so they aren't in decline there. They have they eliminated the competition by getting laws passed that require their labor - could you imagine Boeing getting a law passed that says the government must use only their planes? It's absurd.

 

[russ_watters]

Thuggery is subjective. Personally, I think work stoppages, sit-ins, and strikes count as 'thuggery'.

When I said "thuggery", I was specifically referring to physical intimidation.

 

[Gokul43201]

I see it as unions thwarting the free market by being labor monopolies.

If a monopoly emerges as a result of market forces rather than via government intervention, I imagine that process is still a part of the free market. Laws that prevent the formation of monopolies are not free-market forces, are they? They are very clearly government regulations.

So, there's a distinction here between what may exist or emerge via free market forces (peaceful interactions between consumers and providers, employers and employees) and what may be desirable or efficient or fair, from some point of view. Some government regulations may be needed to ensure the latter (people may disagree), but such regulations shouldn't be considered free market forces.

But I do agree that unions are essentially similar to market monopolies.

 

[WhoWee]

Support this. What unions routinely employ "thuggery"? The largest union related protest I can recall recently was the Wisconsin teachers union protests, which were extraordinarily well behaved large crowds.

Also, at least where I live, unions have been declining for decades.

"Well Behaved large crowds"? Were the crowds described as "well behaved" by the news organizations?

 

[turbo]

One state official had a great option for dealing with union protesters.

http://www.newsytype.com/4433-live-ammunition-protesters/

 

[WhoWee]

One state official had a great option for dealing with union protesters.

http://www.newsytype.com/4433-live-ammunition-protesters/

Is this link intended to support your earlier statements?

 

[turbo]

Is this link intended to support your earlier statements?

It is intended to point out how precarious the safety of people involved in protest can be. Live ammunition to be used against school teachers and public safety workers? What a wonderful idea.

 

[WhoWee]

It is intended to point out how precarious the safety of people involved in protest can be. Live ammunition to be used against school teachers and public safety workers? What a wonderful idea.

I picked the kids up at school yesterday. All of the police officers walking around in the parking lot on safety duty had side-arms with live ammo and possibly shotguns in the cars - not certain?

 

[BobG]

It is intended to point out how precarious the safety of people involved in protest can be. Live ammunition to be used against school teachers and public safety workers? What a wonderful idea.

I picked the kids up at school yesterday. All of the police officers walking around in the parking lot on safety duty had side-arms with live ammo and possibly shotguns in the cars - not certain?

And the officers' weapons were the reason the teachers were teaching instead of going on strike?!

1) Hopefully, the comment by the state official was just a lame comment; not a real policy suggestion about how to handle striking teachers. In any event, he was fired just for making the comment. I don't think there is a real possibility of police shooting teachers because they've gone on strike.

2) What the heck does the comment about police officers walking around with weapons mean? I'm positive I misconstrued that comment, but have no idea what it could mean.

 

[russ_watters]

If a monopoly emerges as a result of market forces rather than via government intervention, I imagine that process is still a part of the free market. Laws that prevent the formation of monopolies are not free-market forces, are they? They are very clearly government regulations.

So, there's a distinction here between what may exist or emerge via free market forces (peaceful interactions between consumers and providers, employers and employees) and what may be desirable or efficient or fair, from some point of view. Some government regulations may be needed to ensure the latter (people may disagree), but such regulations shouldn't be considered free market forces.

But I do agree that unions are essentially similar to market monopolies.

I don't find it useful to split such hairs. Regardless of what label it has, it is legal for one and illegal for the other.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Because, you know... we're not at a shortage of teachers as it is - we need to shoot some of them just to make sure there isn't too much supply.

 

[CAC1001]

If a monopoly emerges as a result of market forces rather than via government intervention, I imagine that process is still a part of the free market. Laws that prevent the formation of monopolies are not free-market forces, are they? They are very clearly government regulations.

I think monopolies, at least in certain industries, are legal, what are illegal are trusts. Having a monopoly doesn't mean a company controls the whole market, just that it controls so much of it, that everyone else just has a scrap. If a monopoly is achieved via market forces, the company is watched closely and is expected to be a good corporate citizen and not try to abuse its position (for example, Bill Gates back in the early 1990s got caught doing this, I forget the details though).

For example, Intel pretty much has a monopoly over the semiconductor market, at least for the types of chips it makes.

 

[CAC1001]

Thuggery is subjective. Personally, I think work stoppages, sit-ins, and strikes count as 'thuggery'. They're equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum to get their way, unfortunately the parents (businesses) cave in far too often to extreme demands. Skipping work and forcing a school district to totally reschedule their school year is thuggery.

California public unions are especially notorious for these types of tactics.

 

[turbo]

Let's back up a bit. When companies want to pressure their workers, they can use spying, misdirection, economic pressure, etc, including shutting down production lines, reducing benefits, reducing hours, and layoffs targeted at "troublemakers". All the unions have in their arsenal is withholding their members' labor. Perhaps they can picket and get some public attention that way, but really they have just a strike or a threat of a strike as leverage. This is not "thuggery" - it is a fact of life.

When I was the shop steward on my paper machine, a new reserve (rotating laborer) on my shift asked for advice. His girlfriend worked for a very large retailer, and her manager trusted her to cash up the register drawers. So much so, that she was required to work every night until after closing and cash up all the registers. After-hours with no pay and no overtime. He asked what I would do in this situation, and I told him that if she complained, the store's manager would retaliate. She complained, and the manager cut her hours to the bone for several weeks. Like most large retail chains, they keep the vast majority of their workers on a part-time status (too few hours to qualify for unemployment insurance) so that the employees can be dumped at any time for any reason at no cost to the company. Now, where is the thuggery?

 

[WhoWee]

Let's back up a bit. When companies want to pressure their workers, they can use spying, misdirection, economic pressure, etc, including shutting down production lines, reducing benefits, reducing hours, and layoffs targeted at "troublemakers". All the unions have in their arsenal is withholding their members' labor. Perhaps they can picket and get some public attention that way, but really they have just a strike or a threat of a strike as leverage. This is not "thuggery" - it is a fact of life.

When I was the shop steward on my paper machine, a new reserve (rotating laborer) on my shift asked for advice. His girlfriend worked for a very large retailer, and her manager trusted her to cash up the register drawers. So much so, that she was required to work every night until after closing and cash up all the registers. After-hours with no pay and no overtime. He asked what I would do in this situation, and I told him that if she complained, the store's manager would retaliate. She complained, and the manager cut her hours to the bone for several weeks. Like most large retail chains, they keep the vast majority of their workers on a part-time status (too few hours to qualify for unemployment insurance) so that the employees can be dumped at any time for any reason at no cost to the company. Now, where is the thuggery?

That's not thuggery - it's ILLEGAL to force an hourly employee to work without compensation. They should have reported the matter to the proper authorities. If taken to court, the employee would be paid for all of the accumulated time.

 

[turbo]

That's not thuggery - it's ILLEGAL to force an hourly employee to work without compensation. They should have reported the matter to the proper authorities. If taken to court, the employee would be paid for all of the accumulated time.

Tell that to Wal Mart employees who are forced to work off the clock and have been quite unsuccessful in getting paid for decades.

 

[WhoWee]

Tell that to Wal Mart employees who are forced to work off the clock and have been quite unsuccessful in getting paid for decades.

http://www.walmartpaclassaction.com/

"On October 13, 2006 a Philadelphia jury returned a $78.5 million verdict in favor of a class of current or former employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (including Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters and SAM’s Clubs) who were forced to miss rest breaks and work off-the-clock in Wal-Mart’s Pennsylvania stores during the period March 19, 1998 through May 1, 2006. After a five-week trial, the jury found that Wal-Mart violated state laws and breached their agreement to provide paid rest breaks and to pay for all time that employees worked off-the-clock. The parties will likely be filing numerous post-trial motions, and Wal-Mart has publicly stated that it plans to appeal the jury verdict.



Court Awards Class Members an additional $62.3 million in statutory damages."

 

[WhoWee]

The US has extensive laws to protect employees.

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/

 

[russ_watters]

Let's back up a bit. When companies want to pressure their workers, they can use spying, misdirection, economic pressure, etc, including shutting down production lines, reducing benefits, reducing hours, and layoffs targeted at "troublemakers". All the unions have in their arsenal is withholding their members' labor. Perhaps they can picket and get some public attention that way, but really they have just a strike or a threat of a strike as leverage. This is not "thuggery" - it is a fact of life.

By "lets back up a bit", you mean "lets forget all my false claims from before"? We already established clearly that the arsenal of tricks that a union has includes considerable actual criminal activity and activity that would be considered criminal if taken by businesses*.

No one said a strike was "thuggery". "Thuggery" (by my definition earlier) is the physical violence and threats of physical violence that unions often use as a means of coercion. In addition, there's the sabbotage, which I consider different from "thuggery", but others may disagree.

You can't just reboot the argument and hope people will forget your previous false claims and the realities that you don't want to acknowledge.

*In addition to general monopolistic practices, unions have sucessfully gotten their monopoly - and failing that, price fixing - written into law in many places. In some places/contexts, you must, by law, use union labor. In others, if you don't use union labor, you have to pay non-union workers the union rate. That's not as altruistic as you may think: the goal is to eliminate the competitive advantage of the competition. Rockerfeller would be dumbfounded at how they have succeed in creating legally required monopolies where he was busted by other laws against monopolies.

Edit: I wasn't quite right about the origin of "prevailing wage" laws. As it turns out, they are Jim Crow laws, first enacted to keep black from stealing jobs from whites who wanted to get paid more. In some places, they have been repealed, but in others they are kept (and occasionally, new laws are passed) as they help the unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Bacon_Act

 

[Char. Limit]

No one said a strike was "thuggery".

Really?

Thuggery is subjective. Personally, I think work stoppages, sit-ins, and strikes count as 'thuggery'.

 

[turbo]

http://www.walmartpaclassaction.com/

"On October 13, 2006 a Philadelphia jury returned a $78.5 million verdict in favor of a class of current or former employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (including Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters and SAM’s Clubs) who were forced to miss rest breaks and work off-the-clock in Wal-Mart’s Pennsylvania stores during the period March 19, 1998 through May 1, 2006. After a five-week trial, the jury found that Wal-Mart violated state laws and breached their agreement to provide paid rest breaks and to pay for all time that employees worked off-the-clock. The parties will likely be filing numerous post-trial motions, and Wal-Mart has publicly stated that it plans to appeal the jury verdict.



Court Awards Class Members an additional $62.3 million in statutory damages."

Wal Mart has a huge stable of lawyers, including Hillary Clinton's old law practice. They will appeal this award all the way to the Supreme Court, if they can. That money is not forthcoming anytime soon.