Boeing note

Ms. Liebman, 61, former NLRB Chairwoman who recently stepped down (after the Boeing case and before what would have been a bitter reinstatement fight in Congress), had comments regarding her Boeing ruling. Remember that she ruled it was in retaliation against a union for striking to have a company exec state that they were going to move excess production to a new plant instead of the unionized plant to prevent work stoppages. No union workers were fired (actually union workers were hired), 7 out of every 10 planes are still built by unionized workers, but she still ruled it was retaliatory to make that sound business decision, and move capital. This comes after Boeing had hired 1k people in South Carolina and already built the 750m plant. She issued an injunction from beginning constructing planes at the new plant and putting those new employees to work.

Her comment on her unprecedented decision:

“The perception of this agency as doing radical things is mystifying to me...”

What is mystifying to me is not recognizing the impact of her decision, and the precedent which would follow. Will companies have to BS a reason to add new non-union jobs anytime they have a union strike. 

A union has the right to strike without retaliation, by law, and accepting that earnestly, a company cannot fire workers because they strike. But it does not mean a company MUST continually benefit the union, it does not mean they need to get a raise, it does not mean all new production must go to them, it does not mean they not only have a right to not be discriminated against, but also a right to benefit from all company prosperity. 


This decision is not mystifying; she is either being insincere, or is so detached from reality we should be overly gratified she stepped down.


[quote source: Greenhouse article, NYT, 8.29.11]