Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2011, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,285 posts, read 15,321,370 times
Reputation: 6658

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
He did not single you out....he said "folks."
He said 'you folks'. Twice even.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
you folks ... you folks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2011, 07:03 PM
 
59,198 posts, read 27,388,280 times
Reputation: 14303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Since my US home is in Washington, I would certainly hope that that would never happen. Boeing is crucial to the Puget Sound area, and Washington's economy in general. I do not want unions to go away. They serve a valuable function in the areas of workers' rights. But the time is long past when wokers in industries like aircraft manufacturing were subjectto any particularly onerous rules or conditions.

Bottom line: the 787 MUST be a success and Boeing MUST be permitted to fulfill its contract obligations to ordering airlines. The Obama administration sees this as just another zero-sum political shell game where they rig it so that their side wins and the other side loses. The problem with that kind of thinking is that "the other side" in this equation is not just Boeing and a bunch of (presumably) Republican management types. It's the entire domestic airline industry in the United States. Are we really ready to sacrifice yet another critical sector of our economy on the altar of political partisanship?
There is no interest like self interest.

I live right on the SC border. I would rather see them move everything here.

The union has gotten too powerful. I am all for people making a wage commiserate with their jobs but the unions have gotten out of hand.
Wasn't one of their demands during the last contract negotiations was to have a union head on the Boeing Board of Directors? What gall.

Without the unions Boeing could make more profit which helps all the stockholders including IRA and 401k participants.

Because Wash. state has NOT supported Boeing on this issue I say they don't deserve to have them.

If this ruling stands I wouldn't be surprised to see other companies move out of states with such strong union demands.

It happened to New England years ago. It can happen again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2011, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,237,375 times
Reputation: 6553
Why was it a big deal for them to move to SC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2011, 07:07 PM
 
46,319 posts, read 27,152,415 times
Reputation: 11135
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Why was it a big deal for them to move to SC?

Ummmmmm, the union's started stuff....they were butt hurt....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 03:41 AM
 
20,349 posts, read 19,950,972 times
Reputation: 13467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
I wonder what the NLRB would do if Boeing announce it was working to MOVE it's entire operation, lock, stock and barrel out of Wash.

Probably nothing if Boeing moves the work to China.

It's workung for GE, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Vermont
11,762 posts, read 14,669,155 times
Reputation: 18539
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Well by golly, Jack, I don't know but Boeing has spent very near $1 billion dollars on that plant and I just don't know how they pick it up and move it to Washington. Maybe they should have just turned all that money over to the union and told them to have a ball. That is what it amounts to now, isn't it.

How many recent appointments by Obama are involved in that NLRB, anyway? I think the group overstepped their bounds and the House has started the end of their ability to pound employers to aid unions.
I'll answer your question this way :
You will never see me criticizing a court decision by arguing that it is unpopular. I will criticize it of I think it's wrong.

Maybe you could do some research and explain why, in your view, the decision of the NLRB (havethey already decided or is the case still pending? ) is in contradiction of the relevant statute and case law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,760 posts, read 8,228,532 times
Reputation: 8537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
How is anything relevant to the NLRB who's members are ALL recess appointees by Obama and ALL are pro-union?
The Repub. kept the senate in session so as to keep those appointees from being made. My quess is the legal issue is what is happening.The NLRB is not pro union or pro business it is an agency to maintain worker rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,420 posts, read 10,839,557 times
Reputation: 7801
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
64% say this and a whiole 21% disagree. Maybe the NLRB and Obama will see some numbers like this and begin to back off from some of their pure crap.

64% Say Boeing Should Be Allowed to Operate Plant in South Carolina - Rasmussen Reports™
What a radical concept...let free enterprise be free. Of course he has not yet sicked the EPA on them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,800 posts, read 6,573,141 times
Reputation: 3151
This plant announcement was made SIXTEEN months (5-3-10).

Why is it a problem NOW for the Obamaminable One?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,301,323 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
I'll answer your question this way :
You will never see me criticizing a court decision by arguing that it is unpopular. I will criticize it of I think it's wrong.

Maybe you could do some research and explain why, in your view, the decision of the NLRB (havethey already decided or is the case still pending? ) is in contradiction of the relevant statute and case law.
The NLRB was created to protect workers from certain things and them telling an employer where they can and can't establish their plants is not one of the reasons for their creation. They overstepped their bonds in this case and I am sure that even someone as far left as you stand could see that Obama intended things like this to be done by them when he made those last two appointments.

I have always supported the NLRB when they did what they were created to do but this time they just went farther than they were supposed to go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:17 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top