Boeing's Washington facility to be duplicated in South Carolina. (Seattle: health insurance, home)

[70Ford]

Aero-News Network: The Aviation and Aerospace World's Daily/Real-Time News and Information Service&

Labor issues are a factor in the decision, according to Boeing spokesman Jim Proulx. He told The Seattle Times that by adding a second supplier for every part, Boeing could continue to build the Dreamliner even if Washington-area machinists went on strike. "Repeated labor disruptions have affected our performance in our customers' eyes," Proulx told the paper. "We have to show our customers we can be a reliable supplier to them." The South Carolina production line "has to be able to go on regardless of what's happening over here," he added.

************************************
Guess that 1.2 billion+ the strike cost them made them rethink their strategy.

//www.city-data.com/forum/busin...announces.html

[Patron of Wrath]

People will, eventually, come to understand that the "Labor Union" mentality in manufacturing only really applies to a localized market. In a global economy labor unions are a major hindrance. Seattle Boeing employees could make a major statement, and ensure continued viability of themselves as a work force, by disbanding the union. Once the new southern facility is up and running, all it will take is a single prolonged strike for Boeing to move all of their operations out of Seattle. Will the labor unionists understand that they did it to themselves? No.. Do they understand that the new facility is a result of their own actions? Probably not.

I do understand that labor unions have become like a religion unto themselves, and any arguments counter to them will be met with the the same summary dismissal as those silly scientists who point out dinosaur bones to Christians. lol, silly scientists!

[70Ford]

The Union response:

Statement of District President Tom Wroblewski in Response to Second 787 Line Announcement

"Boeing has betrayed our loyalty once again, walking away from our discussions just like they walked away from Seattle eight years ago to move to Chicago.
We tried very hard to reach an extended agreement with Boeing. We listened closely to what executives said, and suggested ideas to meet their needs. We offered concrete, real-world solutions. But I can tell you now, no matter what Boeing says or implies, the truth is this: We did offer Boeing a 10-year contract, and even offered to go longer than that. And when we did, they seemed stunned, and stopped talking.

It was obvious to me that Boeing wasn't really interested in working with us. They didn't take our proposals seriously and they never offered any proposals of their own. Most of the time, they didn't even take notes. It's now clear that Boeing was only using our talks as a smoke screen, and as a bargaining chip to extort a bigger tax handout from South Carolina. I haven't reported this before -- not to our members and certainly not to the media -- because Boeing had asked for confidential talks. My word means something, so I said nothing, even while the company was leaking half-truths to reporters.

When our team asked Boeing if 10 years was going to be enough for them, they didn't respond. And when I asked them to confirm that the extended contract would secure the second 787 line for Washington state, their reply was only: "Well, it would be helpful." But they would not commit to anything. Still, we tried to get a deal, because I know that's what our members and our community wanted. To do that, we were willing to discuss any issue to get a deal that we could recommend to our members. We floated ideas on health care costs, wages, pensions and lump sums. None of this mattered to Boeing. They didn't want solutions, but only a scapegoat.

Our seven-week strike last year is not the reason the 787 is already more than 120 weeks behind schedule. Instead of investing in our shared future and a highly talented workforce in a region ideally suited for aerospace, Boeing has decided to double-down on its failed 787 strategy and place an ill-advised, billion-dollar bet on a strategy that's a proven loser."

Untitled Document

***************
South Carolina responds :
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/oct/29/29boeing/ (broken link)

[grastus]

Glad I ultimately decided not to work for Boeing. Big companies in general seem to get a kick out of messing with employees' heads like this. Plus, what kind of company has unionized engineers...

[cedar_bluff_tree_farm]

Originally Posted by grastus

Glad I ultimately decided not to work for Boeing. Big companies in general seem to get a kick out of messing with employees' heads like this. Plus, what kind of company has unionized engineers...

One that pays engineers overtime for hours worked beyond 40. Very rare in the engineering world. Also one that pays for graduate degrees, free health insurance (no monthly premium), and an excellent 401(k) program. Not to mention you get a chance to do the coolest engineering in the world!

[eskercurve]

Originally Posted by grastus

Glad I ultimately decided not to work for Boeing. Big companies in general seem to get a kick out of messing with employees' heads like this. Plus, what kind of company has unionized engineers...

You're confusing the machinists' union with the engineering union. The engineering union isn't nearly as troublesome for the company.

In terms of the machinists' union being a flawed strategy in a globalized economy, it is very true. I do not agree with Wroblowski's assertion that it is a "failed" strategy. Look at Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and Ford. They all have plants down south. 40 years ago, nobody thought that "those dumb southern hicks" would learn how to build cars. Now look at them.

[70Ford]

Bill would kill tax incentives if Boeing moves too much work

Commercial airplane makers would lose aerospace tax incentives if they put more than half the final assembly of an aircraft family outside the state, under a bill that state Rep. Jeff Morris, D-Mount Vernon, introduced Monday. The bill, which would affect Boeing's business and occupation tax rate reduction, is a reaction to that company's decision to put its second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in South Carolina, rather than in Everett, which is home to the state-incentive-backed first line, Morris said.

************************************************

[eskercurve]

Originally Posted by 70Ford

Bill would kill tax incentives if Boeing moves too much work

Commercial airplane makers would lose aerospace tax incentives if they put more than half the final assembly of an aircraft family outside the state, under a bill that state Rep. Jeff Morris, D-Mount Vernon, introduced Monday. The bill, which would affect Boeing's business and occupation tax rate reduction, is a reaction to that company's decision to put its second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in South Carolina, rather than in Everett, which is home to the state-incentive-backed first line, Morris said.

************************************************

Great. Insert foot into mouth. Instead of "punishing" Boeing by implementing this bill, they've sealed their fate. Boeing would much rather build the facilities to make airplanes elsewhere more quickly now so as to limit the impact of such removal of tax breaks. Further, Boeing has profit margins of about 5%. They need these tax breaks, or else they'll be even or negative. Further, those tax breaks lower the cost of the airplanes we sell overseas, who typically have enormous levies placed on imported technical machines like airplanes.

Or Boeing could just have 51% of its workforce here and the other 49% elsewhere, or continue the trend of outsourcing knowledge.

This bill is simply stupid. Instead of punishing Boeing, maybe the legislature should do away with the bed-buddies of the union and make this a right-to-work state. Or maybe they should provide funding to cities up north of Everett to not be poor, boring, or gang-infested so that the engineers would actually want to live there, then they could pay them less since up north is cheaper.