The fatal flaw in the Union/NLRB case against Boeing

Red States:

...

 While ‘Project Gemini’ clearly shows that the company was interested in a second source of production in South Carolina because of “lower labor costs” and its “current hostage situation,” the problem with the union’s (and NLRB’s) entire evil corporate conspiracy theory is in the actual time line of events.     

Very simply, the union’s (and NLRB’s) conspiracy theory falls apart when this is taken into account: The company that Boeing bought (Vought Aircraft) for what ultimately was chosen for the second 787 production facility was unionized at the time Boeing bought it—by the very same union, the International Association of Machinists.

In fact, as has been noted on several occasions, were it not for the South Carolina employees decertifying the Machinists’ union after Boeing bought the company, the union would have not likely have ever filed the charges against Boeing.

Thus far, both the media and the politicians who have latched onto the Boeing issue have remained suspiciously ignorant of a simple premise: If the Boeing employees had not decertified the Machinists in 2009, it is unlikely the union would have filed its charges against the company.

You see, if the employees were still represented by the union and the union would have filed charges against Boeing anyway, then it would have been possible for South Carolina employees to claim the union violated its duty of fair representation. [Remember, the problem with the union and NLRB's case is that the South Carolina work is additional work, not work taken away existing work in Puget Sound.]

On the other hand, since the union filed its charges after the employees decertified, it seems rather apparent that the union’s charges are in retaliation for South Carolina employees exercising their legal rights to become union free through decertification. If that is indeed the case, that is unlawful.

...

I have never heard and adequate explanation from the NLRB or the union about the desertification.  That is probably because they do not have one and the media has not been willing to pursue the point.  The union is not really complaining about lost jobs since Boeing has increased employment in the old facility.  If it were a suit for damages it would fail on that alone.  I think what they are really concerned about is the potential loss of their ability to extort higher wages in future contracts because Boeing has alternative production facilities.