NLRB to Boeing and South Carolina...

[michstfr]

...Drop DEAD.

As I mentioned before, although FactCheck.com may have something to say about it LOL!, the NLRB has brought an unprecendented case against Boeing in an attempt to stop them from building a plant in the Right to Work state of South Carolina and prevent 1000 jobs from being created. They are attempting to FORCE a private company into building a plant in a more union-friendly state like Washington. It is a blatant power grab and buy off for unions. NLRB is stacked with Democratic/Labor friendly appointees including Craig Becker, former head of the SEIU.

The Obama Administration has been painfully quiet on this front.

But even his current Commerce Secretary appointee cannot find reason to defend this lawsuit by the NLRB. See this from his hearing yesterday:

Republicans asked Bryson about the National Labor Relations Board’s suit against Boeing, which accuses the aircraft builder of opening a plant in South Carolina in retaliation against union workers in Washington state who went on strike in 2008. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the NLRB action was “an unprecedented violation of a company’s ability” to locate its facilities where it wants to.

“I think it’s NOT the right judgment,” Bryson said of the NLRB suit. He said Boeing officials were surprised by the legal action and said they believed they were “doing the right thing for the country” by keeping jobs in the U.S. and not moving them abroad.

There is a great piece on this issue by Reason Magazine's Damon Root. Keep in mind South Carolina has very high unemployment. Of course South Carolina is not a state that Obama is likely to carry anyway so who cares right??? LOL! I mean he has to get re-elected.

But just think about the consequences if the NLRB were to win this case. Mr. Root spells this out in this CHILLING paragraph:

Take a moment to let that sink in. The federal government would override Boeing’s business decision and FORCE the company to set up shop where it COMMANDS. Also keep in mind that Boeing hasn’t fired a single unionized employee in Washington or shifted a single piece of existing union work out of state. In fact, the company has added an additional 2,000 union jobs in Washington since announcing its plans for the South Carolina facility last year and says it plans on hiring more. Not exactly an anti-union jihad.

In other words it would be legal for a federal board to tell a PRIVATE business where it can and cannot operate if the NLRB were to win this suit. The NY Times thinks the case has merit (surprise, surprise) however even they admit that this is basically unprecedented:

Similarly, The New York Times admitted that while “it may be a difficult case to prove,” it is still “a welcome effort.”

As Root says:

Tell that to the 1,000 workers in South Carolina. Boeing made the decision to open a new facility in a more business-friendly state. That’s not a crime?at least not yet.
This post was edited on 6/23 2:26 PM by michstfr
This post was edited on 6/23 2:27 PM by michstfr

NLRB vs. Boeing

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by michstfr:


The Obama Administration has been painfully quiet on this front.

But even his current Commerce Secretary appointee cannot find reason to defend this lawsuit by the NLRB.
This post was edited on 6/23 2:26 PM by michstfr
This post was edited on 6/23 2:27 PM by michstfr

It is politics. Obama can not speak out against the union. That's all the republicans are trying to get him to do. It's not like if Obama disagreed that the NLRB would drop their suit, so it really doesn't matter what he says.

I do think the nomination of Bryson shows exactly how the Obama administration feels about this case, but this issue will not be resolved by politicians. It is lose/lose if Obama starts talking about this.

 

[michstfr]

I think I found stalker no. 3!!! LOL!!!

 

[Merge]

Number 3??? What do I have to do to get to Number 1?

I guess I will start going after you when you post info about recruits.

Seriously though, I enjoy politics and disagree with (almost) everything you post... Speaking out against unions would hurt Obama politically, if it was an issue he agreed with he would have said something.

 

[PiratePride]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by michstfr:


The Obama Administration has been painfully quiet on this front.

But even his current Commerce Secretary appointee cannot find reason to defend this lawsuit by the NLRB.

This post was edited on 6/23 2:26 PM by michstfr

This post was edited on 6/23 2:27 PM by michstfr

It is politics. Obama can not speak out against the union. That's all the republicans are trying to get him to do. It's not like if Obama disagreed that the NLRB would drop their suit, so it really doesn't matter what he says.

I do think the nomination of Bryson shows exactly how the Obama administration feels about this case, but this issue will not be resolved by politicians. It is lose/lose if Obama starts talking about this.

it's only politices Merge? lose lose? So Obama does not have the cujones to say what he really thinks? same thing for the gay marriage bill... he dances around that one like a toreador.... his opinion is evolving... is what the WH says in explanation... what a joke.... while the man evolves the country sinks. I only mention gay marriage in this thread in the context of Obama not coming out and saying what he really thinks. It is another example of his waffling.

With respect to Boeing say what you mean Mr President and let the chips fall where they may. By the way.. it's more than just politics for the Repubs as you allude to. It's about creating jobs and the Constitution.... neither of which our president knows much about.


This post was edited on 6/24 11:51 AM by PiratePride

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by PiratePride:

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by michstfr:


The Obama Administration has been painfully quiet on this front.

But even his current Commerce Secretary appointee cannot find reason to defend this lawsuit by the NLRB.

This post was edited on 6/23 2:26 PM by michstfr

This post was edited on 6/23 2:27 PM by michstfr

It is politics. Obama can not speak out against the union. That's all the republicans are trying to get him to do. It's not like if Obama disagreed that the NLRB would drop their suit, so it really doesn't matter what he says.

I do think the nomination of Bryson shows exactly how the Obama administration feels about this case, but this issue will not be resolved by politicians. It is lose/lose if Obama starts talking about this.

it's only politices Merge? lose lose? So Obama does not have the cujones to say what he really thinks? same thing for the gay marriage bill... he dances around that one like a toreador.... his opinion is evolving... is what the WH says in explanation... what a joke.... while the man evolves the country sinks. I only mention gay marriage in this thread in the context of Obama not coming out and saying what he really thinks. It is another example of his waffling.

With respect to Boeing say what you mean Mr President and let the chips fall where they may. By the way.. it's more than just politics for the Repubs as you allude to. It's about creating jobs and the Constitution.... neither of which our president knows much about.


This post was edited on 6/24 11:51 AM by PiratePride

I am not suggesting that is a good thing, but that is the state of politics. You can not come out and say how you actually feel. (except for maybe three politicians who are honest)

Obama will not influence the outcomes of NLRB v. Boeing. Why do you want him to comment? You (and republicans) only want his opinion because he will be forced to disenfranchise his base.

In my opinion he has been clear on gay marriage.

 

[PiratePride]

You make it seem like a bad thing to expect the president to be forthright. That really is backwards logic. The country should be left to guess and read between the lines? If that gives him a better chance of being re-elected then you and the Democrats are right. The country really knew very little about the man when they elected him in 2008. That was a winning strategy for sure. May as well stick to a winning formula.

WRT gay marriage, I thought that he opposed it. I'm basing my comments on what I heard on the radio this morning and it sounded like he was waffling as per the White House explanation when rsponding to questions. They said his position is "evolving". Of course he was speaking to a gay audience yesterday(which just donated tons of $'s to his campaign)and there is no way that he would come out and say that he opposed gay marriage. I can understand that. In his remarks he stopped short of saying that he favored gay marriage. The spin started, it seems afterwards. So I guess his position is evolving (changing) if you believe the WH. I'm not sure what the man atually believes.

 

[michstfr]

He did oppose Gay Marriage. Said it many times during the campaign, his supporters just pretended he was not being serious. The White House now says his position is "evolving." That is another word for flip-flopping when it becomes politically convenient or you're simply a disengenuous person.

The Boeing case is an absolute outrage. Can you imagine if Ronald Reagan had remained quiet while his political apppointees had orchestrated a bogus lawsuit in attempt to block a plant being built for purely political reasons at a time of HIGH unemployment? The media would be on it like flies on a rib roast as they say.

But no the media has more important things to do like dig thru Sarah Palin's emails to find out if she really has to buy groceries for her kids or does she have them delivered to her Anchorage home. High drama indeed.

Originally posted by PiratePride:
You make it seem like a bad thing to expect the president to be forthright. That really is backwards logic. The country should be left to guess and read between the lines? If that gives him a better chance of being re-elected then you and the Democrats are right. The country really knew very little about the man when they elected him in 2008. That was a winning strategy for sure. May as well stick to a winning formula.

WRT gay marriage, I thought that he opposed it. I'm basing my comments on what I heard on the radio this morning and it sounded like he was waffling as per the White House explanation when rsponding to questions. They said his position is "evolving". Of course he was speaking to a gay audience yesterday(which just donated tons of $'s to his campaign)and there is no way that he would come out and say that he opposed gay marriage. I can understand that. In his remarks he stopped short of saying that he favored gay marriage. The spin started, it seems afterwards. So I guess his position is evolving (changing) if you believe the WH. I'm not sure what the man atually believes.

This post was edited on 6/24 4:00 PM by michstfr

 

[Merge]

1
This post was edited on 6/24 7:11 PM by Merge

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by PiratePride:
You make it seem like a bad thing to expect the president to be forthright. That really is backwards logic. The country should be left to guess and read between the lines?

Why do you need his opinion on the NLRB case? Again, it will not impact the outcome.

Many presidents before him and many presidents after him will stay quiet on a variety of topics. Obama is no different. He is a politician playing the game of politics.

Right now, he has to win an election. Maybe it would be better if we had one term limit for presidents to serve 6 years rather than bothering with reelection. In his second term (yes, he will easily win again) we will see a more aggressive Obama and he will make his opinions so clear that republicans will start blasting him for his arrogance in thinking his opinion matters on every issue.

 

[The SHUttle]

So Merge has once again bent over backwards to come to the defense of the Obama administration, but what I am more interested in is - do you think the NLRB is justified in what they are doing?

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by The SHUttle:
So Merge has once again bent over backwards to come to the defense of the Obama administration, but what I am more interested in is - do you think the NLRB is justified in what they are doing?

It is not bending over backwards, it is understanding and accepting how politicians behave.

I do not agree with NLRB at all. I am actually generally anti-union.

However, people that want Obama to comment want him to just so he loses the support of the unions in the next election. Obama will not influence the outcome of that case.

Every politician avoids certain issues so they don't piss anyone off. This is not a new theory, and again, if Obama chimed in on every issue there would be cries from the right about how arrogant he is. It's just silly honestly.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by The SHUttle:
So Merge has once again bent over backwards to come to the defense of the Obama administration, but what I am more interested in is - do you think the NLRB is justified in what they are doing?

Every politician avoids certain issues so they don't piss anyone off. This is not a new theory, and again, if Obama chimed in on every issue there would be cries from the right about how arrogant he is. It's just silly honestly.

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to our Governor...lol. Doesn't seem like he cares what people think about him or protecting a voting interest; more about sticking to his agenda and gaining concensus across the aisle when he needs to get something done.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by The SHUttle:
So Merge has once again bent over backwards to come to the defense of the Obama administration, but what I am more interested in is - do you think the NLRB is justified in what they are doing?

Every politician avoids certain issues so they don't piss anyone off. This is not a new theory, and again, if Obama chimed in on every issue there would be cries from the right about how arrogant he is. It's just silly honestly.

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to our Governor...lol. Doesn't seem like he cares what people think about him or protecting a voting interest; more about sticking to his agenda and gaining concensus across the aisle when he needs to get something done.

There are exceptions of course. I find Christie pretty refreshing with his politically incorrectness, but is his abrasive personality good for the state on NJ if he doesn't get reelected?

He is turning off voters in NJ right now. He will either tone it down or lose the next election.

Ron Paul is another guy that will tell you exactly what he honestly thinks on any issue. Most politicians are entirely calculated.

 

[HALL85]

Well, at least we can agree on Christie. I think some of that abrasiveness is a function of the press trying to sensationalize his image as well. I just find it interesting for a guy that is perceived to be so polarizing, that he has shown the ability to work with Sheila Oliver and Steve Sweeney when push comes to shove. So far he has made the tough decisions that we've needed a Governor to make and if NJ voters get caught up in the press nonsense, then they only have themselves to blame if he doesn't get re-elected.

 

[Merge]

He is very brash, and I think he is comfortable with that.

The problem is that he is giving ammo to let himself be sensationalized in a negative view. I am not saying he deserves it, but if I was running against him I would be thrilled with the soundbites he gives.

His numbers are slipping in a time that has been relatively successful for him which is my point. If you want Christie to have a second term, you better hope he starts playing the game.

 

[HALL85]

I guess maybe I'm just hopeful voters respond more to results than style and being insincere, but that's not the way of the US these days.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
I guess maybe I'm just hopeful voters respond more to results than style and being insincere, but that's not the way of the US these days.

We have found some political common ground!

 

[HALL85]

...I guess we have...

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
I just find it interesting for a guy that is perceived to be so polarizing, that he has shown the ability to work with Sheila Oliver and Steve Sweeney when push comes to shove.

Well so much for that.

Link

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
I just find it interesting for a guy that is perceived to be so polarizing, that he has shown the ability to work with Sheila Oliver and Steve Sweeney when push comes to shove.

Well so much for that.

LOL....I was thinking the same thing when I read that story this morning. If you read between the lines, the Dems really screwed up from a strategy perspective on the budget. They weren't unified on what to do and thought lobbing in a budget without any discussion while adding a billion back in would get through.

Love him or hate him, Christie is doing exactly what he said he would do when campaigning.

Merge, do you find it a bit ironic that the NSL labels Christie a "bully" for using some of the language that he has, but it's OK for Sweeney to call the Governor a "prick" without any criticism from the paper?

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
I just find it interesting for a guy that is perceived to be so polarizing, that he has shown the ability to work with Sheila Oliver and Steve Sweeney when push comes to shove.

Well so much for that.

LOL....I was thinking the same thing when I read that story this morning. If you read between the lines, the Dems really screwed up from a strategy perspective on the budget. They weren't unified on what to do and thought lobbing in a budget without any discussion while adding a billion back in would get through.

Love him or hate him, Christie is doing exactly what he said he would do when campaigning.

Merge, do you find it a bit ironic that the NSL labels Christie a "bully" for using some of the language that he has, but it's OK for Sweeney to call the Governor a "prick" without any criticism from the paper?

Yeah, I was cracking up reading it. It was almost an op-ed by Sweeney.

For me, reading between the lines, it is either that Sweeney completely regretted a compromise or more likely that Christie balked on a compromise and took out the pen over prior agreements?

Either way, the dems look foolish and are going to cry their way to the next election. (and it just might work)

 

[HALL85]

It sounded like the Dems never even attempted to have a dialogue and expected Christie to reach back to them to compromise.

Almost seems that Christie doesn't care if he wins the next election or not, but rather just carrying out his campaign promises. It's way too early, but I almost think it's the same situation Obama faces....who is going to run against Christie? Booker?? I think he has his sights set on the Senate. Interesting that Booker has been very, very quiet on both the pension reform and the budget.

 

[michstfr]

Christie should run for President. Seriously.

He is exactly what we need. Someone who is going to stand up and say, "No more welfare even for the middle class."

He doesn't care what his critics say.

And his blunt style was the only reason he got the type of unbelievable concessions on his pension bill from the Dems.

 

[SPK145]

Sweeney calling anyone a rotten prick is hilarious. Is that what his puppetmaster George Norcross told him to say???