In a statement on Wednesday, Boeing Company and the Machinists Union announced they had reached a tentative agreement that would end their labor dispute that has been ongoing since earlier this year. You remember, that’s the dispute that arose because Boeing decided to open a new plant in South Carolina. That state just happens to be a right to work state and the labor union ran to their buddies, appointed by President Obama, on the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB. Those buddies promptly filed a lawsuit to stop Boeing from using the plant to build their new 787 plane. The labor union cried foul and the NLRB echoed their sentiments, saying Boeing was using the new plant in Charleston, South Carolina to avoid legal labor strikes in Washington state.
Since I am not privy to information from inside Boeing, let me speculate just a moment. Let’s put aside the fact that South Carolin actively
courted Boeing to build the new plant in their state. Let’s put aside the fact that all states do that, giving special tax breaks and incentives for companies to build new production plants in their state. Newsflash, everyone does it. Nothing wrong with it. It’s called competition. Moving on, let’s assume, just for a few minutes, that the sole factor in Boeing’s decision to build the new 787 in South Carolina was to avoid legal labor strikes. So what? As a private entity, trying to make a profit and answer to shareholders, do they not have the right, or even an obligation to their shareholders, to do so?
Washington is not a right to work state, which means a particular union can require a worker to be a member, in order to work at a Boeing plant, or any other plant that has a union. Under state law, that is legal. So be it. On the other hand, South Carolina does have a right to work statute in place. Consequently, a union can not require membership before working. As I understand the law, a plant can be unionized, but membership can not be required. That was the crux of the Machinists Union argument. They couldn’t have that, as it was entirely possible any new union chapter would have few members. That’s why they went to the NLRB and filed their complaint and that is why the NLRB filed the lawsuit.
When you look at who won this fight, it depends on what your definition of win is. If the agreement is ratified by the union members, Boeing will be required to build the new 737 Max (already in production) in Renton, Washington. They will also be allowed to continue production of the 787 in Charleston, South Carolina. I suppose you could say both sides got something they wanted, but it’s a sad day when our government steps in and takes measures to prevent a business from opening a new plant in their preferred location. Boeing and the Machinists Union may both claim victory with this agreement, as it should be with any good compromise, but I still question the role the Obama administration had in this affair.
I ask again, what right and what authority does our government have to strong arm a business and force them to change their business model? If such authority exists, I stand very skeptical.
