‘A Shameful Act’: S.C. Democratic Mayor Denounces NLRB Move

The Associated Press reports on a South Carolina news conference that featured the only prominent Democrat to have commented on the National Labor Relations Board’s complaint against Boeing for deciding that South Carolina represented the best location to build a production line for the 787 Dreamliner. The mayor of Charleston is NOT happy.

From “South Carolina Politicians Fight for Boeing Right-to-Work“:

“This is a shameful act. It is outrageous and extraordinarily wasteful,” added Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., the only Democrat at the news conference. “Huge sums of money will be spent on this litigation and Boeing will prevail, without any question.” He said no one in Washington lost a job because of the Boeing decision and, in fact, jobs were added in the Northwest.”I will apologize to the employees of Boeing that you have to go through this because this is ludicrous,” said North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey. “When our own federal government stands in the way of economic growth and development in this country, it’s ludicrous.”

Meanwhile, labor’s allies have managed a Tweet or two, but otherwise the NLRB’s critics dominate the public debate. The Washington Examiner’s editorial today is strong and well-argued. In “Federal labor board seeks to ground Boeing,” the author notes that an Administrative Law Judge will hear Boeing’s objection on June 14, “so there still is hope sanity will prevail”. Still…

[A] decision in favor of the [International Association of Machinists] would be a disaster not just for Boeing, but for American workers everywhere. A ruling in favor of Obama’s NLRB would make it presumptively illegal for any unionized firm to invest in a right-to-work state.At first, this would mainly hurt right-to-work states, as they would no longer be able to lure new businesses from existing unionized firms. But over the long run, this policy would hurt unions and all Americans. Why would any domestic company choose to build a factory in a forced-union state if it knew that meant it could never expand to a right-to-work state? Why would any international firm invest anywhere in this country if it knew the White House would favor political allies?

The NLRB isn’t protecting workers, it is setting them up for eventual unemployment.

On WLS Radio in Chicago this morning, Reuters business columnist James Pethokoukis also highlighted the jobs angle:

If we want business to flee this country, we will continue making America a very high-cost, high-tax place to do business.  Business…there’s a lot of mobility, they can build things other places. To now be directing from Washington, D.C., exactly where these companies can build plants, how much they can pay there workers: In a way, it’s kind of like a price control, or a wage control, where you’re saying, you must pay your workers this and you must put your plants in a place where that’s the wage. I’m not sure that’s going to create many jobs in this country.

At the Future of Capitalism blog, Ira Stoll ponders President Obama’s possible reaction, while at Ricochet, blogger Mago provides his perspective as a former corporate site selection specialist, “Who Needs Corporate Site Selection (When Unions Will Do It For You)?!” FoxNews also blogs the political reaction, “South Carolina Lawmakers Livid About Boeing NLRB Complaint.”

Finally, we’ve neglected to highlight this excellent summary from LaborUnionReport.com . As republished at BigGovernment.com, the post, “In Shot Heard Around Business World, Obama’s Labor Board Issues Complaint Against Boeing,” does a very good job of providing background, legal and political context. Thank you to Peter List.

Join the discussion One Comment

Leave a Reply