McClatchy Newspapers reports on the Republican presidential debate in Greenville, S.C., “South Carolina’s Haley leaves mark on GOP presidential debate“:

With so few candidates at the debate, [Gov. Nikki]  Haley played a supporting role as the Fox News moderators took up her challenge to presidential candidates to weigh in on a National Labor Relations Board complaint against Boeing Charleston’s plant.

Pawlenty jumped first, claiming President Barack Obama’s administration crossed a new line in opposing Boeing’s decision to locate outside of its home base of Washington. “It’s a preposterous decision,” he said.

Minnesota Public Radio, “Pawlenty scores some points in first GOP debate“:

On the domestic front, Pawlenty drew wild applause from the audience when he stood with South Carolinians over a local labor issue involving Boeing aircraft jobs.

“You have this administration, through the National Labor Relations Board, telling a private company that they cannot relocate to South Carolina and provide jobs in this state. And they are good-paying jobs, and they’re needed jobs. It’s a preposterous decision and position of this administration.”

It’s not just a local labor issue. It’s a national issue of tremendous importance to businesses across the nation, who are deeply concerned about a National Labor Relations Board that arrogates to itself the power to determine where a company can locate new production facilities.

And although the Republicans have seized on the issue while Democrats, tied to organized labor, have remained mostly silent, this is also not inherently a partisan issue. The idea that a government agency can reinterpret precedent and ignore the facts of a case to shut down a billion-dollar operation employing more than 1,000 people should alarm those of all political affiliations who believe in private-sector growth.

The NLRB’s account of the facts of the case is suspect. Chairman John Kline (R-MN) and Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) of the House Education and Workforce Committee has sent a letter (available here) to Lafe Solomon, the NLRB’s acting general counsel who brought the complaint against Boeing.

The complaint references alleged statements made by Boeing officials between October 2009 and March 2010 that work stoppages were one reason for choosing the new location.

When asked about the charge in June 2010, the NLRB regional director Richard Ahearn told The Seattle Times “it would have been an easier case for the union to argue if Boeing had moved existing work from Everett, rather than placing new work in Charleston.” He was also unable to point to any “bright line” rule to determine whether the company’s actions violated the law. Finally, the regional director stated “an initial ruling is weeks away.”

The letter requests NLRB documents underlying the decision. Bloomberg reports, “Republicans Rally Behind Boeing Over Labor Board Complaint.”

On the Senate side, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and 18 other Senate Republicans have written President Obama calling on him to withdraw the nomination of Solomon — the NLRB’s general counsel job requires Senate confirmation — and NLRB member Craig Becker, the former SEIU lawyer who serves on the board via a recess appointment. From FoxNews.com, “Senate Republicans Threaten to Fight NLRB Nominations Over Boeing Complaint“: (continue reading…)

Fox News interviews former Peter Schaumber, the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, on the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing for expanding production facilities in South Carolina instead of Washington state. From “Ex-Labor Board Chairman: Union-Backed Case Against Boeing ‘Unprecedented’“:

“It would be fair to say it’s unprecedented,” he said.

Schaumber, a Bush administration appointee who served on the board for almost eight years including as chairman, argued that the NLRB counsel offered “no basis” for the central claim that Boeing retaliated by transferring work from Washington to South Carolina.

“The workers don’t have any claim to the work,” he said. “If the workers don’t have any claim to the work, it wasn’t retaliatory to open a new second production line. … It is simply expanding its business operation.

The story also quotes South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has been very effective in both expressing his constituents’ ire and the implications for the national economy of the NLRB’s pro-union diktat.  South Carolina politicians have continued to press the issue in the news (with the notable exception of Rep. James Clyburn).

Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina has repeatedly called for comment from President Obama on the NLRB’s action, but so far nothing. White House reporters have not posed any related question during the last two press briefings from Jay Carney. Maybe today … (continue reading…)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appeared on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, interviewed by Candy Crowley on the National Labor Relations Board’s complaint against Boeing for choosing South Carolina over Washington state to locate a production facility for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

The video is here and the transcript is here. Sen. Graham’s comments provide great fodder for questions the White House press corps could ask spokesman Jay Carney. Today. During the daily press briefing.

CROWLEY: South Carolina’s senior senator wants to know why the NLRB is against the project when, in a previous life, one of the president’s top advisers thought it was a fine idea.

GRAHAM: Bill Daley, the president’s chief of staff, was on the board of Boeing at the time they made the decision to locate to South Carolina. For the complaint to be legitimate, you would have to assume that the president’s chief of staff engaged in retaliatory behavior against a union.

That’s just the start of some tough commentary from Sen. Graham.

At National Review Online, The Corner, Robert Costa interviews Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC), who also has pointed, political remarks for President Obama. From “Haley Pressures Obama, ’12 Field on NLRB“

Boeing, which has poured billions into the new facility, calls the agency’s complaint “legally frivolous.” Haley, for her part, is baffled by how the feds think that they can kick around a private company, picking and choosing where it operates. “There is no case; this is ridiculous,” she says. “It is an embarrassment for the NLRB. The unions are losing and this is nothing more than a desperate attempt to see if they can make their voices relevant again.” (continue reading…)

The Seattle Times, which reports on its hometown Boeing Company more than any other U.S. newspaper, has editorialized against the National Labor Relations Board’s complaint against the company over its decision to build new production facilities in South Carolina against Washington state.

From “Boeing’s South Carolina 787 assembly line disappointing but not ‘unfair’“:

It was a blow to Puget Sound country when Boeing put its second 787 assembly line in South Carolina. It was also part of a hardball negotiation between the company and the International Association of Machinists. This page regretted Boeing’s decision, but has never thought of it as something that could be, or should be, reversed by the federal government.

The National Labor Relations Board has labeled Boeing’s decision an unfair labor practice, and is asking a federal court to order the line to be moved to Washington. We would celebrate the day Boeing decided to do that — but it is Boeing’s decision.

The company and the union are both grown-ups here. Each knows its rights.

The union has a right to strike. It may be unwise to strike at a particular time, such as the month Wall Street had its worst collapse in 75 years, but it is the union’s right.

The company has the right to build assembly plants. It can build them in South Carolina or in Afghanistan if it likes. Its decision may be unwise, but it is Boeing’s.

No reaction so far that we find online from Washington’s two Democratic Senators, Sen. Maria Cantwell, who toured the state last week blasting high gasoline prices, or Sen. Patty Murray. In South Carolina, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) — whose constituents would work in the North Charleston Boeing plant — is encouraged about the Port of Charleston but has not issued a statement on the NLRB’s move.

The New York Times labor reporter, Steven Greenhouse, essays a big picture approach toward the NLRB’s move, in which Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon argues that he’s just doing his job by filing the complaint, which demands that Boeing manufacture the 787 Dreamliner in the Puget Sound area.

National columnists have lambasted the NLRB for its complaint.

• Jay Ambrose, “No end to ways unions hurt economy“
• Kathleen Parker, “The NLRB fires a shot South Carolina can’t ignore“

From Bloomberg, “Mexico Puts Tariffs on Some U.S. Pork Cuts in Truck Program Retaliation“:

Mexico will impose import tariffs on some U.S. pork cuts, ketchup, cheeses, sweetcorn and some fruits because of the U.S. government’s failure to restore a program allowing Mexican trucks to operate north of the border, the nation’s official gazette said.

The list includes a tariff of 5 percent on some cuts of pork and as much as 25 percent on fresh white cheese, according to the notice. Onions, apples, pears, oranges, cherries, soy sauce, mineral water and sunglasses are also on the list.

Mexico’s official gazette lists all the products in Spanish. Media reports focus on the agricultural and retail products because consumers/readers can easily grasp the impact. The economic on manufactured goods could be as great or greater, however. Here’s Google’s translation of part of the list, including the percentage tariffs applied. Most of it reflects the original list of products announced in March 2009.

 We note the addition of heavy machinery, such as trenchers (8429.59.01), hit with a 15 percent tariff.  That’s a big ticket item which other countries such as Canada are more than eager to supply.

Surprisingly, this week’s hot issue of retaliatory tariffs imposed by Mexico against U.S. farmers and manufacturers appears not to have been mentioned during the President’s trip to Seattle on Tuesday. At least the issue does not appear in any of the public comments.

Washington State agricultural producers have lost millions of dollars worth of sales because of Mexico’s tariffs against U.S. products imposed in retaliation for U.S. refusal to establish the cross-border trucking program required by NAFTA. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), for whom President Obama raised campaign funds on Tuesday, is leading the Congressional call for resolving the dispute.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the former Governor of Washington, was also on hand.

But nothing in any of the public comments we see.

• Remarks by the President at Fundraiser for Senator Patty Murray
• Remarks by the President at Luncheon for Senator Patty Murray
• Remarks by the President After Roundtable With Local Business Leaders in Seattle, Washington

Well, maybe the issue arose in private conversations.

Earlier Shopfloor.org posts.

The President is expected to highlight export issues in Seattle today when he speaks with small business owners at 11:40 a.m. and then makes a statement to the press. (White House schedule.)

We’d be very surprised if he does not comment on Mexico’s announcement Monday of retaliatory tariffs being imposed on additional U.S. products because the United States is violating NAFTA provisions requiring regulated cross-border trucking.

The issue is especially timely because the President follows his meeting with business owners by attending a campaign fundraiser with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), one of the most vocal critics of U.S. inaction on the issue. Murray has demanded a solution to the problem by Oct. 1.

The Mexican government has imposed its tariffs with a keen political sense, hitting U.S. farm products in states like Washington, Idaho and California, and many manufactured goods — obviously the major concern of the National Association of Manufacturers. News accounts today highlight the additional tariffs on pork and pork products. From The Des Moines Register, “Irritated Mexico increases tariffs on U.S. pork“:

Mexico added pork to a list of 99 U.S. products on which it is raising tariffs under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the National Pork Producers Council said Monday.

“Mexico’s retaliation against U.S. pork will have negative economic consequences for America’s pork producers,” said Sam Carney, a producer from Adair who is president of the pork council. “We are extremely disappointed that our top volume export market has taken this action, but we’re more disappointed that the United States is not living up to its trade obligations.”

The actual list of affected products won’t be known until its published in the government’s Official Gazette, but Bloomberg reports: “Fifty-four of the products that will be subject to tariffs will be agricultural and the rest will be manufactured goods, said the Mexican official who can’t be identified.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk expressed disappointment in a statement. The gist: We’re working on it.

(continue reading…)

When President Obama speaks in Seattle on exports Tuesday, we hope he’ll shed some light on the continued delays in resolving the Mexican cross-border trucking issue.  After all, he’s raising campaign money that same day for Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who has worked to resolve the trade dispute that is notably costing Washington State farmers — and manufacturers across the country — millions of dollars in lost sales.

In March 2009, the Mexican government imposed retaliatory tariffs on selected U.S. agricultural and manufactured goods because the United States (in this case, Congress) had violated NAFTA by blocking enactment of a cross-border trucking program.

Potato and frozen potato products are among those hit hard by the tariffs. As the Northwest-based ag newspaper, The Capital Press, reported last week, “Senate seeks solutions to dispute“:

Tariffs of 20 percent on U.S. frozen potato products have been in effect since March 19, 2009. The tariffs cost the industry more than $33 million in revenue during the 12 months ending in March, officials estimate.

“It’s just phenomenal the amount of revenue that’s been lost,” Matt Harris, director of trade for the Washington State Potato Commission, said in an interview.

Washington is the nation’s largest producer of frozen potato products, historically providing about half of all shipments to Mexico. Nearly 90 percent of the state’s spud crop is used to make products such as frozen french fries and hash browns.

Because of the tariffs, major potato processors have begun sourcing Mexican shipments from Canada rather than U.S. plants, industry officials said.

Sen. Murray had language inserted into the committee report for the FY2011 Transportation and HUD appropriation bill (S. 3644) requiring the Administration to put forward a plan by Oct. 1 to end the dispute and retaliatory tariffs. As she said in a release:

“I am extremely frustrated that the Administration has not yet acted while farmers across my home state of Washington continue to suffer under Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs,” said Senator Patty Murray. “I am urging both the Obama Administration and the Mexican government to solve this issue and allow Washington state farmers to compete on a level playing field. Since there has been inaction for too long, I included specific language in the transportation spending bill giving the Administration a clear deadline of October 1, 2010 to solve this problem.”

Good. Unfortunately, Congress is likely to pass few if any appropriations bills in September, but perhaps Murray’s language will be included in a continuing resolution. In any case, we look forward to hearing the President’s remarks on the issue.

More …

• DC Velocity, “Idaho lawmakers urge action on U.S.-Mexico truck dispute“
• Longview (Wash.) Daily News editorial, “Long-haul truck dispute with Mexico may have damaging long-term consequences“

Power Breakfast, a morning news segment on WAMU public radio here in Washington, reports that eight Senate Democratic women will give speeches today on the health care bill’s impact on women.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) declares: “There’s a lot of issues in health care reform that impact women. Pre-existing conditions — Almost every woman has a pre-existing condition.”