And yes, please do blame the union, but it is the fault of our state government that the union insanely has so much power to begin with.
Boeing has shown its willingness to leave this State more than once. Yet, this Liberal run State is too Blind to see the handwriting on the wall. Even, with this State sinking, the Liberals are still happily kicking holes in the hull causing, the State to sink even faster. Such a Deal!
Washigan.
Posted by Gary at October 29, 2009 07:48 AMAnother side assumption is that the same labor makeup (politically) will remain constant. If your prediction holds true (i.e., more production transferred), then the workforce in SC will need to expand to cover the workload (I don't believe SC has a high unemployment rate, especially of the skilled labor force). This migration of workers will come from other more industrial areas (Northeast, Upper Midwest, and some for NW) where there are high unemployment rates of highly skilled laborers. These workers will bring the union attitude with them along with more Democratic leanings. It will be an interesting culture class with the traditional SC workforce.
Posted by tc at October 29, 2009 07:53 AMAnd I find it wholly hypocritical that you lament the intervention of the government in business, when you quote:
When Boeing's decision was on the line, the governor of South Carolina wasted no time in calling a special legislative session to adopt a package of upfront grants and tax breaks.
So you're NOT in favor of unions that "have so much power to begin with", but you are in favor of corporate extortion?
Just goes to show you that conservatives are for supporting blue-collar workers and against government intervention in business... until they're not.
Posted by demo kid at October 29, 2009 07:55 AMThat is not assumption, that is fact. Whether it WILL be replaced is unknown, but every skills pool is replacable.
Another side assumption is that the same labor makeup (politically) will remain constant.
No, I made no such assumption.
demo kid: Absolute garbage.
Yeah, what the Democrats have done to this state is terrible. I agree!
You're celebrating ...
Please stop lying.
And you blame this on UNIONS?
Of course. The unions had unreasonable demands (and a very, very long history of them ... it's insane Boeing stayed as long as it has).
Workers and employers ARE NOT EQUAL. Employers OWN the business. THEY have the power. If the workers don't like it, they can try to change it, but at the end of the day, it's the employer's way, or the highway. That is good, right, and just. Anything less denies fundamental human rights. The unions refused to accept the fact that the employer and the workers ARE NOT EQUAL. They thought they could make whatever demands they wanted, and the company would have to agree. Of course, this is why unions usually exist, to extort from business and the public, in addition to eliminating competition (which is why they support minimum wage laws ... not to improve the wages of low-cost workers, but to reduce the attractiveness of HIRING low-cost workers, by making those workers cost more).
And I find it wholly hypocritical ...
Then you don't know what "hypocritical" means, perhaps? I never implied Mike Hope speaks for me. That is one area where I disagree with Mike: Washington should not have gone out of its way to give special treatment to Boeing, rather, it should have simply had sane tax laws and regulations for EVERY BUSINESS.
Boeing is on the slow path towards reducing its presence in Washington State, and the unions and the reds (like democreep) have only themselves to blame.
Posted by attila at October 29, 2009 08:28 AMTruth of the matter is that Seattle is not a desirable location for heavy manufacturing of any kind. Get real.
Besides, the only hope for our country returning to a reasonable system of governance is to start reducing the number of union members. The unions, along with the corporatists, are launching us down a communist/fascist road. The results will not be pretty if we can't somehow reverse the trend. It is likely already too late.
Posted by SteveForFreedom at October 29, 2009 08:41 AM
Boeing can offer to assist a relocation of those employees it enjoys. Another benefit of SC, the ability to pick and chose both the retention and promotion of employees based solely on their value to Boeing. A transition away from tenure based employment and income.
Boeing can now make offers to those it would most like to move to SC and who can assist in the QC and training of new staff. The labor pool isn't static by zip code, much of it can/will move to follow opportunity. Oh, and they'd suffer a net benefit in terms of overall taxation and cost of living in SC.
Posted by Cecli at October 29, 2009 09:04 AMWhat does the 787 being behind schedule have to do with moving to South Carolina? Can you explain the connection?
... and it's the union's fault they wouldn't bend to the ridiculous demands of corporate, like halving their salaries and dropping benefits.
Yes, absolutely yes, that is the union's fault. The union intentionally grew the salaries and benefits to literally unsustainable levels. "Corporate" cutting back was the inevitable result.
seriously, there is plenty of blame to go around. pinning it on the workers is pretty asinine and convenient, but far from reality
Actually, I pinned it primarily on the state government. Again, the government gave the unions way too much power -- far more than it deserves -- in the first place. That said, the union certainly and absolutely bears responsibility for the decisions they made to put themselves in the position of having to lose jobs and have benefits cut due to the simple fact that they were paid more than the market could bear.
As for WA, I fully agree that the IAM and prolonged one-party state government have poisoned the well. Failing dramatic polictical power shifts here in WA, we'll only be debating the steepness of the declining future Boeing operations curve.
I'm old enough to experience first-hand the decline and eventual demise of the unionized steel industry in NW Indiana. More cost-competitive foreign competitors played a big part in that case study, which makes it slightly different than today's Boeing situation. However, you perhaps noticed the China Aerospace annoucement that they are developing a new model in the "737" size class. If Boeing isn't beginning to feel the hot breath of competition on the back of their collective necks -- if they think that Airbus is their only significant rival -- they are making a potentially fatal mistake.
Posted by Bham at October 29, 2009 09:19 AMThis state has been run by a Democrat hegemony for the virtually all of the past 5 decades. Liberals HATE business. Just look at the posters here how the demean them. And they are surprised that a business doesn't want to locate/stay here?
The Democrat business climate is what is causing the long exodus of Boeing. They will phase out of Washington State over the next 20- 30 years. Ironically it probably isn't Boeing (though they have good reason to) but their customers such as Virgin Atlantic and Ryan Air that have forced the issue.
Want to look like Detroit? Keep voting Democrat.
I don't think that anyone in a union assumes that the employer and the workers are "equal". However, workers still have (and should have) power in a negotiating relationship, and until you have a whole bunch of tiny aerospace industries, there is not a competitive market for labor for machinists. Without a union, Boeing would have driven machinists' wages to less than that of your average Wal-Mart greeter a long time ago.
@11: Boeing is not obliged to stay in Washington State to keep Washington citizens employed. The State cannot figuratively hold a gun to Boeing and force it to stay here (as much as the reds/ dems would like that tactic).
But Boeing (and Microsoft and Amazon, et al.) were certainly holding a gun to the heads of workers and the state government: give us tax breaks and take massive pay cuts, or else we leave. Essentially, you're stating that taxpayers should finance Boeing, and for what? So that new workers for the company can get paid crap wages? Please. It's like deciding between a crap sandwich with rye or with whole wheat bread... either way, you're still getting crap.
@18: Again, the government gave the unions way too much power -- far more than it deserves -- in the first place.
Gave the UNIONS way too much power? Sorry, pudge... but if you think that the unions have too much power you haven't been paying attention to all the tax breaks these corporations extort from the state.
And growing benefits to "unsustainable" levels pretty much entails giving folks a livable wage... which is not what they're going to receive in a laughably titled "right-to-work" state.
@18-19: I'm fascinated that Boeing believes moving the second line to South Carolina will make things BETTER. Maybe it's best that Seattle unhook itself from a dying company now...
Posted by demo kid at October 29, 2009 09:54 AM-
They do. Or, did. They can't negotiate with an entity that decides to leave though.
What do you recommend we do to keep Boeing here?
You must mean like the "dying" BMW and "dying" Toyota right? Because lord knows that building an automobile is surely so demanding that no way could a red neck yokel ever learn how to do that.
Pressing the START button on the CNC machine is something only an uneducated smarmy liberal can do.
Posted by Common Sense at October 29, 2009 10:10 AMWhy aren't microsoft wages the price of Walmart greeters? For that matter why aren't the wages of any skilled laborer in the NW that's not in a union? That's because there's still a supply and demand equation on the skill. Absent a union wages don't fall to minimum wage but they do start to reflect the actual supply and demand for the labor in question. Should BA attempt to drive sub market wage, the most skilled labor in the pool will shift to other competitors or industries.
Do the non union manufacturers in the south make Walmart greeter wages? If those jobs are so poorly compensated and undesirable those companies must be finding it very difficult to keep staffing up? Or if they are well staffed it must be with very weak candidates and product quality must truly suffer? Not happening? Kinda hard to explain in your world view no?
Last point. Do you buy products on line? At least in part do you do that to avoid taxes? When you chose not to buy locally and pay the inflated costs of business located here you make a hypocrite of yourself. You are doing exactly what Boeing is doing, except as a consumer. You are seeking out the reduced cost of acquisition rather that "support" the union labor and local anti business taxation. Boeing is doing what we all do every day. Somehow it's wrong for them though.
Posted by Cecil at October 29, 2009 10:18 AMFirst labor made life �hell� for management. Labor stoppages and demands for more, more, more take their toll. The Union is not solely to blame but I have observed other unions that in guarding their prerogatives made it impossible for first and second line supervisors to effectively interact with employees to build a good relationship between the employees and the company. I do not know that this is what happened but, it sure looks like it did. If it did then both sides are at fault.
Second, the heavy hand of government at both the state and local levels had an effect. It is obvious that South Carolina was willing to three things. First, they demonstrated the ability to make decisions quickly. Forcing a businessman to wait for an indeterminate length of time for government to make what to him seems a random decision is frustrating. Second, they seem to regulate lightly. Management does want to be good corporate citizens, treating them like an early 20th century robber baron makes little sense. Then third in importance South Carolina appears to be resisting government�s unsustainable desire for more and more tax revenue.
The lesson here is that both government and unions need to learn to treat business as partners not as victims from which they should extract spoils with as much force as possible.
OK. Now explain why they were years behind schedule.
you are right - we should have expected them to pay their workers a 'sustainable' low wage.
No one said they should be paid a low wage. Please stop lying.
and i know you tend to think everyone here is responding to you ...
When you don't explicitly or implicitly state who you are responding to, yes, responses by default are properly assumed to be to the article writer.
... but several posts before mine laid blame strictly on workers.
As Duffman points out, no, you're wrong.
demo kid: I don't think that anyone in a union assumes that the employer and the workers are "equal".
That is how they bargain, and that is how this state's insane laws are set up.
However, workers still have (and should have) power in a negotiating relationship ...
Sure, but they have to realize it is always -- in a free society -- the employers' decision in the end.
... and until you have a whole bunch of tiny aerospace industries, there is not a competitive market for labor for machinists. Without a union, Boeing would have driven machinists' wages to less than that of your average Wal-Mart greeter a long time ago.
You say that as though it is relevant to the discussion. Why? First, it's obviously made-up -- as we see machinists without unions make plenty of money elsewhere -- but it's also irrelevant because at the end of the day, liberty means that the employer makes the decisions. If that means machinists don't get paid much, so what?
I am not saying unions shouldn't bargain. I am saying government has no role to play in it, and unions shouldn't foolishly act like they get to push the employer around.
But Boeing (and Microsoft and Amazon, et al.) were certainly holding a gun to the heads of workers and the state government ...
False. Absolutely, utterly, and completely, false. Again, you are doing just what I said: you are assuming that the employers don't own their own business. It is not holding a gun to ANYONE'S head to say you are going to do what is best for your company.
(And note, I never say a union is holding a gun to an employer's head by exercising their rights to negotiate: the employer still has the right to do what it will. I did describe the school unions as doing so when they exercised a "right" they do NOT have, to strike.)
... give us tax breaks and take massive pay cuts, or else we leave.
Perfectly reasonable (though again, the tax breaks should be for ALL businesses, not Boeing specifically).
Essentially, you're stating that taxpayers should finance Boeing
False. (I know you are talking to @11, not me, but @11 didn't say that, either.)
It's like deciding between a crap sandwich with rye or with whole wheat bread... either way, you're still getting crap.
The problem here is that you think it is government's job to MAKE any decision here, rather than freeing the company to make its own decisions.
Gave the UNIONS way too much power?
Sorry. I meant "way, way too much power."
but if you think that the unions have too much power you haven't been paying attention to all the tax breaks these corporations extort from the state.
Um. That is completely irrelevant. We are talking about the relationship between the unions and corporations, and the tax breaks from the state are a separate issue.
And growing benefits to "unsustainable" levels pretty much entails giving folks a livable wage
Oh please. None of us is stupid enough to buy that nonsense. South Carolinians do just fine.
... which is not what they're going to receive in a laughably titled "right-to-work" state.
What is laughable is that literally, "right to work" is what it sounds like, and you are against it. This is part of why no one believes Democrats when they talk about loving liberty. They do not.
Just keep voting for the same "Cap and Trade" Marxists and you'll see it happen, probably in our lifetime.
Posted by Saltherring at October 29, 2009 10:36 AMOK. And this has what to do with moving to South Carolina? So far your argument is: they are moving to South Carolina because they are behind schedule; but they are behind schedule because of various problems, none of which are fixed by moving to South Carolina. So you haven't really told us anything yet.
you are the one that said that the present wages were 'unsustainable'
Correct. Because they are.
... even though that's not true
Yes, it is. Boeing is not willing to continue paying those wages. Therefore they are unsustainable. That's how it works, you know.
and you are right, no one blamed the workers
Not that I see. That was obvious shorthand for blaming the actions of the unions as a whole, not the workers themselves.
tc; your talking about a skilled labor force is laughable. You obviously have never done this type of work. Most of the workers that come to Boeing brought zilch with them as far as skilled labor goes. Many of them never even finished high school. The skills they now posess came from Boeing. Boeing would probably have less of a back log if they didn't have so much deadwood in their workforce. They can't seem to get rid of the lazy leeches that only take from the company but give back very little in the way of an actual days work for a days wages. They don't call it the lazy B for nothing.
In S Carolina it will probably be slow going for about six months. If they have a motivated work force (which judging by the unemployment rate in Charleston the should) they should be totally up to speed as far as training goes within a year, probably less.
Posted by REBEL at October 29, 2009 11:22 AMDo you honestly think that the demographics here would be a prudent place to have put it? Put aside the hostile government, tree huggers, ridiculous unions, etc. & just look at the fact that we have water and mountains which put a natural restriction on our growth.
I, for one, encourage Boeing to continue to move production where it can build more, better, and cheaper.
Then we can continue to attract the Russell Co., biotech, etc. Industries that require fewer cars on the roads,a well-paid workforce, etc.
Next to New York City, I can't think of a worst place for heavy manufacturing than Seattle. The quicker we accept this reality, the better-off we'll be.
Posted by SteveForFreedom at October 29, 2009 11:45 AMYes, after you said this was part of the reason for leaving, after you were talking about those delays in trying to show that leaving wasn't the unions' fault.
Establishing a second 787 assembly line in Charleston will expand our production capability to meet the market demand for the airplane
Right. But the question is: why South Carolina, and not here?
i'm not sure why this is so difficult for you
It's not. I am trying to ask questions of you to help YOU understand, getting YOU to think about the answers. The delays are part of the reason for going, yes, but why South Carolina?
And the answer is that due to the unions and state government in Washington, South Carolina is much more attractive.
This is my point. Regardless of who is to blame for the delays, it certainly is the union's fault, in large part, that the best answer for a new facility is "South Carolina."
the present wages were only 'unsustainable' because boeing was unwilling to pay them, not because they couldn't
So you are saying Boeing should pay more than it has to? On what basis, and what planet do you live on?
And do you not realize that those are the same thing, essentially? People are, literally, unable to pay more than they are willing to pay ... unless you are forced to do something against your will, which is, you know, obviously bad.
what is the end game - all jobs in a race to the bottom?
There is no "end game," for our part. It's the same system we've had since this nation began. The "end game" is maintaining liberty, and opposing threats to that liberty.
You, on the other hand, apparently DO have an end game: to have government decide how much money people make. Correct me if I am wrong.
median assembly line wage in SC is $14 an hour, and has been falling the last few years, v. $26 in the puget sound area.
And with a much lower cost of living in SC.
There is NO evidence AT ALL presented of workers being "exploited" (in the negative connotation of the word).
if that's the unions fault, then i stand corrected
There's nothing to correct, because it is obvious truth to everyone: the unions priced their own workers out of jobs. Of course that is their fault. You said it yourself: Boeing is not willing to pay those prices. Therefore you are admitting the unions set their prices too high. That is how it works.
that's a great business model. race to the bottom at the expense of your workforce.
Except, of course, you've presented NO evidence of anyone GOING to the "bottom," let alone "racing" there.
funny, i don't see microsoft, caterpillar, starbucks, amazon using that model.
Nor Boeing.
i've no end game - especially wrt government deciding how much people can make, other than mandating a minumum wage.
Then you are in favor of repealing the laws allowing people to be forced into the unions in order to have a job?
the cost of living in charlotte is not 55% of what is is in everett.
I don't know about Charlotte, but in North Charleston, where the plant will be, it's pretty darned low. I know my own house is probably worth twice here what it would be there, and housing costs are a huge part of cost of living. Taxes are a bit lower: a much lower sales tax, although they do have an income tax, and a much simplified, and much lower, property tax. Lower costs for many goods, including food.
Even if you think that's true -- I don't at all-- but even if you do, nobody wants to elect a hater. Feel free to talk about shortcomings and what you'd like to improve in the "business climate," but nobody wants to hire someone to represent the state whose message is how bad the state sucks. It seems so obvious politically, and yet, here we go again with Reps. Hope and Kristiansen regurgitating the same tired news releases and again accelerating toward that election brick wall.
One of these days, when moderates are allowed back into the State GOP tent, you guys could actually try talking to organized labor -- instead of all this tiresome and pointless ridiculing and insulting of Big Labor Bosses. What you'd find is that many labor leaders and members have conservative leanings and would support a pro-business agenda. But they are also proud to be union members and grateful for the quality of life their union has helped them attain. So when they hear knuckleheaded politicians (who they might otherwise agree with and support) constantly bashing their union and their elected union leaders, guess how they vote?
You are making it easy for the other guys. Again.
Just trying to help.
Posted by LaborGoon at October 29, 2009 01:19 PMPssssst. Whoever is giving you your talking points forgot to tell you that the State Republicans gained seats in 2008. Even with Obama at the top of the ticket.
That when the GOP decided to step up its failed political message that "Washington sucks." That's really winning some elections, huh?
No, the message is "liberals are making Washington's economy suck." Which is true, regardless of being a winning message or not. But it certainly was a winning message in 2008, where we saw Republicans gain seats, and many levies fail.
It seems so obvious politically, and yet, here we go again with Reps. Hope and Kristiansen regurgitating the same tired news releases and again accelerating toward that election brick wall.
Again ... not only is it true, but it is also a winning message, as Mike Hope proved last year, when he won a long-held Democratic seat to become a freshman representative, on precisely the message that we're talking about here (that you misrepresent): that liberal economic policies are harming our state, killing businesses, and hurting jobs.
For you to say Hope's message is a loser when Hope was elected BECAUSE of that message is laughable. Which is why I am laughing.
this tiresome and pointless ridiculing and insulting of Big Labor Bosses
That's rich, when YOUR party -- starting with Obama himself -- is demonizing corporate bosses.
What you'd find is that many labor leaders and members have conservative leanings and would support a pro-business agenda
Again, we're just talking about truth here, and the obvious and undeniable truth is that union policies over the decades has been a huge contributor to the problem. They priced their own workers out of jobs. The union workers should be angrier at the unions than anyone else.
when they hear knuckleheaded politicians (who they might otherwise agree with and support) constantly bashing their union and their elected union leaders, guess how they vote?
You're fooling no one but yourself. They vote Democrat because the Democrats give them decreased competition (via no right-to-work and the nation's highest minimum wage), special bargaining rights, and -- in the case of public employee unions, especially -- a ton of money.
Not yet, no. But I am talking about the union, not the Boeing workers. I am not saying existing employees are losing their jobs (though they eventually will), I am saying that new jobs are going elsewhere.
race to the bottom - they're adding a plant to where they can pay people significantly less money.
How is that the "bottom" of anything?
people aren't 'forced into unions' to have a job.
Not to have *a* random job, but to have *particular* jobs, yes, you are. That is what "right to work" is about, what you and the unions and the liberals are railing against.
do you really think at $14 an hour, lots of people can afford to buy a house?
Well, again, houses cost like half as much there as here, and you said they get more than half as much pay as Everett employees, so ... do the math. Probably can't easily get a house here for $26, or there for $14.
So what?
Are you saying a Boeing employee deserves to be able to buy a house, and a Wal-Mart greeter doesn't?
My experience from being a former classified staff person at the University of Washington is that my employment was contingent on my signing up for membership with the SEIU.
My only option, if I despise the SEIU and like organizations, was to pay 3/4 of the monthly dues to SEIU as a "dissenting member". I was then addressed as a "non-member" by my esteemed union leadership.
These are the same cretins who, back in the early nineties when the 5th Avenue Theater musicians went on strike, whooped and hollered in celebration when they learned a bomb threat had been telephoned in to the 5th Avenue Theater during a performance of "Beauty and the Beast". The creeps, including my SEIU Rep., were filmed on KING 5 news cheering and doing high fives as families with kids were evacuated from the Theater.
That incident marks the date from which I realized liberals are soul-less bags of *R(#.
Posted by attila at October 29, 2009 02:11 PMIf you hire a roofing contractor to replace your roof do you make sure in the bids you receive that each company pays the same wage to its workers? Or do you just deal with the best intersection of reputation and price? How dare you support any business paying a lower wage than another for the same product or service? Wouldn't doing so cause you intellectual pain? The union drives up the price of products and that's a good thing so you should support the higher waged higher priced products and services.
You see again, in your personal consumer life you live by one code, to purchase values based on how far your dollar can carry you but then you turn around and demand that employers over pay in union shops. So bargain hunting in your personal life where the bargain product may have come from low cost labor is OK, but corporate bargain hunting on the cost of labor is bad.
You understand the concept of hypocrisy right? Convince me that you seek out the highest paid workforce for each of the products you purchase in order to support high wages and then let's talk. Otherwise, pot, meet kettle.
Posted by Cecil at October 29, 2009 02:33 PMNot a sculpture of cooperative prosperity with business. Not a sculpture of workers and management standing together to manufacture a superior price competitive product. No, none of those. Their sculpture of choice was one to show the hostile breaking of business come hell or high water. One sculpture is worth a thousand words.
They broke big steel, they broke GM, they broke Chrysler and they broke a thousand little operators with hostile, Stalinist tactics to bleed businesses until they can't bleed any more. Even at the cost of their jobs. Whack.
And they are working on doing the same thing with government budgets.
Posted by G Jiggy at October 29, 2009 02:48 PMThe tax money is Boeing's money first. Government doesn't have any right to it. Taxpayers don't pay anything to finance anything if Boeing is taxed less.
If the pay isn't any good at Boeing than the workers can gain employment elsewhere. They are not forced to work at Boeing nor is Boeing forced to hire them.
Posted by G Jiggy at October 29, 2009 02:59 PMSo then you favor taxing small- and medium-sized businesses MORE to keep Boeing in the state? Because if you're a proponent of targeted tax breaks, that's essentially what you're saying.
Posted by demo kid at October 29, 2009 03:16 PMWA State looks on business as something to be milked dry, to have more and more demanded of it. Well, those chickens are coming home to roost.
Boeing is starting its departure from WA State. It'll take 20 years, but it will happen. You'll see Everett around simply as a test facility, and Boeing Field simply as a delivery/retrofit facility. Production will disappear from the State, and with it 80% of the Boeing jobs.
Oh, and for those who think "it's OK, we still have Microsoft"... Microsoft is hiring a LOT more people outside WA State than inside WA State. Growth in other States and overseas is massive; Redmond is holding steady - so far.
Just a matter of time. Washigan was the best reference in this thread!
Posted by Shanghai Dan at October 29, 2009 03:25 PMAlmost every one of those products could have been purchased from a US or Canadian manufacturer. They were purchased because they were cheap and often as high quality as the alternative. You can talk about what your employer does ala prevailing wage but you can go home tonight and find all the evidence you need that you do not personally adhere to the rules you think Boeing should live by.
Economic decisions are made the same way everywhere.
Posted by cecil at October 29, 2009 03:38 PMUnions have killed industry in this country and this state, and one needs only look to Detroit to see what could happen to other cities, Seattle included. If the voters don't wake up and stop electing the liberals who tax and spend more than the economy can stand, they will have killed the fatted goose.
Boeing is simply acting in the best interests of it's shareholders, bond holders and customers when they decide to build where the costs are less. In an international, interconnected economy that only makes business sense.
Posted by Clean House at October 29, 2009 03:47 PMI said nothing of the sort, essentially or otherwise. Because Boeing pays less taxes doesn't mean that others pay more. It may if you are a zero sum kinda guy but all it really means is that the government believes that by taking less of Boeing's money, and keeping them in the state, Boeing will generate more tax revenue in other areas than if they weren't here at all.
But my main point was that you, like most big government types, always phrase taxes as if the money belongs to the state when the money really belongs to the taxed. Government doesn't have or generate any money, it is ours that they have taken from us. And that little turn of phrase really pisses me off but it is a marvelous piece of propaganda.
Posted by G Jiggy at October 29, 2009 04:35 PMguess again, holmes.
Who made your computer? Your cell phone? Your car? Your tires? The tires of the bus you ride? The aspirin you use? Your WiFi router? The switch at the telco for your Internet access? The oil that powers your bus?
Posted by Shanghai Dan at October 29, 2009 04:51 PMNo. In fact, it's much more likely the opposite: Boeing leaving costs us more, which means tax increases are more likely. If you give a targetted tax break to Boeing -- which I am not in favor of, again -- it doesn't mean you have to "recoup" that cost by increasing taxes elsewhere (unless you count increased taxes due to increased revenue by other businesses as a tax increase :-).
It actually can make perfectly good business sense and hurt no business or individual directly to give such a tax break to Boeing. But it is unfair to companies who don't get the tax break, which is a problem; and worse, it ignores the fact that (IMO) the small- and medium-sized businesses are taxed too high, and should get big "breaks."
". . . unionization shrivels up and dies everywhere except in the government sector (where outfits like SEIU/ ACORN flourish)."
The reason organizations like SEIU servive is because they use our tax money (their paycheck) to pay union dues that is funneled directly into the election of Democrat politicians who will give them all the wages and perks they desire. And to top it off, the more the politicians grow union government jobs, the more money they get at election time. I would imagine that if any of our boss' employment was directly dependent on us by vote, and the money for wages was completely free to him, we'd be getting some pretty nice raises come bargaining time.
One of the most incestuous and corrupt relationships in government and it's all financed by the taxpayers. Criminal really.
Posted by G Jiggy at October 29, 2009 05:05 PMNote, fellow readers, that this is literally true. The Democratic politicians force those employees to pay money to the unions, and then the unions give donations (well over 90% of the WEA donations, last I checked) to the Democratic candidates.
It is one of the most corrupt relationships imaginable in public service. It should be utterly illegal and punishable by prison.
88%- Boeing Unions
11%- Olympia politicians
1% - Boeing Mgmnt
Nothing like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Now the egg is on the face of the Democrats and the Machinists union.
Posted by Rick D. at October 29, 2009 05:30 PMSo, how's the union doing when it comes to protecting the jobs of workers here in Washington?
Posted by pyotr at October 29, 2009 09:36 PMWhat we know about the post merger Boeing company is that it no longer knows how to deliver a new airplane program on budget and on schedule.
This decision has been made by the same crew, so what is to be done?
Smart Washingtonians would not lament another lame decision by the Boeing company, they would profit by it.
First, forget about the union BS, and as tax payers start demanding that that our state no longer fund Boeing. Boeing is not a partner of Washintonians, so our money is better left in our pocket.
Second, there shall be great opportunities to short this stock going forward. This decision is akin to a losing gambler doubling down. The 787 outsourcing strategy has been fatally flawed since the outset, and the non-delivery is the proof. Now the company wants to further extend its supply/manufacturing lines? GREAT!
This idiotic move will make me another pile of $$$ in the next 5 years.
So we can move on to your ill-informed armchair analysis? Here we go!
First, forget about the union BS ...
You'd like that. But "Smart Washingtonians" won't forget about the fact that the unions helped drive Boeing to South Carolina.
... and as tax payers start demanding that that our state no longer fund Boeing.
I await your evidence that Boeing cost money to the state. I won't hold my breath, of course, since I am quite certain you have none. Boeing is a net GAIN to the revenue of this state.
Second, there shall be great opportunities to short this stock going forward.
Yes, typical response. Your political party and your unions drive Boeing out of the state, costing us jobs and revenue, and you resort to "yeah well, we didn't want you here anyway." Smoooooooth.
????
"Smart Washingtonians" won't forget about the fact that the unions helped drive Boeing to South Carolina.
The Unions "drove" Boeing to SC? Really? Seems Boeing was already in SC.
Did the Unions drive Boeing to buy Vought out in SC?
Am I wrong there pudge?
Did the Unions drive Boeing to Russia? Japan? Italy?
Simply put, Washingtonians would do well to remember that nobody held a gun to any Boeing executive's head. Boeing made a business decision. (a stupid decision, but one the management is authorized to make).
I await your evidence that Boeing cost money to the state. I won't hold my breath, of course, since I am quite certain you have none. Boeing is a net GAIN to the revenue of this state.
Yawn. or as you might say Stop Lying! :-)
I did not say Boeing costs money to the state of Washington. In 2003 WE gave Boeing $3 Billion in tax incentives. That was stupid then, and it would be stupid to continue to give Boeing tax incentives. There is no longer any evidence of a partnership between Boeing and the tax payers of this state. If Boeing wants to leave or reduce the size of its work in this state for any reason, that is their business and their right to do so. Boeing has no right to expect tax subsidies for their business.
Typical response? Really? You can find any other blog or comment that recommends shorting Boeing over time in response to this decision?
"I await your evidence ..." :-D
The Boeing company as currently constituted in its Board of Directors and Executive management either does not know how, or does not care to design and deliver new airplanes. Its 787 program is hanging by a thread.
pudge, I would love if Boeing were to continue to perform in the next 30 years like it did in the past 30 years, and I would love for Boeing to do it in Washington. Unfortunately, Boeing shall not. Unfortunately, Boeing is mismanaged.
But when life gives you lemons, you can cry about it and cast blame, or you can make lemonaide.
Write it down - Boeing shares will hit $30 by Feb 2011 (if not sooner).
There does not exist a non-union workforce or liberal state governor doling out tax incentivews that can change the fact that the management of Boeing has lost its way.
Sounds to me like the reds have a hatred for business and a penchant for self-destructive behavior on a really large level.
I've known about those qualities in liberals for a long time. Their solution to the Obama depression is to tax and spend and to kill or drive away business.
And for the usual Progs here, try running a business in WA State.
I do Jeff, and do so profitably. So do Bezos and Gates.
Also, if I am not mistaken, pudge is a transplant. Why didn't he and his company go to SC? MS? AL?
Why or why did pudge move to such a liberal region of the country?? ;-)
The reason why businesses come to Washington and businesses profit in Washington is because the benefits outweigh the costs.
Boeing went outside of Washington for most of its 787 to "share the risks". How'd that go?
There are "hoops" and disadvantages everywhere.
In large part.
Really?
Yes.
Seems Boeing was already in SC.
We're talking about the new plant. Try to keep up.
Boeing made a business decision.
Exactly. And the unions were a very big part of that decision.
I did not say Boeing costs money to the state of Washington.
Yes, you did. Try to keep up.
In 2003 WE gave Boeing $3 Billion in tax incentives.
You said we gave them money. We didn't. We let them keep THEIR money. You said we "funded" Boeing. Since we didn't actually give Boeing money as your words imply if taken literally, that could only be true if the value of the tax breaks was greater than the revenue collected as a result of Boeing being here.
So yes, you DID say that Boeing costs money to the state of Washington. That's the only way your line about "funding" them makes sense.
it would be stupid to continue to give Boeing tax incentives
Yes. Instead, ALL businesses should get massive tax cuts.
Typical response?
Yes.
Really?
Yes.
You can find any other blog or comment that recommends shorting Boeing over time in response to this decision?
Can you not read? I clearly explained what was typical about your response: it was the old "we didn't want you here anyway" bit, not the specific part about shorting their stock. Try to keep up.
There does not exist a non-union workforce or liberal state governor doling out tax incentivews that can change the fact that the management of Boeing has lost its way.
But there DOES exist unions and liberal government policies that make Boeing's move to South Carolina a smart business decision.
I do Jeff, and do so profitably. So do Bezos and Gates.
I don't know about Bezos, but Gates isn't a liberal, not on business matters. He's definitely right of center.
Also, if I am not mistaken, pudge is a transplant. Why didn't he and his company go to SC? MS? AL?
My employer is not in this state. My reasons for being here are related to my job only in that I work from home and can live wherever I wish to (and it is in spite of the liberal policies of the state that I choose to live here). If I ran my own business, I certainly wouldn't have moved it here. So ... you fail that point pretty miserably.
The reason why businesses come to Washington and businesses profit in Washington is because the benefits outweigh the costs.
Except that they don't. That's the problem we're discussing. Try to keep up.
I remember the old days. Seattle has always been liberal, but it was blue collar liberal. Democrats cared about making things work and being effective- but no longer. This illness infects every aspect of politics, and has spread from Seattle to dominate the state.
Environmentalists used to worry about things like clean water to drink, and clean air to breathe, and preserving the green belts in communities so that people could enjoy nature. Now they are so stuck on "saving the world" from global warming that they support infilling without any increase in services, resulting in overuse of the roads, schools, fire and police, and everything else that society needs for sustainable development. This infilling also often requires the building of houses on unstable lands, resulting in things like mudslides and runoff.
Look at Seattle government architecture. It used to be ugly gray concrete boxes. Ugly, but effective. Now they got to have prettified buildings to demonstrate how posh and elegant our rulers are. 1% of a building budget must be spent on art- that's a huge amount! Personally I've come to the conclusion that we were better off putting government bureaus in those ugly buildings so as to keep them humble. Give them gaudy trapping and they start thinking we work for them instead of them for us.
The Alaskan Viaduct- many times proposals have been made by the liberals that miss the entire purpose of the viaduct. It's purpose is to provide a path for shipping trucks to access the Port of Seattle, and essential aspect for the preservation of hundreds if not thousands of blue collar jobs- not to mention the very foundation of Seattle's economy is that we are a port city. But these liberals treat the viaduct as if it's just there to provide a convenient commute to white collar workers driving from their homes to their office jobs.
And when I've confronted them about it, they just say that blue collar jobs are a thing of the past and that if you want to support a family then you should have gone to college.
It's contempt. Contempt for anyone who isn't college educated and part of their liberal white bread world. The poor get pitied, but middle class workers who didn't go to college and don't work a paper pushing job are simply ignored and treated as if they are destined for extinction so there's no point in making an effort to save them.
Or worse they want to make blue collar workers into permanent recipients of a dole or subsidy, so that they become completely dependent on the government and politicians.
It worries me a lot, because the same thing happened in California, what with the way the needs of farmers are dismissed as immaterial. Never mind that farming was the foundation of the California economy.
I swear, it's like people today have no understanding of where wealth comes from. They are so wealthy that they just assume the wealth will always be there.
Posted by Cicero at October 30, 2009 07:33 AMI believe that most of the transplant automakers pay some of the best wages in their locality. If houses cost $100K and taxes are low,there is less need to pay $30/hr. My point though is the automakers are paying near the top for their area in the given skill - then they can pick from the best applicants.
Our workforce needs to regenerate 100% about every 20 years, a new site needs to get up to speed in just a few years, but then they will have a young, very healthy, and motivated work force.
I've seen what work rules do to efficiency every day in an auto plant, so there is a daily reminder to management that "that's not my job" then there is the slowdown before and after a strike, and the big bennie raise for retirees every contract. Basically paying each current worker $5 an hour extra just for prior retiree benefits. If they basically exit the contract they will still have the retiree obligations (unless doing a BK) but they stop growing.
I predict that the 737RS site selection process will begin in about 3 years - timed to straddle over the next contract & strike.
Posted by Jay in Kitsap at October 30, 2009 09:31 AMI'm trying to help you. Take a deep breath. And please, just set aside that fact that you hate me because I'm a union supporter and unions have destroyed this state and blah, blah, blah... Just pretend for a second that I'm a campaign consultant who's not aligned with either party, and as George Michael would say, "Listen Without Prejudice."
(Deep breath. Exhale. Ready? Now, let's begin.)
Yes, the Republican Party picked up a few legislative seats in 2008. Why? Because NO ONE CARED.
(Deep breath. OK...)
The only game in town last fall was Gregoire-Rossi, and the outcome wasn't even close. The Dems have such huge legislative majorities that little money and effort went into those races. You know that. Rossi ran on the "Washington Sucks" message -- or as you amend it, "Washington Sucks Because of the Liberals Who Run It." That message failed, as it has repeatedly since Boeing moved its HQ in 2000. And it has failed for a reason.
But... but... Rep. Hope, you say, was a huge success with that message! In a year when Democratic constituencies focused 99% of their energies into the Governor's race, Mr. Hope won by 100 votes against a Democratic appointee who, as far as I know, has never won an election. When Rep. Hope took his "Washington Sucks" message for its first test drive in 2006 against a REAL Democratic incumbent, Hans Dunshee, his ass was handed to him by more than 5,000 votes, more than 10 percentage points.
(Deep breath. It's going to be OK. Just hang in there. Remember, I'm not LaborGoon right now. I'm IndependentConsultantGoon. I'm trying to help you.)
If you support the Republican Party and you would like to see your party have some success in the next election, you've got to stop believing your own press that 2008 was some kind of victory for the GOP. It's not a win that your guy lost the big race and Democrats ONLY have a 13-vote majority in the Senate and a 24-vote majority in the House. Stop thinking like losers and start thinking about winning the majority.
The best way to do that is NOT to continue to beat the "Washington Sucks" drum and blame Dems/unions/enviros/liberals for everything. You've tried that. It has failed. Why? I'm not sure that matters, but... It comes off like whining. It alienates independent voters who've been voting for Democrats. And most importantly, it doesn't jibe with reality. This state was late to the recession and economists say it will be among the first to emerge from it. There are MANY examples of successful businesses that have sprung from our horrible business climate and have become international powerhouses. People are PROUD that hugely profitable companies like Microsoft and Amazon -- and Boeing until it's recent Franken787 follies -- were built from the ground up right here. And even if you believe they succeeded DESPITE our business climate and not because of it, that doesn't matter to anyone but you and your grumpy buddies at the Chamber meeting. And you guys are not winning elections.
(Deep breath. I know this is hard, so I'm going to cut to the chase before your head explodes.)
Here it is in a nutshell. PEOPLE WANT TO BE PROUD OF THEIR STATE. I've lived in many states in my life and I have never, ever heard as much self-loathing as I hear here, especially in places like this blog. Most people like to brag about their state. Politicians especially do. People like that. Voters like that. People have chosen to live here and stay here for any number of reasons. When you tell them it sucks, it doesn't matter who you blame for the sucking, you insult them for choosing to live here. Instead of challenging them to consider your solutions, the natural reaction of an independent is, "Why don't you move then? I kinda like it here."
You need to be POSITIVE. Here is the winning message for the State Republican Party in 2010, free of charge:
"Washington is a great place to live, work and yes, to do business. We are all fortunate to live here in this beautiful, thriving place. But the economic slump has underscored our weaknesses and what needs to be done to keep it beautiful and thriving. We, the new Republican Party, have got a plan to make it even better. Our plan will create jobs, lower taxes, streamline government and protect our environment. And we are prepared to work with everybody to make it happen -- east and west of the mountains, left and right of the political dial, business and labor, everybody. We want to work together to achieve our vision and we want YOU to be a part of that. You've given the Democrats decades to do the job. If you're satisfied with the job they've done... then vote for them again. But if you're not, if you're worried about preserving what we've achieved in this great state, give us a chance. You will not be sorry."
Republicans, the stars are aligned for you in 2010. Key Democratic constituencies have been alienated by Democrats in this state, largely because of budget cuts. But you won't win over any independents who support things like unions, the environment, social services, etc. by declaring them to be the root of all evil. At best, you will only pick up a couple of legislative seats and remain in the weak minority. If you want to be in charge -- and you do, don't you? DON'T you? -- you have to welcome everybody into your open arms to try something new. And yes, that includes (shudder) the unions.
And THEN, once you're in, you can screw us over just like your predecessors.
Posted by LaborGoon at October 30, 2009 10:36 AMAs you (as demonstrated) don't actually know what you're talking about, that's kinda tough for you to do.
Just pretend for a second that I'm a campaign consultant who's not aligned with either party, and as George Michael would say, "Listen Without Prejudice."
Any campaign consultant who doesn't know the Republicans gained seats in 2008 is not worth listening to.
The only game in town last fall was Gregoire-Rossi, and the outcome wasn't even close.
Only because of Obama. Without Obama, Rossi probably wins. At the very least, it is very close.
The Dems have such huge legislative majorities that little money and effort went into those races. You know that.
What I know is that you are wrong. I followed several close races that the Dems dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into. The Democrats even spent nearly $100K on (what were undeniably) lies against Senator Stevens, in addition to the more than $100K the Walser campaign spent.
Rossi ran on the "Washington Sucks" message -- or as you amend it, "Washington Sucks Because of the Liberals Who Run It." That message failed ...
You're lying about what the message was, and I already demonstrated the message succeeded for some candidates, and -- again -- without Obama, that message likely would have helped carry the day for Rossi.
And with Boeing gone, the actual message (not the one you pretend exists, because you're a liar) will be even stronger.
a Democratic appointee who, as far as I know, has never won an election
Shrug. She's the one the Dems picked. And it was a solid Dem seat for a long time.
When Rep. Hope took his "Washington Sucks" message
You're a liar.
... for its first test drive in 2006 against a REAL Democratic incumbent, Hans Dunshee, his ass was handed to him by more than 5,000 votes, more than 10 percentage points.
I hope you don't think Dunshee won because Hope's message wasn't believed. Dunshee does not campaign on the idea that Washington State is good for business. If he did, he would have lost. Loomis was so close only because she stole Hope's lines about fixing the state government to work better for business; if she had kept the Democratic Party line she would've lost by a lot more.
If you support the Republican Party and you would like to see your party have some success in the next election, you've got to stop believing your own press that 2008 was some kind of victory for the GOP.
Except it definitionally was. By any standard. The only major races we lost other than Obama were lost primarily BECAUSE of Obama. And we gained seats. And we'll gain even more next year.
Stop thinking like losers and start thinking about winning the majority.
You're an idiot. It is rarely possible to win a majority from a weak minority in a single year. The Republicans did it once, true, but the Democrats didn't do it in return: after 1994, it took the Democrats' patience, winning race by race, year by year, until they won back the majorities. By your logic, the Democrats, now a healthy majority, got there by "thinking like losers."
You're an absolutely awful "consultant."
It alienates independent voters who've been voting for Democrats.
Pointing out the FACT that the Democrats are the reason why we have high taxes (with promises of higher taxes), high deficits (with significant more pain coming next time, due to the absence of billions in one-time funds we relied on for budget items this year), and many lost jobs is actually a very strong, and winning, argument with those independents.
You don't know what you are talking about.
This state was late to the recession ...
Irrelevant to the point, except that it highlights Democratic failings. Again, you suck at this consulting stuff.
The FACT is that Gregoire and the Democrats, after Gregoire promised to not drastically increase spending during the good times, did precisely that: we had good times, so she spent like crazy, increasing the budget by one third in just four years.
The recession was not her fault, but if she had held spending to about 15% instead of 33%, we would not be facing deficits this year and next. This is absolutely the fault of the Democrats, period, end of story. Unquestionably. Not the recession, but the fact that we were unprepared for it, even though Gregoire said we had to prepare for it by not spending so much.
There are MANY examples of successful businesses that have sprung from our horrible business climate and have become international powerhouses.
And many examples of companies that left here so they could propser better.
People are PROUD that hugely profitable companies like Microsoft and Amazon -- and Boeing until it's recent Franken787 follies -- were built from the ground up right here.
And they are SAD that Democratic policies helped drive Boeing from Washington.
And even if you believe they succeeded DESPITE our business climate and not because of it, that doesn't matter to anyone but you and your grumpy buddies at the Chamber meeting. And you guys are not winning elections.
Your fooling only yourself, on both counts.
PEOPLE WANT TO BE PROUD OF THEIR STATE.
Exactly: but they largely are NOT, because they see how much the Democrats have screwed us. When fiscally conservative officials are elected to replace the current liberals, the people can be proud of Washington once again.
I've lived in many states in my life and I have never, ever heard as much self-loathing as I hear here, especially in places like this blog.
You're a liar. Criticism of policies that hurt our state is not loathing of our state.
When you tell them it sucks ...
... which I never did. You're a liar.
You need to be POSITIVE.
We are. We are optimists, most of us. When we get rid of the people who are causing harm to our economy, our jobs, our bottom line, we will prosper better than ever before, and turn around the terrible state of affairs we are in now.
But hey, if you think that facing billions in deficits -- directly and undeniably caused by liberal fiscal policies of the Democratic governor and the Democrats controlling the legislature increasing spending much faster than could ever have been sustainable -- is not terrible, by all means, make that argument.
But the economic slump has underscored our weaknesses ...
Exactly: it's proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that liberal fiscal policies are a failure, because they spent money they didn't have, knowing full well that sooner or later we'd be stuck with deficits.
Key Democratic constituencies have been alienated by Democrats in this state, largely because of budget cuts.
They will continue to vote democratic for statewide and legislative races.
But you won't win over any independents who support things like unions, the environment, social services, etc. by declaring them to be the root of all evil.
I never did any of that. You're lying again.
you have to welcome everybody into your open arms to try something new
Of course, the Democrats didn't do that. At all. They rejected people who disagreed with them. Which is why the Republicans are winning races.
And yes, that includes (shudder) the unions.
I've never said anything that is anti-union. I've said things that are anti-specific-union-acts and policies. MOST people know the difference, except for people who would never vote GOP anyway.
And THEN, once you're in, you can screw us over just like your predecessors.
Couldn't be worse than the Democrats who have literally destroyed the fiscal stability of this state in just a few years under Gregoire.
That's what I get for trying to help, I guess.
Good luck with the election, and the anger management.
Posted by LaborGoon at October 30, 2009 11:47 AMThat's not a complete summary, but it's part of it, yes. Obviously. You lied -- over and over -- about what people actually said. What would YOU call it?
But you weren't just lying. You were also quite ignorant about the facts and political realities. Although you could have been lying about those things too, I suppose.
That's what I get for trying to help, I guess.
No one thinks you were trying to help.
Good luck with the election, and the anger management.
I expressed no anger.
And we don't need luck with the election. It's the Democrats who need luck.
I thought I presented a thoughtful opinion about a winning message for the Republican Party in 2010. Feel free to totally disagree, and send me on my way. But what's the point exactly of calling me a liar and ignorant? Is my opinion so upsetting that it calls for this? Or is that just what happens here? Help me understand why my opinion makes you so upset.
Posted by LaborGoon at October 30, 2009 12:07 PMBecause despite being corrected, you still insisted on gross misrepresentations of what people actually say.
Shorter: because you proved you were lying.
... you insist that I'm not trying to help.
That, too, is a lie. I didn't insist that; I said I don't think it is true.
Do you think I hate Republicans ...
Well, let's see. You lied about them not winning elections, you lied about their message, and you gave advice that would hurt them if used.
You tell me.
their "Washington Sucks Because of Liberals and Unions" campaign freight train
See, when you are trying to convince people you aren't lying, it HELPS to not REPEAT your lie.
I thought I presented a thoughtful opinion about a winning message for the Republican Party in 2010.
And yet, as demonstrated, you lied about what Republicans say, and you lied about them not winning elections.
what's the point exactly of calling me a liar and ignorant?
Truth needs no point. It just is.
Help me understand why my opinion makes you so upset.
Again: I am not upset. Stop lying.
You will not be warned again.
Go back and read my post, I said the money not the taxes. Boeing's money belongs to it not the state. I think that you are referring to that once the money is taxed, than it belongs to the state. That is true but the state has no money of its own. They get it from us.
It's econ 101 Mike.
Posted by G Jiggy at October 30, 2009 02:35 PMI thought I presented a thoughtful opinion about a winning message for the Republican Party in 2010.
Can you name ONE Republican that your labor unions are supporting this year, in the elections? One?
How much money have your labor unions given to the GOP or its candidates?
Posted by Shanghai Dan at October 30, 2009 05:09 PM"My reasons for being here are related to my job only in that I work from home and can live wherever I wish to (and it is in spite of the liberal policies of the state that I choose to live here)."
You are too funny. You mean to say you were not driven from MA by the "unions"? Liberal government? You had your own reasons for coming here?
But that cannot possibly be the case for the Boeing Company right? The IAM has represented machinists at Boeing for ( I think ) over 50 years. What has changed?
What has changed is the Boeing management and its belief that managing the contractual relationship with labor is just too difficult.
What has changed it that Boeing has mismanaged the 787 program like no other commercial launch in its history.
So, it doubles down in SC. Having blown the supplier management aspect of its relationship with Vought, Boeing has already needed to sink >$5 billion in reconstituting its 787 manufacturing plan.
The Boeing decision to open its 2nd 787 line in SC has nothing to do with Washington state politics or IAM contracts. It has to do with throwing a hail mary to save the profitability of the 787 with cheap labor. They have no plan on how they will do this or how it will possibly work.
You and others can be distracted by this liberal, union BS the Boeing company is spewing, but the performance of the company on its airplane programs over the past 5 years has had little to do with unions, and everything to do with poor management.
But I would certainly appreciate it if you would continue to pump Boeing and its decision, as would the Boeing executives. ;-)
Posted by MikeBoyScout at October 31, 2009 04:02 AMReally? You really think you have an actual point buried in there?
You don't.
The IAM has represented machinists at Boeing for ( I think ) over 50 years. What has changed?
Perhaps you do not know what "unsustainable" means. It doesn't mean that you can't do it at first, or even for a long time. It means eventually, you won't be able to do it. What's changed -- obviously -- is that the union stayed the same: its demands kept (almost inevitably) increasing, and those demands became harder and harder to meet.
The union didn't realize that it didn't have the real power, and that if it wanted to actually get jobs for its members, it had to bend a lot more than it wanted to. So it didn't bend, so it lost those jobs for its members.
What has changed is the Boeing management and its belief that managing the contractual relationship with labor is just too difficult.
Yes, because it actually WAS too difficult.
The Boeing decision to open its 2nd 787 line in SC has nothing to do with Washington state politics or IAM contracts.
Only hardcore partisans -- either on the side of the Democrats, or the unions, or both -- could possibly believe that. And YOU don't even believe it.
It has to do with throwing a hail mary to save the profitability of the 787 with cheap labor.
Yes, cheap labor. Union labor is too expensive. So you agree it had to do with the unions. It's odd how you contradict yourself so quickly, just one sentence contradicting the one immediately prior.
You and others can be distracted by this liberal, union BS the Boeing company is spewing, but the performance of the company on its airplane programs over the past 5 years has had little to do with unions, and everything to do with poor management.
Yawn.
As I've already said, I am just talking about the reason they moved to South Carolina for this "hail mary" instead of staying here for this "hail mary." I said it's the unions, and the Democrats who a. tax too much and force too much regulation, and b. give the unions too much power.
You agreed -- even though you apparently didn't realize it -- that the unions were a big part of the reason why.
Shrug.
"As I've already said, I am just talking about the reason they moved to South Carolina for this "hail mary" instead of staying here for this "hail mary." I said it's the unions, and the Democrats who a. tax too much and force too much regulation, and b. give the unions too much power.
You agreed -- even though you apparently didn't realize it -- that the unions were a big part of the reason why."
No pudge, I do not agree.
The Boeing decision to build the 2nd line of the 787 in SC has nothing to do with unions and Democrats. The Boeing decision to build the 2nd line of the 787 in SC is about poor management.
The press release is written to hide that fact. Just as the Boeing decision to improperly assemble and roll out the 787 to the public on July 8, 2007 was designed to hide the fact the plane was not ready.
Shrug. You said you did.
The Boeing decision to build the 2nd line of the 787 in SC has nothing to do with unions and Democrats.
You said it did.
I repeat your words: [The decision] has to do with throwing a hail mary to save the profitability of the 787 with cheap labor.
The labor is cheaper in South Carolina ... why? Because of unions and Democrats in Washington. Obviously.
YOU SAID IT. Don't deny it now.
While it is not surprising you don't understand how the cost of labor factors in to the cost of an airplane program, your repeated insistence that the cost of labor is less expensive in SC by quoting me back to me is nonsensical.
Show me pudge what the cost of labor for airplane assembly is in SC. The fact that you can't is no big deal. Nobody can. That it shall be less expensive in SC is an assumption that can't be proven until someone builds an airplane in SC. That's why the press release is a hail mary.
@98 mbabbitt on November 1, 2009 07:25 PM,
"Who goes on strike during an extreme economic downturn?" That's a good question. Next question: Who allows a strike to occur during a recession?
In Europe the term used is "Industrial Action". A strike is the result of a breakdown in the negotiating process. The customer impacts as well as the loss of revenue that resulted in the Industrial Action of 2008 at Boeing happened why? Hint "Final best offer" = ?
Posted by MikeBoyScout at November 2, 2009 02:18 PMDemonstrate it.
your repeated insistence that the cost of labor is less expensive in SC by quoting me back to me is nonsensical.
Um. So you can claim it, but I can't? Ooooooo K.
Who allows a strike to occur during a recession?
The union, obviously.
It is not surprising that you don't understand that fact.