http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/boeings-decision-to-move-to-south-carolina-has-turned-into-a-legal-nightmare/Content?oid=3461150 Comments On: Boeing's decision to move to South Carolina has turned into a legal nightmare by Corey Hutchins en-us Copyright 2013 Charleston City Paper. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Charleston City Paper readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Charleston City Paper. webmaster@charlestoncitypaper.com (Charleston City Paper Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0400 Sat, 25 May 2013 20:00:00 -0400 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by AmericanAtheistFORMERClinicEscort]]> Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:51:31 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by old corps]]> Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:25:29 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by regroce]]> Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:43:22 -0400 Charleston City Paper
I for one applaud an aircraft manufacturer to be wreckless whenever possible.

Unions have as much place in today's workplace as telegraphs and other relics.
Posted by Wally]]> Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:09:32 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by thunderchicken]]> Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:02:34 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Zaftig]]> Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:32:10 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by ByronA]]> Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:13:16 -0400 Charleston City Paper
The fact that Boeing created more jobs in Washington on top of building a plant here that created thousands of more jobs should negate this suit on common sense grounds alone.

Great job by the NLRB, no one is going to be building significant factories in the US until this is solved. Once again proving that unions don't create or save jobs, in fact they do just the opposite.
Posted by nofaith]]> Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:54:36 -0400 Charleston City Paper CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 158 (c) [Expression of views without threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit]

Boeing specifically said they were moving construction outside of Washington because of labor's actions. This was a clear threat to the union: "Because you don't behave the way we want we are punishing you."
Posted by Bob Kastigar]]> Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:54:51 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by OnTheMark]]> Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:24:31 -0400 Charleston City Paper
If you read the FINDINGS AND POLICIES of The National Labor Relations Act (http://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relatio…) you will determine that its objectives are two-fold: to assure collective bargaining and to protect employers from unionized thuggery.

I see the action of the NLRB against Boeing as being contradictory to the following quote from said Act

".......certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce.
Posted by arty]]> Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:30:40 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by ogre]]> Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:59:31 -0400 Charleston City Paper
In directly relating the problem to the union, Boeing stepped over the line and was acting in an anti-union position, which it isn't allowed to do under federal law.
Posted by Bob Kastigar]]> Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:21:23 -0400 Charleston City Paper