E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Republican presidential candidates hailed a decision Friday by the National Labor Relations Board to drop its challenge to Boeing's decision to relocate a plant to South Carolina, using it also as an opportunity to pummel President Obama for his stewardship of the labor board.
The NLRB dropped a lawsuit that claimed Boeing moved its 787 Dreamliner plant to South Carolina, which has right-to-work laws on the books, to punish striking workers in Washington State. The suit virtually became a prerequisite issue for presidential candidates to condemn while campaigning in this key primary state.
Newt Gingrich, currently leading in several polls of South Carolina Republican primary voters, condemned Obama and his “big labor allies” for staging “a political motivated assault on the rule of law.”
Providing, as he frequently does, his measure of the suit’s place in the continuum of American history, Gingrich said, “The founding fathers warned that when government grows too big the law would be usurped for political purposes. This case was an example of that.”
Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman issued similar statements, both slamming the NLRB as a “rogue agency” whose board members, appointed by President Obama, had usurped the president’s authority over labor issues.
“The fact that the Board acted at the request of the union bosses tells us all we need to know about who is calling the shots,” Romney’s statement read. “Thanks to President Obama’s appointees, the NLRB has become a rogue agency that tramples on the rights of American workers and businesses.”
Huntsman called the NLRB’s suit “a battle that should have never been fought” because the president should have called it off, but that Obama’s lack of leadership “allowed a rogue agency to threaten thousands of South Carolina jobs.”
Huntsman also praised state Attorney General Alan Wilson, who endorsed the former Utah governor in August, for opposing the NLRB’s “meritless action.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry chimed in: "The NLRB action was a political payoff for the Obama Administration's liberal big labor organizers, and remains a strong example of why President Obama must be defeated and Washington must be seriously overhauled."
The NLRB suit dropped its suit today after the union representing the striking workers approved a deal with Boeing on Wednesday to build a different type of jet in Washington State.
Leave a Comment:
Gasp! President Obama cares about protecting working Americans? Where can I contribute to that attack ad?
Amy,
didn't see any evidence that the President "cares" about protecting working Americans, since there are far fewer working under his disastrous failed economic policy.
Americans in South Carolina who don't belong to a union are not Americans?
How ignorant, especially when even the unions and Obama are now conceding what a stupid act this was.
Amazing that libs would even try to defend this blatant .... as Newt so perfectly put it .... "politically motivated assault on the rule of law."
At least in this example of Obama's "politically motivated assault on the rule of law", no "Americans" were shot to death by Mexican cartel kill squads using Obama supplied AK-47s.
Btw - Yep, according to the Washington Post who saw the indictments before Obama had them sealed -they weren't bringing in drugs and got into a fight with Terry - the five were a squad actually hunting border agents!
Dispicable.
Obama doesn't care about American workers.
He cares about getting re-elected.
Nothing more, nothing less.
bob-1805084
You know what else is dispicable? No matter how many people are killed by gun violence, Republicans block every reasonable gun regulation Democrats propose, including "Demand Letter 3," so called because it was the third attempt to pass a regulation requiring gun shops to report multiple sales of "long guns," i.e. rifles.
Selling rifles to suspected drug trafficers to help identify the criminals sounds dumb to me too- just as dumb as not having a regulation in place to track those sales.
Obama doesn't care about anything except his puppet masters and not going to jail.
Hey WCA,
All the hundreds of thousands of words posted up here at FR .... and it all does, just come down to your short concise comment.
Perfect.
The gun shops were not the problem, they all did the proper identifications, checks and registrations. They have licenses and businesses they don't want to lose. They don't want the bad guys getting guns and having to put up with liberal gun grabbing. You really have no idea how much pressure they are under already?
Regardless, nothing is more inexcusable, more vile, more despicable than Obama, the President of the United States, his administration wantonly and capriciously selling 2,500 assault rifles to drug cartels, animals responsible for thousands of murders, knowingly, and with the INTENT to facilitate violence and murder on innocent Mexican and American citizens .... all to pursue the liberal gun-control agenda.
Hundreds maybe thousands will die because of Obama, not gun shop owners.
Terry wasn't killed by 2 AK-47s sold from a gun store, he was killed by 2 Obama and Holder AK-47s given to killers with the knowledge people would be killed.
And what is amazing is the epic narcissism and stunning disregard for humanity - Holder, who refused to apologize to the family of Terry, a man that sacrificed his life trying to serve and protect America, yet had no problem apologizing to the family of a terrorist for the killing of their son.
It is simply stunning the putrid depths you will go and what you will defend.
Bob - And all the GOP cares about is making Obama a one term president. No wonder our country is in the toilet. NONE of these politicians care about the people. You hacks just get on here every day fighting about which side cares more when neither side does. Neither political party is capable of running this country because all they care about is getting elected and staying there. You people are so brainwashed you only think the OTHER side is the problem, when BOTH sides are the problem. WTFU Bob, republicans are the worst when it comes to caring about the electorate, unless you are in that top 1%, then you are all they care about. Does it feel good to be a non-paid shill for the GOP?? What a tool you are..
Obama doesn't have a clue about what labor needs or wants.
If U.S. history is a painting on giant canvas, President Barack Obama's speech this week in Osawatomie, Kansas, is a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. The President's pretense is that, no, it's not Obamanomics that has caused persistent unemployment, stunted growth and record deficits--it's supply side economics!
Talk about audacity.
The President's speech was a naked portrayal of his vision of America--one where inequality runs rampant, where the American dream is nearly dead, where the rich oppress the poor, where education is undervalued. As Charles Krauthammer observed yesterday in The Washington Post, "That's the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years."
Indeed, what was glaringly absent from the President's portrait was the fact that his economic policies have failed to put Americans back to work and his absolute inability to lead Washington toward combating rampant government spending. His solution, moreover, was more of the same stuff that has failed spectacularly for him: government as the great savior.
But in President Obama's mind, it is others who offer ideas that don't work, not him. He points to "a certain crowd in Washington" that argues for tax cuts and reduced regulations, calling it "a simple theory" that "fits well on a bumper sticker" but "has never worked."
Correction, Mr. President. It has worked--time and time again throughout history. The trouble is, Mr. Obama has never tried it, and the Keynesian economic policies he enacted fell flat on their face, just as they have throughout history.
It started with a massive $787 billion stimulus bill that White House economists predicted would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. It was Keynesian economics at its finest, based on the premise that government spending would spark demand and put Americans back to work.
It didn't. Some 13.3 million Americans remain out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 10 percent throughout Obama's presidency, and economic growth has been stuck on slow. In fact, today America is witnessing the longest stretch of such high unemployment in the postwar era. Meanwhile, job creation has hit a record low, as Heritage's James Sherk explains:
Fewer existing businesses are expanding, while fewer entrepreneurs are starting new businesses. In the first quarter of 2011, the number of workers hired in new business establishments fell to just 660,000, 27 percent fewer than when the recession began. This is the lowest number of workers hired at new businesses that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever recorded--lower even than the worst points of the recession.
Yet despite these numbers -- and the fact that President Obama had near-free rein to enact the Keynesian economic policies he saw fit -- the President is now demagoguing the one economic policy he hasn't tried -- supply-side economics -- while calling for more government spending all as America's debt is deepening. He would do better to study history and get a grasp of how cutting taxes and freeing the market has worked when employed by both Democrats and Republicans.
Lowering tax rates, thereby allowing people to keep and invest more of the money that is rightfully theirs, has proven good for the economy time and time again. In the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s, tax rate reductions resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. And despite the President's claim that cutting taxes only helps the rich, when tax rates were lowered in those decades, higher-income Americans paid an even greater share of the tax burden because they had fewer reasons to hide, shelter, and under-report income. But if taxes are increased -- as President Obama continues to threaten -- the price of working, saving, investing, and taking risks goes up, too.
But the President doesn't have to take the experts word for it. He can heed the words of President Kennedy in his 1962 speech to the Economic Club of New York:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
Unfortunately, President Obama does not appear open to advice, nor does he seem cognizant of history--be it that of 10, 20, 40, or 90 years ago, or even his experience of the last three years. Instead, he is damning the torpedoes and continuing to pursue a liberal, progressive agenda that has proven to be a failure. As they have for the past three years, Americans will pay the price.
Amy, either you were just trying to put a positive spin on another Obama failure or you misread his intentions! Obama doesn't care about the workers, he cares more about the Union Bosses who he counts on for campaign contributions! Even carrot top, in her drunken haze, recognizes there's no way to put a positive spin on this story for BO or an excuse to attack any of the Republican candidtates. She's somewhere else bashing Perry I suppose...
Regardless, nothing is more inexcusable, more vile, more despicable than Obama, the President of the United States, his administration wantonly and capriciously selling 2,500 assault rifles to drug cartels
Gosh, Bob, now you sound just like a Democrat. You mean guns kill people, it's not just people who kill people? To think all those yahoos who ran out and bought guns after Obama was elected, because FOX told them Obama would take away their right to bear arms, could have saved their money, because, in fact, President Obama loves guns. He obviously loves, loves, loves guns. Isn't that right Bob? Say it with me Bob, President Obama was never going to take away your right to buy a gun. And while you're getting all self righteous about gun sales to drug traffickers under Obama, please sign my petition to ban sales of assault weapons and bullets that pierce armoured vests, or is that just too squishy, liberal for you?
dear Steve
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a President who stays in the good graces of union bosses, i.e. lobbyists for working Americans, vs. a president stays in the good graces of Grover Norquist, lobbyist for polluting, out-sourcing, quasi criminal corporations. But, that's me.
Amy,
I love how the NRA has their panties in a bunch over this by saying that AG Holder should be heal accountable for the death of a Border Guard because he was careless and allowed guns to fall in the hands of Mexican drug dealers while their historic message is “Guns don’t kill people …”
amy, amy how can the President get anything done when the congress has decided not to do anything for the American workers....accept count their millions... wouldn't you like to know what kind of job benefits they receive....When the President stated he wanted the American people to have the same health benefits that they have.....what did the GOP and some Democrats do attack Yeah the lobbist won and we lost again
So now, because unions generally back democrats, the GOPers blame President Obama for the NLRB lawsuit because he stuck up for the Washington State employees and the rights of all Americans to bargain for better pay and benefits? That's fine GOPers, go for it, the Occupy 99ers will be sure to vote for the republicans who demonize labor unions because that is the equivalent of demonizing American workers. Thank you, NLRB and President Obama for at least trying.
Jody, Iowa
And how much is that "backing" democrats, Jody .... $400 million for the 2012 cycle?
Yea, buying Obama and the dems is the American way, huh?
Has nothing to do with Washington state employees who are not losing one job in this deal.
It has to do with payback for the $400 million from unions.
I thought freedom was kinda big in America. You don't believe in freedom Jody ..... the freedom to start another operation in any state you want?
The truly great news is that most Americans have realized they don't need corrupt unions.
That's why private sector unions are dying.
GoodGreat riddance."And how much is that "backing" democrats, Jody .... $400 million for the 2012 cycle?"
You didn't know, Bob? According to the supreme court, Unions are 'people' too! First ammendment rights, and all that to boot!
The occupy 99%'ers?
You mean the brain dead grown children who make up less than 1% of the electorate? Insignificant. Most of them won't think to vote until next Christmas.
Obama never passes up an opportunity to express his opinion concerning Union Interests. The SC Boeing Plant was not built for the sake of transferring work from Washington State as Democrats & Unions would like all observers to believe.
This suit was dropped by Obama and the NLRB because Obama's ratings are dropping like a tire iron and the Elections are only 11 months away. This is a suit that never should have happened in the first place and Boeing will not tolerate another NLRB suit again on US soil.
Obama was given a history lesson about government over-reach with Boeing. Boeing manufactures in 130 Countries Worldwide and employs over 200,000 people. Should Boeing ever feel harrassment again from Unions or the NLRB, they could continue their Manufacturing in any of the 130 Countries they currently are doing business in.
Eddie York: Your illogic is showing. You people say this plant was not about avoiding Unions. Then you say that Boeing SHOULD move work overseas as a punitive measure, .....to,....well,.....avoid Unions.
Can't have it both ways kid.
And then I say that said products manufactured overseas can remain there. No sale in the United States. If this country had the same intelligent industrial policy that China has this would be the rule. China allows no sale of goods in its country that are not manufactured there.
Their white-hot economy seems to be doing fine.
Ok fine .. Boeing doesn't want to allow unionization, how about approaching this from another stand point. Eliminate all government contracts. Now let's see how well Boeing does. In 2008, the Boeing defense division accounted for 51% of their earnings. Cut that funding and let Boeing muse the value of unionized workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Defense,_Space_%26_Security
But repubbies!!!
What happened? I thought your Citizens United decision was supposed to give the thug Unions unbridled limitless power to corrupt government and shape policy? What happened to your predictions that Big Labor was going to overrun government and industry, and that poor, hard-working republicans would be dragged from their homes and forced to remit Union dues to Union thug bosses? You mean to tell me that our noble "Job Creators" won't be burdened by actually paying people a living wage?
Seriously, what happened?
Seems like the Boogey Man you people were forecasting never showed up.
The way seems clear to me,....industries,...move to RTW states where 3rd-world labor conditions prevail. Poison your employees, take away their benefits if they have any, work them to death, forced labor on 11-year-olds, no health care, no breaks, low pay,....all republican wet dreams.
The United States will look like the Philippines in no time. Your grand kids will wake up in a house with a dirt floor.
If they have a house.
GOP
That kind of hyperbole will get you nowhere and makes you look like a fool. All states have the right to attract economic activity. The Federal Government should not have it's thumb on the scale so dropping the lawsuit was the right thing to do. Filing it was not smart. If the northern "industrial" states want to attract and protect economic activity, they need to do their homework and adjust their labor climate to fit the type of activity they desire.
California does fine with high wage intellectual labor. The pleasant living conditions in Silicon Valley attracts labor and the burdensome mandated payroll "add-ons" are not part of the labor economic equation because they are relatively small for six figure income earners.
California has lost most of its manufacturing base because the uber liberals who have controlled the state for decades kept piling new tax and working condition burdens on employers on the assumption that employers would continue to absorb the ever increasing cost. They were wrong and Cowboy Ricky Perry benefited from the migration out of California.
California lost its blue collar jobs because of the insanely high price of its real estate, it had little or nothing to do with taxes and working conditions. The fact is that blue collar manufacturing workers have been bid out of the housing market. If you can't buy a house and raise your family you go elsewhere. The employers had a choice , either move to a more affordable state and keep your workers, or stick it out in California and raise wages and salaries so that your workers can afford to live there. Montana here we come!
James
I kinda agree with you but your assessment may be a bit outdated. After dropping 50% or more in some places, housing is more affordable in a lot of inland CA markets. I agree that prime coastal locations are still not middle class affordable and some like the SF peninsula are just nuts.
Employment cost example. I had 50 employees in Southern California in a service business with peak business Fri, Sat. and Sun. My employees (mostly part time) wanted as many hours as they could get during our busy hours. Fed overtime rules are time & 1/2 for over 40 hours/wk. CA is OT for any day over 8 hours (unless you have Union approval). Result, unhappy employees who only get scheduled for 8 hours. Also, if an employee misses a break - big penalty, etc.
I now live in Texas. I can tell you that an employer with middle class employees who has a choice between Texas and California would be nuts to employ people in CA. Internet geniuses and Movie Stars excluded.
Yes, housing is an issue. Austin has most of the same Silicon Valley employers who tend to pay national level wages. A Google employee makes the same salary in Austin as Cupertino but can live in a mansion instead of a converted garage without state income tax.
The NLRB should be terminated as a government controlled board. It is nothing but a political pawn for which ever party is in power. It is a waste of money, time, and effort. Even when they make a decision the loosing side can go into federal court, so if there is an disagreement between the business and labor union why not just go straight to court.
Really Booby? Is that why they killed the Ohio law SB 5 of John Kascich? Is that why Scott Walker's Union-busting minions are being picked off one by one?
A little premature aren't you Booby?
Wow! And Wow again. You all missed the story. Collective bargaining won out. Read the last two lines. The issue is moot because the union and Boeing reached their own resolution. Even a Republican paper like the Topeka Capital Journal figured that out and said as much. The union voted 73% on a new contract with Boeing - that's the story.
These anti-union numb skulls don't get the fact that the Unions and Management are closer to each other than ever before. You can't build Dreamliners with unskilled untrained minimum wage ex-hamburger flippers! You have to have a trained and dependable work force, that means intelligent people who have cache in the labor market. That means people who earn enough to support a decent life style, own a home, a dependable automobile, and who are an integral part of their community. Union or non-union you don't want your airliner built by the lowest bidder unless you are also prepared to be issued a parachute along with your boarding pass. Boeing and the Unions do not want strikes and labor disputes, its a of waste time and money. Boeing and the Unions have an agreement now, signed by BOTH sides, as all labor agreements are. The Dreamliner has been well received, Boeing has record multi billion dollar orders, no one, least of the Unions, want to be involved in a pissing match. Personally I think the NLRB deserves some credit here for helping both sides to come to the table, stop the bickering, and start building airplanes, and isn't that what it's all about!
The settlement of this dispute resulted in Boeing agreeing to manufacture a different type of jet in their Washington facilities...the NLRB should have never had the ability to dictate to any company where and when they manufacture their product...but I guess in this case Boeing felt they had to succumb to this agreement in order to move forward with their plans. An example of way too much power housed in an arm of the government.
No, NLRB is basically a mediator not a dictator. The Union used its power and influence the same way any Corporation would use its power and influence. Boeing didn't succumb to anything, they negotiated and agreed to a deal, they do the same thing every day in thousands of business situations. Union agreements require two signatures, its time for management and the Anti Union lobby to stop their childish whining, if they don't like the deal they agreed to, don't sign it. If they do, then sign it and get on with business.
"........which has right-to-work laws on the books, to punish striking workers in Washington State."
************
That is PROPOGANDA!!!!
Boeing wanted to build a plant in South Carolina - that happened to be a Right to Work State.
Obama Adminiration's NLBR filed a lawsuit to FORCE Boeing to build their plant in Washington State that is controlled by UNIONS.
Not only is Obama union-owned, he wants everyone to be union-owned - for obama to accommodate an ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATE.
The NLRB suit dropped its suit today after the union representing the striking workers approved a deal with Boeing on Wednesday to build a different type of jet in Washington State.
**********
Another EXTORTION scheme - perpetrated by the UNIONS - accommodated by the Obama Administration = the most CORRUPT administration in US History.
Huntsman called the NLRB’s suit “a battle that should have never been fought” because the president should have called it off, but that Obama’s lack of leadership “allowed a rogue agency to threaten thousands of South Carolina jobs.”
********
Does that sound as if Republicans are thrilled with Obama's NLRB's decision to drop the lawsuit against Boeing?!