Union vote fails at Boeing: 74% against

This is the plant in South Carolina Boeing was incentivized to build because of union issues in Seattle.

http://abcnews4.com/news/business-news/union-vote-fails-at-boeing-north-charleston

Boeing was basically compelled to build this plant as the unions in Seattle caused problems over time that affected delivery schedules to customers of certain aircraft. Evidently the workers in SC realized the enemy isn't the company, but the competition in Aerobus and other manufacturers and that if they make customers mad everybody loses.

In this case the bosses lost.

 

According to NLRB rules, workers must wait at least one year before they can hold another vote. IAM officials say they plan on staying close with Boeing South Carolina workers during that time and see what they can do to help them moving forward.

Normally when the union knows they'll lose they withdraw before an election so they don't have to wait a year to try again. They must have done a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty job assessing the workers level of support.

 

This is the second time they have voted the union down. Good for them!

 

Nah, they probably just used the same polling outfits that Hillary and clowns used. These sorts of results aren't really any surprise to anyone outside of lefty la la land...

 

That's not how union organizing works. Organizers individually assess the workers. Maybe this union had exclusive rights already and didn't need to bother. And the national polls correctly predicted hillarys national support.

 

74% is a colossal failure by the union. No doubt they figured Hillary would be in office, which is why they wasted the time, hoping she'd force the union in...

 

The nice thing about democracy, is that you take a vote and the choice is made.

Kudos to both sides

 

President can't overturn a union election

 

No they can't, but they can put a lot of pressure on them to vote that way. Look what Trump did to Boeing and their pricing, presidents do have power outside things like union elections. There is no reason to believe that Hillary wouldn't have exerted similar pressures to get the union in there as Trump did to get them to change their pricing...

- - - Updated - - -

No they can't, but they can put a lot of pressure on them to vote that way. Look what Trump did to Boeing and their pricing, presidents do have power outside things like union elections. There is no reason to believe that Hillary wouldn't have exerted similar pressures to get the union in there as Trump did to get them to change their pricing...

 

Unions had their day and were needed to bring in labor laws and better conditions. No real need now.

 

And, here I thought that there were rust belt manufacturing workers who were getting no joy!!

 

They would still be doing OK if they had realized that in a global market its their employer against other companies all over the world. The enemy is the company's competitors, not the company. One think I noticed when films of the plants of foreign auto makers are shown and those of domestic manufacturers, the workers in, say, Toyota or BMW plants would have shirts with the company logo on them. At the GM or Chrysler plants the logos were of the UAW or the Steelworkers or whoever union represented them.

Union bosses and the company execs kept the adversarial relationship even after the 50's when it became an anachronism. Hope they learn its a different world and they have to cooperate or both will go down the tubes.

 

No, they just sue a company for building a facility that will vote the union down.

 

And as unions weaken so do those laws

 

No, they don't. Law enforcement is up to the voter.

 

This hits me as silly.

Collective bargaining doesn't involve competing companies.

And, let's remember that the real problem with US auto manufacturers was that they built cars that people were not very interested in owning.

No union forced the company to do that.

 

The drop in union membership and the middle class have exactly matched each other. Boeing knew quite well when they moved to South Carolina, that southerners will work for far less than in a union-staffed plant in northern states.

 

Nothing really democratic about the collective bargaining process. One side gets all the freedom of speech and the other side none of it.

 

They see the mansions and fat cars that the union reps have.

 

how so? 2 voices at teh table. the company and the workers. Seems reasonable to me.

 

Even then, that isn't really true.

There were law suits wending their way through the court system that would have achieved the same results as unions did.

Good for them.

 

The evidence of how income is distributed in this country over the past 35 years begs to differ.

 

The need now is to keep the money flowing.

Unions steal from the worker to enrich themselves and share profits with Democrat politicians who write laws to allow unions to steal from the worker to enrich themselves and share profits with Democrat politicians who write laws to allow unions to steal from the worker to enrich themselves and share profits with Democrat politicians who write laws to allow unions to steal from the worker to enrich themselves and share profits with Democrat politicians who write laws to allow unions to steal from the worker to enrich themselves and share profits with Democrat politicians who write laws to allow unions to steal from the worker to enrich themselves and share profits with Democrat politicians who write laws to allow unions .......

This is the only purpose unions serve now.

By extensions unions were the only reason Democrats opposed Andrew Puzder.

Because he was anti-union and Democrats saw money leaving their pockets.

 

No, bad for them. Now Boeing will screw these workers for all they're worth.

 

Pudzer beat his wife and stated that he hated workers, looking forward to replacing them when at all possible.

The idea the he would have done something positive for workers is just a cheap joke.