Boeing shuts down the union

[JustRalph]

Boeing workers say no to union in South Carolina

74% say no......

Good stuff!

[Inner Dirt]

I worked for a large international corporation when I last worked for the man in the early 90's. They had a union drive that got pretty nasty. I wasn't management, I was just a lowly leadman in the CNC machining department.

I was against the union from the get go as someone who had been around the block (that place was my 7th stop in the trade in 15 years I always followed the money). The company paid the good employees above market rate, treated them well and provided benefits equal to union shops.

As I was always outspoken, management had me speak to the masses against the union figuring hearing from one of their own would be more convincing. This facility had 3,000 people in it at that time. I held many a meeting and talked to many an individual one on one. There was one obvious difference between the pro union folks and the anti union ones.

The anti union people were competent at their jobs and felt they could find and keep a similar job anywhere, many of them had worked other places doing similar things.

The pro union folks were deficient in many areas, from what I learned they actually were overpaid for their skill level, if they were sent packing chances of matching their current wages would be slim and none. They were either slackers or just not too bright. Most pro union people had long tenure with the company, it had nothing to do with loyalty. I knew their abilities, they could not have survived anywhere else at the pay they were making, they would have quickly given the option of a pay cut or fired.

Also at the same place we had a lot of Boeing guys come in looking for work after they had a bid lay-off, that is another story.

[NJ Stinks]

I worked for a large international corporation when I last worked for the man in the early 90's. They had a union drive that got pretty nasty. I wasn't management, I was just a lowly leadman in the CNC machining department.

I was against the union from the get go as someone who had been around the block (that place was my 7th stop in the trade in 15 years I always followed the money). The company paid the good employees above market rate, treated them well and provided benefits equal to union shops.

As I was always outspoken, management had me speak to the masses against the union figuring hearing from one of their own would be more convincing. This facility had 3,000 people in it at that time. I held many a meeting and talked to many an individual one on one. There was one obvious difference between the pro union folks and the anti union ones.

The anti union people were competent at their jobs and felt they could find and keep a similar job anywhere, many of them had worked other places doing similar things.

The pro union folks were deficient in many areas, from what I learned they actually were overpaid for their skill level, if they were sent packing chances of matching their current wages would be slim and none. They were either slackers or just not too bright. Most pro union people had long tenure with the company, it had nothing to do with loyalty. I knew their abilities, they could not have survived anywhere else at the pay they were making, they would have quickly given the option of a pay cut or fired.

Also at the same place we had a lot of Boeing guys come in looking for work after they had a bid lay-off, that is another story.

OK, Einstein. Explain why NFL football players, major league baseball players, etc - you know - most guys good enough to play for any team (employer) - absolutely need a union but the employees at Boeing don't.

[Inner Dirt]

OK, Einstein. Explain why NFL football players, major league baseball players, etc - you know - most guys good enough to play for any team (employer) - absolutely need a union but the employees at Boeing don't.

Just relating a true story, nice to see another condescending liberal. I won't insult your intelligence like you do mine but how do professional athletes relate to factory workers?

[woodtoo]

:lol:
You're gonna compare overpaid millionaire jocks to Boeing workers. :lol:
Give me a break.

[chadk66]

anybody worth a shit as an employee doesn't need a union to represent them.

[woodtoo]

I was in a trade union years ago, the next day the company closed its doors.
And I was out of a job.

[Clocker]

OK, Einstein. Explain why NFL football players, major league baseball players, etc - you know - most guys good enough to play for any team (employer) - absolutely need a union but the employees at Boeing don't.

Because the NFL teams form a "monopsony", a market in which there is only one buyer. For the average grunt in the NFL, if you don't like your employer, you can't quit and find another job. You work for whomever the league tells you to. Being good enough to play for any team means nothing if all the other teams conspire to not hire you.

The union is there for the grunts, not for the super stars, to negotiate for minimum salaries, health coverage, etc. And the super stars support the system because they need a team to make them stars.

And in answer to your next question, a minimum wage is justified in an industry when the employee does not operate in a free market for his services.

[chrisl]

Hey Stinks...WTF.....Einstein.....Brilliant remark...Pro athletes..need a union. Are you, or were you, a pro Athlete. I just would like to know if this statement comes from experience.

[boxcar]

OK, Einstein. Explain why NFL football players, major league baseball players, etc - you know - most guys good enough to play for any team (employer) - absolutely need a union but the employees at Boeing don't.

The Boeing folks don't buy into the victimhood mentality. Therefore, they don't see a need to part with their hard-earned money to payoff thugs in suits to protect them from evil capitalists.

[JustRalph]

OK, Einstein. Explain why NFL football players, major league baseball players, etc - you know - most guys good enough to play for any team (employer) - absolutely need a union but the employees at Boeing don't.

Drug testing

[davew]

>>> Boeing shuts down the union


It has never started. It was one of the reasons Boeing started the facility in SC a few years ago.

[Fager Fan]

OK, Einstein. Explain why NFL football players, major league baseball players, etc - you know - most guys good enough to play for any team (employer) - absolutely need a union but the employees at Boeing don't.

They don't need a union.

[JustRalph]

>>> Boeing shuts down the union


It has never started. It was one of the reasons Boeing started the facility in SC a few years ago.

True. It was a vote to establish the union in this SC plant.

74% said no

[Clocker]

True. It was a vote to establish the union in this SC plant.

74% said no

Was that the popular vote or the electoral vote?

I bet the union would have won the popular vote if they got to count the ballots.

[NJ Stinks]

Just relating a true story, nice to see another condescending liberal. I won't insult your intelligence like you do mine but how do professional athletes relate to factory workers?

Your main point - that competent employees don't need a union - is wrong and pro athletes needing unions shows how wrong I think you are.

When employees were in unions the country developed a huge middle class. Look where we are now - the middle class is a dying breed. And unions are just about gone.

Anyway, you said I insulted you by calling you Einstein. Well, you insulted me by saying I couldn't have survived in my career without being pro union. (I was in the same union for 33 years. And proud to be a member too.)

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

I've worked in both union and non-union shops. For the most part, union non-union workers want their employer to succeed so that they could be promoted in a successful company.

Union workers talk about THEM and US.

[Inner Dirt]

Your main point - that competent employees don't need a union - is wrong and pro athletes needing unions shows how wrong I think you are.

When employees were in unions the country developed a huge middle class. Look where we are now - the middle class is a dying breed. And unions are just about gone.

Anyway, you said I insulted you by calling you Einstein. Well, you insulted me by saying I couldn't have survived in my career without being pro union. (I was in the same union for 33 years. And proud to be a member too.)

You personally insulted me, I was referring to my fellow workers, not you. Totally unrelated, but keep spewing your insults and hate for those that don't think like you.

[davew]

Your main point - that competent employees don't need a union - is wrong and pro athletes needing unions shows how wrong I think you are.

When employees were in unions the country developed a huge middle class. Look where we are now - the middle class is a dying breed. And unions are just about gone.

Anyway, you said I insulted you by calling you Einstein. Well, you insulted me by saying I couldn't have survived in my career without being pro union. (I was in the same union for 33 years. And proud to be a member too.)

Have you considered the possibility that unions killed the middle class? - pensions and health insurance for retired are much higher than any company anticipated or planned for.

[NJ Stinks]

You personally insulted me, I was referring to my fellow workers, not you. Totally unrelated, but keep spewing your insults and hate for those that don't think like you.

Hate? Calling somebody Einstein is hateful? That's quite a low standard for dragging out the term "hate".

[NJ Stinks]

Have you considered the possibility that unions killed the middle class? - pensions and health insurance for retired are much higher than any company anticipated or planned for.

I've considered the possibility that if one buys what you wrote the vast majority of employees won't ever get decent benefits again.

[no breathalyzer]

I been in both i will tell you from my experience union is better... my non union shop now cant hold on to people .. its either people do stupid or lazy idk which one it is........ or maybe the mind process has changed over the last 10 yrs ? i know back when the economie tanked i could make about the same to stay unemployed and collect then to work.. maybe people still feel the same under false proclamations

[davew]

I've considered the possibility that if one buys what you wrote the vast majority of employees won't ever get decent benefits again.

The government gives benefits to Everyone.

[barahona44]

The government gives benefits to Everyone.
Which, unchecked, leads to bankruptcy.

[Inner Dirt]

Have you considered the possibility that unions killed the middle class? - pensions and health insurance for retired are much higher than any company anticipated or planned for.

I would be curious where the union helped people versus hurt cut off is. When wages and benefits get driven so high the company can no longer afford to be in business or starts outsourcing that hurts. When someone is making wages and benefits well above average market rate it is helping.

Low union membership if it is even a factor in the declining middle class is so far down the list it isn't worth thinking about. The biggest factor is outsourcing to foreign countries with has created a huge trade deficit, and immigration. Those things, sometimes in combination have created wage stagnation in a lot of sectors.

As an example I last worked for the man in 1996, paid $28.12 an hour with full benefits and had the options of 55+ hour weeks if I wanted them since I started as a machinist in 1979. Same exact area of the USA today top non union pay is in the range of $27.50 an hour in most shops with a 45 hour week max.

[Inner Dirt]

Hate? Calling somebody Einstein is hateful? That's quite a low standard for dragging out the term "hate".

I said "Keep spewing your insults and hate", that comment was directed at your body of work not necessarily your current comments. You are obviously in the class of liberal who thinks they are mentally and morally superior to anyone who doesn't share their political views. Your comment toward the other side makes it pretty obvious you hate them, if that isn't how you feel it is what you are projecting.

[Inner Dirt]

I been in both i will tell you from my experience union is better... my non union shop now cant hold on to people .. its either people do stupid or lazy idk which one it is........ or maybe the mind process has changed over the last 10 yrs ? i know back when the economie tanked i could make about the same to stay unemployed and collect then to work.. maybe people still feel the same under false proclamations

I see that you probably have held previous union jobs as a newspaper editor.:lol::lol::lol:.

[newtothegame]

I've considered the possibility that if one buys what you wrote the vast majority of employees won't ever get decent benefits again.
I guess I must not be in the "vast" majority then.....
I am non union currently and have very good benefits including pay......
I have also been union in the past...and am glad I am no longer a part of.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There is little question that when unions proliferated in the trades and manufacturing sectors the middle class thrived. It is also the case that the unions never considered their companies would move offshore and that immigrants would proliferated in the construction trades. The unions didn't kill the middle class directly. They just didn't compete against cheap labor from Mexico and Asia. but don't kid yourself. Companies wanting to keep a bigger part of the pie for the executives and shareholders killed the middle class. When CEO's are making 500 times the average salary of a worker, it's tough to blame anyone but the companies. It may sound Marxian, but given the value added by workers versus that added by management, the playing field has definitely tilted away from workers. The middle class is being squeezed because they no longer have the leverage things like a union provided. Workers are purely subject to the laws of supply and demand.

There were many points to the unions. A large one was to force companies to share profits with the workers as opposed to executives and stockholders. Unions also provided a guarantee against worker abuse and unsafe conditions. Eventually these things were codified in labor law and it was unnecessary for the unions to fight for them.

Another problem the unions had was that they often represented unskilled labor. Auto workers on an assembly line were often completely interchangeable - there was almost no special skill or training necessary. Teamsters - same thing. Get rid of one driver, another one is right around the corner. That made those jobs totally vulnerable to alternative labor.

The diminishment of the importance of unions was inevitable. They currently exist in the public sector as a means of extracting salary and pensions - mainly police, firemen and teachers. You can't offshore those jobs, and you can't simply fire the old ones and bring in non-union workers because of the heavy training requirements.

[AndyC]

Companies wanting to keep a bigger part of the pie for the executives and shareholders killed the middle class. When CEO's are making 500 times the average salary of a worker, it's tough to blame anyone but the companies. It may sound Marxian, but given the value added by workers versus that added by management, the playing field has definitely tilted away from workers. The middle class is being squeezed because they no longer have the leverage things like a union provided. Workers are purely subject to the laws of supply and demand.

So just workers are subject to the laws of supply and demand? If some company makes a widget that can sell for $10 a competing company can hardly sell a comparable widget for $15. CEOs are making the lion's share of their earnings from stock options and not from company cash flow that has been diverted from paying employees.

There were many points to the unions. A large one was to force companies to share profits with the workers as opposed to executives and stockholders. Unions also provided a guarantee against worker abuse and unsafe conditions. Eventually these things were codified in labor law and it was unnecessary for the unions to fight for them.

A company shouldn't be forced to share profits with anybody. Should they also get to share losses? Shareholder's invest for a rate of return. Lower the rate and the investment goes elsewhere. A very efficient way to allocate capital.

Unions have done great work with regard to worker abuse and unsafe conditions.

[OntheRail]

Unions in the Public Sector... keep dead wood afloat. Local Policeman fired 5 Times union got his job back... now on leave without paid. For shooting himself and claiming it happened in a struggle with perp. Is now under indictment for thief ring. This is just one incident a drop in the ocean. Of your a due paying member... we got your back no matter what... be right or be wrong.

Union stand behind deadweight.

[boxcar]

Was that the popular vote or the electoral vote?

I bet the union would have won the popular vote if they got to count the ballots.


Absolutely! The number of ballots would have far exceeded the number of actual employees. :lol:

[Track Collector]

Years ago I worked for a company, first in the Union, then moved over to the Salary side when I secured my 4-year college degree.

My impression of the Union was that by their very nature, all workers were basically protected equally. including those whose actions should have resulted in their firing. IMO a union environment also does not encourage above and beyond performance because it goes relatively unrewarded, and is perhaps even openly discouraged (because it would make others look bad and lead to higher work standards for all.).

I still have my union badge with my picture on it in a drawer somewhere. ;)

[barn32]

I don't know about elsewhere, but her in Vegas if you have a booth at the convention center and want to plug in something to an electrical outlet you can't do it. You have to call a union guy over and he charges you $150 just to plug the goddamn thing into the wall.

The ****ing world has gone crazy.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So just workers are subject to the laws of supply and demand? If some company makes a widget that can sell for $10 a competing company can hardly sell a comparable widget for $15. CEOs are making the lion's share of their earnings from stock options and not from company cash flow that has been diverted from paying employees.

I believe you misunderstood the point. It is the supply of and demand for workers that drives prices within the labor market in the absence of some intervening force. When unions controlled a labor market, they could arbitrarily control the number of jobs. For example, they could delay implementation of automation in an effort to save jobs. They could limit layoffs and firings. They could arbitrarily set a price for labor irrespective of the market. Minimum wage is a good example of something that intervenes with the market. Demand for products creates a need for labor, but availability of labor determines the price of labor.

Read the post carefully. Profits go to CEO's, executives and shareholders. CEO and executive compensation is a combination of salary, bonuses (both of which are cash), shares of company stock, benefits, and perquisites. When shareholders receive a dividend check, is that not cash? Regardless of how the CEO is paid, the profit is divided between bonuses, dividends and reserve cash. That's money that doesn't go to the workers.

A company shouldn't be forced to share profits with anybody. Should they also get to share losses? Shareholder's invest for a rate of return. Lower the rate and the investment goes elsewhere. A very efficient way to allocate capital.

Unions have done great work with regard to worker abuse and unsafe conditions.
Yes, the exploitation of workers is certainly one way to approach owning a company. That is what gave rise to the unions in the first place. The treatment of workers by the robber barons.

You've said some absurd things here. I'm thinking blaming unions for the abuse of workers and unsafe conditions is right up there with the most absurd.

[davew]

I don't know about elsewhere, but her in Vegas if you have a booth at the convention center and want to plug in something to an electrical outlet you can't do it. You have to call a union guy over and he charges you $150 just to plug the goddamn thing into the wall.

The ****ing world has gone crazy.


But they have the training, the back-up, and necessary skills to evaluate if you cord is proper.

I was working at a place that needed some light bulbs changed and the boss said the union has to do it. I said fine, call them up. A couple weeks later they still needed changed along with a couple more. I decided to change most of them but left a couple for the union.

[wisconsin]

I don't know about elsewhere, but her in Vegas if you have a booth at the convention center and want to plug in something to an electrical outlet you can't do it. You have to call a union guy over and he charges you $150 just to plug the goddamn thing into the wall.

The ****ing world has gone crazy.

When I owned a gas station in Milwaukee, the inspectors came out and told me I needed an anti-siphon device on my outside hose bib, which I never used. I said I'll run up to the hardware store, and he said "Whoa, you'll need a licensed plumber to install it". $80 bucks for a $2 part I could have screwed on myself.

[NJ Stinks]

I said "Keep spewing your insults and hate", that comment was directed at your body of work not necessarily your current comments. You are obviously in the class of liberal who thinks they are mentally and morally superior to anyone who doesn't share their political views. Your comment toward the other side makes it pretty obvious you hate them, if that isn't how you feel it is what you are projecting.

I am confident that my political views embrace ideas that help society as a whole. That confidence may or may not make my posts read smugly. It also translates into me defending unions because, for example, unions fought for benefits that every employee needs - like defined benefit pension plans.

Today's employee is living longer and requires a lot more cash to enjoy a relatively secure retirement than the retired employee of yesteryear. Social Security is a help for sure but it never was meant to be the sole source of income for retirees. I wish people luck with their 401(k)'s but a guarantee of a given amount of monthly income in retirement via an employer's traditional pension plan involves significantly less risk for retirees.

It is obvious that without union intervention, traditional pension plans are off the menu.

[Inner Dirt]

As for Boeing I actually had the displeasure of helping to interview some of the people that were laid of from there and later on integrate them into our way of life back in the early 90's. I was amazed out how inept some of them were, the long term employees were the worst. At least those that had worked elsewhere that didn't grow up working for Boeing knew how the real world functioned.

The sad realization whether it was union rules or just the attitude going above and beyond the call of duty was either discouraged or flat out against the rules. It created a lot of guys that for their 25 years experience they had 1 year of experience 25 times. As a department lead who was basically a working supervisor I was the applicants last stop. I had to set up interviews for a couple guys because I could not believe they could spend decades working in a machine shop and not come away with skills that matched what I had in 6 months. We did hire a couple but it took awhile to teach them to change their own light bulbs, take out their own trash, and if they spilled something they had to clean it up.

Unions may work for some but Boeing in that era created a bunch of helpless chicks that got run over on the highway when they kicked them out of the nest. We paid well for a non union shop, mid 20's per hour in the late 80's-early 90's with great benefits, there were guys laid off from Boeing making low to mid 30's an hour that weren't worth $15 to most shops. They all got a rude awakening.

[AndyC]

...You've said some absurd things here. I'm thinking blaming unions for the abuse of workers and unsafe conditions is right up there with the most absurd.

You do have a reading comprehension problem. I wrote just the opposite of what you just accused me of writing. I don't mind a healthy disagreement about issues but I prefer to state my own positions and not have you state the ones you believe I have.

[AndyC]

....Yes, the exploitation of workers is certainly one way to approach owning a company. That is what gave rise to the unions in the first place. The treatment of workers by the robber barons......

You are right, paying people for work performed is exploitation. So in your view, any job is by definition exploitation by the owner of the company. Of course the exploitation can be eliminated only by union representation whereby the exploitation is transferred from the company to the union.

[Clocker]

It is obvious that without union intervention, traditional pension plans are off the menu.

So? If you take a job that doesn't have a "traditional pension plan", that is your choice. And it is the choice of the employer to offer such a plan. You talk as if a "traditional pension plan" is a human right being denied to labor by the robber baron bosses. It isn't. Welcome to the real world.

[Clocker]

You are right, paying people for work performed is exploitation. So in your view, any job is by definition exploitation by the owner of the company.

The "progressive" view is that profits are achieved by labor and capital, and that therefore it is only "fair" that labor gets its "fair share" of the profits.

By that logic, if a software developer sells a company a system that increases productivity, and therefore profit, it is only "fair" that the developer gets a share of the increase in profits.

In reality, it is fair that the worker or the developer gets a share of the profits if and only if that was part of the negotiated terms and conditions from the start.

[davew]

Unions in the Public Sector... keep dead wood afloat. Local Policeman fired 5 Times union got his job back... now on leave without paid. For shooting himself and claiming it happened in a struggle with perp. Is now under indictment for thief ring. This is just one incident a drop in the ocean. Of your a due paying member... we got your back no matter what... be right or be wrong.

Union stand behind deadweight.


Public sector unions just share the 'profit' with the workers. For example, teachers need paid more with less students because there is more 'profit' when property taxes are raised....

[Tom]

anybody worth a shit as an employee doesn't need a union to represent them.

True, Losers, whiners, cry-babies, and the lazy need to be protected.
Snowflakes.

[Tom]

Was that the popular vote or the electoral vote?

I bet the union would have won the popular vote if they got to count the ballots.

Russians voted.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You do have a reading comprehension problem. I wrote just the opposite of what you just accused me of writing. I don't mind a healthy disagreement about issues but I prefer to state my own positions and not have you state the ones you believe I have.
You are right. I misread that.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In reality, it is fair that the worker or the developer gets a share of the profits if and only if that was part of the negotiated terms and conditions from the start.

Which is why unions proliferated at one time. They arbitrarily negotiated for what they thought was a fair share of the profits.

These are complicated issues. On the one hand, the company owner assumes all the risk, which it can be argued entitles him to the lion's share of the reward. Labor assumes no actual risk so why should they get a piece of the profit beyond their negotiated salary. On the other hand, labor is the means of production, and if the employer doesn't provide a fair return, that is when workers might organize.

[Tom]

On the other hand, labor is the means of production, and if the employer doesn't provide a fair return, that is when workers might organize.

Or find another place to work.
Lots of "what if" talk in this thread, but the bottom line is the workers voted overwhelmingly NO!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Lots of "what if" talk in this thread, but the bottom line is the workers voted overwhelmingly NO!
Which makes my point. As long as workers believe they are being treated fairly, they have little incentive to unionize. It is when they believe they are getting the shaft that it occurs to them to consider organizing. And as I said earlier, most of the things unions championed have long since been codified in labor law. There was no OSHA when Andrew Carnegie was running a toxic steel mill, or miners were getting killed from gas leaks and cave-ins. When the unions got everything they wanted, they began to act to excess.

Where the middle class lost was when the unions lost power because a lot of the "unskilled" union jobs - auto workers most obviously - were easily moved to any cheaper work force. There was never a real market for door handle attachers to make $20 an hour. It was an artificially inflated price negotiated by the unions. The unions were good for the skilled crafts - carpentry, plumbing, electrician - because after you went through the long apprenticeship, you had a superior skill set. That's one reason why many large commercial projects still use union labor.

Unions lose a lot of function when you can replace workers as easily as putting an ad in the newspaper and watching the applications stream in.

[chrisl]

I run 50 million plus development projects. Very little union trades. Project's get done with great quality, budget and time constraints. I do not know where you get your info on large projects being accomplish by the majority of union workers. The company I work for will break 700 million this year alone in commercial developments. Maybe I am just lucky.

[Fager Fan]

Unions had their place but should cease to exist in today's world. If you don't like the conditions under which you work, get another job. We are mobile enough and developed enough today that no one MUST work somewhere.

[Tom]

Unions lose a lot of function when you can replace workers as easily as putting an ad in the newspaper and watching the applications stream in.

Sounds more the workers who lose function.
When workers are no more than a box of nails in terms of usefulness, they have little value. Fact of life. When 7 people can do the job equally well, why would you hire the most expensive one? When the opportunity to earn more through improving your value, then you get quality.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I run 50 million plus development projects. Very little union trades. Project's get done with great quality, budget and time constraints. I do not know where you get your info on large projects being accomplish by the majority of union workers. The company I work for will break 700 million this year alone in commercial developments. Maybe I am just lucky.
Construction projects. Large office buildings, hotels, and the like. Higher percentage east and north central than south or midwest

Alaska is hardly representative of the rest of the country. In the Northeast especially there is a long history of union strength that still exists to a degree today. I didn't say it was everywhere. I said it was common for certain types of projects.

[chrisl]

I did not say Alaska?.. The majority of my projects are in the Bay area.San Francisco. You must of "Assumed" Alaska. I did not have that in my post. You sure are a "know it all" aren't you.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I did not say Alaska?.. The majority of my projects are in the Bay area.San Francisco. You must of "Assumed" Alaska. I did not have that in my post. You sure are a "know it all" aren't you.
There's the pot calling the kettle black. You run projects worth $700 million and no union workers in one area and you know that the largest construction projects in the country are just like yours. The cost of One World Trade Center was $3.8 billion, all union labor. That's equivalent to five years of what you are doing for just one building. Yeah, you're the center of the construction universe. Talk about a know-it-all.

[Tom]

Construction projects. Large office buildings, hotels, and the like. Higher percentage east and north central than south or midwest

Cost over-runs, delays....unfair dues.......

Unions IMPEDE construction, not help it.

[Fager Fan]

There's the pot calling the kettle black. You run projects worth $700 million and no union workers in one area and you know that the largest construction projects in the country are just like yours. The cost of One World Trade Center was $3.8 billion, all union labor. That's equivalent to five years of what you are doing for just one building. Yeah, you're the center of the construction universe. Talk about a know-it-all.

It probably cost $1b too much due to that union labor.

[Inner Dirt]

I did not say Alaska?.. The majority of my projects are in the Bay area.San Francisco. You must of "Assumed" Alaska. I did not have that in my post. You sure are a "know it all" aren't you.

My condolences, working in the liberal cesspool of the USA. I hope you get extra pay for having to work there over and above somewhere else.

[chrisl]

Halvnot states: The cost of One World Trade Center was $3.8 billion, all union labor. .....I would not proudly make this claim.. Can you say corruption...Tax payers got shammed on that. You must like that. It could been done for half that price. If there was not the union dole on it. You talk as if you were involved in managing the project. Were you, or are you talking from the news print. I am talking from, my boots on the ground.

[davew]

Boeing gets 1,880 union workers to take voluntary layoffs



What is this 'voluntary layoff'? Did they quit or are they getting paid to leave? Or is it a low level paid vacation until they need then again?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/boeing-gets-1-500-machinists-voluntary-layoffs-211658880--sector.html

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Boeing gets 1,880 union workers to take voluntary layoffs



What is this 'voluntary layoff'? Did they quit or are they getting paid to leave? Or is it a low level paid vacation until they need then again?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/boeing-gets-1-500-machinists-voluntary-layoffs-211658880--sector.html

Trump forces cuts in the cost of the new air force one and Boeing lays off people. Sounds like a connection

[davew]

Trump forces cuts in the cost of the new air force one and Boeing lays off people. Sounds like a connection

If you look hard enough, you can find a connection with anything. I think it could be the CA rep Maxine Waters was talking with Russia about their plans to invade Korea and it may impact sales.....

Just like the 15% stock market rally is because 0bama left the world in such great shape.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If you look hard enough, you can find a connection with anything. I think it could be the CA rep Maxine Waters was talking with Russia about their plans to invade Korea and it may impact sales.....

Just like the 15% stock market rally is because 0bama left the world in such great shape.

Before anybody takes it seriously, I was being facetious.

For the record, absolutely no connection between the two.

[JustRalph]

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/04/boeing-isnt-a-story-of-jobs-disappearing-theyre-just-moving-to-south-carolina/

More info

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've mentioned this before. When all the major carpet mills moved from Amsterdam, NY to Dalton, GA the town basically started circling the bowl. A few years ago Dalton found out what it felt like when the mills moved again, this time to Mexico.

How much must the union labor cost be when a company feels comfortable moving out of the area where one of their primary input materials is fabricated (aluminum) and the cost of electricity is the lowest in the country?

Look what happened to the steel industry, furniture making, textiles and a bunch of others. Companies have no loyalty to America. The only loyalty they have is to the greenback. South Carolina should enjoy it while they can.

[davew]

I've mentioned this before. When all the major carpet mills moved from Amsterdam, NY to Dalton, GA the town basically started circling the bowl. A few years ago Dalton found out what it felt like when the mills moved again, this time to Mexico.

How much must the union labor cost be when a company feels comfortable moving out of the area where one of their primary input materials is fabricated (aluminum) and the cost of electricity is the lowest in the country?

Look what happened to the steel industry, furniture making, textiles and a bunch of others. Companies have no loyalty to America. The only loyalty they have is to the greenback. South Carolina should enjoy it while they can.

Maybe they are just playing the business game - change the rules and they adapt to the current rules.