Pelosi: Either be a Union Plant or be shut down

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnpeBTX-DMA[/youtube]

However the workers at the South Carolina plant voted to kick out the Union.

Workers at Boeing's 787 fuselage-assembly plant in Charleston, S.C., voted decisively Thursday to get rid of the Machinists union as their bargaining representative, a switch that could become a factor in the company's upcoming decision on where to place a second 787 final assembly line.

The vote was 199 for decertification of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union, 68 for retaining it.

The vote means that Boeing Charleston will compete as a nonunion plant against Boeing Everett, an IAM stronghold, to be the site of the second Dreamliner assembly line.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ing11.html

Not sure if Pelosi knew that little tidbit, but it's likely she did.


Originally read about it here.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/p ... -carolina/

Guess we know the real message of Democrats, they only want jobs where they are getting kickbacks from their Union lackeys.

THis is a load of balls. Democrats seem to think they can play the game of two wrongs make a right.

Are you not both missing the point?

Weak and ineffective union gets ousted at one plant by workers under duress, all of whom will probably dismissed as the unionised plants has the better workers?

I don't think Boeing are that stupid, they've run rings around the union and its charleston workforce, who will probably rue their decision to reduce their limited powers in their workplace to nil.

A closer read of the Seattle Times article will demonstrate that this might just as easily be seen as a last ditch effort on the part of a substandard workforce.

Boeing will do itself no favours if the second line starts delivering substandard airframes, or fails to meet delivery dates. Given the SC plant's track record, I do not see decertification as a viable strategy.

As for the political message, so be it. It is, after all, a political message, intended for the ears of its intended recipients. There is no politician who does not tailor the message to suit the time, place and audience.

It could also be that the majority of the SC plant employees were getting sick of certain individuals not doing their job and knew the union was protecting the lazy layabouts so Boeing couldn't fire them.

Could be that the South Carolina plant's productivity is going to improve as a result as they hire better workers.

Specifically, I don't really care what the Seattle Times is giving as far as spin, I just wanted to show that the plant in SC kicked out the union.

The Republicans are pushing for the nuclear powered airplane.

Documentation please. Which Republican. Where. When. What were the specifics of the proposal if there was a proposal.

ruveyn

The Eisenhower administration.

That is fifty years ago. No one in his right mind would now consider a nuclear powered airplane.

It was a bad idea that was dropped, just as it should have been.

ruveyn

Now that we have global warming the nuclear powered airplane will make a comeback.

Oh, really? Then why isn't the title of this thread, "SC Boeing plant kicks out union?"

You are not in the least interested in the plant, its workers or the company. You only interest in this story is the opportunity to score political points off a Democrat.

I would wager that there is not a single thread in PPR in which you have participated that you have not sought to use it is a means to either promote the Republicans or demonize the Democrats. Your motivations might be deeper than shrill partisanship, but your posting record certainly doesn't support such a finding.

When the Republicans kick out the Democrats they will have the green light for the nuclear powered airplane.

A nuclear powered air plane is totally unworkable. We have already discussed the reasons.

There will never be a nuclear powered plane for the same reason there will never be a steam powered plane. The power to weight ratio is too low.

ruveyn

The only objection to the nuclear powered airplane are the environmentalists.

Not only is putting a reactor on an airplane heavy and dangerous if it crashes or falls into the wrong hands and a needless headache to repair and maintain, the cockpit, passenger area, cargo hold, and possibly even any weapons or jet fuel for other planes would require heavy shielding. Nuclear powered long range bombers was tried and it wasn't physically practical even without shielding and the pilots were in a radiation suit.

Cause the main point of this thread is around what Nancy Pelosi said, which is basically either the plant unionizes (which is of course a Democrat campaign cash cow) or gets shut down and everyone loses their job.



It's called I'm not going to believe the obvious spin, if the plant were really as bad as you're claiming, which is kinda ridiculous, I might add.

1. Boeing would have shut it down already.
2. The bloody factory is brand new, that means you can't make those claims when the factory first opened its doors in 2011.

So really, I couldn't care less what that source is saying aside from the little tidbit of information that the South Carolina workers gave the union the boot.



Well considering most of the people here tend to bash Republicans and glorify democrats, I'm not going to waste my time going after Republicans when it is the Democrats that clearly need to be scrutinized.