Jeffrey Immelt is Obama’s handpicked chairman of Obama’s jobs and competitiveness council. He is clearly NOT a rightwing anti-union reactionary.
But get this: even Immelt thinks Obama’s war on Boeing for daring to create jobs in a non-union plant is utterly ridiculous. From USA Today:
Asked about the fuss over the National Labor Relations Board investigating aircraft maker Boeing for opening a plant in South Carolina, Immelt said he was totally supportive of Boeing in the matter, given that the company is a major jobs creator.
“I can’t see one reason why we’d want to go down that road,” he said. Immelt added that he felt his company has worked on improving relationships with unions, saying, “They are hungry for jobs.”
Getting good union-employer relationships requires an adjustment, he said. “It’s taken change on both sides.”
The NLRB sued Boeing in April, saying the aeronautics giant illegally retaliated against unionized Washington state workers when it opened a 787 passenger jet manufacturing line in South Carolina, a right-to-work
Boeing hopes more than 1,000 non-union workers will eventually build three of the aircraft per month at the $750 million South Carolina plant, the largest industrial investment in the state’s history.
But Obama would rather see a Great Depression than allow non-union jobs.
Let me simply provide a single quote from the Seattle Times:
“The Machinists union has struck Boeing’s Puget Sound-area factories four times since 1989, most recently in 2008.”
Boeing has contracts to build the plane they are building at this South Carolina plant that specifically guarantee delivery of aircraft by specific dates. They simply cannot play games with work-stoppage, which the union is documented to have done repeatedly. The 787 Dreamliner has already had more than enough problems, and the last thing Boeing needs is a bunch of pampered union workers having a hissy-fit and stopping production because even though they get FAR more in salary and benefits than they deserve, it still isn’t enough for them.
Strike and its aftermath
The next major delay in the Dreamliner program came largely as a result of a 57-day machinists strike. The strike, which ended on November 1, 2008, according to Reuters, forced Boeing to delay the plane’s first flight and first delivery yet again, this time until well into 2009.
And then, just a month later, Boeing again announced delays, blaming them on supply shortages due to the strike, as well as problems with assembly. “The new schedule reflects the impact of disruption caused by the recent Machinists’ strike along with the requirement to replace certain fasteners in early production airplanes,” Boeing said at the time.
The problems continued to mount after that, and not all were due to the strike. In June of 2009, Boeing once again announced a delay in the first flight and the first delivery, this time “due to a need to reinforce an area within the
side-of-body section of the aircraft,” it said. “The need was identified during the recent regularly scheduled tests on the full-scale static test airplane. Preliminary analysis indicated that flight test could proceed…as planned. However, after further testing and consideration of possible modified flight test plans, the decision was made…that first flight should instead be postponed until productive flight testing could occur.”
On December 15, 2009, the first Dreamliner finally took air, lifting off from Payne Field in Everett, Wash., in front of a crowd of thousands of Boeing employees, fans, and journalists.
But that didn’t mean Boeing’s problems with the Dreamliner were done.
In August 2010, National Aviation Co. of India, the Indian-state-owned company that runs Air India, announced it was demanding compensation of $840 million from Boeing for delays in the 787 program. The company said the delays were hampering its growth plans, according to Bloomberg.
Boeing said at the time that it was negotiating with carriers over costs related to the delays.
As someone who has been in management, I can well-understand Boeing’s dilemma. They can’t admit that the union has them by the balls and it really hurts when they squeeze, I mean strike. That would be tantamount to an open invitation for the union to strike every time there was a significant deadline. At the same time, these work stoppages are like cancer, and they have to do something to try to innoculate themselves from the cancer of unions even while they carefully try to avoid saying that the unions are bleeding them like particularly nasty leaches. And the effects of strikes are far worse on the bottom line than they appear on paper; because after a lengthy strike, it takes workers some time to recover the groove they had been in (it’s like that famous Polock joke: “Why is it so expensive to give union workers hour lunches? Because they have to retrain afterwards”).
So – without laying off so much as a single union worker – Boeing expanded its operation to a right-to-work state, and specifically, to a plant that HAD been union, but voted the union out as a bunch of trouble-making losers.
And that’s when Obama took off his incredibly foul-smelling loafer and began to slam it on the table shouting, “We will bury you!” at Boeing.
Barack Obama would rather see jobs go overseas to China than he would see them go to South Carolina. That’s the bottom line.
Barack Obama is a fascist. He is the Cloward and Piven president. He doesn’t want a thriving America; he wants to control it no matter how small it has to become for fascist progressivist-liberalism to dominate it.
Allow me to give you a rather clear example of how Obama thinks. As the following video of Obama in a Democrat debate will show, Obama would raise the capital gains rate EVEN KNOWING IT WOULD HURT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RESULT IN LOWER INCOME TAX REVENUES. He would do so in the name of “fairness.”
There is a pathological, reflexive Marxist mindset that forces Obama to punish job creators even though it will result in less job creation. Because at the core of Barack Obama’s tiny shriveled little cockroach soul, he is a Marxist who believes the central tenant of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And Obama’s record – and the holocaust of jobs to go with the statements of small businesses that they’re not planning to hire any time soon –
But we don’t need the success of Republican policies, do we? We don’t need to have unemployment rates of 3 and 4 percent like North Dakota and Nebraska. We don’t need to have the incredible job creation of a Texas. We certainly don’t need to ever balance a budget. We’ve already slit our throats by voting for Democrats, and we really might as well just keep sawing until our heads fall off so that we can end up the way we’ve already basically been since 2006 when we started electing Democrats: completely brainless and therefore completely clueless.