Depending on which state's version of The Times you read on Sunday, the complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board against Boeing over its plans to move a chunk of its Dreamliner production to South Carolina is either a "welcome effort to defend workers' right[s]," or the move to S.C. itself is something that "should [never] be reversed by the federal government."
The opinions spring from Boeing's two-year-old decision to move about 30 percent of its Dreamliner production out of state--a decision that, as one Boeing executive put it, was because "we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years."
The East Coast Times' editorial board is of the mind that Boeing, in taking its production elsewhere, was illegally retaliating against the International Association of Machinists for previous strikes--a charge that was likely true even if a member of the company brass hadn't admitted so on the record.
The N.L.R.B.'s action lands squarely on an ambiguity in the nation's labor protections -- which enshrine the right to collective bargaining yet allow companies ways to avoid it by going to another state.
The local Times thinks the union (and the NLRB) needs to grow up and act like "grown-ups." The paper writes that it's only because the Boeing executive spoke off the cuff about wanting to avoid a strike that the production move is even an issue--also likely true, although that's Boeing's screw-up to own.
The National Labor Relations Board has labeled Boeing's decision an unfair labor practice, and is asking a federal court to order the line to be moved to Washington. We would celebrate the day Boeing decided to do that -- but it is Boeing's decision.
The company and the union are both grown-ups here. Each knows its rights.
Interesting that an out-of-state newspaper is leaning more toward Washington workers' rights than the one that more of the workers in question likely read.