Home > Legal Issues, Public Service, The Outsiders, Unions > An Insight Into the Thought Process of Government-Supported Criminals

An Insight Into the Thought Process of Government-Supported Criminals

There is some qualified good news coming out of Wisconsin today.  In a divided Supreme Court decision, Wisconsin justices upheld the public sector union restrictions that were a common-sense approach to not only saving billions of dollars but also removing institutionalized corruption.

The qualification is that, now that the law has passed into effect, it can be challenged on grounds other than procedural, and we should fully expect a “flood” of lawsuits.  There is also the very real possibility that the law will be rewritten in the next election cycle or two, when the character of the legislature changes.  Of course, these are problems endemic to the democratic process as a whole.

Nevertheless, this is a victory, if only a limited one.  And while we are on the topic of public sector unions, and the corrupt legal structure of unionization as a whole (see the links for my previous thoughts), I thought I would point out a truly wonderful article on another union brouhaha involving Boeing, since it gives a crystal-clear insight into the mindset of union thugs.

According to an NPR article called “Labor Agency Challenges Boeing Factory Location,” the National Labor Relations Board has accused Boeing of breaking federal law in deciding to locate a factory in right-to-work South Carolina and not in forced-union Washington.  In another illustration of how ridiculously corrupt the entire structure of labor law is, the NLRB is preempting a completely rational business decision on the part of a private company, solely to benefit union members.

According to the law, companies are not allowed to “retaliate” against unions for work stoppages by relocating their business.  “Retaliation” is a fuzzy concept, and the basis for the union case rests on a statement by a Boeing executive named Jim Albaugh, who noted that “[Boeing] can’t afford to have work stoppages every three years.”  Talk about your “duh” statements.

Let’s try to sort this out.  Boeing, acknowledging that when its overpaid workers don’t show up to work, the company won’t make money, has decided to move its factory.  By acknowledging what everyone already knew, the unions have announced that “retaliation” (read: “smart business”) has taken place, and the government lapdogs at the NLRB have jumped to their defense.  Their ultimate goal is to keep the work in Washington, presumably for the benefit of Washington workers.  Note that absolutely no thought is given to those people who want to work in South Carolina.  Poor bastards don’t have a union to help them suckle at the government teat.

Note also that no thought is given to Boeing.  Assuming that it is correct that businesses will lose money when its workers are paid too much and don’t show up (not much of a stretch), Boeing is mired in a government-enforced downward spiral to bankruptcy.  Ultimately, if forced to continue to lose money by the bureaucrats at the NLRB, everyone at Boeing – union thugs included – will be out of a job.  And that pretty much sums up national labor law.

Consider this quote:

Tom Wroblewski, president of the Seattle-area machinists union, says this case isn’t about where Boeing builds its factories. “This is all about breaking the law,” he says.

And then consider what would have happened had Jim Albaugh not commented to the Seattle Times about the blindingly obvious fact that work stoppages were a source of concern.  Since this retaliation case is based on Boeing executives like Albaugh making comments that never transgressed the painfully apparent, what would have happened had they just shut up?  How would the unionistas have proven retaliation?

And if it is also true, as the union thug said, that the case is “all about breaking the law,” then where does justice come into play?  Perhaps it is true that Boeing is “retaliating” under a definition of retaliation that only makes sense if you work for the NLRB.  Is it not also obvious that this “retaliation” falls under the rubric of “common sense”?  If it is true that the company cannot survive the work stoppages, how is it at all fair to the company, its employees, its subcontractors, its customers, and yes, even its union workforce, that the company be forced to circle the drain until it can no longer survive?

But remember, when it comes to federal labor law, concepts like “making sense,” “being fair,” and “thinking things through” have no place in the discussion.  It’s “all about breaking the law.”  The fact that the law is corrupt beyond repair does not enter the discussion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: