Yes, I know that was a split infinitive, but I like it that way.
I was glancing over this story on the front page this morning:
WASHINGTON — Business leaders and Republican politicians Tuesday accused President Barack Obama of punishing GOP states by trying to block Boeing from opening an aircraft plant in South Carolina.
… and it struck me what a gift the NLRB had given the Republican Party in South Carolina.
By doing something SO outrageous, so without justification, and so profoundly harmful to South Carolina (if successful), the NLRB has given our state’s Republicans an issue to rally around and present themselves clearly as champions of the state’s best interests.
This doesn’t happen often. Usually, the GOP has to manufacture nonsense to fulminate about, such as “the looming specter of Obamacare” or something equally ridiculous. But this is real, it has substance, and it is clearly an attack upon the economic well-being of South Carolinians.
No wonder Republicans are rallying together, forgetting their pettier differences, to make as much noise about it as possible.
Of course, there is some overreaching, with Jim DeMint accusing the president of the United States of “thuggery.” Because, you know, wishing for his “Waterloo” isn’t malicious enough. But that’s Jim DeMint. On the whole, this makes Republicans look good, and far less silly and ideological than usual. (YES, there are some big ideological issues at stake in this matter, but you don’t actually have to care about them to care about the outcome.)
As for Mr. Obama — it’s pertinent that Nikki Haley has asked him, personally, to weigh in on this. (Which I don’t believe he’s done yet, Mr. DeMint. If he has, someone please send me a link.) Not that he’ll want to. As much as I like Mr. Obama, we all have our faults, and one of his biggest is his unwillingness to oppose Big Labor, which crowds him into some really ridiculous positions, such as his longtime, indefensible opposition to the Colombia Free Trade agreement.
This issue puts the president right where the SC GOP wants him. Since, you know, they mean him ill and want him to look bad. More to the point, it puts them in the position to look very good.
Me, I don’t care who looks good, as long as the bid to derail this project fails.
Related Posts
The striking thing (if you’ll pardon the pun) about the State’s article was that its first 2 sentences are equally true: “Business leaders and Republican politicians Tuesday accused …Obama of punishing GOP states by trying to block Boeing…The Democratic chairman of a key Senate committee fired back, charging Republicans with launching an “assault on the middle class” by trying to impede enforcement of federal labor laws.”
Except that rather than “punish” GOP states I think it’s more a sop to a pivotal tossup state, Washington. There’s no question that the GOP could give a rat’s you-know-what about Boeing employees, in WA or SC or anywhere.
I posted this on your Twitter/FB comment but in case others would like to see, here is a somewhat surprising take on this issue from The Economist.
I guess my only remaining question is about your comment that this action would be “SO outrageous, so without justification, and so profoundly harmful to South Carolina (if successful)…” Since it’s ultimately going to the courts, how could it have a chance to be successful if it really is quite THAT outrageous or without any justification? Seems like if you really have confidence in that position, you should have confidence that it will not stand up in court.
Yeah, I think you’re overreacting about as much as the DeMint/Paul bunch.
This is simply the first step in an administrative review process. From what I have seen, a Seattle paper doesn’t think much will come of it. It’s just that if someone makes a complaint that meets certain criteria, they have to review it. That is all this is.
Yeah, agreeing with Philip, you and the bunch seem to think Boeing is guilty as sin to be as worried as you are. What should worry any citizen more is a special interest group – The Chamber, of Commerce or Horror, I don’t know – trying to stifle the process for fear of the findings going against them.
Wow. Y’all are really, REALLY ignoring the obvious here.
The thing we’re writing about is the completely groundless complaint itself — not the outcome. THAT’s the thing that gives the GOP such a completely unnecessary opportunity to posture.
No complaint filed by the NLRB, no issue. Get it?
By the way, the Boeing president had an op-ed piece in the WSJ today making his company’s case on this. It was a pretty strong piece.
Anyone know of a good piece setting out the case for the other side? I’d be curious to read it…
This whole thing will be resolved before it goes much further. This is so clearly an absolute loser of a position for the NLRB that I’d be on the lookout for a “retirement” to come out of this.
Actually, I think the GOP in SC has a greater risk of saying foolish things that will be self-damaging than there is any chance of potential benefit from appearing to have done battle and emerged victorious.
This action is regulatory, not political. No, actually it’s just silly. As is pressing the President to get involved. No President would; but they would all handle the situation as I am sure Obama will (this one can’t be avoided). Gov. Haley doesn’t appear to be astute enough to give the administration space to get their ducks in order; instead she’s going for the low-hanging fruit. Not wise.
I don’t believe anyone on the blog is an expert in labor law, including me. Certainly not Jim DeMint, who seems to define the word “thug” in his relentless posturing.
I do know that real wages are dropping while capital is soaring, in “economist” terms. CEO rewards soar while the workers get shafted.
Saw “Made in Dagenham” last night. Tell me how the women of Ford would have gotten equal pay without a decent labour movement backing them?
Read the Economist Piece. it references that WSJ thing.
As for the NLRB handing an issue to the GOP, I guess you should be equally concerned that it might be spending its time NOT handing an issue. Do you want government agencies not doing what they are mandated to do by sticking fingers into the political winds? Wouldn’t that be the real shameful thing to do? Ignore the laws it was created to enforce?
You might not agree with the law or the purpose, but it is the law. You want a different law, there is a process for that.
The Union filed a complaint through the legal channel it is supposed to use to do so. As for a peice on the other side, I would suggest you read the complaint itself.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53489994/NLRB-Boeing-Complaint
Tim,
I read the complaint. It’s a sad commentary on our government and a clear example of what happens when the tyrany of small facts attempt to dictate the larger public policy needs of our society. We need to always start with the big picture and then regulate down. Not the other way around.
That said, my favorite part was:
5.(d) Since 1975, during the course of the parties’ collective-bargaining relationship, the IAM engaged in strikes in 1977, 1989, 1995, 2005 and 2008.
After five major union strikes in 35 years (avg. of once every 7 years), is it not surprising that any company would decide to conduct new business elsewhere with different “partners”? If not, then it won’t be another 35 years before Boeing hands over the responsibility for its union pension obligations to the federal government – because it has been driven into bankruptcy.
Read the FrumForum piece: Reid Defends Labor Board Boeing Ruling. It refers to a piece from The Hill. It explains why a president should not get involved in this kind of thing
This is just a typical Republican Big Lie, same stuff that’s been going on since Reagan was in office. It inflames their base, which seem to prefer ignorance to any other state of mind. Although, one would hope they would tire at some point of the constant hysteria from their party leaders.
“completely groundless complaint” …I’m willing to wait for the process to work. As several of us have said, the worst thing is to try to interfere with that process.
There was also a wsj op-ed by our governor, back on April 29, “Obama’s Silence on Boeing Is Unacceptable”
Meanwhile, the Amazon deal was killed on April 27. Gov. Haley wasn’t silent on Amazon. Instead, she declared that she didn’t like it but wouldn’t veto it. I’ll state the obvious: That’s not good leadership.
The Amazon vote was a disaster. The leadership from Governor Haley and Speaker Harrell was awful. As a result, only 26 Republicans voted for the deal, compared to 47 against.
Approximately equal numbers of Democrats voted for as against the deal, while the Republicans voted against it nearly 2 to 1. The total number of votes for the deal was 47, and that exact same number of Republicans voted against the deal.
Despite being the minority party, the Democrats should have worked harder to get this deal done. But when 47 Republicans vote no, well, the battle is not an uphill walk but a climb.
What Democratic and Republican leaders should have said is what Rep. Nathan Ballentine said, in his statement for the journal
“With our State’s unemployment figures hovering around 10% and because our State’s previous Commerce Secretary and others negotiated for “safe harbor” passage in this proposal, I feel it critical to support the proposed “Amazon Amendment” at this time. No one can dispute that our citizens and our State’s economy desperately need jobs. Most would also agree that we cannot have other businesses in the country and world question the abilities of those negotiating on South Carolina’s behalf. In my opinion, failing to deliver on this proposal would be detrimental to the mission of the Commerce Department going forward. This process obviously was not handled the way I, or many others, would have preferred. I have shared this opinion and concern with Commerce and other officials. It is my hope that going forward, the way our State negotiates with existing and new businesses will change, so that unfortunate situations like this, can be avoided.”