Hah hah

Times columnist Joe Nocera goes off on a rant about how Democrats are destroying jobs by having the NLRB rule in favor of the Boeing union. Go read the comments for how quickly the readers are setting him straight.

I especially liked this one:

Wait a minute. You are telling me that I could one day fly on a commercial airplane assembled by non-union workers? From South Carolina? As a native North Carolinian, I say: Ha ha ha. No way.

Isn’t this the larger issue? That Boeing is avoiding using unionized skilled middle class protected workers, in favor of lesser educated, lesser skilled workers who cannot organize because of a backward archaic state government, where the workers have little benefits or rights–and all this is in order to shave a few bucks and weaken the union, and isn’t that shear retaliation? Seems pretty clear to me. In fact, the Obama administration is protecting (creating) lots of jobs in WA state and the right of workers to organize. Very noble.

If the government can’t protect workers getting jerked around by their company, then government isn’t what I want it to be.

And again I ask, Boeing really expects people to fly on planes made by non-unionized workers (from SC??) being paid sub par salaries, and no worker protection? Ha. After the first malfunction, let’s look at the black box and see where the airplane was built. I’ll bet you a free round trip ticket on an Airbus, it wasn’t in WA state.

2 thoughts on “Hah hah

  1. What other position would one expect a paid agent of the capitalist bourgeoisie to take? Labor bad. Capitalist good.

  2. his argument makes no sense at all. so the NLRB (and obama admin by extension) is anti-jobs because it opposes moving 5,000 jobs from washington state to north carolina? sure, if the NLRB wins the case that means 5,000 more unemployed people in NC. but if it loses the case (or if the administration had never brought it in the first place), wouldn’t that mean the loss of 5k jobs in WA?

    obviously, when the issue is whether jobs should move from one place to the other there will be winners and losers. in this case, there doesn’t seem to be any net loss of jobs, so that opens the question of what kind of jobs we are talking about. if the number is equal, which jobs are better, a union job paying $28/hr plus benefits or a non-union job paying $14/hr with fewer benefits? which one will have a greater overall stimulative effect on the economy? under one scenario the workers will have more money to spend and under the other they will have less.

    it seems to me that the NLRB’s move is more pro-job than the nocera is. and that’s not even getting into the pesky detail that the NLRB is only bringing the case because it found evidence that boeing is moving the plant specifically to retaliate against the union for advocating for the workers, something that has been illegal for seven decades.

Comments are closed.