Free «Boeing» Essay

Since 2007, Boeing Co. produced 787 Dreamliner passenger planes only at its plant in Washington. However, in 2009 Boeing’s executives made a decision to transfer its second line to South California as a punishment for Washington workers. The matter is that the union refused to agree to the ‘non-strike labor relations’ proposed by Boeing’s executives to avoid the long-lasting strikes in the future. Unlike the Washington plant, South Californian factory was a non-union one and there might be fewer problems caused by work stoppages.

As a counteraction, on March 26, 2010, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge No. 751 (the “Union”) affiliated with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (“IAM”) filed a charge to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Boeing Co. (Boeing and the N.L.R.B, 2011). They accused the company in unfair labor practices and violation of the National Labor Relations Act. According to Mr. Solomon, NLRB's acting general counsel, a right to strike is fundamental and guaranteed by the Act. It was illegal to take revenge against the workers. In defense J. Michael Luttig, Boeing executive vice president and general counsel, voiced his opinion that Boeing had a right to build its production facility outside the Puget Sound region under the federal law and collective bargaining agreement (Greenhouse, 2011). Finally, on April 20, 2011, the NLRB brought the complaint that was a very late warning for Boeing. By that time, the plant in South California was nearly completed and approximately 1,000 people were hired.

All above-mentioned facts indicate that labor law is respected and workers actively execute their rights under the union leadership in the US. However, commercial interests of the companies should be also taken into consideration, especially when they invest into the national economy.

Since 1975, the unions have strong position and organize strikes every three years, negotiate collective bargaining agreements and complaint to the competent authorities. They do it within the law and workers feel secured and respected. Boeing’s executives attempted to discriminate and make workers refuse from their right to demand better working and financial conditions. When the agreement on the ‘banned strikes’ was not achieved, Boeing Co. presented their decision about production line relocation as a punishment for the workers. Thus, Washington workers considered it as an act of the law violation and decided to appeal for justice.

Controversially, the long-lasting strikes and uncompromising stand of workers made Boeing consider the preventive measures to minimize the business risks. It is the company’s responsibility to provide stable business process. Boeing’s executives applied their efforts to operate the business and create jobs. Every operation is based on calculations and it is part of the business process. Consequently, any delay or stoppage may cause the ‘snowball’ problems and even ruin the business. In such a case, workers will loose their jobs and there will be nothing to demand by strikes.

Moreover, the law does not forbid opening new plants in other states all over the country. Boeing could have created 3,800 jobs for people in South Carolina without cutting jobs at Washington plant (Hutchins, 2011). In addition, investments in South Carolina economy would be a big contribution into the national economy. Instead, Boeing had to spend much time and money on litigations and defending their rights for economic incentives and freedom of choice.

To conclude, I would support Boeing’s decision to provide the employees of other factories in the US with the example of possible business decisions in order to prevent strikes. Moreover, this decision allowed the company to avoid stoppage of the business processes and potential losses. It also enforced the fact that workers and the unions should be open for constructive dialogues and ready for reasonable decisions instead of dictating their requirements to the employer.