If your company does business with the government does the government have a say in how it is operated or where you locate operations?
“Living wages,” now adopted by over 50 local governments, require employers that have some financial interaction with the local government to pay covered employees a living wage that is significantly above the federal or state minimum wage.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint recently over Boeing’s plans to open a second plant in South Carolina, a “right-to-work” state, instead of expanding its operations in Puget Sound, Washington, where its workers are unionized. The new South Carolina facility is for the production of the company’s 787 Dreamliner plane.
Boeing’s Washington workers belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). The IAM went on strike four times since 1989, costing Boeing at least $1.8 billion in revenue. The new plant in South Carolina would be a non-union facility.
The government agency decided nearly two years after the fact that Boeing’s actions were retaliation for the IAM’s repeated shut downs of commercial aircraft production, including a strike lasting almost 60 days costing billions.
There might be another reason for Boeing’s decision to re-locate to South Carolina. The cost of labor. In Washington the median hourly pay for Production Operations is $16.56. In South Carolina the median hourly pay for the same category is $14.49. When you are employing thousands of people, that $2.07 difference per hour adds up to a significant savings. These numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to Boeing’s financial reports, 37% of its “Earnings from Operations” were from Military aircraft. Like General Motors, Boeing relies on the United States government for support. Of course they have the right to direct Boeing operations. Or do they? Is this another case of creeping government control of everything? Wasn’t that the system used in the U.S.S.R.? As I recall it failed.
Coast Contact 