Mission Control to Democratically Controlled Senate: "The Republican House Just Launched an ABM to Destroy NLRB's Missile to Destroy Boeing's Charleston PlantAbort That Lift-off!" "The world's largest aerospace company, Boeing is the #2 maker of large commercial jets (behind rival Airbus) and the #2 defense contractor behind Lockheed Martin. Boeing's business units include Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Defense, Space & Security. Representing more than half of the company's revenue stream, Boeing's Commercial Airplanes segment designs and manufactures commercial jet aircraft for passengers and cargo... . Boeing plans to increase production of the 737 to 38 planes a month and of the 777 to 8 a month in 2013... [and] has launched a second assembly line for 787 production in South Carolina." The National Labor Relations Board, which prohibits companies from relocating a factory when workers go on strike, filed "a complaint against Boeing last April, accusing the company of building an assembly plant in North Charleston, S.C., as a form of retaliation against unionized employees in Washington State who have engaged in five strikes since 1977, including a 58- day-walkout in 2008... . Republicans have repeatedly criticized the board's acting general counsel for filing a complaint against Boeing... [and] asserted that the N.L.R.B.'s move was causing some foreign companies to think twice about opening operations in the United States... [and] that the board was overreaching its authority and should not be dictating where companies can locate their operations." While the case was pending before an administrative law judge, the House of Representatives decided to take the matter into their own hands by approving "a Republican-backed bill that would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from trying to block Boeing from operating a new $750 million aircraft assembly line in South Carolina. The largely party-line vote was 238 to 186. Under the bill, an unusual effort to curb a federal agency's actions in a pending case, the labor board would be barred from seeking to have an employer shut, transfer or relocate employment or operations 'under any circumstances.' "The bill, called the 'Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act,' faced a battle in the Democratic-controlled Senate... . Democrats and union leaders condemned the legislation, arguing that it undercut an independent federal agency and favored Boeing, a potent lobbying force and prominent political donor... . Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat, said the bill 'would be devastating to workers across this country. It makes it easier to shift jobs overseas. It eliminates the only remedy to force companies to bring back work from overseas. This outsourcing [of the] Bill of Rights is not only bad for the interests of workers, it's bad for the economy at large.' ... More than 250 professors signed a letter criticizing the legislation as 'unprecedented interference with a pending legal proceeding for the benefit of a particular employer.' They said the legislation would severely diminish the board's power to move against employers that illegally retaliate against unionization efforts or protests over working conditions by moving their operations elsewhere... . "Republicans argued that the bill would still let the labor board pursue many other remedies, among them back pay, although the opening of the assembly line in South Carolina has not caused any layoffs of Boeing workers in Washington State... . Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, applauded the House vote. 'The N.L.R.B.'s actions are having a chilling impact on job creation and causing a great deal of uncertainty for manufacturers throughout the country. Today's vote is just one step in the process of reining in this rogue agency.' ... "The labor board's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said that his decision to file a complaint against Boeing 'was based on a careful investigation and a review of the facts under longstanding federal labor law. The decision had absolutely nothing to do with political considerations, and there were no consultations with the White House. Regrettably, some have chosen to insert politics into what should be a straightforward legal procedure. These continuing political attacks are baseless and unprecedented.' The general counsel is independent from the full labor board and prosecutes cases asserting unfair labor practices. To prove that Boeing's move was retaliatory, Mr. Solomon pointed to statements by top Boeing officials saying their unhappiness over past strikes motivated them to build the South Carolina plant. But Boeing officials say South Carolina's low production costs were the reason behind the move." Postscript. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) introduced the House bill as an amendment to S. 1599, the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill for FY 2012. Connected to that broader legislation, the bill's success first had to go to the Appropriations Committee and its then 16-14 Democratic majority. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) joined the 14 Republican senators on the Committee in voting for the amendment, yet the Democrats' opposition still resulted in the measure's ultimate failure to get past the committee. Given then-President Obama's opposition to the bill and veto power, no further action was taken by the committee.132 This bill therefore never got to the floor of the Senate and therefore was never passed by the Senate nor became law.133 From the Democratically controlled Senatemission accomplished!

Questions

How does this case illustrate the government checks and balance system?

What government role(s) would support the House's and the NLRB's position on Boeing's Charleston plant?

Which types of public policy issues are addressed in this case? How does this case highlight the differences in the United States' two major political parties' especially concerning business?

Given Figure 8.4, how might the opponents to the House bill have blocked its passage? What specific actions should Boeing have taken to influence the passage of the House bill into law?