Tweet
Boeing Labor Dispute
“You see the problem: The “right” for workers to strike without undue coercion from the company is hard to square with the “right” of the company to protect itself from the consequences of production disruptions. Both “rights” seem to have ample support in the case law.
“The answer, I would suggest, is to be found not in the case law but in the clear and unambiguous words of the National Labor Relations Act and the history behind it. In a 1993 law review article, New York University law professor Cynthia Estlund wrote that in passing the act, Congress sought to restrain corporate power and tilt the economic playing field in favor of workers. The idea was to outlaw union-avoidance strategies that, while economically rational for any one firm, would be economically harmful for the nation as a whole if widely adopted.
“Today, we may find all that quaintly — or menacingly — socialistic, but it is still the law of the land, one that Lafe Solomon and his NLRB colleagues have a duty to enforce. If Boeing or the Chamber of Commerce or the South Carolina political establishment want to change or repeal the law, it is certainly within their rights to try. After 75 years, it would be a useful debate for the country to have again. But given the further consolidation of corporate power and two decades of stagnant wages, I’m not sure they’ll like how it turns out.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...RtE_print.html
“You see the problem: The “right” for workers to strike without undue coercion from the company is hard to square with the “right” of the company to protect itself from the consequences of production disruptions. Both “rights” seem to have ample support in the case law.
“The answer, I would suggest, is to be found not in the case law but in the clear and unambiguous words of the National Labor Relations Act and the history behind it. In a 1993 law review article, New York University law professor Cynthia Estlund wrote that in passing the act, Congress sought to restrain corporate power and tilt the economic playing field in favor of workers. The idea was to outlaw union-avoidance strategies that, while economically rational for any one firm, would be economically harmful for the nation as a whole if widely adopted.
“Today, we may find all that quaintly — or menacingly — socialistic, but it is still the law of the land, one that Lafe Solomon and his NLRB colleagues have a duty to enforce. If Boeing or the Chamber of Commerce or the South Carolina political establishment want to change or repeal the law, it is certainly within their rights to try. After 75 years, it would be a useful debate for the country to have again. But given the further consolidation of corporate power and two decades of stagnant wages, I’m not sure they’ll like how it turns out.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...RtE_print.html
Comment