Minnesota Law Review

Boeing, the IAM, and the NLRB: Why U.S. Labor Law Is Failing

In April 2011, the National Labor Relations Board’s Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, issued a complaint against The Boeing Company. The complaint alleged that Boeing violated the National Labor Relations Act by shifting assembly work on its 787 Dreamliner from Everett, Washington, to North Charleston, South Carolina. According to the complaint, the company decided to shift work from Everett to North Charleston to retaliate against workers in Everett for past strikes—activity protected by the NLRA.

The NLRB has been under constant attack ever since. Many of the Board’s critics have claimed to discern a conspiracy with “big labor” to further the political fortunes of President Obama. Others accused the agency of having an anti-business, job-endangering agenda. Joe Nocera, writing in the New York Times, stated, “Seriously, when has a government agency ever tried to dictate where a company makes its products? I can’t ever remember it happening. . . . I’ve become mildly obsessed with the Boeing affair. Nothing matters more right now than job creation.”

In this article, I will show that the National Labor Relations Board has done nothing to warrant the torrent of criticism. The General Counsel’s action was consistent with the language of the NLRA and supported by precedent. It posed
no serious threat to Boeing’s well-being, or even to its decision to assemble 787 Dreamliners in South Carolina. Properly understood, the clamor over Boeing’s right to make corporate business decisions demonstrates the weakness of the NLRB and not its rampant power. Indeed, the entire campaign against the Board appears to be part of a political effort aimed at organized labor and the last remnants of the New Deal legislation that created the NLRB. What is now needed is an effort to recreate the NLRB into the agency it was intended to be.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]