On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:01:23 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Jan 25, 6:53Â*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:30:51 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:09Â*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically
union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they
don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't
necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but
there might not be.

Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states.

That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states.

Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg

The right to work states have the lowest cost of living.

Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed
down factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc.

South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here.

"CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line
for its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that
spurns the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been
negotiating with Boeing to locate the work at the current factory
near Seattle."

"It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a
commercial airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the
company with an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union
that has caused production headaches off and on for decades in
Seattle."

How are those unions working out for ya?

Fine, you are the one complaining about unions. Â*Oh, and the Boeing
story seems to make a lie out of what you posted up-thread.

"In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union
through coercion. Â*As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain the
wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The
company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and
will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. Â*It is
essentially held hostage until bled dry."

It would seem the company has a choice, doesn't it?

They had no choice but to vacate their home plant, in their home state,
and spend millions building another plant all the way across the country
just to get away from a union that "has caused production headaches off
and on for decades in Seattle." That's a legacy to be proud of for the
union.

Oh please, the nearly $1 billion in "incentives" South Carolina provided
had nothing to do with it? Some would call that bribery.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/191434.asp

Boeing will find that, unlike their west coast union employees, South
Carolina workers aren't whiny-ass bitches.

Maybe, but the Seattle workforce has a proven capability. South Carolina
still has to prove that capability. Good luck. I mean that, but it
remains to be seen if this was a smart move by Boeing.