Pelosi says boeing plant should close if it won't unionize.

[powderman]

Pelosi: S. Carolina Boeing Plant Should Be Closed if It Doesn’t Unionize   
Watch

Pelosi: S. Carolina Boeing Plant Should Be Closed if It Doesn’t Unionize

Business

[gypsyman]

That doesn't surprise me. The Dems need that union money!gypsyman

[Shu]

Why is Pelosi even commenting on how a privately owned buisness is ran. It is not the governments buisness to tell them how to do the job. The Federal Aquisition Regulations strictly forbid government officials from directing how private companies conduct buisness.
 
Need big brother in your pocket?

[mdwest]

lets see...
 
a California politician, who's state is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy... where the state budget is runnining in a multi-billion dollar deficit.. ($19B estimated gap between revenues and spending projected in FY 2011-2012)...
 
telling the State of South Carolina, who's biggest fiscal problem in 2011 was trying to decide how to spend the $210M surplus it had left on the books after paying all of its bills last year... how to run their state..
 
yup.. makes perfect sense to me... 
 
 

[OldSchoolRanger]

Doesn't the Pelosi family own a few companies?

IIRC none of the companies have a union shop.

[BUGEYE]

Doesn't the Pelosi family own a few companies?

IIRC none of the companies have a union shop.

and some of them are offshore.

[NWBear]

IMO People should be allowed to form Unions, and Companies should be allowed to hire whoever they want.  Let each side decide for themselves.

[mdwest]

If they want governmnet contracts doesn't a certain % of labor have to be unionized....?
 
..TM7

nope...
 
the government has a target number of dollars that it wants to spend each year on "set asides".. there is no law that says the individual departments has to meet these set aside goals though (although it is very highly encouraged, and you might find yourself answering some tough questions from your superiors if you dont get close)..
 
set asides are typically for small and/or disadvantaged businesses however..
 
common set asides are 8(a) (disadvantaged minority owned), woman owned, SDVOSB (service disabled veteran owned small business), HubZone, etc.
 
If a government contract is a "set aside" opportunity for a particular group, that means the "big boys" (like Boeing) arent allowed to compete for the contract as a prime.
 
With larger set asides what normally happens is the "big" companies seek out a smaller business that has the correct certification, and "backs" them (the "small" business gets 51% of the work, and the "big" business gets 49%).
 
With smaller set asides, unless the opportunity is strategic to the "big", they typically just let the small businesses fight it out for the contract..
 
with huge contracts, (hundreds of millions of dollars) there is sometimes a requirement that the "big" company partners with, and subcontracts a certain percentage of the overall work to a small or a disadvantaged business (the government knows a company that does $20M a year in revenue cannot compete with a Northrop Grumman or a Rayethon that does billions of dollars in work each year, so they force the "bigs" to peel off a piece of the work to the small companies).
 
and the mega contracting firms are normally required to sub contract a percentage of their overall portfolio to small/disadvantaged companies as well in order to be eligible to bid on certain contracts..
 
but there is no requirement within the FAR (the Federal Acquisitions Regulations) that companies that want to do business with the government be required to use union labor in any capacity.
 
In certain industries (aviation is one of them) its just very hard to avoid (the unions are entrenched)...
 
 

[SwampThing762]

Just another fed who wants to socialize the economy through unionization.  you know, "worker solidarity?  Oops, that 's a SOCIALIST SLOGAN!!

ST762

[briarpatch]

I'm behind the times. I did not think Boeing had a company in SC. I thought the clown stopped it.

[ironglow]

Doesn't the Pelosi family own a few companies?

IIRC none of the companies have a union shop.

and some of them are offshore.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
  And a "special provision" says they don't even have to pay minimum wage...
  Here; evenm though Snopes tries valiantly to "spin" the info, when they get right down to it..the fact is , Pelosi and he cohorts in congress got a minimum wage exemption for Starkist (Delmonte, of San Francisco)... and the Pelosis have much  in Starkist stock...along with the headquarters of Delmonte being in her district.
 
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/americansamoa.asp
 
  Then there's this;
 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pFC3LKMIQo

[magooch]

Nancy Pilosi is an incompetent fool--oh wait, that is a given; she's a Dumycrat.

[ironglow]

  She really should try to keep her head out of that 'stinky place'.    

[DDZ]

I kind of like it when people like Pelosi say stupid things. It really lets their ignorance shine brightly. 

[mdwest]

that happens in some industries, on some contracts.. but not always, and not in all industries/fields..
 
I have seen RFP's (requests for proposals) where the government establishes baseline wages for certain positions.. but most of those that I have seen have been in highly technical fields, areas where advanced degrees/educations are required, etc.. where the government is worried about high quality control or a very high end/technical product being produced..
 
In the field that I work, those types of wage clauses are pretty rare..
 
In scientific fields, they are much more common..
 
Up until a couple of years ago, the majority of contract opportunities I saw coming out from the government were "best value" opportunities.. a simplistic way to explain a "BV" contract is the government is open to giving the work to a company that might be more expensive than the other companies that propose solutions, but they have to prove that the government is going to get more value for the end product..
 
in other words.. If you bid $1M to produce something or provide a service to the the government.. and I bid $1.1M (10% higher), but I can convince the government they are going to get 15% more product or a 15% "better" product in my bid (I am going to bring in higher waged employees which will be more motivated and skilled and our productivity is going to be higher.. or Im going to give better benefits.. or Im going to use higher quality materials than the RFP requires.. etc..etc..). then the government reserves the right to select the higher cost solution since they believe they are going to get an overall better "deal" out of it..
 
These days more and more BV contracts are going away.. and more and more LPTA (Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable) opportunities are being seen..
 
In a nutshell.. the government cant afford to spend the extra money to get the extra benefits.. what they want to see now is vendors that produce solutions that meet their requirements, and do it at the absolute lowest price possible..
 
as long as you meet all the requirements of the RFP, they could care less about anything "extra".. just give them the cheapest price..
 
if you bid $1M and meet their requirements.. and I bid $1.1M but can provide them $2M in value.. they dont care.. you win.. you were the cheapest option..
 
Sooooo...
 
companies that provide services and products to the government are cutting wages and benefits dramatically (this is the only way they can continue to win work with the government and continue to provide jobs).. they are looking for lower cost of living locations to open manufacturing facilities (like Boeing has done in SC) where they can remain competitive.. they are avoiding unions, so that they can remain competitive, etc..
 
5 years ago I am reasonably certain Boeing would have told you that the union is a pain in their backside.. but it really wasnt a big concern.. everyone in their industry deals with the same pain.. its a level playing field.. and they could compete by presenting to the government that while their product is more expensive, they are providing better value than what "XYZ corporation" is offering since they dont do business the same way they boeing does..
 
these days, if Boeing wants to continue to be competitive in the government arena.. they have to cut costs.. the government is no longer considering "best value" on most of its opportunities.. they want "lowest price" as their highest priority.. the fastest and easiest way to do that, is to cut labor costs (which often means moving from high cost of living areas which also happen to be where the unions are more prevalent (east and west coast) to low cost of living areas (south east, south west, mid west, etc.. )..
 
if the government wants to go back to offering true "BV" opportunities.. companies like boeing will have less reason to go through the butt pain of having to pack up their belongings and move across the country..
 
but the government wants its cake and the ability to eat it too here..
 
one division (the purchasers of the products) wants the cheapest price.. and doesnt care how you become the cheapest..
 
and another division (the regulators) want you to pay more, force unions upon you, etc.. and doesnt care if you can actually provide the cheapest product to the customer (another division of the same government) or not..
 
 

[ironglow]

  From TM;
  OKay,,,that's interesting.  On the big mega contracts are the big guys mandated to pay a prevailing or 'union wage'?...
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
  TM;
   I know what you're saying, but I believes that is only a rule here in the PRNY (People's Republik of New York) .

[Pat/Rick]

The workers party must be unionized kommerad.  Lotta communista.
 
More union members = more DNC contribution $$

[ironglow]

  Somehow I find it ironic, to see someone who lives in the city of mass perversions and caters to the people who practice these perversions...being horrified to that Boeing would be so criminal as to employ non-union workers..