Okay, I am going to just wade right into a controversy here. What's the fun if all of my dear readers just agree with me most of the time? Tell me if you think I am wrong about the following.

I was pretty well disgusted with the treatment of Boeing by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a major recent case that I have been following for some time. This short article in the Economist very nicely sums it all up. Some union members may disagree with the slant in the Economist article, but I believe it is spot on.

Boeing was busted by the NLRB for "retaliation" against unions in Washington State as a result of Boeing opening a new plant in South Carolina. NRLB wanted Boeing to "relocate" the plant back to Washington, from South Carolina. The case was probably ultimately headed to the Supreme Court but it would have taken years. Instead, Boeing bowed to the strong arm tactics of the union, granting concessions to the folks in Washington State...and in exchange, the NLRB dropped its case on the South Carolina plant.

The giant problem with all this is what the article points out in the end. Next time a company in the US finds itself in a similar situation, it will be even more likely to simply build its new plant in another country, where the NLRB can't stick their crummy fingers in the eye of the company.

I believe that unions had a place in the US, but I think that time is passed. If you read The Grapes of Wrath and say that unions weren't necessary at that time, you have ice water circulating in your body instead of blood. (i.e., fruit pickers desperately under-bidding each other as their families went hungry..."I'll pick a box of apples for a nickel"..."I'll pick that box of apples for a penny.") And my maternal grandfather was a union organizer in Philly in the 1950's; I was raised to never, ever cross a picket line.

But now you have unions demanding higher wages for grocery baggers who are getting $22 per hour plus health benefits. You have unions demanding higher wages for prison guards who are making $180K per year. You have unions, more generally, that are comprised of public employees who make giant contributions to the politicians who are sitting across the table from the the very same unions in negotiations. On what planet does that make sense?

Some say that unions are simply like the big banks in terms of exerting political influence. True of course, and maybe the banks are even worse (remember, I am a "too big to fail is too big to exist" guy). But also remember what mom said: two wrongs don't make a right. When unions do what they did to Boeing, they are simply hitting the gas pedal as our country careens towards the cliff.