Let's get real: The landmark deal reached between Boeing and its union machinists is a "win-win" for both parties. The editorial " The Boeing case: Clip the NLRB's wings " (Dec. 13 and TribLIVE.com) fails to recognize that this agreement, which ensures family-supporting pay for thousands of workers and settles the National Labor Relations Board's complaint against the company, is a testament to the need for collective bargaining in today's workplaces -- not the impetus for more attacks on the NLRB.
In fact, the settlement is proof that right-wing lawmakers' unprecedented interference with the agency for its investigation of the Boeing dispute wasn't just unethical, it was a complete waste of time. It's clear now that the war on the NLRB was about scoring political points and had nothing to do with creating jobs or reaching a timely, mutually beneficial resolution for Boeing and its workers.
So the next time right-wing politicians stir up controversy about the NLRB, no one should be fooled. These attacks won't help companies and their employees work together for a brighter future -- and they certainly won't create any jobs.
Kimberly Freeman Brown
The writer is executive director of American Rights at Work (americanrightsatwork.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Duty to disclose
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Oberdorf firing
- Good riddance