Seeing a Boeing Shakedown Where There is None

Ted Van Dyk wrote yesterday in Crosscut about Boeing's pending decision regarding the location of the second 787 production line. It appears the column was triggered by an editorial board visit to the online publication by House speaker Frank Chopp. After a review of recent history - headquarters move to Chicago, competition for original 787 work in 2003, incentive package that landed the production in Washington - he gets grouchy. Taking on the company's reported desire for a no-strike clause, Van Dyke writes:

In the meantime, Boeing is again talking about the need for fresh public subsidies to keep it "competitive." This appears to be a four-stage operation: First, deunionize South Carolina. Second, blackmail local Machinists. Third, extort fresh multibillion-dollar subsidies from Washington state taxpayers. Fourth, take the money and jobs and run.

A couple of thoughts. If the South Carolinians want to decertify the union, that's their right. Reports are that most workers there don't believe they've been well served. The fresh public subsidies, as the link above shows, are entirely speculative at this point. If by subsidies, he means tax incentives, that's money the state would only receive if there were additional investment here. The company can't "take the money and jobs and run" because the incentives only apply if there's investment and job creation here. Of course, since we don't know what's on the table, there's not much point speculating.

Van Dyk misses entirely the distinction between incentives and subsides, setting up an adversarial conflict that contributes nothing positive to the state business climate.

More on this at Boeing Works Here.

One huge thing that Van Dyk neglects to mention is the very real impact that Boeing’s departure would have on Washington. The company is our largest private employer and the biggest engine for our state’s economy.

And, for them, location is a choice.