Thanks for pointing out, again, something that was under the radar – I hadn’t heard anything about this.
So, Airbus would do some small part of manufacturing in those lovely right-to-work states? Where you don’t have to worry about workers going on strike.
Geez. How weak are unions that these guys don’t even try to couch their language a little more subtly?

In doing so, Republican Govs. Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal and Bob Riley

Why do these people hate US workers so much that they’re willing to go to the French to find a way to break union workers?

Because St. Reagan told them that such hate is good.

Yeah, there was always a touch of irony to the fact that St Ronnie decided to bust one of the unions that had supported him in ’80.

Irony is always lost on Republics.

At least the Europeans have unions that will stand up for their workers and are willing to hit the streets to protect their interests. American unions, not so much. The U.S. has become a nation for only the rich, the well connected and the plutocracy and deals like these will benefit those rich elites. Until people in the U.S. are willing to get angry and hit the streets nothing will change.

Yeah — and no pesky health insurance benefits to take care of either, since those other countries cover all their citizens and residents. (end angry snark…)

Thank you, Tula.
This really needs more coverage. What these Governors are fighting for is truly despicable, more so since they’re trying to wrap it in The Flag.
Greed is good, unless you depend on EMPLOYMENT for your income. Then, wanting a fair shake is greedy and bad.
Feh.

FunnyWheelieDiva

What we really need is more jobs *outside* the military industrial complex.

Let’s say Boeing gets this contract. What happens when the Air Force is done buying new tankers? Do we keep buying planes we have no use for, ala the F-22? (Computer says: Yes…)

We spend a half trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon. It’s killing us as a nation, plain and simple.

how un-american of these republican governors. why do they want to send american money to europe instead of wanting to spend our american tax dollars in america? anyone who would have suggested this action in the administration that immediately proceeded this one would have immediately been labeled as treasonous.

As a European, maybe my views don’t count, but this article takes a very simplified and one-sided view of the many issues involved here.

Perhaps most important, by calling for a buy-American-only policy, you’re encouraging a trade war. Do you want the Europeans to stop buying American products too?

I understand what your saying here Rennie but let’s look at this from another side – If a European country was in the process of replacing some significant portion of their infrastructure (as an example), would the citizens of that country really be happy if a team led by a US based firm lobbied the political officials for their team (using provincial governors as surrogates)?

How about if it is to replace/repair some national monument?

There are a large number of what-ifs involved in this but yeah, I do think it would be in the best interests of the US Defense establishment to try to assure that jobs go first and foremost to US citizens first.

After all, economics and general employment considerations are a security issue, no matter how “inter-connected” the global economy may be.

As always, YMMV

The cost of health insurance in the US forces up the cost of such manufactured items. Boeing tankers would be more competitive if it didn’t have so much of the cost in health insurance for its workers. It might even cost less.

american and european unions should be looking after each others interests as well

thats what europeans always say, even though european nations like france, switzerland, germany and austria have a level of protectionist policies higher than the US. not always/only with US goods but higher nonetheless. its also what republicans and corporate serving dems in this country always say, so forgive me if i dont care about the threats of “trade wars”. BTW there are usually two primary outcomes to wars. i have to think that the culture that produced so many philosophers may think very hard before starting a “war” with the worlds largest economy, over a single contract.

If Haley Barbour’s for it, I’m against it.

While that applies to this Euro jobs-depressing contract, it’s also an excellent general rule. Saves lots of analysis, actually: if Haley sez yes, I say NO.

Thank you, Tula, for this excellent post.

Boeing just expanded/opened a new plant in South Carolina. How much of the Boeing tanker (should they win) do you think will be built by union members?

It’s worth noting that the principal union representing Boeing workers is the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM), one of the strongest and most militant unions in America today.

The IAM is not afraid to strike. They struck Boeing just last year, and regularly launch strikes against employers that won’t come to the table in a serious and timely way. They led a very courageous strike at a General Dynamics shipyard in Mississippi in 2006.

IAM is also fairly democratic, as far as most unions go. Last year they polled their members on which candidates were preferred in the election. The results were interesting: Huckabee was the preferred Republican and Hillary Clinton was the preferred Democrat.

Barbour said:

you don’t have to worry about [workers] being out on strike when America needs them.

America needs it’s union workers today — to spend and bring the economy back — but Barbour and other Republicans who hate unions don’t seem to realize that the low-paid non-union Southern workers simply don’t have the money to go out and spend now.

When America needs union workers to pull us out of a recession Haley Barbour is silent.

Does Haley Barbour hate America when we’re in a recession?

Now this is one of those nonsense questions, in the line of “when did you stop beating your wife?” Right?

Now this is how this thing works:

We need tankers to fuel the super gas guzzling planes en route to wherever.

The planes refueled are laden with missiles.

Now which fucking idiot does this make any sense to?

They carry missiles, they don’t need the fucking planes at all. What idiot thinks that buying tankers is a good idea? Seriously we need to have a contest on what is the stupidest thing the pentagon will buy with a straight face. You think $400 per gallon gasoline at the front lines in Afghanistan is outrageous? Try delivering it in a $400 million dollar airplane. That will save money, eh?

There is not one stinking aircraft building corporation in the whole damn world that ever made a true profit. THEY are ALL subsidized by the government. Boeing has never shown an unsubsidized profit. Give the damn plans to the Chinese and let them pour their money down a rat hole. Gee, maybe we could get them to think stupid and give them plans for planes that will deliver missiles to the point that the damn missile will fly. We could talk them into leasing the American plane plants and get double the whammy. They could pay for the planes and pay our workers to build them.

Nah, the Chinese aren’t that stupid, you really need a southern politician to push this crap.

I thought Reagan’s chief idiot at the pentagon was the champ when he poured 40 billion dollars into refurbishing 5 battleships. Ships that the Japanese proved indubitably in December 1941 were only good as anchors.

The nonsense that I saw on the Discovery (pentagon propaganda) channel said they made a solid base for cruise missiles.

Well, maybe, but dry land would probably be a lot more stable, right, you fucking moron money wasting assholes?

We don’t need airplanes, aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, and 350 luxury civilian airlines for every general and admiral in the US forces. We need a damn cheap missile that will hit what it is supposed to.

But first we need to decide what is a hit. Now the Bombing Survey after WWII considered any bomb landing within 1000 ft of the target a hit. Ignoring the fact that this would not even cause a locomotive to stop moving was not a problem. Within 1000 ft was a hit. In Vietnam, that overintelligent lying sack of shit, McNamara (who had been involved in the WWII bombing survey) redefined a hit within 2000 ft. By the Bush I’s Gulf War, the accuracy had reached 1000 meters. Sound impressive? It was meant to be, because the fancy dan airplanes were not hitting within 3300 feet of the target. In other words bombs got one hell of a lot less accurate while the cost of the planes and bombs went up 1000 to 100000 times. Plus the effectiveness actually dropped through the floor as the bomb failure rate (ie did not explode) got so high that the North Vietnamese shut down their munitions plants and simply recovered the explosives from american bombs. Look at the Arclight missions post attack photographs – bomb bomb bomb no bomb bomb no bomb bomb bomb no bomb.

Shut down the military, send every one home and give them full pay, allowances and benefits, and education and we could actually save 85 per cent of the military expenses.

When did Gates stop beating his wife?

The military waste complex sucks up something like 75 per cent of all professional blue collar workers. There can not be an engineering base reestablished in the US if one of our greatest assets, the skilled millwright, steel fabricator, tool and die maker, metallurgists and all of the other crucial parts of an industrial society are tied up in a program of total waste.

Northrop Grumman is competing against Boeing for the tanker contract. EADS would be a subcontractor to Northrop Grumman. Last time I checked, Northrop Grumman was an American company with most of its employees in the United States. Both contractors are citing similiar numbers of U.S. jobs. Northrop has plenty of union workers as well, and also has plenty of blue state employees. On the other hand, Boeing has outsourced plenty of American jobs already, and winning this contract isn’t going to stop that trend.

In fact, a Northrop Grumman win might mean additional jobs for America if European and other versions of the tanker are produced in the U.S. Of course, the last thing Boeing wants is to give a competitor a toe hold for large aircraft aircraft production in the U.S.

Honestly, the current KC-135 fleet is ancient and is in need of replacment soon. There is really very little disagreement about this. But of course, this is going to be a very tough decision and politics always enters the fray because ultimately congress has the power of the purse. Unfortunately, too many people (on all sides) are willing to demegogue the issues for political (or lets face it, financial) gains rather than acknowledge the many competing factors involved.