That one factory is the home factory close to where the designs are made and the other is so far away seems like a pretty important thing.
This seems like the kind of argument people who really love unions would make.
When the management pressure is for better quality, the union may interfere. Where management pressure is for lower quality, the union should interfere.
We see the harmful effect of unions where the police are in one.
When that starts, we may expect they will start by exploding mainly on test stands, instead of vehicles.
My intuition is that the latter would exceed the former, and that test stands aren’t a realistic environment for predicting their likelihood.
It is hard to imagine how you would determine, after the fact, whether a rocket blew up because of material failure or something else, but they seem to do it, anyway during development when they have a zillion sensors attached logging everything in real time: "hmm, a millisecond before the explosion, this reading went out of tolerance, and then this one, then this one, and then the data ends."
FWIW "right to work" is the normal terminology.
The latter is essentially a term of art, the former is not. Using the former is imprecise and confusing.
> Realistically, it's best described as "mutual right to terminate employment without cause" or just "right to terminate".
That is a completely different concept called at-will employment. RTW is about union shops (not to be confused with closed shops, which have been illegal in the US since Taft-Hartley)
It's better to just allow people to name their own movement, otherwise, you end up endlessly fighting about names (i.e. are people 'pro-life' or 'anti-choice' and 'pro-murder'/'anti-life' and 'pro-choice').
Right to work laws do not in any way provide a right to work.
Especially since RTW legislation is not about closed shops (which are illegal at the federal level), so these were jobs you could always get.
What?
Goes to show... something, I guess.