Boeing news:

►  In the PS Business Journal -- Boeing squeezed for space in Renton, Everett -- Locally, the most pressing issue in Boeing's protracted decision about a 737 successor isn't what materials or engines Boeing will use, but "will they build it here?" The answer to that question may depend on how much space Boeing has available at its two aircraft assembly sites, in Everett and Renton. If Boeing doesn’t have room to build a new aircraft in either location, the company may have to look for a site elsewhere in Washington, such as the Moses Lake or Spokane areas, or outside the state entirely.

►  In the PS Business Journal -- Boeing-NLRB fight could lead to permanence for 2nd 787 line in Everett (Steve Wilhelm column) -- Relative permanence for a 2nd Everett line could help cool the heat from the NLRB, and also help Boeing cool customers grumpy about delays.

►  In the NY Times -- NLRB case against Boeing points to fights to come -- NLRB's acting general counsel Lafe Solomon said this case was straightforward: Boeing had retaliated against workers for exercising their federally protected right to strike. "They had a consistent message that they were doing this to punish their employees for having struck and having the power to strike in the future," he said. "I can't not issue a complaint in the face of such evidence." He dismissed accusations that he was following Obama's wishes in bringing the Boeing case, saying he had had no conversations with the White House about it.  

►  In the News Tribune -- A complaint too far against Boeing's S.C. plant (Kathleen Parker column) -- The key question in the NLRB complaint against Boeing isn't whether executives are trying to avoid strikes and maximize productivity and profits. Of course they are. The more compelling concern is whether unions should be allowed essentially to veto where a company locates and conducts business.

►  In the Seattle Times -- Boeing's S.C. 787 assembly line disappointing but not unfair -- The NLRB has labeled Boeing's decision an unfair labor practice, and is asking a federal court to order the line to be moved here. We would celebrate the day Boeing decided to do that -- but it is Boeing's decision.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Much of the coverage of this issue is missing the point. Clearly, unions don't have the power to veto corporate production decisions. What's illegal is to threaten employees and retaliate against them with the loss of their jobs because they exercised their right to strike. The NLRB has found that Boeing has repeatedly and publicly done just that. If Boeing had simply said, "We are opening this line in South Carolina because we can pay workers less there and we don't think it will harm the quality of our product," that would not only be refreshingly candid, it would be totally legal. But instead, the company has repeatedly citied past strikes and the threat of future ones as its reason for making the decision. The NLRB believes that is clearly retaliation and it is illegal.

Health care news:

►  From AP -- Supreme Court rejects fast-track review of health care challenge -- The Supreme Court rejected a call Monday from Virginia's attorney general to depart from its usual practice and put review of the health care law on a fast track. Instead, judicial review of President Barack Obama's signature legislation will continue in federal appeals courts.

►  At Huffington Post -- Health insurance executives making more than ever before (column by former health industry executive Wendell Potter) -- If I had stayed in the insurance industry, my net worth would have spiked between 4 p.m. Wednesday and 4 p.m. Thursday last week -- and I wouldn't even have had to show up for work. I'm betting that just about every executive of a for-profit health insurance company, whose total compensation ultimately depends on the value of their stock options, woke up on Good Friday considerably wealthier than they were 24 hours earlier. Why? Because of the spectacular profits that one of those companies reported Thursday morning.