76 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
76 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Sore Loser?

by Kay King
61 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
The UAW was convinced it could represented workers in Tennessee at the Volkswagen plant. VW didn't oppose it and it should have been a shoo-in...right?

Workers voted against unionizing. That should be the end for now...right? Nope - the union this week is claiming the vote was poisoned by comments made.

I find this laughable when you consider the lobbying done by unions in DC and unions that hire workers to stand in picket lines at fast food restaurants.

Apparently everything is fair....unless workers vote "no" to the unionization.

It brings up a problem in US law - apparently in order to create a "works council" a company must be in a union. Why ? Maybe it's time to change that so progressive employers can work directly with their employees on expansion and benefits and pay structure....without a union as a middleman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/bu...r-vw-vote.html
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Poisoned by WHAT comments? The UNION? Obama? The UNION guy that called at LEAST one employee?

    One employee LAUDED the product, said they won TEN AWARDS, and said going with the union would cost him $3/hour! He said he did NOT want to strike, and he likes his employer.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8963069].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    As for the work council? A lot of that stuff COULD be merely standardized. Like ok, in germany it is X days which is y% of the industry. In the US, it could be X or y%, whichever is smaller, unless y is <100, in which case they can take the larger. Same with hours. They probably ALREADY have decent standards for firing.

    But how could a union stop people from meeting for this anyway? To a degree, people have been doing this for millenia, and that is BEFORE guilds or unions.

    And HOW could you dare to call a union a union if the workers vote against it? In courts, legally, if an entity like the union were to bring this to court, a judge or lawyer is to basically say "*****GET LOST*****! *******YOU DON'T HAVE STANDING*******!"

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8963095].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    So much for "no politics".
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8963112].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Some factories are just employee oriented. They know that if the employees are taken care of, they will have pride in what they do and produce an outstanding product.
      Years ago I worked for Troy-Bilt painting roto-tillers and they where like that. The new Indian Motorcycle factory is like that from what I have heard.
      In those places unions don't stand a chance.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8963340].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Some factories are just employee oriented. They know that if the employees are taken care of, they will have pride in what they do and produce an outstanding product.
        Years ago I worked for Troy-Bilt painting roto-tillers and they where like that. The new Indian Motorcycle factory is like that from what I have heard.
        In those places unions don't stand a chance.
        If companies learn to act in the benefit of their employees, unions are unnecessary. It's because of employers that turn employees into indentured servants or livestock that unions are even a thought. Look at Winco and their pay - benefits, and investment. Their employees are living well and love their company. If you said "union" to those people, what you'd get is the RCA dog head tilt. They wouldn't understand why on earth that anyone would bring it up to them.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8963389].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          What struck me was the response of the unions after they were turned down. They are assigning blame, arguing workers don't know what they are doing.

          This shows me how far unions have come from their original intent of representing workers and protecting workers rights and pay....to being powerful entities on their own.

          The purpose of having a vote is to let the workers decide - they decided. The union wants a do-over vote - I think if that happens the vote will be heavier against the union. Workers don't like to be told they're too dumb to get it right.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8963431].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            What struck me was the response of the unions after they were turned down. They are assigning blame, arguing workers don't know what they are doing.

            This shows me how far unions have come from their original intent of representing workers and protecting workers rights and pay....to being powerful entities on their own.

            The purpose of having a vote is to let the workers decide - they decided. The union wants a do-over vote - I think if that happens the vote will be heavier against the union. Workers don't like to be told they're too dumb to get it right.
            Here's the rest of the story...VW and the UAW agreed that neither would use a negative campaign against the other, a classy move by both IMO.

            However, three politicians from TN, including the Gov and a US senator decided to get involved and campaigned against the union, using all sorts of negative comments and tactics. Things like strongly implying that the UAW was responsible for Detroit, while failing to mention the the UAW and other foreign automakers have plants throughout the US and South and that those areas are doing well.

            How about the politicians staying out of the vote and not letting their political bias/lobbies get involved, especially when both sides agreed to no negative campaigning? VW or the UAW didn't use a negative campaign, why did the politicians have to?

            Let the workers decide without the politician's BS.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968220].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Here's the rest of the story...VW and the UAW agreed that neither would use a negative campaign against the other, a classy move by both IMO.

              However, three politicians from TN, including the Gov and a US senator decided to get involved and campaigned against the union, using all sorts of negative comments and tactics. Things like strongly implying that the UAW was responsible for Detroit, while failing to mention the the UAW and other foreign automakers have plants throughout the US and South and that those areas are doing well.

              How about the politicians staying out of the vote and not letting their political bias/lobbies get involved, especially when both sides agreed to no negative campaigning? VW or the UAW didn't use a negative campaign, why did the politicians have to?

              Let the workers decide without the politician's BS.

              I find it hard to believe those carrot and stick statements by elected officials could swing just 86 votes out of almost 1400 cast.

              It just isn't possible.
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968305].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Here's the rest of the story...VW and the UAW agreed that neither would use a negative campaign against the other, a classy move by both IMO.

              However, three politicians from TN, including the Gov and a US senator decided to get involved and campaigned against the union, using all sorts of negative comments and tactics.
              Maybe VW agreed to that because they knew the politicians would paint the negative picture for them. How could VW come out against unionization without being negative?
              Signature

              Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968389].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                Maybe VW agreed to that because they knew the politicians would paint the negative picture for them. How could VW come out against unionization without being negative?
                By stating the positives of being non-union? Or maybe VW was neutral about the UAW?

                But if VW was counting on the politicians being negative, I'd say that was dishonest.
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968419].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                  Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                  Or maybe VW was neutral about the UAW?
                  Maybe, maybe not. I put the idea of knowing the pols would paint the negative side for them out there for discussion because nothing was coming to me when I wondered how they could sell non-unionization without being negative against unionization. I hadn't considered they might be neutral because it seems unlikely they would be.
                  Signature

                  Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968461].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                    Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                    Maybe, maybe not. I put the idea of knowing the pols would paint the negative side for them out there for discussion because nothing was coming to me when I wondered how they could sell non-unionization without being negative against unionization. I hadn't considered they might be neutral because it seems unlikely they would be.
                    You would need to ask VW. I simply gave a couple of possibilities. It could be one or the other, reasons we haven't brought up, none of the above, all of the above, or a combo.

                    But as I said above, if VW agreed with the UAW not to have a negative campaign knowing that the policiticans would go negative is dishonest.
                    Signature
                    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968487].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    There are lots of sore losers to go around - some a lot more harmful to the nation than others.

    One big misunderstanding that a lot of people have on this issue is that workers at the plant will be forced to join the union and forced to pay union dues - if the union vote passed.

    That is not true.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967083].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      There are lots of sore losers to go around - some a lot more harmful to the nation than others.

      One big misunderstanding that a lot of people have on this issue is that workers at the plant will be forced to join the union and forced to pay union dues - if the union vote passed.

      That is not true      .
      I grew up in Union Country - and that's the way they work. Can you tell me why you think that is not true?
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967521].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        I grew up in Union Country - and that's the way they work. Can you tell me why you think that is not true?

        Your answer is here from...





        Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

        "Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees."


        Or...


        "If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on certain federal property, you not only have the right to refrain...

        ... from becoming a union member, ...

        ...you cannot be required to pay dues or an agency fee to the union unless you choose to join the union.

        Employees who work on federal property may or may not be protected by their state's Right to Work law, depending on specific circumstances."


        Hope this helps!

        More info here...

        Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967693].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Your answer is here from...




          "If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on certain federal property, you not only have the right to refrain...

          ... from becoming a union member, ...

          ...you cannot be required to pay dues or an agency fee to the union unless you choose to join the union.

          Employees who work on federal property may or may not be protected by their state's Right to Work law, depending on specific circumstances."


          Hope this helps!

          More info here...

          Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

          Yep, and union members make it so easy for non-memebers. There's no intimidation, veiled threats or anything.
          Signature

          Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967707].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

            Yep, and union members make it so easy for non-members. There's no intimidation, veiled threats or anything.
            And vice versa - especially down south.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967713].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Your answer is here from...





          Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

          "Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees."


          Or...


          "If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on certain federal property          , you not only have the right to refrain...

          ... from becoming a union member, ...

          ...you cannot be required to pay dues or an agency fee to the union unless you choose to join the union.
          ****ACTUALLY, this is improperly worded to confuse! The CORRECT syntax would be UNLESS YOU JOIN A UNION!!!!!! MANY join unions WITHOUT choosing to do so! THAT is why it is called a "RIGHT TO WORK STATE". You have a RIGHT TO WORK WITHOUT joining a union!****

          Employees who work on federal property may or may not be protected by their state's Right to Work law, depending on specific circumstances."
          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967735].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Your answer is here from...





          Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

          "Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees."


          Or...


          "If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on certain federal property, you not only have the right to refrain...

          ... from becoming a union member, ...

          ...you cannot be required to pay dues or an agency fee to the union unless you choose to join the union.

          Employees who work on federal property may or may not be protected by their state's Right to Work law, depending on specific circumstances."


          Hope this helps!

          More info here...

          Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
          Yeah, thanks it did. Like I said - that's not how the unions were working in MI when I was there. If you worked for GM, you were either a manager or you were in the union. There was no discussion or exemption. I know in right to work states, they do everything they can to keep unions out completely, but I've never seen those that you can't opt out of here in the right to work states. This answers the question pretty well.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8969498].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      There are lots of sore losers to go around - some a lot more harmful to the nation than others.

      One big misunderstanding that a lot of people have on this issue is that workers at the plant will be forced to join the union and forced to pay union dues - if the union vote passed.

      That is not true.
      Then *****WHY***** do all have to vote? *****WHY***** does the union care? *****WHY***** do they speak of "right to work states"? *****WHY***** did my FATHER have to join a union? *****WHY***** did the likes of RUSH have to join a union? *****WHY***** do unions call "non followers" in a strike SCABS? *****WHAT***** does a union do with non union workers in negotiations? *****WHY***** do they call a union shop a union shop?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967716].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Then *****WHY***** do all have to vote? *****WHY***** does the union care? *****WHY***** do they speak of "right to work states"? *****WHY***** did my FATHER have to join a union? *****WHY***** did the likes of RUSH have to join a union? *****WHY***** do unions call "non followers" in a strike SCABS? *****WHAT***** does a union do with non union workers in negotiations? *****WHY***** do they call a union shop a union shop?

        Steve
        I think a lot of related laws have changed since the mid 1980s.

        There's info here...

        http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967720].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          I think a lot of related laws have changed since the mid 1980s.

          There's info here...

          Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
          OK, SYMANTICS!

          Question: If I work in a Right to Work state, can I resign my union membership and cut off any further dues collections from my salary?

          Answer: If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on federal property or for a railway or airline, you have a right to resign from union membership and not pay union dues or fees.

          Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

          Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

          How can I resign my union membership?
          [En español]
          In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.

          Of course, the decision to resign is wholly yours. If the contract between your employer and the union contains no provision requiring you to join the union or pay union fees, after resigning you would have no obligations whatsoever to the union. If the contract does contain such a provision, as a nonmember you would have the right to limit your union fees to your share of the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment, and you also would not be subject to union rules and discipline. For example, nonmembers are not subject to union rules against working during a strike. If you are a union member, and you work during a strike, the union could potentially fine you and collect that fine in state court.[

          Question: How do I cut off the use of my dues for politics and other nonbargaining activities?

          [NOTE: You must be a non-member to avail yourself of the rights discussed on this page. If you are currently a member of the union, you must first become a non-member and then object in order to receive your dues rebate or reduction. To learn how to become a non-member, click here.]

          Answer: If you work in a Right to Work state, with very few exceptions, you not only have the right to refrain from becoming a union member, you cannot be required to pay dues or an agency fee to the union unless you choose to join the union. Employees who work on federal property and sailors may not be protected by their state's Right to Work law, depending on specific circumstances.

          What if I have religious objections to joining or financially supporting a union?
          In non-Right to Work states, sincere religious objectors may have the right to redirect the entire union fee from the union to a nonunion, nonreligious charity.

          What if I am a victim of union violence?
          [En español]
          If you or someone in your family has been a victim of union violence within the past three years, we urge you to call the Foundation toll-free at 1-800-336-3600 and ask to speak with an attorney or contact the Foundation by email or click here to fill out a legal aid request form.

          Question: What if I want to work during a strike?

          Answer: If you want to work during a strike you must be certain that you are not a union member if you wish to avoid union discipline.

          Many courts have held that unions have the power to discipline their members. This discipline can include imposing a significant fine upon and then suing you to enforce the payment of the fine. If you wish to avoid consequences like that, you cannot remain a member of the union and cross the picket line.
          It says that you do not have to be considered part of a union, but may be imposed to all the negative aspects of it. WOW, SUCH A DEAL! You can't work during a strike(because you will be hated, possibly threatened and herassed or worse). You may not get any benefits, but you still have to pay everything! AGAIN, this clouds the issue ANYWAY because we are referring to a site that affects only parts of some states, since it is about right to work states.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967766].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            One big misunderstanding that a lot of people have on this issue is that workers at the plant will be forced to join the union and forced to pay union dues - if the union vote passed.
            So - your argument is that workers are too misinformed to vote properly? What is wrong with having a job where the benefits/salary/treatment are fair and you don't want or need union organizers to speak for you? Wasn't that the goal of unions to begin with?

            It's a huge blow for the UAW - the company owners were for unionizing (German attitude), the union reps were given access to workers at the plant while anti-union groups were denied access. The way was paved for the UAW - but the workers didn't want it. Had the union not spent 2 years and had a lot of help they wouldn't have had as many votes as they did.

            Southern states welcomed the new auto plants and workers are happy with those jobs. They look north where UAW was in charge for two generations and they see Detroit and Flint and Gary....and they aren't impressed.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
            what it is instead of what you think it should be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967959].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              So - your argument is that workers are too misinformed to vote properly?

              What is wrong with having a job where the benefits/salary/treatment are fair and you don't want or need union organizers to speak for you? Wasn't that the goal of unions to begin with?

              It's a huge blow for the UAW - the company owners were for unionizing (German attitude), the union reps were given access to workers at the plant while anti-union groups were denied access. The way was paved for the UAW - but the workers didn't want it. Had the union not spent 2 years and had a lot of help they wouldn't have had as many votes as they did.

              Southern states welcomed the new auto plants and workers are happy with those jobs. They look north where UAW was in charge for two generations and they see Detroit and Flint and Gary....and they aren't impressed.

              I'm sure the plant workers got plenty of info to make an informed choice.

              My thoughts were that most people in general are misinformed about the necessity of joining and paying union dues.

              Sal thought so and so did Seasoned. I wouldn't be surprised if you were of like mind also.

              It is a huge blow for the UAW.

              The stakes were high, so high a U.S. Senator decided to opt into the frey and made statements quickly contradicted by VW. and Tennessee state senators made a few remarks threatening bad things to happen if the union vote passed.

              You're right, I also don't see the need for a union if folks are treated properly.
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968017].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                I agree about the senator - but this wasn't news to anyone in TN. VW had announced plans to add a new product line - and the choice of location is between TN and Mexico.

                Only the media thought the Senator was saying anything new or noteworthy. He wasn't the only political leader to express his view - and I think they should all stay out of it. But - the UAW chose to be a political organization and that's a problem for them now.
                Signature
                Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                ***
                One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968295].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  I agree about the senator - but this wasn't news to anyone in TN. VW had announced plans to add a new product line - and the choice of location is between TN and Mexico.

                  Only the media thought the Senator was saying anything new or noteworthy. He wasn't the only political leader to express his view - and I think they should all stay out of it. But - the UAW chose to be a political organization and that's a problem for them now.
                  So you agree this is a political thread.

                  And, it wasn't just the senator, it was also the gov, and they went negative when the UAW pledged it wouldn't. Not only shouldn't the politicians have gotten involved, if they did they should have respected the "no negative" BS agreement that VW and the UAW were bound by.
                  Signature
                  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968373].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      One big misunderstanding that a lot of people have on this issue is that workers at the plant will be forced to join the union and forced to pay union dues - if the union vote passed.

      That is not true.
      I saw how that worked out at one place. Non-union members got the worsts jobs, the worst hours, the worst everything. What was a 2-man union job turned into a 1-man non-union job. Then there's the intimidation, ostracization, threats, and things like dents and scratches appearing in your car out of nowhere.

      The unions play very dirty against those who refuse to join them.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968232].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        "In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as 'right to work.' It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
        Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone...Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote." --Martin Luther King, speaking about right-to-work laws in 1961

        "The labor movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress. Out of its bold struggles, economic and social reform gave birth to unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, government relief for the destitute and, above all, new wage levels that meant not mere survival but a tolerable life. The captains of industry did not lead this transformation; they resisted it until they were overcome. When in the thirties the wave of union organization crested over the nation, it carried to secure shores not only itself but the whole society."
        --MLK Speech to the state convention of the Illinois AFL-CIO, Oct. 7, 1965
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968255].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    I worked for a company in the 1990's.
    A union tried to come in. At the bottom line,
    it seemed to be about getting dues which would
    have lowered our take home pay. Benefits and raises
    would not have happened for a long time - the company
    eventually went under anyway.

    After some conversations, I realized that some of the
    spokespeople for the union were not happy union
    workers from other companies as they tried to
    portray themselves. They were college educated
    and hired by this union to be influencers.

    This particular union also picketed the parent companies
    and our customers, while they were trying to unionize
    my company. We lost a lot of business and I thought
    what a bizaare thing to do to a company you want unionized.

    Another strange thing during unionization efforts, is that
    due to the Federal laws and regs, the unions can do or say just
    about anything and the company essentially has to remain passive.
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8967864].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I just heard Bob Beckle being interviewed. HE said it was racism and the h word, though he openly admitted that VW was for it! I don't even see how this COULD be considered a racist issue!

    BTW I just checked Tennessee has almost 40% more blacks than the national average (17% versus 13.1%). They are probably likewise presented in the workers. But there is no fear of workers from the north coming in.

    Well, it looks like the union has some strong support. Apparently, it is illegal to have your own union, so the VW workers can't unionize, or have any such attributes, without being under the UAW. The head of VW labor apparently REALLY wants a board that has union attributes, so he is saying that if they don't get that, he will stop VW from doing anything in the southern US. VW workers may block southern U.S. deals if no unions: labor chief | Reuters

    It WOULD be IRONIC! Frankly, if I were them, I wouldn't want to be a part of this in the US JUST because of the likes of BECKEL. I once read a piece in Jugendscala(A german culture magazine for kids worldwide). One article was one a young german girl wrote of her travels to france. She was not treated kindly at all. She ended saying that she didn't know if it was due to HER, or her nationality. People like beckel seem dead set to make even the youngest and most innocent appear to be devils that always think of doing harm. That girl was born about 30+ years AFTER the end of WWII!

    Good going. (sarc)

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968029].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      I just heard Bob Beckle being interviewed. HE said it was racism and the h word, though he openly admitted that VW was for it! I don't even see how this COULD be considered a racist issue!

      BTW I just checked Tennessee has almost 40% more blacks than the national average (17% versus 13.1%). They are probably likewise presented in the workers. But there is no fear of workers from the north coming in.

      Well, it looks like the union has some strong support. Apparently, it is illegal to have your own union, so the VW workers can't unionize, or have any such attributes, without being under the UAW. The head of VW labor apparently REALLY wants a board that has union attributes, so he is saying that if they don't get that, he will stop VW from doing anything in the southern US. VW workers may block southern U.S. deals if no unions: labor chief | Reuters


      It WOULD be IRONIC! Frankly, if I were them, I wouldn't want to be a part of this in the US JUST because of the likes of BECKEL. I once read a piece in Jugendscala(A german culture magazine for kids worldwide). One article was one a young german girl wrote of her travels to france. She was not treated kindly at all. She ended saying that she didn't know if it was due to HER, or her nationality. People like beckel seem dead set to make even the youngest and most innocent appear to be devils that always think of doing harm. That girl was born about 30+ years AFTER the end of WWII!

      Good going. (sarc)

      Steve
      You said...

      I just heard Bob Beckle being interviewed. HE said it was racism and the h word, though he openly admitted that VW was for it! I don't even see how this COULD be considered a racist issue!

      I say...

      Agreed!

      Way often people on the left try to use race as a bludgeon in debates etc. I try to stay away from using it unless I feel its relevant.
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968106].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        "The union's campaign was clearly hurt by the anti-union sentiment common in the South..."

        Bingo.

        Poisoned by WHAT comments?
        "Mr. Corker told the news media that sources at Volkswagen had assured him they would add another production line at the plant to make a new sport utility vehicle if the factory's workers rejected the union. Privately, some union officials asserted that this might be construed as illegal intimidation or inducement to get VW workers to vote against the union.

        In addition, State Senator Bo Watson, who represents some of Chattanooga's suburbs, warned that the Republican-dominated legislature was not likely to approve a new incentive package for VW if the plant's workers embraced the U.A.W. Gerald McCormick, the House majority leader, a Republican, who represents Chattanooga, also warned that such incentives were at risk."
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968166].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Tim, I think unions may have change just a little bit in the last 50 years.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968284].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      So you think MLK would not be supporting unions now?
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Tim, I think unions may have change just a little bit in the last 50 years.
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968308].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        So you think MLK would not be supporting unions now?
        I'm not qualified to speak for him. Are you?

        I've belonged to unions. Some are good, some are ... less then noble. Each has to be judged on their own merit. The idea that all unions are good, or all unions are bad, simply reflects personal bias.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968334].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          I agree. I believe MLK was talking more broadly about the whole labor movement which he saw as a very good thing and I agree. There have always been bad apples in unions and there certainly were before he made any of his statements.
          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

          I'm not qualified to speak for him. Are you?

          I've belonged to unions. Some are good, some are ... less then noble. Each has to be judged on their own merit. The idea that all unions are good, or all unions are bad, simply reflects personal bias.
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968350].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            It seems the bigger problem here is the labor law.
            "We know from many discussions with our colleagues in Chattanooga," Mr. Kilian said, "that there is great interest on the part of workers to establish worker representation inside the plant."
            Many American labor experts say it would be illegal under federal law for a company to establish a works council unless workers first voted to have a union represent them. Without that, a works council might be viewed as an illegal company-dominated, company-created employee group.
            For Volkswagen officials here and for many employees who support creating a works council, the challenge is how to legally set one up now that the workers rejected the U.A.W.
            On Friday night, minutes after the result of the vote was announced, Frank Fischer, the chief executive of Volkswagen Chattanooga, said, "Our goal continues to be to determine the best method for establishing a works council in accordance with the requirements of U.S. labor law, to meet VW America's production needs and serve our employees' interests."
            Some anti-U.A.W. workers said they might seek to set up some alternative union or employee group -- perhaps one exclusively for the factory -- to be their vehicle to help set up a works council.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968376].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              It seems the bigger problem here is the labor law.
              *****THAT***** is why we are starting to see backlash from VW in GERMANY! GIVE ME A BREAK! They must FORCE a vote in the US, that is a BAD idea, to give the employees a voice that VW TRADITION states they should, must, and will, have!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968449].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        There have been drastic changes in unions since MLK supported them. His interest - and rightly so - was union representation that would promote equal opportunity in manufacturing.

        The South was the cotton belt and big manufacturers were mostly in the rust belt in the northeast. It was after MLK's time that manufacturing growth in the sun belt and entrance of foreign competition in the auto and steel industries occurred.

        Ideology in History of Labor Unions

        it would be illegal under federal law for a company to establish a works council unless workers first voted to have a union represent them
        Why not change the federal law so employees of one company can form their own small union or have a works council without forcing a big union on them?
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968387].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          There have been drastic changes in unions since MLK supported them. His interest - and rightly so - was union representation that would promote equal opportunity in manufacturing.

          The South was the cotton belt and big manufacturers were mostly in the rust belt in the northeast. It was after MLK's time that manufacturing growth in the sun belt and entrance of foreign competition in the auto and steel industries occurred.

          Ideology in History of Labor Unions



          Why not change the federal law so employees of one company can form their own small union or have a works council without forcing a big union on them?
          That WAS supposed to be the ORIGINAL intent anyway! To have a LOCAL organization that could, KNOWING THE SITUATION, bargain from a stronger position. The idea that a FOREIGN INTERNATIONAL agency could cause strife for THEIR benefit is pretty ludicrous.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968458].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          The law doesn't stop anyone from starting a new union. If they start a new legit auto workers union instead of the UAW that would be great. According to the NYTimes article this is being considered.

          By the way, I don't speak for MLK of course but I would guess he would still be strongly in favor of unions. Probably more so now than ever with the income inequality we now have.
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Why not change the federal law so employees of one company can form their own small union or have a works council without forcing a big union on them?
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968477].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            The law doesn't stop anyone from starting a new union. If they start a new legit auto workers union instead of the UAW that would be great. According to the NYTimes article this is being considered.

            By the way, I don't speak for MLK of course but I would guess he would still be strongly in favor of unions. Probably more so now than ever with the income inequality we now have.
            The problem is they want a works council which they can't have without a union. This is something that the employees and management want, like VW has in it's German plants.
            That is what the law is preventing them from having unless the employees have a union to represent them on that council.
            It seems the employees have enough faith in VW that they don't need a union to represent them.
            Starting their own union at the factory could be seen as a work around to the regulation that says a union must represent them.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968649].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              Kurt - VW was not against the UAW way - they expected a union to come in as that is the business model in Germany.

              That's why pro-union people were allowed to come into the plant and promote the UAW and those against the union were not allowed access to the plant.

              I don't believe for a minute the UAW would go along with the plant having it's own small union shop. This isn't about bad worker treatment or bad wages - those workers like their jobs, like the company, like the wages.

              This is about the power of the UAW - nothing else.
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
              ***
              One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
              what it is instead of what you think it should be.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8969002].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    IMHO, this is very interesting and one heck of a coincidence.


    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968345].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      IMHO, this is interesting and one heck of a coincidence.


      There are a few ways of looking at that ANYWAY, and WHO is doing it and WHERE are they getting the numbers!?!?!?! Let me ask you an ABSURDLY obvious and important question though, ok? IF unions are SO great, why has participation dropped about 60+% in 45 years? WHY does it show a consistent DROP!?!?!?

      It is amazing how these charts PRETEND that only ONE thing drives actual income while they change like 7 factors. They generally *********NEVER********* list the other factors unless it suits them, and then they show THOSE alone.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968439].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Tere are a few ways of looking at that ANYWAY, and WHO is doing it and WHERE are they getting the numbers!?!?!?! Let me ask you an ABSURDLY obvious and important question though, ok? IF unions are SO great, why has participation dropped about 60+% in 45 years? WHY does it show a consistent DROP!?!?!?
        One possible reason is Big Business exporting jobs overseas. Another possible reason is Big Business "importing" illegals to work for lower wages.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968453].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          One possible reason is Big Business exporting jobs overseas. Another possible reason is Big Business "importing" illegals to work for lower wages.
          If either of those is the reason, then it is simply going to get WORSE! The unions are working both sides of the street to make that a BIGGER problem.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968470].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            If either of those is the reason, then it is simply going to get WORSE! The unions are working both sides of the street to make that a BIGGER problem.

            Steve
            There isn't "THE" reason. The reality is, it's very likely a combination of factors, of which I listed two possibilities. There are many others.

            If you don't like the answers, it's best you don't ask the questions.

            But, you did show that it's not unions causing the middle class to shrink. It's hard to blame things on unions when there are fewer union members than "back in the good old days".
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8968476].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    More news...


    VW workers may block southern U.S. deals if no unions: labor chief | Reuters
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8970303].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      A union rep in Germany threatens US workers? I doubt that will end well. So they don't build more US plants....and VW sales drop? Will they build plants in Mexico instead of the US - and anger the US public?

      Bullying and threatening workers in the US won't have a good outcome. They need to rethink their strategy.

      union-management relations in the U.S. are "adversarial," whereas in Germany they're "collaborative." Does such a happy relationship survive when German automakers set up shop in the U.S.? No.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8970699].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        A union rep in Germany threatens US workers? I doubt that will end well. So they don't build more US plants....and VW sales drop? Will they build plants in Mexico instead of the US - and anger the US public?

        Bullying and threatening workers in the US won't have a good outcome. They need to rethink their strategy.
        They've done it BEFORE!!!!! Some guy a while back created a bunch of sweet deals with mexico. They were sweet for MEXICO! *****MANY*****, including me, screamed DON'T DO IT! He didn't listen! ONE outcome? VW created plants there and ships cars HERE! I was shocked to see my JETTA(a popular VW in the US) said "HECHO IN MEXICO"(MADE IN MEXICO)! Probably MOST americans got MEXICAN VWs! For the JETTA, ALL the 4CYL were made 100% in mexico! Te 6Cyl had the ENGINES made in germany, and all else made in MEXICO. Only the wolfsburg edition at least USED to be made in germany! Although THAT car did well, I really don't trust mexican manufacturing.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8970802].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        A union rep in Germany threatens US workers?

        I doubt that will end well. So they don't build more US plants....and VW sales drop? Will they build plants in Mexico instead of the US - and anger the US public?

        Bullying and threatening workers in the US won't have a good outcome. They need to rethink their strategy.
        Perhaps you need to re-read the article.

        BTW...

        You said this in another thread... http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...hey-freed.html ...

        ...and its really true - even for you.

        "It's convenient. People (i.e., humans) have a capacity to see what they want to see and to look past uncomfortable truths."

        You just proved it by your response to my post.


        The German union rep never threatened U.S. workers in the article.

        (Reuters) - Volkswagen's top labor representative threatened on Wednesday to try to block further investments by the German carmaker...

        ... in the southern United States if its workers there are not unionized.


        "I can imagine fairly well that another VW factory in the United States, provided that one more should still be set up there, ...

        ...does not necessarily have to be assigned to the south again," said Bernd Osterloh, head of VW's works council.

        Also...

        "If co-determination isn't guaranteed in the first place, we as workers will hardly be able to vote in favor" of potentially building another plant in the U.S. south, Osterloh, who is also on VW's supervisory board, said.

        Where in the article does the German rep threaten U.S. workers?

        He clearly said at least a couple times he may have a problem with building another VW plant in the southern USA - not the USA in general.

        Once again...

        The German union rep never threatened U.S. workers in the article but somehow that's how you read it.

        And I'll quote you again...

        "It's convenient. People (i.e., humans) have a capacity to see what they want to see and to look past uncomfortable truths."


        Here's the link for easy reference...

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A1I0S820140219
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8970910].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          I can be one-sided with blinders on just like anyone else at times.

          But - I think we are interpreting this differently.

          You are seeing "southern states" and thinking VW might choose to build in Northern or western states....is that what you mean?

          I'm looking at the comments (from a union rep in Germany) having read the VW statements that say further plants will be built "in the southern US or in Mexico".

          I don't think unionizing that plant is the problem - the UAW is the problem.

          CBS wrote:

          This defeat for the UAW isn't a mere aberration. It's a sign of things to come. Unless unions make a huge change in their organizing strategy and how they choose their political causes, this is a yet another sign of weakening union power.
          Many workers in the south equate UAW with Northern states - with Detroit - with the openly political activities of the union. I don't think the vote was as much anti-union as it was anti-UAW.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8972826].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            I can be one-sided with blinders on just like anyone else at times.

            But - I think we are interpreting this differently.

            You are seeing "southern states" and thinking VW might choose to build in Northern or western states....is that what you mean?

            I'm looking at the comments (from a union rep in Germany) having read the VW statements that say further plants will be built "in the southern US or in Mexico".

            I don't think unionizing that plant is the problem - the UAW is the problem.

            CBS wrote:



            Many workers in the south equate UAW with Northern states - with Detroit - with the openly political activities of the union. I don't think the vote was as much anti-union as it was anti-UAW.
            You're right. BESIDES, assume you are WRONG! Things COULD change! WHY NOT? I mean they HAVE been changing! ALSO, we are NOT talking north v south! The UNION is saying south because they see it as another, GASP, "FIRST"! But it isn't the south. HERE is the CURRENT list, of ones that may be so affected, apparently:

            Alabama
            Arizona † (Constitution, 1912, State Constitution Article 25)
            Arkansas † (Constitution, 1947, Amendment 34)
            Florida † (Constitution, 1968, Article 2, Section 6)
            Georgia
            Idaho
            Indiana[3] (State law, 2012)
            Iowa
            Kansas † (Constitution, 1958, Article 15, Section 12)
            Louisiana
            Michigan[2] (State law, 2012)
            Mississippi †
            Nebraska ††
            Nevada
            North Carolina
            North Dakota
            Oklahoma †
            South Carolina
            South Dakota
            Tennessee
            Texas[37]
            Utah
            Virginia
            Wyoming

            You can see a cluster in the south, but a couple states on the southern border aren't affected, and some northern ARE! But VW isn't stupid! Things can change! And they ALREADY have mexico ready to go! They are following the laws, manufacturing, and shipping from there NOW!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8973245].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            I can be one-sided with blinders on just like anyone else at times.

            But - I think we are interpreting this differently.

            You are seeing "southern states" and thinking VW might choose to build in Northern or western states....is that what you mean?

            I'm looking at the comments (from a union rep in Germany) having read the VW statements that say further plants will be built "in the southern US or in Mexico".

            I don't think unionizing that plant is the problem - the UAW is the problem.

            CBS wrote:



            Many workers in the south equate UAW with Northern states - with Detroit - with the openly political activities of the union. I don't think the vote was as much anti-union as it was anti-UAW.
            Mexico was not mentioned in the article or even alluded to by the German rep IMHO.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8976119].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              No, I didn't meant to infer it was.

              VW had announced plans for expansion in either Southeast US or Mexico. That was the "news" used for the pol's (unwise) statements. It wasn't a lie - just an unrelated fact.

              Looking at the big picture (not that plant) there's a pattern that should concern us. The NE was the auto center for decades - because that's where the steel mills and the labor supply was.

              No longer true. Foreign automakers are locating in the southern states because it's cheaper to build and maintain the factories in right to work states - and those states are making concessions to lure the plants to their states.

              Southern workers fear if the labor relations become similar to the demand/strike conditions that occurred with union labor in the North - the auto companies will move farther south...to Mexico.

              Mexico on track to become top car exporter to U.S. - CBS News

              That's NAFTA in action 20 years after it was created - and this week there was another trade pact like NAFTA but on a wider scale - being proposed in D.C.

              Twenty years after its implementation, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, has helped boost intraregional trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, but has fallen short of generating the jobs and the deeper regional economic integration its advocates promised decades ago
              The unions are fighting the vote so it will be interesting to see where this goes.
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
              ***
              One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
              what it is instead of what you think it should be.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8976194].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                That's NAFTA in action 20 years after it was created - and this week there was another trade pact like NAFTA but on a wider scale - being proposed in D.C.
                FOR THE RECORD, I was and am against NAFTA! I said BACK THEN that things like this(The US agencies competing with mexican for the US market) would happen!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8976219].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    A new development...

    The UAW today (02-21-14) filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Board, saying that interference by politicians and outside special interest groups affected the outcome of a vote by workers at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga, Tenn., plant on whether to join the union.

    Workers voted narrowly to reject representation, with a slim 44 vote swing out of almost 1400 votes cast.

    UAW Cries Unfair Politics, Appeals To Feds On Lost Union Vote At VW Plant - Forbes
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8976116].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      A new development...

      The UAW today (02-21-14) filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Board, saying that interference by politicians and outside special interest groups affected the outcome of a vote by workers at Volkswagen's Chattanooga, Tenn., plant on whether to join the union.

      Workers voted narrowly to reject representation, with a slim 44 vote swing out of almost 1400 votes cast.

      UAW Cries Unfair Politics, Appeals To Feds On Lost Union Vote At VW Plant - Forbes
      OK, did you note how 86 became 44? 86 difference! A SIMPLE majority is 44! 43 would be a TIE! 1400 votes means 700 is a TIE! But they don't care about the portion of the whole(699+), or even the portion that went over the bar enough to prevent them from getting a SIMPLE majority(43+). NOPE! If there were 5 people in the company and 3 said JOIN, they would simply tell the other two to "GO TO ....!"!

      as for what they claimed here? They ALWAYS say that! They have ALWAYS said that! They have ALWAYS said that HERE! So where is the news story?

      It would be funny if they got PRECISELY 44 more votes, and one person left or died before they unionized. HOW is that counted? They would probably cry foul if ANYONE dared to claim they didn't get EVERY vote.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8976189].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    After the vote, Mr. Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga, issued a statement, saying, “I am thrilled for the employees at Volkswagen and for our community and its future.”

    Harley Shaiken, a labor expert at the University of California, Berkeley, said that Mr. Corker’s and Mr. Watson’s statements suggesting that the expansion of the plant and Chattanooga’s future economic well-being hinged on rejecting the U.A.W. could have swayed more than a hundred workers to vote against the union. U.A.W. officials repeatedly noted that if only 44 workers had switched their vote, the union would have won.

    Chattanooga is vying with VW’s plant in Mexico to attract production of the new S.U.V., Ms. Dziczek said.

    She said a factory must first have the fundamentals VW is looking for and then “incentives might be the icing on the cake.”

    “If the S.U.V. is mainly for the export market, then it will be made in Mexico,” she said. “If they plan it mainly for the North American market, then the VW plant in Chattanooga has a very good chance.”

    VW’s domestic sales have sagged in the past year, partly because the Passat sedans produced in Chattanooga are viewed as not trendy enough. VW has promised a new S.U.V. to help capture more American sales.
    Apparently, unless the vehicle has appeal somewhat limited to the US, they plan to build it in mexico. It is a shame. In 1992, I was looking at the passat a LOT. I really wanted that car. It just cost a little too much for me at the time. I heard some nice things about it a year ago, it seemed like many OTHERS liked it. NOW, they are claiming it isn't trendy enough! GRANTED, it isn't great for camping, tailgate parties, or taking lots of people to a soccer game, but MOST cars aren't!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8976214].message }}

Trending Topics