UAW loses again.

[balrog666]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/14/united-auto-workers-lose-historic-election-at-chattanooga-volkswagen-plant/

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. -- The United Auto Workers was dealt a stinging defeat tonight, with a majority of employees at a Volkswagen plant here voting against joining the union after a high-profile opposition campaign led by Republican politicians and outside political groups.

Oh, my! The UAW was thwarted in their efforts to drive another car company into bankruptcy! They must be oh-so-annoyed that the workers rejected them. Again.

 

[jj]

First, VW makes twice as many cars as GM, and is internationally successful, and was not opposed to unionization. It is transparently obvious that VW knows what they are doing, despite the crimes of the Government of Kentucky.

Second, the government of Kentucky engaged in public, explicit extortion in order to intentionally affect the outcome of the vote.

The vote is invalid, and the government of Kentucky is obligated to go down for felony extortion.

Then there needs to be a vote unencumbered by intentional, deliberate extortion.

 

[Tony]

Oh, my! The UAW was thwarted in their efforts to drive another car company into bankruptcy! They must be oh-so-annoyed that the workers rejected them. Again.

It's clear from this post that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[ravdin]

First, VW makes twice as many cars as GM, and is internationally successful, and was not opposed to unionization. It is transparently obvious that VW knows what they are doing, despite the crimes of the Government of Kentucky.

Second, the government of Kentucky engaged in public, explicit extortion in order to intentionally affect the outcome of the vote.

The vote is invalid, and the government of Kentucky is obligated to go down for felony extortion.

Then there needs to be a vote unencumbered by intentional, deliberate extortion.

That's a lot of charges you're laying on the government of Kentucky. Why do you believe they have such influence in the neighboring state of Tennessee?

 

[jj]

That's a lot of charges you're laying on the government of Kentucky. Why do you believe they have such influence in the neighboring state of Tennessee?

d'oh. Good point. (should not reply in a hurry)

My apologizes THIS time to the state of Kentucky.

 

[PhantomWolf]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/14/united-auto-workers-lose-historic-election-at-chattanooga-volkswagen-plant/



Oh, my! The UAW was thwarted in their efforts to drive another car company into bankruptcy! They must be oh-so-annoyed that the workers rejected them. Again.

And yet ironically if you actually bothered to read the article, one of the reasons cited was that the Union had already agreed with the company that they would work together to keep costs down, and the workers didn't like the idea that they wouldn't be able to go for large pay rises because of it....

 

[balrog666]

And yet ironically if you actually bothered to read the article, one of the reasons cited was that the Union had already agreed with the company that they would work together to keep costs down, and the workers didn't like the idea that they wouldn't be able to go for large pay rises because of it....

And, if you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you!

There were several post-vote interviews with plant employees, I choose to believe what they actually said rather than any political blathering intended for UAW face-saving.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And, if you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you!

There were several post-vote interviews with plant employees, I choose to believe what they actually said rather than any political blathering intended for UAW face-saving.

What was the winning argument? Jarvis said people on the fence were persuaded by a clause in the Neutrality Agreement negotiated between Volkswagen and the UAW before the election, which established this as one of the principles of collective bargaining: "maintaining and where possible enhancing the cost advantages and other competitive advantages that VWGOA enjoys relative to its competitors in the United States and North America." In other words, keeping wages and benefits from getting too high relative to the already-unionized Big Three automakers in Detroit.

"Once we got people to realize they had already negotiated a deal behind their backs -- they didn't get to have a say-so in it -- they went ahead and signed the paperwork that this is going to happen as soon as we win the election," Jarvis said.

...

"The balance of power in setting wages and benefits has shifted to the non-union sector," says Kristin Dzickek, a labor specialist at the Center for Automotive Research. "If they are bargaining for more of the work force, they can make more of an even playing field for labor costs."

Are you now abandoning the article you posted and claiming it's not true, even though you posted it?

 

[Ziggurat]

So now the argument is that the unions sold out the workers for their own benefit?

 

[Spindrift]

So now the argument is that the unions sold out the workers for their own benefit?

Who made that argument?

 

[Ziggurat]

Who made that argument?

PhantomWolf, obviously. Do keep up.

 

[theprestige]

The conventional sequence is: workers unionize the shop, union members elect the union reps, union reps negotiate for the union members.

For a union to do these steps out of order makes it pretty much a non-starter, for me.

Can you imagine working in such a union? It'd be like working for Darth Vader!

"I thought you were going to fight for better pay and working conditions!"

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

 

[PhantomWolf]

PhantomWolf, obviously. Do keep up.

You might think that, I didn't. I pointed out that it was ironic that the reason given in balrog666's article, that the vote went against the Union because they already formed a deal with the company to make sure that the company would remain profitable, while balrog666 was claiming that the Union was attempting to bankrupt the company. The facts would seem exactly the opposite of balrog666's claim. The Union wanted the company to succeed and so worked together with management, and those that voted no didn't like that deal.

 

[theprestige]

You might think that, I didn't. I pointed out that it was ironic that the reason given in balrog666's article, that the vote went against the Union because they already formed a deal with the company to make sure that the company would remain profitable, while balrog666 was claiming that the Union was attempting to bankrupt the company. The facts would seem exactly the opposite of balrog666's claim. The Union wanted the company to succeed and so worked together with management, and those that voted no didn't like that deal.

If the Union is already cutting deals with management, before labor has even unionized, what message does that send to labor, other than, "we like you for your union dues; for everything else, we're already in bed with management"?

 

[The Don]

If the Union is already cutting deals with management, before labor has even unionized, what message does that send to labor, other than, "we like you for your union dues; for everything else, we're already in bed with management"?

Well that certainly runs counter to Balrog666's assertion that the UAW is antagonistic towards management and is seeking to drive auto manufacturers into bankruptcy.

You cannot have it both ways, the UAW can either be in bed with management OR trying to put the company out of business (or indeed neither) but it cannot be both unless the management of the car firm have some kind of diabolical plan to put themselves out of business.

Personally I can see how the UAW wanted to be seen by the management of the firm not to be a threat and I can understand how badly that would play with prospective members who want to feel that the union is working on their behalf. Of course thee two conditions are not mutually exclusive and maybe VW, coming from a country where the relationship between management and unions isn't antagonistic, didn't appreciate how their talks with the union would be spun (then again, being very canny, maybe they knew exactly).

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well that certainly runs counter to Balrog666's assertion that the UAW is antagonistic towards management and is seeking to drive auto manufacturers into bankruptcy.

You cannot have it both ways, the UAW can either be in bed with management OR trying to put the company out of business (or indeed neither) but it cannot be both unless the management of the car firm have some kind of diabolical plan to put themselves out of business.

Personally I can see how the UAW wanted to be seen by the management of the firm not to be a threat and I can understand how badly that would play with prospective members who want to feel that the union is working on their behalf. Of course thee two conditions are not mutually exclusive and maybe VW, coming from a country where the relationship between management and unions isn't antagonistic, didn't appreciate how their talks with the union would be spun (then again, being very canny, maybe they knew exactly).

From the article I'd go with this. VW seems to have the really crazy idea that the best way to run a company is for management and the workers to actually work together to increase production and then both share in the rewards instead of fighting each other. Crazy talk right?

 

[WildCat]

From the article I'd go with this. VW seems to have the really crazy idea that the best way to run a company is for management and the workers to actually work together to increase production and then both share in the rewards instead of fighting each other. Crazy talk right?

So no "job bank" for VW?

 

[Ziggurat]

You might think that, I didn't. I pointed out that it was ironic that the reason given in balrog666's article, that the vote went against the Union because they already formed a deal with the company to make sure that the company would remain profitable, while balrog666 was claiming that the Union was attempting to bankrupt the company.

But you also claimed that workers rejected the union because they didn't like the deal. In other words, they felt the union was screwing them over.

The facts would seem exactly the opposite of balrog666's claim.

I'm not backing up balrog666's claim, so that's not terribly relevant to me.

The Union wanted the company to succeed and so worked together with management, and those that voted no didn't like that deal.

Because they felt they were getting screwed over, right?

Union 2.0: we're no longer a parasite on the employer, just the employee.

 

[Ziggurat]

From the article I'd go with this. VW seems to have the really crazy idea that the best way to run a company is for management and the workers to actually work together to increase production and then both share in the rewards instead of fighting each other. Crazy talk right?

They would be able to do that without the UAW, if outdated US labor laws didn't get in the way.

 

[tyr_13]

Because they felt they were getting screwed over, right?

Union 2.0: we're no longer a parasite on the employer, just the employee.

'Felt they were getting screwed' != 'were getting screwed'.