Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 134

Thread: VW Positions Ass Above Large Stick

  1. #31
    Considering your own post history, I and I think most of the others can be completely sure that yes, you are the one picking a fight.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Human Rights trump corporatism/capitalist 'rights'. That's partly why Free Speech, the Fourth Estate, and Sunshine Laws remain in play.
    Define the human right specifically you are stating that trumps the rights of another individual. Also explain to me how someone loses rights by owning something.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Not all of employees do and they want to be able to counter campaign...and they are being told no.

    Wait, the workers can't have a works council under US Law unless represented by a union??? WTF?
    While i think it'd be better if the company allowed both sides to campaign, the article clearly mentions it's usually the other way around, so it's a bit hypocritical to cry outrage at this only.

    And yeah, that is a big wtf. Your labour laws are weird. Unionized or not, there are clear advantages to that.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  4. #34
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Considering your own post history, I and I think most of the others can be completely sure that yes, you are the one picking a fight.
    Oh, yes, of course, I'm the one creating all those threads bashing the EU and Germany in particular.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  5. #35
    And Tear insisted everyone but him started each and every fight he got into. Thinking something you don't like or disagree with, posting something you don't like or disagree with, is not starting a fight with you. Even if it's wrt Germany. You are not all things German. Or are you under the impression that every single thing you have ever said about America is an attempt to pick a fight with me, or GGT, or Wiggin? If it is, then I think it just confirms you're the one picking fights.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #36
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Generalizing a bit much, aren't we? My beef is with Dread. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on that issue. Let's leave it at that.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Define the human right specifically you are stating that trumps the rights of another individual. Also explain to me how someone loses rights by owning something.
    West Virginia is one current example: simply owning land and/or running a business on the Elk River doesn't give a chemical company the 'right' to contaminate 1/3 of the state's drinking water....or flush it downstream to other states. Property rights come with responsibilities, especially when actions can harm others, and it's long been acceptable to put limits on certain behaviors.

    Rights can apply to the general public, for the common good and civilized society. It's fairly nuanced and evolved over time as the world got smaller, but individuals (or individual companies) can't just do WTF they feel like and call it Freeeeedom!

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    As opposed to the more usual, even routine, corporate behavior of refusing to let the union campaign in the company while anti-union employees are allowed, even encouraged, to do so freely?
    Except there are laws governing these elections in a way meant to ensure fair access between the parties (employer and union). Except those parties are usually opposing each other, so the laws are designed to regulate that opposition.

    Can't we all agree this is rather exceptional for the employer to basically beg for unionization like this?

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post

    West Virginia is one current example: simply owning land and/or running a business on the Elk River doesn't give a chemical company the 'right' to contaminate 1/3 of the state's drinking water....or flush it downstream to other states. Property rights come with responsibilities, especially when actions can harm others, and it's long been acceptable to put limits on certain behaviors.

    Rights can apply to the general public, for the common good and civilized society. It's fairly nuanced and evolved over time as the world got smaller, but individuals (or individual companies) can't just do WTF they feel like and call it Freeeeedom!
    Owning something shouldn't restrict your rights. As an individual I shouldn't be able to dump toxic chemicals into drinking water. Ditto for a company. A company shouldn't get fewer rights then individuals since the company is made up of individuals. Your position is that when a group of people band together for a purpose you feel they should have fewer rights. If I'm misconstrued your position let me know.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Owning something shouldn't restrict your rights. As an individual I shouldn't be able to dump toxic chemicals into drinking water. Ditto for a company. A company shouldn't get fewer rights then individuals since the company is made up of individuals.
    With emphasis on the bolded part....answer your own question to me about 'rights'.

    Your position is that when a group of people band together for a purpose you feel they should have fewer rights. If I'm misconstrued your position let me know.
    Yes, you're not understanding my position, on a number of levels. I think you're conflating public and private "ownership"....in an attempt to make a point about individual liberties and freedoms.

    No group of people (whether it's a neighborhood, a Golf Club, or a chemical company) have fewer rights than individuals. But they shouldn't have more rights -- or regard them as unconstrained liberties, either. ie, air, water, energy resources have shared/public "ownership".

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Except there are laws governing these elections in a way meant to ensure fair access between the parties (employer and union). Except those parties are usually opposing each other, so the laws are designed to regulate that opposition.

    Can't we all agree this is rather exceptional for the employer to basically beg for unionization like this?
    The fair access laws still apply even when the company is working with a particular union. Had to be, because companies quickly cottoned on to forming pet "labor associations" and insisting they were properly representing their workers' interests. And it's possibly not something you are familiar with but there are still places where unions compete amongst themselves. I'm not overly familiar with the exact law/labor environment in Tennessee beyond it being a "right-to-work" state but this isn't even a molehill, Dread. And if there truly is something unfair, I suspect it has more to do with intended deficits in Tennessee's "right to work" laws, deficits which were intended to make things harder for unions, than any cooperation between Volkswagon and the UAW.

    And it's not at all unusual. Not as common in the last few decades in the US, and certainly not usual in a place like Tennessee, where companies tend to move their plants to get away from the labor unions up north but Volkswagon isn't exactly Ford now, is it? I did not favor the sclerosis we saw from the UAW in Detroit but I'm not a fan of the really labor-hostile approach that has grown common in the South, either.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  12. #42
    Interesting point. Though isn't the UAW just the pet labor association in this case?

    You bring up a good point about the right to work issue -- if the UAW actually wins this, we'll see if/how they try to compel participation.

  13. #43
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    A pet labor association can only come about if you actually have laws mandating the formation of worker's unions.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    With emphasis on the bolded part....answer your own question to me about 'rights'.



    Yes, you're not understanding my position, on a number of levels. I think you're conflating public and private "ownership"....in an attempt to make a point about individual liberties and freedoms.

    No group of people (whether it's a neighborhood, a Golf Club, or a chemical company) have fewer rights than individuals. But they shouldn't have more rights -- or regard them as unconstrained liberties, either. ie, air, water, energy resources have shared/public "ownership".
    So why do you want to restrict the rights of free speech when its done by a company? (Ie a group of people).

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So why do you want to restrict the rights of free speech when its done by a company? (Ie a group of people).
    You answered my question with another question. I'll boil it down to this: Rights can't be bought.

    It gets complicated when Rights conflict, or one Right is treated as absolute (like Free Speech) in order to trump or suppress other Rights (like Equality). We have a long history of wealth controlling power and legislation, even distorting definitions of Rights. We've come a long way from blacks or slaves as 2/3 a man, or women not being allowed to own property, and restrictive voting.

    It'd be stupid to move backward, and return to a time when "companies" (or groups with money and political clout) could use whatever discriminatory, bigoted, exploitative, manipulative, or dangerous behavior they wanted, and call it Free Speech.




    It's frustrating to see criticism of labor unions when PACs, trade groups, and industry "associations" do the same damn thing....but on a larger scale, with less transparency and public awareness. ALEC, The Club for Growth, CPAC, the Koch Brothers *et al* are more worrisome than teachers unions, IMO.

  16. #46
    They're more worrisome because you're usually on the opposite political side as them but aren't on the opposite side as the teachers' unions. But groups like the teachers unions are a major political force. IIRC, back in 2004, the CTA was the biggest spender in the local and state races here in California and I'm pretty sure it's still at the top of the list. It is certainly one of the three or four most powerful special interest groups in the state. And that's been true for decades.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  17. #47
    My turn to nitpick about terminology? "Powerful special interest groups" hasn't meant public unions, labor unions, or teacher unions...for at least a decade, if not longer. Membership in those groups has been on a slow trajectory downward, along with their donor money and political clout.

    It's been replaced by "powerful special interest groups" that organized as 501-C tax exempt philanthropies or charitable entities, exploiting verbiage like predominantly vs exclusively. That's where PACs hide, along with Chamber of Commerce and NFL executives, and numerous other monied groups with paid lobbyists.

    Political affiliation or ideology doesn't matter much in this regard....just who's got the most money to spend trying to influence elections and legislators, and how they can consolidate and organize that money, and buy influence. Look, I didn't like it when public unions used that tactic, and I don't like it any better when private groups try the same thing.

  18. #48
    Labor unions are actually the largest source of funding for Democrats in House races...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Labor unions are actually the largest source of funding for Democrats in House races...
    For which election cycle? Do you mean state or federal races?

    Labor unions are at their lowest participation/membership rates in the post WWII era, according to stats compiled by US Census and BLS, and pretty much every other agency that tracks those things.

    Go ahead Loki...explain why the US House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, even though "labor unions are the largest source of funding for Democrats".

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    My turn to nitpick about terminology? "Powerful special interest groups" hasn't meant public unions, labor unions, or teacher unions...for at least a decade, if not longer. Membership in those groups has been on a slow trajectory downward, along with their donor money and political clout.
    As always, you get your facts mixed up, turned around, and inside out. Private sector unions have been in steady decline. Public sector unions have been holding steady or even gaining strength. And the teachers' unions are the strongest of the lot. And while they aren't at the very top nationally, there are significant areas where they are. Again, the California Teacher's Association is both the largest and best funded lobby in the state. It is not exaggeration to say that there isn't a single person or organization that outspent them in 2012. They are literally the very top of the list in political spending in California.

    Political affiliation or ideology doesn't matter much in this regard....just who's got the most money to spend trying to influence elections and legislators
    In California, again, that's the CTA.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    For which election cycle? Do you mean state or federal races?
    Well, he said House races so I would assume he meant federal.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    For which election cycle? Do you mean state or federal races?

    Labor unions are at their lowest participation/membership rates in the post WWII era, according to stats compiled by US Census and BLS, and pretty much every other agency that tracks those things.

    Go ahead Loki...explain why the US House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, even though "labor unions are the largest source of funding for Democrats".
    You might want to read the actual wording of my post. The main contributors to Democratic Congressmen (I forget the exact numbers, but it's something like 2/3 of Democrats in most recent elections) are labor unions. I didn't say labor unions gave more to Democrats than other groups gave to Republicans...Now considering that a third of all Congressman owe their primary financial support to labor unions seems to suggest that labor unions wield significant influence, regardless of the union membership figures.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    You answered my question with another question. I'll boil it down to this: Rights can't be bought.

    It gets complicated when Rights conflict, or one Right is treated as absolute (like Free Speech) in order to trump or suppress other Rights (like Equality). We have a long history of wealth controlling power and legislation, even distorting definitions of Rights. We've come a long way from blacks or slaves as 2/3 a man, or women not being allowed to own property, and restrictive voting.

    It'd be stupid to move backward, and return to a time when "companies" (or groups with money and political clout) could use whatever discriminatory, bigoted, exploitative, manipulative, or dangerous behavior they wanted, and call it Free Speech.




    It's frustrating to see criticism of labor unions when PACs, trade groups, and industry "associations" do the same damn thing....but on a larger scale, with less transparency and public awareness. ALEC, The Club for Growth, CPAC, the Koch Brothers *et al* are more worrisome than teachers unions, IMO.
    I'm curious how you define the right of "equality." Are you in favor of equal outcomes? Are you in favor of government mandated equal outcomes? During 2008 Obama had a larger war chest then McCain should the government have stepped in and "equalized" it? Equality is this - everyone is free to say what they want when it comes to politics. (Obviously some common sense restrictions on using the threat of violence to influence votes). This way everyone who wants to can say their piece. How anything be fairer or more simple?

  23. #53
    @ Fuzzy and Loki: Since we weren't talking about just UAW in Tennessee, or teacher's unions in CA, but national politics and policies....I stand by my comment about Unions in decline, whether public or private, by membership or political power.

    I'll break it down better: "labor" unions used to represent something like 20% of the US work force, when manufacturing was a powerhouse in our economy (steel, coal, rail, auto). Those were the days when AFL/CIO, UAW, Steel Workers, Railroad or coal miners etc. had the numbers and money to dominate policy. Since the manufacturing sector has declined, so has their membership (~6% iirc) along with their political clout.

    Today's "labor" is mostly in service sectors like retail/hospitality/tourism or agriculture/farming. Those workers are predominantly paid low wage/minimum wage, and they're still trying to get the right to 'unionize' (see Walmart). Those unions don't have the same influence over policy--just ask any fast food worker, hotel housekeeper, or fruit picker.

    That leaves "public" unions, including police/fire and teachers. Their membership might be 'steady', but their influence has declined in several states, especially the midwest and plains states. That's why there were protests and sit-ins in state capitols, and people marching in the streets (see WI). Of course Teacher's Unions still have a lot of political power! But so do the residents that pay their salaries and benefits via local/state property taxes....and their local voting power often trumps union demands.

    <Also, just because CTA is at top donor in CA politics doesn't mean much. And you can't assume "labor" or unions will always get a Democrat elected in the state either, even when they outspend other groups (see San Diego). CA is always an outlier compared to other states.>

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'm curious how you define the right of "equality." Are you in favor of equal outcomes? Are you in favor of government mandated equal outcomes?
    Equal opportunity, equal access. I don't know what you mean by "government mandated equal outcomes", or where you got that idea.

    During 2008 Obama had a larger war chest then McCain should the government have stepped in and "equalized" it? Equality is this - everyone is free to say what they want when it comes to politics. (Obviously some common sense restrictions on using the threat of violence to influence votes). This way everyone who wants to can say their piece. How anything be fairer or more simple?
    Running for elected office in order to "represent the people" isn't a shining example of equal access or opportunity, either. Take a look at how much that costs. Not to mention the time spent on fund-raising, instead of taking care of business. Incumbents spend half their time fund-raising for the next election, or their party, and cater to the 30,000 lobbyists and special interest groups that wave money in their faces.

    Do you think it's "fair" to the voting public, to have so much money sloshing around our politics and governance?

  25. #55
    Time for a re-set, back to brass tacks.

    I think VW has the right idea in trying to protect its product brand, its "home office" employees, and want the same quality work environments for workers outside Germany. Their business model has been very successful...partly because their business ethic means treating employees as valuable members of the company, and not throwing them under the bus.

    The US could learn something from that, instead of states trying to lure companies on-the-cheap. That's a smoke-and-mirror "southern strategy" full of pot holes. Not long ago, Toyota (or maybe it was Nissan) decided to set up shop in Canada instead of the US south....because things like infrastructure, education, healthcare, and quality of life were so inferior. Those are crucial elements that can't be off-set by low wages or low taxes.

    So, this is just as much about trade agreements, and weird US labor laws, as it is "unions". I suspect some Americans got their feathers ruffled when the article said, "Volkswagen's management in Germany chose to work with the UAW because the company is determined to set up a European-style "works council" at the plant that gives hourly and salaried workers a voice in the factory's rules, schedules and other workplace matters."

    If anything, they should be more peeved that "But under U.S. labor law, it is only possible to have a works council under U.S. labor law if employees are represented by a union." From an optimistic glass-half-full angle, maybe this can help the US change its negative attitude toward "unions", and get some real reform that's a win/win for everyone involved. "Anti-union" folks are being hard-headed, and losing out on a great opportunity to change the status quo.

  26. #56
    If Chattanooga wants to become an urbane city, and if Tennessee wants to grow its economy from the ground up -- the last thing they should do is listen to Republican 'conservatives' like Bob Corker. He went from saying he'd stay out of the way....to inserting his fat hand. So much for small, non-interventionist government, not telling people what to do, huh.

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    If Chattanooga wants to become an urbane city, and if Tennessee wants to grow its economy from the ground up -- the last thing they should do is listen to Republican 'conservatives' like Bob Corker. He went from saying he'd stay out of the way....to inserting his fat hand. So much for small, non-interventionist government, not telling people what to do, huh.
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing how Bob Corker releasing a statement about what he thinks should be done is tantamount to interventionist government, telling people what to do, or is likely to have any impact on Chattanooga's transformation into an "urbane city," or Tennessee's economic growth.

    Maybe you can enlighten me.

  28. #58
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    The question is moot! The results of the vote is No.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  29. #59
    Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Now Amerikans can enjoy their chunky/slightly overpriced Passat's untainted by the UAW. At least, until they try again. I'm glad the VW workers -- many who make more than UAW-covered workers -- made the right choice.

    V-Day was nice enough, but what a lovely headline to wake up to! I can now smile as I scrub blood and feces off the walls and furniture.

    Union Suffers Big Loss at Tennessee VW Plant
    Volkswagen workers rejected the UAW by a vote of 712 to 626.

    By NEAL E. BOUDETTE
    Updated Feb. 14, 2014 11:44 p.m. ET

    The United Auto Workers union suffered a crushing defeat Friday, falling short in an election in which it seemed to have a clear path to organizing workers at Volkswagen AG 's plant in Chattanooga, Tenn.

    The setback is a bitter defeat because the union had the cooperation of Volkswagen management and the aid of Germany's powerful IG Metall union, yet it failed to win a majority among the plants 1,550 hourly workers.

    Volkswagen workers rejected the union by a vote of 712 to 626. The defeat raises questions about the future of a union that for years has suffered from declining membership and influence, and almost certainly leaves its president, Bob King, who had vowed to organize at least one foreign auto maker by the time he retires in June, with a tarnished legacy.

    "If the union can't win [in Chattanooga], it can't win anywhere," said Steve Silvia, a economics and trade professor at American University who has studied labor unions.

    The UAW said that "outside interference" affected the outcome of the vote. "Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that that would grow jobs in Tennessee," Gary Casteel, the union official in charge of the VW campaign, said in a statement.

    Under an agreement the UAW has with Volkswagen, it now must cease all organizing efforts aimed at the Chattanooga plant for at least a year.

    A win would have marked the first time the union has been able to organize a foreign-owned auto plant in a Southern U.S. state, and would have been particularly meaningful, because the vote was set in a right-to-work state in the South, where antiunion sentiment is strong and all past UAW organizing drives at automobile plants have failed.

    The Chattanooga workers had been courted steadily for nearly two years by both the UAW and the IG Metall union, which pushed Volkswagen management to open talks with the UAW and to refrain from trying to dissuade American workers from union representation.

    Mr. King made forging alliances with overseas unions the centerpiece of his strategy after he was elected in 2010. The union now must come up with a way to halt its decline. It once represented 1.5 million workers, but now has about 400,000, and diminished influence, as a result of years of downsizing, layoffs and cutbacks by the three Detroit auto makers General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group.

    "The union needs new members. They have to organize the transplants or they don't have much of a future," said Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.

    The election was also extraordinary because Volkswagen choose to cooperate closely with the UAW. Volkswagen allowed UAW organizers to campaign inside the factory—a step rarely seen in this or other industries.

    "This is like an alternate universe where everything is turned upside down," said Cliff Hammond, a labor lawyer at Nemeth Law PC in Detroit, who represents management clients but previously worked at the Service Employees International Union. "Usually, companies fight" union drives, he added.

    The union's loss adds to a long list of defeats for organized labor in recent years. States like Wisconsin enacted laws that cut the power of public-employee unions, and other states, including Michigan, home of the UAW, adopted right-to-work laws that allow workers to opt out of union membership if they choose.

    The vote was held amid public campaigning against the union by Republican politicians, including Gov. Bill Haslam, and conservative activist groups. Conservative political groups, including one backed by antitax activist Grover Norquist, put up anti-union billboards around Chattanooga. A small but determined group of workers who oppose the UAW also worked to tilt their colleagues against the union, an effort that ultimately proved successful.

    "I'm thrilled for the employees and thrilled for the community," Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker said in a telephone interview, adding that he's "sincerely overwhelmed" by the result.

    The UAW had appeared to have strong chances in the election because both Volkswagen and the IG Metall union wanted the Chattanooga plant to have a works council, a formal committee of both union and nonunion employees who negotiate with management on day-to-day working matters at the plant.

    Works councils are standard in German workplaces—almost all other Volkswagen facilities around the world have one. In the U.S., however, it appears to many labor-law experts that they can only be implemented legally if workers are represented by an outside union.

    Since both Volkswagen and IG Metall have expressed a strong desire to have a works council in Chattanooga, the auto maker chose to work with the UAW. In addition to letting union representatives into the plant, Volkswagen kept members of management from expressing any views on the vote, and agreed to coordinate its public statements with the union during the election campaign.

    "This vote was essentially gift-wrapped for the union by Volkswagen," Mr. Hammond, the labor lawyer, said.

    The chief executive of the plant, Frank Fischer, said in a statement that Volkswagen will continue to search for a method of establishing a works council.

    The works council concept also proved a winner for some Chattanooga workers. Jonathan Walden, 39 years old, earns about $19.50 an hour—about $4 an hour more than starting workers at GM, Ford and Chrysler—but he voted for the union because he wants a works council. "I don't know why more companies don't do this," said Mr. Walden, who works in the paint shop.

    But more workers were persuaded to vote against the union by the UAW's past of bitter battles with management, costly labor contracts and complex work rules. "If the union comes in, we'll have a divided work force," said Cheryl Hawkins, 44, an assembly line worker with three sons. "It will ruin what we have."

    Other UAW opponents said they dislike the union's support of politicians who back causes like abortion rights and gun control that rub against the conservative bent of Southern states like Tennessee. Still others objected to paying dues to a union from Detroit that is aligned with Volkswagen competitors like GM and Ford.

    "I just don't trust them," said Danielle Brunner, 23, who has worked at the plant for nearly three years and makes about $20 an hour—about $5 an hour more than new hires at GM, Ford and Chrysler plants.

    The no-UAW vote raises questions on how the union proceeds now in separate efforts to organize other foreign-owned plants in the South, and whether international cooperation can provide any additional leverage for labor unions.

    The UAW's alliance with IG Metall was forged over the last several years by Mr. King, who traveled to Germany, Japan, Brazil and South Korea in hopes of getting unions around the world to combine forces.

    For the last two years the union has also been working to build support at a Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Ala., and at a Nissan Motor Co. plant in Canton, Miss. Its chances there now seem diminished, in view of how those companies are less willing to cooperate with the UAW than Volkswagen.

    At Mercedes, workers who want UAW representation recently filed complaints to the National Labor Relations Board alleging they have been harassed by management because of their efforts to build union support. Daimler AG, the parent of Mercedes-Benz, has denied the charges.

    The UAW's loss in Chattanooga also seems likely to complicate contract talks it will have with the Detroit auto makers in 2015. Right now, GM, Ford and Chrysler pay veteran workers about $28 an hour, and new hires about $15 an hour, and the UAW wants to narrow that gap.

    But without the ability to push wages higher at foreign-owned car plants, the UAW is likely to have little leverage in Detroit, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the Labor & Industry Group at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.

    "They have to organize at least one of the international auto makers in order to attempt to regain bargaining power with the Detroit Three," she added.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...82541226307368

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing how Bob Corker releasing a statement about what he thinks should be done is tantamount to interventionist government, telling people what to do, or is likely to have any impact on Chattanooga's transformation into an "urbane city," or Tennessee's economic growth.

    Maybe you can enlighten me.
    Saying the state legislature would block expansion of the plant if they unionized.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •