VW Positions Ass Above Large Stick

[Flixy]

Workers can (and do) get higher salaries and input without unions. See Japan. How is a system that inherently values seniority over skill and hard work and one where labor flexibility is non-existent going to lead to positive economic results? And let's not forget that Germany did quite well economically under monarchy, under liberalism, under socialism, and under fascism (until the War anyway). Unions are not the common denominator.

Unions are not inherently about seniority - just because American unions are does not mean unions in general are. You keep clinging to what American unions do, but most people in this thread don't support everything those do. I'm also not saying German productivity is due to unions, I was just saying that unions/higher worker influence doesn't necessarily mean lower less competitive. Worker satisfaction is not unimportant to business, after all. Can unions lead to lower competitiveness? Yes, and often it does. But it's not just as negative as you make it out to be, it's a little more complex than that. Of course it is important that unions (and the other side of the table) are reasonable in their demands. Unfortunately the US seems to be very partisan in everything, and cooperation and compromise are dirty works.

[Loki]

Do unions not negotiate across-the-board wage increases? Do they support having different workers in the same position get paid a different amount based on skill?

[Being]

Workers can (and do) get higher salaries and input without unions. See Japan. How is a system that inherently values seniority over skill and hard work and one where labor flexibility is non-existent going to lead to positive economic results? And let's not forget that Germany did quite well economically under monarchy, under liberalism, under socialism, and under fascism (until the War anyway). Unions are not the common denominator.

Every Japanese engineer I have known are members of a union. How many Japanese engineers do you know?

[GGT]

Well, you are playing fast and loose with your terms, but if by interventionist you mean he made a press release about something he claims to have heard then we agree. That's what I've been saying all along. You, on the other hand, have been claiming all sorts of things about him threatening legislation in the Tennessee General Assembly, and believing that plant expansion requires their approval. None of which is true.

His press release and interviews agreed with things he 'heard' from legislators and power brokers -- that unionization would "hinder VWs growth". He took a particular side after saying he wouldn't....knowing full well his opinion carried influence and was a way to intervene. And it's true that expansions at the plant requires some legislative and regulatory approval, that's why his statements could be seen as 'unfair interference in labor negotiations'.

Beyond VW and Tennessee....I'll go back to what I said earlier: this is a distinct Republican Southern Strategy aimed at keeping "unions" out, by whipping up anti-union sentiment that goes back generations, even when it uses outdated stereotypes or myths. North Carolina's Governor Haley recently said that businesses who invite "unions" aren't welcomed there, not even if they bring thousands of jobs to the state. I can't imagine why, unless they presume "unions" will be like the old Teamsters shutting down plants, striking and picketing, corrupt Union Bosses running state government, every politician in their pocket. Sorry, but that's Hollywood movie stuff meant to inflame old sentiments and stoke fear.

On the other hand, the UAW (and Democrats) haven't done a very good job at reforming or modernizing attitudes toward labor "unions", either. They should use these opportunities to change federal and/or state labor laws, and encourage new 'Work Councils' separate and apart from other union membership, or possibly treat them like Professional or Trade Associations.

[GGT]

Another element that changes the relationship between business and labor --- the PPACA (aka Obamacare). People will no longer be forced to rely on employers for affordable health insurance benefits. And make no mistake about it....one major reason labor "unions" became a powerful force was because they could offer their members low cost, comprehensive health insurance, with low or no co-pays and small premiums, in exchange for lower wages.

That explains a lot, in hindsight. And it should be a harbinger for the future.

[Enoch the Red]

His press release and interviews agreed with things he 'heard' from legislators and power brokers -- that unionization would "hinder VWs growth". He took a particular side after saying he wouldn't....knowing full well his opinion carried influence and was a way to intervene.

Yes? And? You are upset because a Republican politician made a press release saying that he believes that joining the UAW would ultimately be a bad thing. The only shocking part about this is that you believe it to be news.

And it's true that expansions at the plant requires some legislative and regulatory approval, that's why his statements could be seen as 'unfair interference in labor negotiations'.

What is true is that you are either consciously lying about what happened, and what you have previously claimed had happened, or you simply don't understand it. Threatening to cut tax incentives is not the same as threatening legislation to prevent the plant from expanding.

[GGT]

Yes? And? You are upset because a Republican politician made a press release saying that he believes that joining the UAW would ultimately be a bad thing. The only shocking part about this is that you believe it to be news.

It's an example of hypocrisy. No, it's not new.

What is true is that you are either consciously lying about what happened, and what you have previously claimed had happened, or you simply don't understand it. Threatening to cut tax incentives is not the same as threatening legislation to prevent the plant from expanding.

It's not limited to tax incentives. The Tennessee legislature is a regulatory body.

[Enoch the Red]

It's not limited to tax incentives. The Tennessee legislature is a regulatory body.

Show me any evidence where someone has threatened regulations that would prevent expansion.

[GGT]

/news/2014/feb/10/state-incentives-volkswagen-may-hinge-uaw-vote-leg/
http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/a...-over-uaw-vote

That was an easy search.

[Enoch the Red]

/news/2014/feb/10/state-incentives-volkswagen-may-hinge-uaw-vote-leg/
http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/a...-over-uaw-vote

That was an easy search.

So what I am getting out of this is that you don't understand the difference between a tax incentive and a regulation prohibiting something?

It's really pretty simple. Is there a difference between eliminating tax benefits for married couples and prohibiting same sex couples from getting married? If yes then you can stop this asinine argument that you keep making. If no, well, I should probably stop because I don't see it going anywhere productive.

[GGT]

When you mix labor laws with marriage laws, then yes--we can agree to end the discussion.

[LittleFuzzy]

What is true is that you are either consciously lying about what happened, and what you have previously claimed had happened, or you simply don't understand it. Threatening to cut tax incentives is not the same as threatening legislation to prevent the plant from expanding.

Furthermore, if she's still talking about the Senator, he has no say or even input in the matter anyway.

[Dreadnaught]

Wait, unionization is bad for companies?

Obama is the one who suggested that VW shareholders would be negatively impacted by a union.

[GGT]

So what I am getting out of this is that you don't understand the difference between a tax incentive and a regulation prohibiting something?

It's really pretty simple. Is there a difference between eliminating tax benefits for married couples and prohibiting same sex couples from getting married? If yes then you can stop this asinine argument that you keep making. If no, well, I should probably stop because I don't see it going anywhere productive.

Furthermore, if she's still talking about the Senator, he has no say or even input in the matter anyway.

I was talking about influence. Including the 'soft' kind that comes from important political figures crafting press releases, or giving media interviews. Sure, pols do that all the time, but it was hypocritical of Corker to say he'd stay out of the way, then do the opposite.

I was *also* discussing the GOP's double-speak, dual messaging, and conflicting agenda that's related to their political identity crisis, trying to appeal to disparate groups within their own ranks. Taxes and Regulations are incentives, whether they're used as carrots or sticks. The point is they're created through government.

*Some* Republicans have taken the Reagan mantra that "government is the problem" to extreme levels. I'm pointing out the duplicity and hypocrisy because it's destructive to our democratic process. We can't have a functional two-party system....if one party has gremlins intent on causing destruction from within, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.





Late edit: Yes, there's a difference b/w eliminating marital tax credits and banning same sex marriage. That argument is being addressed in another thread about marriage equality, and civil rights. But they both involve government intervention, despite a *some* Republicans trying to paint a different picture.