• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UAW loses again.

Ziggurat said:
Union 2.0: we're no longer a parasite on the employer, just the employee.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily the case, a win for the employer/union isn't automatically a lose for the union/employer.

It sounds like the UAW were engaged in talks with VW to ensure that workers in Tennessee remain cost competitive. So long as that still delivers a good wage to the employees that may be good for both parties.

ravdin said:
So... the auto workers are too stupid to know what's good for them?
Click to expand...

On the surface of it, yes.

Their union was engaged in talks to ensure they remain cost competitive. The assumption in rejecting the union is that the auto workers don't want to remain cost competitive and instead want to gradually price themselves out of a job.

Of course the truth is likely to me much more complicated and may never be known. There is enough anti-union feeling and enough impetus behind the anti-union cause that whatever the union had or had not done would have been spun.

The union entered into talks - they're selling out the workers
The union didn't enter into talks - they're ready to bankrupt the employer

I hope (and trust ?) that VW are a good enough employer that the workers won't require union representation.
 
The Don said:
Their union was engaged in talks to ensure they remain cost competitive. The assumption in rejecting the union is that the auto workers don't want to remain cost competitive and instead want to gradually price themselves out of a job.
Click to expand...

Whose assumption? Not mine.

I hope (and trust ?) that VW are a good enough employer that the workers won't require union representation.
Click to expand...

And if you're right, then what's the point of them having union representation? That's just an additional cost to the workers. If the workers have the same trust in VW that you're expressing, then they might reject the union as being superfluous leeches, even if (contrary to your above suggestion) they have no interest in pricing themselves out of a job.
 
Ziggurat said:
Whose assumption? Not mine.
Click to expand...

No it was mine. If the reason why the union was rejected (and the article stated that it was) was that the prospective members were angry that the union was engaged in conversations with the auto manufacturer to keep them cost competitive it follows that they wanted the flexibility not to be cost competitive.
 
Ziggurat said:
And if you're right, then what's the point of them having union representation? That's just an additional cost to the workers. If the workers have the same trust in VW that you're expressing, then they might reject the union as being superfluous leeches, even if (contrary to your above suggestion) they have no interest in pricing themselves out of a job.
Click to expand...

Then the reason for rejecting the union would be that the prospective members felt that a union was unnecessary and not that they were angry that the union was in discussion with the auto manufacturer.

IMO there are probably as many different combinations and weightings of reasons why people rejected the union as there were people who voted "no". As long as it was an informed decision then that's fine, my concern is that Republican politicians have demonised unions to such an extent that some of the prospective members rejected the Republican caricature of union membership rather than the union itself.

In Germany despite generally harmonious relations between employees and employers, union membership is still quite usual so even with a good employer there may still be significant benefits to union membership.
 
ravdin said:
So... the auto workers are too stupid to know what's good for them?
Click to expand...

Possible. They could have been misinformed, they could have bought into propaganda, they could have been correct in rejecting it. There are many possibilities not limited to correctly calling the union a parasite on the employee including but incorrectly calling the union a parasite on the employee.

Also, one doesn't have to be stupid to make an incorrect decision or draw invalid conclusions.
 
tyr_13 said:
Possible. They could have been misinformed, they could have bought into propaganda, they could have been correct in rejecting it. There are many possibilities not limited to correctly calling the union a parasite on the employee including but incorrectly calling the union a parasite on the employee.

Also, one doesn't have to be stupid to make an incorrect decision or draw invalid conclusions.
Click to expand...

So in essence, you're saying that things may not be black and white, but various shades of gray? :D
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
So no "job bank" for VW?
Click to expand...

No idea, you'll have to ask VW.

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim anything, I reported what the article stated, and that it contradicted balrog666's claim. I don't know if they felt the union were screwing them over, or if they didn't like what they felt was the union going behind their back, or whether it was that the Republican lead state government threatened to kill tax incentives to VW if the workers voted to unionize. It could have been a mix of all of them. What it wasn't, was what balrog666 claimed, that the union was trying to bankrupt VW and the workers rejected them for that.

However having said that, one of those that was organising the opposing vote stated that he believed that their victory was because the workers didn't like the agreement to "[keep] wages and benefits from getting too high relative to the already-unionized Big Three automakers in Detroit."

The logical assumption from that, to me, is that they voted against the Union because they want higher wages and benefits relative to the already-unionized Big Three automakers in Detroit, though you might read something else into it.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
No idea, you'll have to ask VW.



I didn't claim anything, I reported what the article stated, and that it contradicted balrog666's claim. I don't know if they felt the union were screwing them over, or if they didn't like what they felt was the union going behind their back, or whether it was that the Republican lead state government threatened to kill tax incentives to VW if the workers voted to unionize. It could have been a mix of all of them. What it wasn't, was what balrog666 claimed, that the union was trying to bankrupt VW and the workers rejected them for that.

However having said that, one of those that was organising the opposing vote stated that he believed that their victory was because the workers didn't like the agreement to "[keep] wages and benefits from getting too high relative to the already-unionized Big Three automakers in Detroit."

The logical assumption from that, to me, is that they voted against the Union because they want higher wages and benefits relative to the already-unionized Big Three automakers in Detroit, though you might read something else into it.
Click to expand...


Of course, you could just read the 50+ other reports and analysis on the event -- there just might be some additional information there. ;)

Here's a link in case your fingers are tired ... News!
 
Help me out here. Why, exactly, is UAW losing a good thing?

And given that VW, BMW, Mercedes, and other European car companies are massively successful with largely unionized workforces, I'm gonna need something more than "unions are bad."
 
Cleon said:
Help me out here. Why, exactly, is UAW losing a good thing?

And given that VW, BMW, Mercedes, and other European car companies are massively successful with largely unionized workforces, I'm gonna need something more than "unions are bad."
Click to expand...


Do you think the UAW (under US labor law and Obama's NRLB after 60 years of abusive behavior) is in any way comparable to European unions under EU law? :confused:
 
Snake handling.....check
jeebus loving........check
tea party voting.....check
Union hating..........check
gay opposing..........check
Live in the South?....check

The south has historically hated unions and any type of progressive thought. You can see the demographic daily on the news, creationism taught as science, abortion rights marginilized, westboro baptist church, subtle Jim Crow mentality in public. Full on racial hatred in private.
 
Last edited:
balrog666 said:
Of course, you could just read the 50+ other reports and analysis on the event -- there just might be some additional information there. ;)

Here's a link in case your fingers are tired ... News!
Click to expand...

So why not quote one that backs your position rather then one that doesn't?
 
balrog666 said:
I quoted the one that was online first.

And for obvious reasons.

Is that really so difficult to understand? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes I know that you are confused because your article didn't back up your claim that the UAW were trying to bankrupt another company, rather it stated that in fact, it was exactly the opposite, that they had already agreed to limit and not push for higher wages and benefits than those that existed in the other factories. I'm not sure what difficulty you have with that, other than not reading your own articles before linking to them.
 
PhantomWolf said:
However having said that, one of those that was organising the opposing vote stated that he believed that their victory was because the workers didn't like the agreement to "[keep] wages and benefits from getting too high relative to the already-unionized Big Three automakers in Detroit."

The logical assumption from that, to me, is that they voted against the Union because they want higher wages and benefits relative to the already-unionized Big Three automakers in Detroit, though you might read something else into it.
Click to expand...

Which seems like a perfectly reasonable response, to me.

I'd say that negotiating an agreement about wages is exactly the sort of thing a union does with the workers, not without them. If the union is going to undertake that fundamental task of collective bargaining, without actually including the collective, then why unionize?

Would you want to be represented by someone who committed you to preconditions on your key issue, without even asking for your input?
 
theprestige said:
Which seems like a perfectly reasonable response, to me.

I'd say that negotiating an agreement about wages is exactly the sort of thing a union does with the workers, not without them. If the union is going to undertake that fundamental task of collective bargaining, without actually including the collective, then why unionize?

Would you want to be represented by someone who committed you to preconditions on your key issue, without even asking for your input?
Click to expand...

So you agree that in this case the UAW are a factor in moderating the likely demands of the workforce ?

There are many benefits to union membership other than having a stick to beat the company over the head with when it comes round to setting terms and conditions:

  • Union membership typically provides legal services cover. Now you ma already have that from your home or car insurance but not everyone does
  • Members of unions usually get access to cut price goods and services
  • Bursaries and scholarships for members to continue their education
  • There is usually a benevolent and/or bereavement fund
  • The union can represent you in the case of an individual's termination or disciplinary action
  • The union has a PR function so if there is a problem in a workplace the workers' side of things is put professionally

Of course a bad union is no use to man nor beast but to me it seems that most unions have realised that the confrontational tactics of the 1970s no longer work (though there are exceptions, Bob Crow I'm looking at you) and they now seek to work with employers for the benefit of the union members.


Edited to add.......

There's even a benefit to the employer in having collective bargaining. If, at some point in the future, VW have to reduce the number of employees and/or lower salaries and they have a decision whether to close some plants, they may close those plants where agreeing the individual terms an conditions for each employee is onerous and retain those where the majority of the employees are represented by a single body.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Which seems like a perfectly reasonable response, to me.

I'd say that negotiating an agreement about wages is exactly the sort of thing a union does with the workers, not without them. If the union is going to undertake that fundamental task of collective bargaining, without actually including the collective, then why unionize?

Would you want to be represented by someone who committed you to preconditions on your key issue, without even asking for your input?
Click to expand...

It's sort of irrelevant really. My comment was and always has been about this statement.

The UAW was thwarted in their efforts to drive another car company into bankruptcy!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom