Auto Workers Winning and Losing
#1
So the workers at VW have voted.
No, they said.
We don't want collective bargaining, at least not as run by the United Auto Workers.
At least some said no.
the U.A.W. lost, with workers voting, 712 to 626, against joining the union. So in fact 86 people decided the issue. My poor math skills don't allow me to do the proportion/ration (?) but clearly it was not all the close.
Thanks to our political class.

From the pages of the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/busine...tml?ref=us

We learn that politicians were in the middle of this, as if it were a vote on the floor of a body in which they serve.

"Mr. King blamed Republican lawmakers for the loss. They made numerous anti-union arguments — and a few threats — to discourage workers from unionizing. Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, contended that auto parts suppliers would not come to the Chattanooga area if that meant being located near a unionized VW plant. Senator Bob Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga, said VW executives had told him the plant would add a second production line, making sport utility vehicles, if workers rejected the U.A.W. Mr. Corker and some outside conservative groups told workers that the U.A.W. had contributed to the struggles of Detroit’s automakers and would make VW less competitive — a view echoed by some workers.

Adding to the anti-union pressure, Bo Watson, a state senator who represents a Chattanooga suburb, said the Republican-controlled Legislature was unlikely to approve further subsidies to Volkswagen if the plant unionized. Some workers feared that his threat would cause Chattanooga to lose the planned S.U.V. line to a VW plant in Mexico.

“We are outraged that people in the political arena decided that they were going to threaten workers and that they were going to threaten the company,” Mr. King said. “The threats against the workers were what shifted things.”

Last September, his union said, a majority of VW workers signed cards saying they wanted the U.A.W. to represent them. Mr. King said his union was weighing legal action against what some union officials said was improper anti-union intimidation of VW’s workers."


Collective Bargaining is a Hot Button Issue, and folks here at the the RVF have come down on both sides, often with intense views strongly expressed.

My question here, is how much influence should politicians (elected by ALL the people involved) have in determining the outcome of elections about collective bargaining?
Reply
#2
To your question, it depends and who pays the politicians. We are a corporate state after all.
Ask John Roberts,Smiling
Reply
#3
(02-16-2014, 09:46 AM)Willie Krash Wrote: To your question, it depends and who pays the politicians. We are a corporate state after all.
Ask John Roberts,Smiling

Point taken Willie.
And I'd guess you only have your tongue slightly planted in cheek.

I have no idea how "working folks" are going to solve all they face. (Thank the gods I'm retired). But there has GOT to be something better than what is going on now. Being "old school", I'm a Collective Bargaining" fan, but if there is a new and better way of righting this wrong I'm all for it.
Reply
#4
It seems pretty complicated. If the money folks (aka the GOP) want to destroy the unions and put the Labor/Capital balance back to 1910 levels, they may win fights like this but lose the war to keep America solvent. The balance was pretty good in the postwar decades (WW2, that is). What happened since the early 70's was a lot of competition from foreign automakers, which Detroit badly underestimated, causing them to lose a lot of business, and to put part of the blame on unions and workers for the high payroll costs. When labor and capital are set up as adversaries (i.e. as a zero-sum game) it's nearly impossible to negotiate a response to this situation that would be beneficial to both sides.

One way of curing this would be a system of profit-sharing that would give employees an ownership share in the company. I won't hold my breath until this happens.Cool
Reply
#5
(02-16-2014, 12:20 PM)Prospero Wrote: It seems pretty complicated. If the money folks (aka the GOP) want to destroy the unions and put the Labor/Capital balance back to 1910 levels, they may win fights like this but lose the war to keep America solvent. The balance was pretty good in the postwar decades (WW2, that is). What happened since the early 70's was a lot of competition from foreign automakers, which Detroit badly underestimated, causing them to lose a lot of business, and to put part of the blame on unions and workers for the high payroll costs. When labor and capital are set up as adversaries (i.e. as a zero-sum game) it's nearly impossible to negotiate a response to this situation that would be beneficial to both sides.

One way of curing this would be a system of profit-sharing that would give employees an ownership share in the company. I won't hold my breath until this happens.Cool

I read more and more "blurbs" here an there saying exactly that: That the real solution is going to be some kind of employee ownership. That means of course that those with capital will have to have some reason to want to invest in the people who do the work. 401(k) is only a slight movement in that direction.
I'm not holding my breath either. We can hope.
Reply
#6
(02-16-2014, 03:57 PM)Wonky Wrote: I read more and more "blurbs" here an there saying exactly that: That the real solution is going to be some kind of employee ownership. That means of course that those with capital will have to have some reason to want to invest in the people who do the work. 401(k) is only a slight movement in that direction.
I'm not holding my breath either. We can hope.

It's an interesting concept, because it removes the implications of class struggle inherent in the labor/management dichotomy, thereby avoiding the charge of socialism. But giant corporations owned in part by their employees could be even more averse to governmental controls (e.g. environmental regulations) than the ones owned by plutocrats.

Not to mention that workers with a stake in the stock market might tend to vote Republican.SurprisedSurprised
Reply
#7
(02-17-2014, 11:45 AM)Prospero Wrote:
(02-16-2014, 03:57 PM)Wonky Wrote: I read more and more "blurbs" here an there saying exactly that: That the real solution is going to be some kind of employee ownership. That means of course that those with capital will have to have some reason to want to invest in the people who do the work. 401(k) is only a slight movement in that direction.
I'm not holding my breath either. We can hope.

It's an interesting concept, because it removes the implications of class struggle inherent in the labor/management dichotomy, thereby avoiding the charge of socialism. But giant corporations owned in part by their employees could be even more averse to governmental controls (e.g. environmental regulations) than the ones owned by plutocrats.

Not to mention that workers with a stake in the stock market might tend to vote Republican.SurprisedSurprised

I especially like your first sentence:
It's an interesting concept, because it removes the implications of class struggle inherent in the labor/management dichotomy, thereby avoiding the charge of socialism."

But everything after that kind of goes downhill. Smiling

The thorn in the process I see as most glaring is how the Capitalist could be enticed to invest (heavily) in plant and equipment to start the foundation for an outfit the workers would be allowed to gain equity in. Capitalist will need to see a clear and ongoing profit margin in that.
And if these "new equity" workers were to become Republican voters I'd bet we would see a "new and improved" Republican party. That I could not only live with, but applaud. Party names don'e mean much…party behavior does. (Remember the DixieCrats ?)

Back to the topic: At some point, soon I believe, people in this country will have to find a way to band together to represent strength equal to the powers that now run the economy. I don't know what that will look like. Based on this recent example I doubt it will look a whole lot like the UAW. And it won't look like leadership from the Tea Party.

Hope springs eternal. Smiling
Reply
#8
(02-17-2014, 12:48 PM)Wonky Wrote: The thorn in the process I see as most glaring is how the Capitalist could be enticed to invest (heavily) in plant and equipment to start the foundation for an outfit the workers would be allowed to gain equity in. Capitalist will need to see a clear and ongoing profit margin in that. [cut]

Back to the topic: At some point, soon I believe, people in this country will have to find a way to band together to represent strength equal to the powers that now run the economy. I don't know what that will look like. Based on this recent example I doubt it will look a whole lot like the UAW. And it won't look like leadership from the Tea Party.

Hope springs eternal. Smiling

UAW vs. the Tea Party: what a choice! But a union with a large membership could presumably float a loan for investment. Theoretically, anyway.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)