I believe the difference between auto unions in Germany and America was discussed here not that long ago and thought this might interest those involved in that conversation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/business/outsiders-not-auto-plant-battle-uaw-in-tennessee.html?_r=0
QuoteOutsiders, Not Auto Plant, Battle U.A.W. in Tennessee
By STEVEN GREENHOUSEJAN. 28, 2014
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — At the Volkswagen plant nestled in Tennessee's rolling hills, a unionization drive has drawn national attention as business groups worry about organized labor's efforts to gain its first foothold at a foreign-owned automobile plant in the South. In a region known as anti-union, many view VW's response as unusual, if not topsy-turvy.
Unlike most companies that confront unionization efforts, Volkswagen — facing a drive by the United Automobile Workers — has not mounted a vigorous campaign to beat back the union; instead VW officials have hinted they might even prefer having a union. And while unions that seek to organize factories often complain that the playing field is tilted because they do not have access to workers in the plant, here the union opponents are the ones protesting what they say is an uneven field.
The anti-U.A.W. forces are making themselves heard, warning that if the U.A.W. succeeds here, that will lend momentum to unionize two other prestigious German-owned plants: the Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama and the BMW plant in South Carolina.
Two of Tennessee's most prominent Republicans, Gov. Bill Haslam and Senator Bob Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga, have repeatedly voiced concerns that a U.A.W. victory would hurt the plant's competitiveness and the state's business climate.
A business-backed group put up a billboard declaring, "Auto Unions Ate Detroit. Next Meal: Chattanooga," while a prominent anti-union group, the National Right to Work Committee, has brought legal challenges against the U.A.W.'s effort, asserting that VW officials improperly pressured workers to back a union.
In addition, Grover Norquist, the anti-tax crusader, has set up a group, the Center for Worker Freedom, that has fought the U.A.W. on several fronts, partly to prevent the election of labor's Democratic allies who might increase government spending.
"It's unusual how national groups have really gotten interested in this," said Daniel B. Cornfield, a labor expert at Vanderbilt University. "It seems that both the business community and labor are seeing what's happening at VW as a pivotal moment in the Southern automotive business and labor history."
The billion-dollar Volkswagen assembly plant opened in 2011, aided by $577 million in state subsidies, there to great fanfare. It was expected to buoy Chattanooga's image as a place to do business. There was no whiff of unionization.
But Chattanooga's business community grew alarmed last September when the U.A.W. asked VW for union recognition, saying a majority of the plant's 1,600 assembly workers had signed cards seeking union representation.
The business community reacted with further dismay when several Volkswagen officials from Germany visited the plant and hinted that it would be good to have a labor union because that would help establish a German-style works council. Such councils, comprising managers and representatives of white-collar and blue-collar workers, seek to foster collaboration within a factory as they forge policies on plant rules, work hours, vacations and other matters.
Michael Cantrell, 56, an assembly line worker, said it would be great to have a works council because it would give the workers more of a voice and help VW by fostering a smoother-running plant.
"It gives them a great competitive advantage if they do this," said Mr. Cantrell, who has an M.B.A. and ran a tax preparation company before joining Volkswagen. "They have this standardized across the world. We feel we're not as competitive if we don't have this collaboration. This would be a paradigm shift."
The U.A.W. and many legal experts say it would be illegal for an American company to set up a works council without first having a union, asserting that otherwise the works council might be an illegal, employer-dominated workers group.
Scott Wilson, a VW spokesman, said: "Volkswagen values the rights of its employees in all locations to representation of their interests. In the United States, it is only possible to realize this in conjunction with a union. This is a decision that ultimately lies in the hands of the employees. For this reason, we have begun a dialogue with the U.A.W." Last Thursday, National Labor Relations Board officials said VW had not improperly pressured workers to support the union.
In another twist, Mr. Cantrell and many workers want a union even though they say Volkswagen treats them well. In their view, a union would give them a greater voice and job security and help ensure that management communicated better and was more sensitive on scheduling. Mr. Cantrell said his pay, $19.50 an hour, is fine, but "it's not anything exorbitant."
Don Jackson, who was Volkswagen of America's president of manufacturing before retiring in 2012, has become an outspoken opponent of unionization and a works council. Last year, he laid into the U.A.W. at a public forum with 150 attendees.
"Volkswagen wants the works council so badly they don't care how they get it," Mr. Jackson said in an interview. "Quite frankly I don't see why we need a works council."
Mr. Jackson said he did not think the U.A.W. had majority backing. "If they truly had the support they would have already asked for a vote," he said.
Gary Casteel, the U.A.W.'s Southern director, voiced confidence that the union would win an election. "I don't know how Don Jackson does his math." he said. "Volkswagen knows we have a majority, and we know we have a majority."
Governor Haslam and Senator Corker have argued that VW should not recognize the U.A.W. based on card signings, but rather on a secret-ballot election. Senator Corker said he had been told that VW would insist on an election. "While I care about Volkswagen, what I care most about is our community and about our households being able to progress and have a great standard of living," he said. "I'm concerned about the impact of the U.A.W. on the future efforts to recruit business to our community."
He added, "The work rules and other things that typically come with the UA.W. would drive up costs. It would make the facility less competitive."
Mike Burton, 56, a quality assurance worker who has set up an elaborate anti-union website, no2uaw.com, said he thought the union would lose an election. He said that in two weeks he persuaded 30 percent of the plant's workers to sign an anti-U.A.W. petition. "When you see what the U.A.W. did in Detroit, you have to worry about what it will do here," he said.
Matt Patterson, who heads the new Center for Worker Freedom, an arm of Mr. Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, has promoted an anti-union agenda here, writing opinion articles and forming an anti-union coalition. "When the cost of government goes up, Americans for Tax Reform isn't happy about it," he said. "Unions are a big driver of government. Unions are very political, the U.A.W. is one of the most political. If they help elect politicians who pass huge government programs, that requires taxes."
Like many pro-union workers, Mr. Cantrell objects to Mr. Patterson's presence. "He's making money by coming into our community from Washington and telling me and my co-workers what's best for us," he said. "What does he know about the auto industry?"
Eric DeLacy, 33, works in the plant's paint shop and backs the U.A.W. "The union will do everything to make this succeed," he said. "They want this plant to succeed. The union wants this to be the first domino falling that will create a chain reaction."
Mr. Corker predicted the U.A.W. would be "on its best behavior for three to five years," before reverting to its traditional militancy. "They will do that to get their nose under the tent of other auto manufacturers in the South," he said.
Volkswagen has an interesting system where plants compete with each other for building new models. If Chattanooga becomes uncompetitive with unionization, they'll just move production to their main NAFTA site in Puebla. The Chattanooga plant currently makes like 1-1.5% of Volkswagen's global output.
American unions have a long list of things they can be blamed for, but killing Detroit is a rather dubious charge. Most of the industries historically under the thumb of the union were also protected oligopolies that began to struggle when those protections went away. Onerous union contracts were just one of many cancerous legacies left behind from the protectionist times.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2014, 10:32:43 AM
American unions have a long list of things they can be blamed for, but killing Detroit is a rather dubious charge. Most of the industries historically under the thumb of the union were also protected oligopolies that began to struggle when those protections went away. Onerous union contracts were just one of many cancerous legacies left behind from the protectionist times.
:yes: Symptom, not a cause. The blatant and excessive corruption and money-siphoning probably did more to damage the infrastructure of Detroit than the unions themselves.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2014, 10:32:43 AM
American unions have a long list of things they can be blamed for, but killing Detroit is a rather dubious charge. Most of the industries historically under the thumb of the union were also protected oligopolies that began to struggle when those protections went away. Onerous union contracts were just one of many cancerous legacies left behind from the protectionist times.
The other cancerous legacies were designed obselescence, poor design, and shoddy workmanship. When the Japanese invasion began those problems were for the most part fixed. The unions, however, refused to believe anything had changed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 03:30:31 PM
The other cancerous legacies were designed obselescence, poor design, and shoddy workmanship. When the Japanese invasion began those problems were for the most part fixed. The unions, however, refused to believe anything had changed.
Shoddy workmanship I can see, but how are designed obsolescence and poor design a legacy of the unions?
Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2014, 03:45:54 PM
Shoddy workmanship I can see, but how are designed obsolescence and poor design a legacy of the unions?
They are not. If you look again at Guller's post I was responding to, you'll see this:
"Onerous union contracts were just one of many cancerous legacies left behind from the protectionist times."
And while we're at it, the Big Three's oligopoly wasn't a result of protectionism, it was a result of strategic bombing.
Then why were companies like Ford so wildly successful before WWII?
I'm pretty rabidly anti-union, but if VW wants to welcome in a union with open arms, who are all these other people to try and stop them?
And here's a kind of sentence I never thought I'd see:
QuoteLast Thursday, National Labor Relations Board officials said VW had not improperly pressured workers to support the union.
A Labour Board complaint... alleging the employer tried to pressure workers to join the union. *shakes head*
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 04:00:42 PM
Then why were companies like Ford so wildly successful before WWII?
Brand new market. If you make things that people want and no has yet, you will generally be successful.
Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2014, 04:05:23 PM
I'm pretty rabidly anti-union, but if VW wants to welcome in a union with open arms, who are all these other people to try and stop them?
People who do not like organizations that donate to Democrats. That is what this is about.
It's interesting that Ford and GM both expanded overseas decades before their competitors would eventually show up in their home market in the US. Despite that they were ill-prepared...
I always wonder if the kind of huge incentives given to automakers actually pay off for the states/cities that give them. The Chattanooga plant has about 2000 employees, so Volkswagen got subsidies of about $287.000 per employee. Assembly line workers making less than $40.000 will not exactly provide a huge lift to the local economy either. And whether the suppliers will create so many jobs around the plant that it eventually pays off is a risky bet. Especially if they ask for their own subsidies.
Quote from: Zanza on January 31, 2014, 04:25:56 PM
I always wonder if the kind of huge incentives given to automakers actually pay off for the states/cities that give them. The Chattanooga plant has about 2000 employees, so Volkswagen got subsidies of about $287.000 per employee. Assembly line workers making less than $40.000 will not exactly provide a huge lift to the local economy either. And whether the suppliers will create so many jobs around the plant that it eventually pays off is a risky bet. Especially if they ask for their own subsidies.
300 bucks is nothing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 04:08:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 04:00:42 PM
Then why were companies like Ford so wildly successful before WWII?
Brand new market. If you make things that people want and no has yet, you will generally be successful.
Yet there are places were people want cars but don't have them, like Africa and much of Asia.
When have you been to Africa or Asia the last time? They have huge amounts of cars there, too many for the available infrastructure in the bigger cities and often in rural areas too.
Quote from: The Brain on January 31, 2014, 04:27:26 PM
300 bucks is nothing.
A quip about decimal signs :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 03:52:43 PM
And while we're at it, the Big Three's oligopoly wasn't a result of protectionism, it was a result of strategic bombing.
And the big American temptation which is laziness. You've got such a huge domestic market there's less need to compete abroad. The companies in other countries that don't have that domestic market are improving and will come and get a slice of the US market too. That's a huge part of British post-war economic decline too.
QuoteI'm pretty rabidly anti-union, but if VW wants to welcome in a union with open arms, who are all these other people to try and stop them?
I like unions so I hope this works. It'll be good to get a test of Anglo-Saxon and German industrial relations. Interesting to see if it can work.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2014, 08:06:13 PM
And the big American temptation which is laziness. You've got such a huge domestic market there's less need to compete abroad.
It's universally recognized that the American market is the most competitive in the world.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:07:50 PM
It's universally recognized that the American market is the most competitive in the world.
Okay. So you don't think a massive domestic market was one of the reasons for the laziness - shoddy workmanship, poor design, etc - and oligopoly?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2014, 08:15:09 PM
Okay. So you don't think a massive domestic market was one of the reasons for the laziness - shoddy workmanship, poor design, etc - and oligopoly?
I think oligopoly was formed because of economies of scale and consolidation of smaller players into GM. The vast majority of markets in the US are not characterized by oligopoly or monopoly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 03:52:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2014, 03:45:54 PM
Shoddy workmanship I can see, but how are designed obsolescence and poor design a legacy of the unions?
They are not. If you look again at Guller's post I was responding to, you'll see this:
"Onerous union contracts were just one of many cancerous legacies left behind from the protectionist times."
And while we're at it, the Big Three's oligopoly wasn't a result of protectionism, it was a result of strategic bombing.
Hey, it works.
Nationalize it.
As much as it pains me to say it, our state-owned strategic bombing industry has been seriously outcompeted in recent years by a smaller, leaner private firm from Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 31, 2014, 10:19:41 PM
As much as it pains me to say it, our state-owned strategic bombing industry has been seriously outcompeted in recent years by a smaller, leaner private firm from Saudi Arabia.
I think you should do a comparative film review for the products. My take:
Our films are billed as showing major shit going down, but tend to be black and white, and distant. They show explosions which seem like they might be cool, but you don't get the sense of being there. They are probably edited to maintain a PG rating. The feeling is of a late 1990s video game. Grade: D. With a $700 billion a year budget, we expect a bigger spectacle.
Their films are much grittier. They tend to be up close and personal, and hold nothing back. This is NC 17 type stuff and not for the faint of heart. Since a 2001 when they had a rather remarkable production, their films have tended to be small scale. The men in these videos appear to be poorly groomed and insane. Too much religious content for my tastes. Grade: D. This stuff leaves you squirming, but they at least produce memorable impressions on a shoestring budget.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 31, 2014, 11:14:42 PM
I think you should do a comparative film review for the products. My take:
Our films are billed as showing major shit going down, but tend to be black and white, and distant. They show explosions which seem like they might be cool, but you don't get the sense of being there. They are probably edited to maintain a PG rating. The feeling is of a late 1990s video game. Grade: D. With a $700 billion a year budget, we expect a bigger spectacle.
Their films are much grittier. They tend to be up close and personal, and hold nothing back. This is NC 17 type stuff and not for the faint of heart. Since a 2001 when they had a rather remarkable production, their films have tended to be small scale. The men in these videos appear to be poorly groomed and insane. Too much religious content for my tastes. Grade: D. This stuff leaves you squirming, but they at least produce memorable impressions on a shoestring budget.
:lol: Damn. Can't we resurrect POTM for this?
^_^
Quote from: alfred russel on January 31, 2014, 11:14:42 PM
I think you should do a comparative film review for the products. My take:
Our films are billed as showing major shit going down, but tend to be black and white, and distant. They show explosions which seem like they might be cool, but you don't get the sense of being there. They are probably edited to maintain a PG rating. The feeling is of a late 1990s video game. Grade: D. With a $700 billion a year budget, we expect a bigger spectacle.
Their films are much grittier. They tend to be up close and personal, and hold nothing back. This is NC 17 type stuff and not for the faint of heart. Since a 2001 when they had a rather remarkable production, their films have tended to be small scale. The men in these videos appear to be poorly groomed and insane. Too much religious content for my tastes. Grade: D. This stuff leaves you squirming, but they at least produce memorable impressions on a shoestring budget.
You forgot the time loops.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2014, 08:06:13 PM
And the big American temptation which is laziness. You've got such a huge domestic market there's less need to compete abroad.
That's arguably what Chrysler did, but GM and Ford went global decades before their Japanese or European competitors.
Quote from: Zanza on January 31, 2014, 04:25:56 PM
I always wonder if the kind of huge incentives given to automakers actually pay off for the states/cities that give them. The Chattanooga plant has about 2000 employees, so Volkswagen got subsidies of about $287.000 per employee. Assembly line workers making less than $40.000 will not exactly provide a huge lift to the local economy either. And whether the suppliers will create so many jobs around the plant that it eventually pays off is a risky bet. Especially if they ask for their own subsidies.
I can see it making sense in towns where you have one major employer on who everyone depends. If that company leaves the city may die (seen it back home when the Bundeswehr closed down many bases, or recently when the last large non-public employer announced they're shutting down 1,000+ jobs (in a town of 20,000; 30k-40k if you count the surrounding areas) in my old home town.
In the case of Chattanooga the dependency may not be so great, though.
Quote from: Zanza on February 01, 2014, 03:05:52 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2014, 08:06:13 PM
And the big American temptation which is laziness. You've got such a huge domestic market there's less need to compete abroad.
That's arguably what Chrysler did, but GM and Ford went global decades before their Japanese or European competitors.
GM bought Opel in '29, and I think Ford also made the jump in the 1920s?
Yes, GM also bought Vauxhall before Opel. I guess you could say they were lazy in bringing back what they learned overseas and they never leveraged their global reach into global car models until recently.
QuoteUnion Suffers Big Loss at Tennessee VW Plant
Volkswagen workers rejected the UAW by a vote of 712 to 626.
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. F +1.06% 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.
:lol:
I don't understand the use of this election. Why can't the workers just choose their own representatives and have those join the works council?
The way it works here is you can choose whoever you want, whether he is a affiliated or not with a union. The latter just makes things easier (since by virtue of their size they can have people dedicated full time to labour law, pension auditing, etc).
Same here. We have an election for our work council soon and there is seven lists of people, only two of which are from unions. I'll vote for one of the independent guys.
I think it comes down to competition here. Less than 12% of Americans are unionized, and if you strip out the massive public sector unions (employees who frankly should not even be allowed to be in unions) it's an even smaller portion. I know lots of blue collar guys in traditional union fields, and almost none of them are pro-union. The only pro-union blue collar guy I know is a retired coal miner who dislikes everything about the UMWA except for the fact that UMWA mines are safe, and in the coal industry that's a pretty serious concern. Union mines wouldn't allow a lot of the shenanigans that operators pull leading up to big disasters like the Massey explosion a few years ago that killed 30 miners, for example. He still had most of the same complaints about the union aside from that.
Why do many blue collar workers dislike organizations that on paper help them out? Because the way we did unionization in this country basically guaranteed unions would become organizations that benefit the few at the top of the union and were unaccountable to its members. In most of Europe it's my understanding if you have say, a steel factory, you could have multiple unions/trade organizations that represent steelworkers operating in that same plant. If one of the unions does a bad job, you can switch membership to another, voting with your feet so to speak. The way labor relations laws were crafted in the United States, it's basically a matter of once a single union gets into a facility then basically the whole hourly workforce has to be represented by that union and can't be represented by any other. Once in, it's almost impossible to de-unionize a factory, and since you can't have a competing union it means union leadership basically has no reason to be truly accountable to its members.
Do they do stuff for the benefit of their members? Yes, but the fact that they are unaccountable leads to them being highly corrupt. We also have a bad practice of our unions not wanting their members to be accountable for their actions. At a factory when you come in on time every day, work safely every day, and a guy who shows up late every day and then one day shows up with a BAC of .09 and causes an accident how do you think you feel if "your" union successfully protects that guy and keeps him from losing his job? That's how unions operate here and that's why lots of blue collar workers are willing to trade some of the genuine positives of organized labor just to escape all the negatives associated with it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 15, 2014, 10:25:57 AM
The only pro-union blue collar guy I know is a retired coal miner who dislikes everything about the UMWA except for the fact that UMWA mines are safe, and in the coal industry that's a pretty serious concern.
Gee, imagine that.
QuoteWhy do many blue collar workers dislike organizations that on paper help them out?
The capitalist model has managed to convince the American worker dating to the late 19th century that unions are a foreign and alien concept, one contrary to the American work ethos--that Protestant work ethic that, if you work really, really hard, it will see you through to the American Dream--and that all unions smack of European socialism, intellectual elitism, reactionary and revolutionary politics and are therefore suspect. So it's not surprising that, after being beaten over the head for well over a century with business-friendly propaganda and a cultural mindset that champions and celebrates the entrepreneur unshackled by government interference and pro-labor concepts, the American worker has had an historic and consistent distrust and loathing of the concept of joining a union, and pooh-pooh them with the vague recollections of European civil wars from their high school educations and every GOP politician since the '80 elections.
Accountability? Union corruption can't hold a candle to managerial corruption, not now, not ever. But that's not much different than the American pastime of hating on black single mothers on food stamps for ripping off the nation, when they can't touch the amount of damage Wall Street does to America every year. But that's the benefit of years of successful political demonization for you, because we all know how historically benign and benevolent your average American employer truly, truly is when it comes to the common worker, the safety and equality of the work environment and such nuisances as compensation.
Even to this day, Americans still actually and sincerely believe that if they do the right thing their employers will, in the end, do right by them. LOL, suckers.
Teachers, auto workers, state workers, nurses, zomg they're destroying the very fabric of America with their unnecessary unions. Unless you're in law enforcement, and then you're just an ignorant ass hypocritical fucktard.
QuoteAt a factory when you come in on time every day, work safely every day, and a guy who shows up late every day and then one day shows up with a BAC of .09 and causes an accident how do you think you feel if "your" union successfully protects that guy and keeps him from losing his job?
Link, plz.
That is some high quality hysteria right there Seedy.
Don't you have a unionized teacher to run over or something?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2014, 12:24:06 PM
The capitalist model has managed to convince the American worker dating to the late 19th century that unions are a foreign and alien concept,
That's not true. One only has to look at the union membership from the 30s to the 50s to know it's not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2014, 12:24:06 PMAccountability? Union corruption can't hold a candle to managerial corruption, not now, not ever. But that's not much different than the American pastime of hating on black single mothers on food stamps for ripping off the nation, when they can't touch the amount of damage Wall Street does to America every year. But that's the benefit of years of successful political demonization for you, because we all know how historically benign and benevolent your average American employer truly, truly is when it comes to the common worker, the safety and equality of the work environment and such nuisances as compensation.
Not really on point, because if I'm a blue collar worker and what you say about management is true that sucks, but I doubt I'm going to find a work place where I can work on a factory assembly line and not report to a corporate manager. There is no real choice about whether to have a manager or not, and if most companies have hostile management as you assert then that's basically not something that would make me decide to work for Volkswagen over Honda or whatever.
But a union, I don't have to have. Just because management sucks doesn't mean a blue collar worker is going to want to kick some of his pay to an organization that appears to be more concerned with making union bosses rich and donating money to Democrat political campaigns. I think if workers had a genuine choice between several unions, as they do in Europe, you'd see better behaving unions. In America the model is built around the concept that a single union fights to win unionization at a plant, and when they do they basically now have a monopoly on labor supply at that plant--and the workers they represent can't easily throw them out, and they certainly can't typically opt to have another union represent their interests if they believe the certified union is doing a bad job.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 12:31:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2014, 12:24:06 PM
The capitalist model has managed to convince the American worker dating to the late 19th century that unions are a foreign and alien concept,
That's not true. One only has to look at the union membership from the 30s to the 50s to know it's not.
Funny how that coincides with the series of pro-labor Supreme Court rulings of the 1930's that actually made it safe to join unions and ensure their civil liberties, free of the arbitrary and illegal prosecutions, seizures, and deportations of the decades earlier by the US government and the Famous But Incompetent.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 15, 2014, 09:29:21 AM
I don't understand the use of this election. Why can't the workers just choose their own representatives and have those join the works council?
Based on what the article says, it's illegal for some reason.
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2014, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 15, 2014, 09:29:21 AM
I don't understand the use of this election. Why can't the workers just choose their own representatives and have those join the works council?
Based on what the article says, it's illegal for some reason.
Labor law is a minefield, but I think it's more that it "might be illegal" since no one has explicitly tried it here and no one wants to be a test case before the NLRB or the potential court cases associated.
Don't quite see the connection between the Protestant work ethic and union organization. Rugged individualism probably works better.
For unions to thrive you need one of two things, preferably both: legislation that protects striking workers or "worker solidarity." Actually, you probably need one of these two for unions to even exist.