Tenn. Volkswagen Vote Major Setback for UAW

[bonehead]

As long as VW and the union, and a large percentage of workers want another vote I don't see why not.

Kind of ironic the south is fighting it so hard. If they really believed how bad unions are they should have allowed it and let the UAW hang itself. Also under the "right to work for less" laws, the workers could have still worked there but choose not to pay dues. The union would still have to be accountable for them and represent them. What better way to bankrupt the union. I also wonder if it was anyone but the UAW there would have been so much resistance. The UAW being the poster boy for all that is bad with unions and all.

[tbm3fan]

So you are saying there should be another vote without Grover Norquists and Corkers involvement?

There could be. While the UAW, by law, has to wait a year another union does not have to and could step right in for a vote. Apparently VW wasn't happy with the political interference and a spokesperson said that they may have to look into why would they want to open their next plant in the south.

[GVChamp]

Why should I pay someone more if the other guys is doing the same job for less?

This is not how American unions work. Many unions have bargained in a two-tier wage structure, most notably the UAW and Caterpillar. If you were a young man hired after 2006, you took a substantial pay cut, because "market conditions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/bu...anted=all&_r=0
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...er-pay-system/

The times, they are a-changin'. This is de facto truth for Gen Yrs in the corporate world, to which our response has been to jump ship as quickly as possible for a pay increase that dwarves the below COL adjustments we get. To the business whining about loyalty, go f' yourself and the horse you rode in on, and lrn2cptlsm.

[bonehead]

omg really TC?

What I posted is THE issue here...why the Union was voted out...you know, the winning arguments that the anti-union workers used to vote the union out.

As far as Obama, this was none of his business, nor the business of the politicians, and both should have kept their noses out of it, as well as their comments to themselves, as far as I'm concerned.

So you are saying there should be another vote without Grover Norquists and Corkers involvement?

[Triple C]

Julie,

What I mean is that the anti-UAW PR website's presentation of facts is very likely to be partisan, as one would expect from the dueling PR offices. Are they implying that workers can expect VW to raise wages to levels higher than the cap in the absence of union presence? You argue that unions ruined auto industry in the north. Conceding that for the moment, wasn't the cause presumably that the unions demanded unreasonable wages from employers?

I am not understanding the argument. There is a negotiated pact between UAW and VW that is unpopular, I got that. But how does that prove Corker's assertion that VW would not open a production line if UAW wins?

[Julie]

Julie,

Your link goes directly to the anti-union faction that is involved in an election. How'd you feel if I post links from Obama's White House dot org and pose it as reliable information? Like others, I am confused. Nevertheless, interesting.

omg really TC?

What I posted is THE issue here...why the Union was voted out...you know, the winning arguments that the anti-union workers used to vote the union out.

As far as Obama, this was none of his business, nor the business of the politicians, and both should have kept their noses out of it, as well as their comments to themselves, as far as I'm concerned.

[Triple C]

Julie,

Your link goes directly to the anti-union faction that is involved in an election. How'd you feel if I post links from Obama's White House dot org and pose it as reliable information? Like others, I am confused. Nevertheless, interesting.

[astralis]

z,

VW was under a lot of pressure to bring the Tenn plant into compliance

so the question is, if VW has this everywhere else per their own policies, and was "under a lot of pressure" to bring about a worker's council there...why would, per Corker, they suddenly be interested in opening a plant there if there WERE no worker's council?

[zraver]

i don't get it. if Corker was "not telling lies", then was the VW executive telling lies about VW's own economic decisions/policy? VW -wanted- an union at the plant. that's what makes this case so distinctive.

VW has a workers council at every plant but that one, and the unions/ workers have 1/3 of the seats on the board. VW was under a lot of pressure to bring the Tenn plant into compliance but couldn't under US law unless the US workers wanted to.

[Doktor]

Often times it is the other way around. Those that get paid less should be getting more but are too lazy/scared/ignorant to ask for it and the boss/owner isn't going to volunteer anything because what he doesn't pay in wages he gets to keep for himself. The old divide and conquer ploy. Management uses it all the time. They say things like "work harder than the other guy and you get a bonus". Next thing you know employees are volunteering to work on the weekends just to get a leg up on the guy across the hall.

Yep because we all know how someone working 60 hours a week contributes a lot to the company. :ironic:

Illegals are willing to work for less and employers are more than happy to accommodate. Sometimes doing the same job doesn't tell the whole story. You also have to do the job well. Say you are erecting a 10 story building. Do you want it hacked up or do you want everything to look like a professional did it and pay less in maintenance and utility bills down the road. You have to look at total value instead of lowest bid. Many companies from all sectors make the mistake of going cheap but they forget that those cheap employees are the face of the company and when they end up making mistakes which makes the whole company look bad and costs customers/money in the long run.

Illegals pose a risk if you get caught hiring them. At least here. Not only illegals, but any unregistered worker.

WRT the rest of what you said, I emphasized "same work". The employer should have metrics to measure the job well done and award the workers according to it.

Sure I would pay more to the more productive worker, but would also discourage them to work more then 44 hours a week. I would want them to stay and contribute to the company, not to the doctors.

[bonehead]

Why should I pay someone more if the other guys is doing the same job for less?

Often times it is the other way around. Those that get paid less should be getting more but are too lazy/scared/ignorant to ask for it and the boss/owner isn't going to volunteer anything because what he doesn't pay in wages he gets to keep for himself. The old divide and conquer ploy. Management uses it all the time. They say things like "work harder than the other guy and you get a bonus". Next thing you know employees are volunteering to work on the weekends just to get a leg up on the guy across the hall.

Illegals are willing to work for less and employers are more than happy to accommodate. Sometimes doing the same job doesn't tell the whole story. You also have to do the job well. Say you are erecting a 10 story building. Do you want it hacked up or do you want everything to look like a professional did it and pay less in maintenance and utility bills down the road. You have to look at total value instead of lowest bid. Many companies from all sectors make the mistake of going cheap but they forget that those cheap employees are the face of the company and when they end up making mistakes which makes the whole company look bad and costs customers/money in the long run.

[Doktor]

That is very common in the business sector. You can have a whole floor full of office workers and they all could get paid different rates. Not everyone is good at storming into the boss's office and demanding a raise and a retirement.

Why should I pay someone more if the other guys is doing the same job for less?

[bonehead]

My workers wear my company shirts and represent my company. I show them the numbers and negotiate each and every job with them. The last thing I would want is for a union coming in being a mediator and a divider between me and my men. That would cause problems.

Many unions are not dividers. Say for instance you have 50 employees. Do you really want to have that conversation 50 times a year or once every few years? Secondly when someone goes to the boss to ask for a raise and gets berated by the boss or lied to, what does that do to the employer/employer relationship? Having a contract negotiated by a third party eliminates a lot of animosity. Honestly, a union isn't needed in the few places where management/labor relations are good but for each one of those there are dozens of places where labor is being taken advantage of.

[bonehead]

I understand free market and all that, but if in my company I pay different salaries to two different people doing the same job, I am in trouble.

That is very common in the business sector. You can have a whole floor full of office workers and they all could get paid different rates. Not everyone is good at storming into the boss's office and demanding a raise and a retirement.

[Captain Worley]

$19.50 per hour is considered excellent pay and benefits in the states?

Christ that's $2 per hour above our bare minimum wage and well below the award for production line workers.

Didn't Holden and Toyota both recently announce they were ceasing production there?