VW workers in TENN vote against the union (1 Viewer)

[DiStefano]

The decline of the union movement in private enterprise continues. Of course, unions are still growing in the public sector.

http://news.yahoo.com/union-vote-vw-plant-nears-end-obama-weighs-011005296--sector.html

 

[Mjolnirs]

Tennessee Volkswagen plant votes against union in UAW defeat

 

[Jackstraw]

Their senator said publicly and repeatedly that if they voted against joining a union, their company would bring more jobs to the region. A state senator said that if they voted for a union, their legislature would vote against funding for jobs expansion. And the threats to Volkswagen workers apparently had their intended effect: The workers voted narrowly against joining the UAW in results just counted.

According to an emailed press release from the UAW:

At the end of voting on Friday, Volkswagen workers voted against joining the union in a vote of 712 to 626. [...]
“While we’re outraged by politicians and outside special interest groups interfering with the basic legal right of workers to form a union, we’re proud that these workers were brave and stood up to the tremendous pressure from outside,” said UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams, who directs the union’s transnational program. “We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers’ right to organize.”
If all of your elected officials were saying that you choosing more power in the workplace and better wages and working conditions would mean fewer jobs, wouldn't you think twice? Fear works for Republicans. They use it effectively.

So Republicans basically took German shareholders side against American workers. Used government interference in the free market. Insidious. Very Inspiring. Actually illegal arguably.

 

[DiStefano]

Their senator said publicly and repeatedly that if they voted against joining a union, their company would bring more jobs to the region. A state senator said that if they voted for a union, their legislature would vote against funding for jobs expansion. And the threats to Volkswagen workers apparently had their intended effect: The workers voted narrowly against joining the UAW in results just counted.

According to an emailed press release from the UAW:

At the end of voting on Friday, Volkswagen workers voted against joining the union in a vote of 712 to 626. [...]
“While we’re outraged by politicians and outside special interest groups interfering with the basic legal right of workers to form a union, we’re proud that these workers were brave and stood up to the tremendous pressure from outside,” said UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams, who directs the union’s transnational program. “We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers’ right to organize.”
If all of your elected officials were saying that you choosing more power in the workplace and better wages and working conditions would mean fewer jobs, wouldn't you think twice? Fear works for Republicans. They use it effectively.

So Republicans basically took German shareholders side against American workers. Used government interference in the free market. Insidious. Very Inspiring. Actually illegal arguably.

 

[Balco]

The decline of the union movement in private enterprise continues. Of course, unions are still growing in the public sector.

http://news.yahoo.com/union-vote-vw-plant-nears-end-obama-weighs-011005296--sector.html

And the wealth gap will get bigger and bigger.

 

[NutterButter]

I'm not sure why I should care either way.

 

[glock]

Their senator said publicly and repeatedly that if they voted against joining a union, their company would bring more jobs to the region. A state senator said that if they voted for a union, their legislature would vote against funding for jobs expansion. And the threats to Volkswagen workers apparently had their intended effect: The workers voted narrowly against joining the UAW in results just counted.

According to an emailed press release from the UAW:

At the end of voting on Friday, Volkswagen workers voted against joining the union in a vote of 712 to 626. [...]

While were outraged by politicians and outside special interest groups interfering with the basic legal right of workers to form a union, were proud that these workers were brave and stood up to the tremendous pressure from outside, said UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams, who directs the unions transnational program. We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers right to organize.

If all of your elected officials were saying that you choosing more power in the workplace and better wages and working conditions would mean fewer jobs, wouldn't you think twice? Fear works for Republicans. They use it effectively.So Republicans basically took German shareholders side against American workers. Used government interference in the free market. Insidious. Very Inspiring. Actually illegal arguably.

That's all you got?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Their senator said publicly and repeatedly that if they voted against joining a union, their company would bring more jobs to the region. A state senator said that if they voted for a union, their legislature would vote against funding for jobs expansion. And the threats to Volkswagen workers apparently had their intended effect: The workers voted narrowly against joining the UAW in results just counted.

According to an emailed press release from the UAW:

At the end of voting on Friday, Volkswagen workers voted against joining the union in a vote of 712 to 626. [...]

“While we’re outraged by politicians and outside special interest groups interfering with the basic legal right of workers to form a union, we’re proud that these workers were brave and stood up to the tremendous pressure from outside,” said UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams, who directs the union’s transnational program. “We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers’ right to organize.”

If all of your elected officials were saying that you choosing more power in the workplace and better wages and working conditions would mean fewer jobs, wouldn't you think twice? Fear works for Republicans. They use it effectively.

So Republicans basically took German shareholders side against American workers. Used government interference in the free market. Insidious. Very Inspiring. Actually illegal arguably.

I would welcome hearing you expand on your position. I would be particularly interested in your thoughts about interference with a free market vis-à-vis the statement in the article that what was suggested was that state lawmakers would not fund job development if this happened. It seems to me that funding job development might be interfering with the free market process and not doing so would be respecting the free markets. I am unclear how refusing to confer a benefit is the same as affirmative negative action.

Also, I would be interested in hearing about the illegality you mention. I do not know anything about labor law, so please excuse the question if it is insultingly simple. It is not you who should be insulted, it is that on this subject area I am simple.

 

[TPW]

What I find amusing is the UAW complaining about "outside interference".

https://twitter.com/MikeElk/status/434691708308422658

Imagine that. Outsiders coming in where they're not wanted, stirring up trouble, and intimidating people. The poor UAW wouldn't know anything about that, would they?

 

[top dog]

So.... What kind of living are these guys making being non-union? Are they in NEED of collective bargaining?

I'm obviously bias as I REALLY don't like unions (been a member of the Chemical Workers Union, UAW and Teamsters over the course of my life) but I'm curious as to the background of this situation.

Did the workers start this process because they are under paid or because the unions started trying to muscle into the facilities?

 

[The Big Guy]

Gee a bunch of employed auto workers who want to stay employed and not watch the UAW burn their plant to the ground like so many before it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"We felt like we were already being treated very well by Volkswagen in terms of pay and benefits and bonuses," said Sean Moss, who voted against the UAW. "We also looked at the track record of the UAW. Why buy a ticket on the Titanic?" he added.

UAW membership has plummeted 75 percent since 1979 and now stands at just under 400,000.

"We are outraged at the outside interference in this election. ..."

Have to laugh at a union that complains about workers voting.

The track record in places like Michigan is really horrendous. I am pro-union, I believe that workers have a right to control their own labor because they do indeed own it, but what happens is that union leaders in some instances come to think of themselves as the owners of the labor, which is 100% wrong and leads to corruption and terrible, destructive decisions

Hopefully VW does indeed expand and continues to reward their workers in a way that is mutually beneficial.

 

[Rayderr]

I can't believe people don't want to give 3% of their paychecks to a union.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I can't believe people don't want to give 3% of their paychecks to a union.

More like, they give 3% of their paychecks to union leaders.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

the vote was actually pretty close.

why would current VW workers want to mess with a good thing? all reports are that they well compensated and have excellent benefits.

Seems odd that the local governments would use tactics like that though to try n sway vote. (HAHA)

 

[The Duff Man]

the vote was actually pretty close.

why would current VW workers want to mess with a good thing? all reports are that they well compensated and have excellent benefits.

Seems odd that the local governments would use tactics like that though to try n sway vote. (HAHA)

Maybe they are doing their job, recognizing that a union would lead to an early plant closure which would hurt the people they are being paid to represent.

Wait....a politician with long term vision doing what is best for the people....nevermind ha ha ha

 

[Rayderr]

I can't believe people don't want to give 3% of their paychecks to a union.

More like, they give 3% of their paychecks to union leaders.

Union Leaders salaries are set And can only be raised every so often. RIght now, the UAW president get about $160k a year. What they're really paying for is all the perks for the leaders. The private jet, the Country club and golf course (Seriously, there's a UAW country club and golf course. It's worth $6mil) All expenses paid meetings at 4star resorts, hotels, golf countyr clubs (yup, they got their own, but have meetings at others) and so on...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

the vote was actually pretty close.

why would current VW workers want to mess with a good thing? all reports are that they well compensated and have excellent benefits.

Seems odd that the local governments would use tactics like that though to try n sway vote. (HAHA)

Here's an idea, maybe if Detroit and other locales in MI, OH and the north/midwest had done whatever they could to help the auto manufacturers out, we'd be in better shape today and the US government would be owning a piece of a now bankrupt but once great GM (which btw is now no longer the no. 1 automaker in the world).

 

[Porkchop Express]

What the heck?

Volkswagen for whatever reason actually wants its employees in Tennessee to unionize as the company expands manufacturing there. (Well, there is actually a reason–they want to create a “works council” of employees, because they believe it gives them a strategic competitive advantage.)

The company has announced plans to invest $7 billion in North America in the next five years. Tennessee Republican lawmakers are threatening to withhold financial incentives–that they admit would kill the company’s expansion plans in Tennessee–if workers vote to unionize, with the backing of the company.

????

OK, I think arguments against unions have merits. But a) aren’t Republicans supposed to be the ones that want to give employers more freedom to run their businesses as they see fit? (In this case, with a union.) And b) are they literally threatening to force the company to move investments and jobs to other states if the employees unionize–even though that’s what the company wants?

http://www.freep.com/article/20140210/BUSINESS0104/302100100/volkswagen-uaw-chattanooga-tennessee-republicans

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What the heck?

Volkswagen for whatever reason actually wants its employees in Tennessee to unionize as the company expands manufacturing there. (Well, there is actually a reason–they want to create a “works council” of employees, because they believe it gives them a strategic competitive advantage.)

The company has announced plans to invest $7 billion in North America in the next five years. Tennessee Republican lawmakers are threatening to withhold financial incentives–that they admit would kill the company’s expansion plans in Tennessee–if workers vote to unionize, with the backing of the company.

????

OK, I think arguments against unions have merits. But a) aren’t Republicans supposed to be the ones that want to give employers more freedom to run their businesses as they see fit? (In this case, with a union.) And b) are they literally threatening to force the company to move investments and jobs to other states if the employees unionize–even though that’s what the company wants?

http://www.freep.com/article/20140210/BUSINESS0104/302100100/volkswagen-uaw-chattanooga-tennessee-republicans

If I read the first article correctly VW wants a German union in there, probably a good one that works with management, not the scorched earth money grubbers that run the UAW.

Also, the description is flipped - the state is offering incentives if the workers cooperate. I see nothing wrong with that. Southern States have been offering benefits to corporations for years to locate there, to great effect and benefit for local economies, and now they're doing the same thing with labor. Makes sense to me.

 

[DiStefano]

To a great extent, German unions are very different than American unions. First of all, as a culture, Germans believe in hard work, and don't believe it is the function of the union to cause the workers to become lazy; second, German unions recognize that their long term interest is in having the company be profitable and up to date. As a result, there is a much more collegial versus adversarial relationship between the unions and management--not to say they don't have differences--but they work them out rather than go on strike.

 

[Balco]

To a great extent, German unions are very different than American unions. First of all, as a culture, Germans believe in hard work, and don't believe it is the function of the union to cause the workers to become lazy; second, German unions recognize that their long term interest is in having the company be profitable and up to date. As a result, there is a much more collegial versus adversarial relationship between the unions and management--not to say they don't have differences--but they work them out rather than go on strike.

German unions go on strike.

 

[Foosball God]

What the heck?

Volkswagen for whatever reason actually wants its employees in Tennessee to unionize as the company expands manufacturing there. (Well, there is actually a reason–they want to create a “works council” of employees, because they believe it gives them a strategic competitive advantage.)

The company has announced plans to invest $7 billion in North America in the next five years. Tennessee Republican lawmakers are threatening to withhold financial incentives–that they admit would kill the company’s expansion plans in Tennessee–if workers vote to unionize, with the backing of the company.

????

OK, I think arguments against unions have merits. But a) aren’t Republicans supposed to be the ones that want to give employers more freedom to run their businesses as they see fit? (In this case, with a union.) And b) are they literally threatening to force the company to move investments and jobs to other states if the employees unionize–even though that’s what the company wants?

http://www.freep.com/article/20140210/BUSINESS0104/302100100/volkswagen-uaw-chattanooga-tennessee-republicans

From what I understand the German Union was putting pressure on VW to have the workers unionization. VW was worried about the potential impact in Germany more than one plant in Tennessee.

 

[DiStefano]

To a great extent, German unions are very different than American unions. First of all, as a culture, Germans believe in hard work, and don't believe it is the function of the union to cause the workers to become lazy; second, German unions recognize that their long term interest is in having the company be profitable and up to date. As a result, there is a much more collegial versus adversarial relationship between the unions and management--not to say they don't have differences--but they work them out rather than go on strike.

German unions go on strike.

Did I say "Never"? Of course they do, but because of the collegial relationship it is much more rare.

 

[Boston]

I like the fact that Union Leaders that do everything possible to influence elections are upset that politicians influenced their election...payback is a #####...

 

[Sabertooth]

I can't believe people don't want to give 3% of their paychecks to a union.

More like, they give 3% of their paychecks to union leaders.

Union Leaders salaries are set And can only be raised every so often. RIght now, the UAW president get about $160k a year. What they're really paying for is all the perks for the leaders. The private jet, the Country club and golf course (Seriously, there's a UAW country club and golf course. It's worth $6mil) All expenses paid meetings at 4star resorts, hotels, golf countyr clubs (yup, they got their own, but have meetings at others) and so on...

my dad was the second highest ranking official in a major union. Flew commercial all the time, no country clubs, 60-80 hour weeks, never made 6 figures. No 4 star resorts. Not UAW obviously but your assumption is way off. He worked his ### off.

 

[Rayderr]

I can't believe people don't want to give 3% of their paychecks to a union.

More like, they give 3% of their paychecks to union leaders.

Union Leaders salaries are set And can only be raised every so often. RIght now, the UAW president get about $160k a year. What they're really paying for is all the perks for the leaders. The private jet, the Country club and golf course (Seriously, there's a UAW country club and golf course. It's worth $6mil) All expenses paid meetings at 4star resorts, hotels, golf countyr clubs (yup, they got their own, but have meetings at others) and so on...

my dad was the second highest ranking official in a major union. Flew commercial all the time, no country clubs, 60-80 hour weeks, never made 6 figures. No 4 star resorts. Not UAW obviously but your assumption is way off. He worked his ### off.

Thank you for your meaningless statement then.

 

[Sabertooth]

The decline of the union movement in private enterprise continues. Of course, unions are still growing in the public sector.

http://news.yahoo.com/union-vote-vw-plant-nears-end-obama-weighs-011005296--sector.html

And the wealth gap will get bigger and bigger.

yup

 

[Sabertooth]

I can't believe people don't want to give 3% of their paychecks to a union.

More like, they give 3% of their paychecks to union leaders.

Union Leaders salaries are set And can only be raised every so often. RIght now, the UAW president get about $160k a year. What they're really paying for is all the perks for the leaders. The private jet, the Country club and golf course (Seriously, there's a UAW country club and golf course. It's worth $6mil) All expenses paid meetings at 4star resorts, hotels, golf countyr clubs (yup, they got their own, but have meetings at others) and so on...

my dad was the second highest ranking official in a major union. Flew commercial all the time, no country clubs, 60-80 hour weeks, never made 6 figures. No 4 star resorts. Not UAW obviously but your assumption is way off. He worked his ### off.

Thank you for your meaningless statement then.

no problem. I assumed when you said union leaders you were speaking out of your ### more broadly.

 

[Rayderr]

I can't believe people don't want to give 3% of their paychecks to a union.

More like, they give 3% of their paychecks to union leaders.

Union Leaders salaries are set And can only be raised every so often. RIght now, the UAW president get about $160k a year. What they're really paying for is all the perks for the leaders. The private jet, the Country club and golf course (Seriously, there's a UAW country club and golf course. It's worth $6mil) All expenses paid meetings at 4star resorts, hotels, golf countyr clubs (yup, they got their own, but have meetings at others) and so on...

my dad was the second highest ranking official in a major union. Flew commercial all the time, no country clubs, 60-80 hour weeks, never made 6 figures. No 4 star resorts. Not UAW obviously but your assumption is way off. He worked his ### off.

Thank you for your meaningless statement then.

no problem. I assumed when you said union leaders you were speaking out of your ### more broadly.

It's not like I said "UAW" a couple times.

 

[Sabertooth]

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

the vote was actually pretty close.

why would current VW workers want to mess with a good thing? all reports are that they well compensated and have excellent benefits.

Seems odd that the local governments would use tactics like that though to try n sway vote. (HAHA)

Here's an idea, maybe if Detroit and other locales in MI, OH and the north/midwest had done whatever they could to help the auto manufacturers out, we'd be in better shape today and the US government would be owning a piece of a now bankrupt but once great GM (which btw is now no longer the no. 1 automaker in the world).

you must think because im in Detroit Im pro-union. Im not.

Im sure the southern politicians are geeting greased by the Euro/Japan auotmakers to keep the work force non-unionized, although VW in this case seemed to let their workers decide.

When the economyic downturn hit in 2008 it killed a lot of businesses not just auto-related. losing two of the big 3 would of killed off a lot of mid-west cities. and as you can see the city of Detroit itself went bankrupt, they were in no position to "help" the big3.

 

[flranger]

Perhaps they looked at the Twinkie Union debacle (yes, I know it is a different name) and then looked at Detroit and thought, gosh that doesn't look very attractive.

I've personally been on strike for 3 weeks in the past with Teamsters (90's w UPS). I can only tell you as someone who was part of one for 9 years that they completely disgust me.

Good for these folks for wanting to save quality jobs for their families.

 

[GoFishTN]

So.... What kind of living are these guys making being non-union? Are they in NEED of collective bargaining?

I'm obviously bias as I REALLY don't like unions (been a member of the Chemical Workers Union, UAW and Teamsters over the course of my life) but I'm curious as to the background of this situation.

Did the workers start this process because they are under paid or because the unions started trying to muscle into the facilities?

From what I've heard the people that work at this plant are well paid and generally well treated. I'm not sure what voting in a union would have accomplished for the majority of them.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

FYI - I am lucky my job is required to hold a license that can only be obtained from an accredited college. So I have a false sense of security that my job is in such high demand that it cannot ever be phased out. Funny that a few years ago here in Tulsa one of the largest hospitals voted to join a union. The hospital spent literally millions of dollars to keep the union out. The union passed, but the hospital tied the union up in court for years. Literally years till the point it just kinda went away. The hospital employees didn't join the union for better money, vacation, and better benefits it was simply to have a say in the care of the patients. The say in the amount of patients one nurse could be given during their shift. My state does not have a "ratio/patients/acuity level", and it wasn't uncommon for a nurse to start their shift with 12 patients, and be given several more admits from the ER/Surgery/Direct admits. So this would put a nurse with sometimes 16 to 18 patients.

So during a 8 hour shift a nurse has 12 patients

that means that the nurse has roughly 45 minutes to spend with each patient (if nothing goes long on another patient dressing change/run a code/never use the bathroom/never take a break/don't eat lunch)

The patient that was being seen by staff that was spread really thin and is not getting the best possible care doesn't pay less for their stay. The nurse doesn't get paid more for taking on more patients.

If you are not afforded a voice at the table on who/when/how/why things are done the way they are ...what else can be done? Just leave and look for another job? Curious.

 

[Rayderr]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

 

[Snotbubbles]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

FYI - I am lucky my job is required to hold a license that can only be obtained from an accredited college. So I have a false sense of security that my job is in such high demand that it cannot ever be phased out. Funny that a few years ago here in Tulsa one of the largest hospitals voted to join a union. The hospital spent literally millions of dollars to keep the union out. The union passed, but the hospital tied the union up in court for years. Literally years till the point it just kinda went away. The hospital employees didn't join the union for better money, vacation, and better benefits it was simply to have a say in the care of the patients. The say in the amount of patients one nurse could be given during their shift. My state does not have a "ratio/patients/acuity level", and it wasn't uncommon for a nurse to start their shift with 12 patients, and be given several more admits from the ER/Surgery/Direct admits. So this would put a nurse with sometimes 16 to 18 patients.

So during a 8 hour shift a nurse has 12 patients

that means that the nurse has roughly 45 minutes to spend with each patient (if nothing goes long on another patient dressing change/run a code/never use the bathroom/never take a break/don't eat lunch)

The patient that was being seen by staff that was spread really thin and is not getting the best possible care doesn't pay less for their stay. The nurse doesn't get paid more for taking on more patients.

If you are not afforded a voice at the table on who/when/how/why things are done the way they are ...what else can be done? Just leave and look for another job? Curious.

My wife is a nurse and she complains all the time that they are understaffed with too many patients.

Her hospital got sued for not giving them breaks and she received a nice check paying her for her "break" time a few years ago.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

So you would be ok if I paid dues with other members and collectively bargained for better wages and benefits? Do you think you should also get the better benefits?

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

FYI - I am lucky my job is required to hold a license that can only be obtained from an accredited college. So I have a false sense of security that my job is in such high demand that it cannot ever be phased out. Funny that a few years ago here in Tulsa one of the largest hospitals voted to join a union. The hospital spent literally millions of dollars to keep the union out. The union passed, but the hospital tied the union up in court for years. Literally years till the point it just kinda went away. The hospital employees didn't join the union for better money, vacation, and better benefits it was simply to have a say in the care of the patients. The say in the amount of patients one nurse could be given during their shift. My state does not have a "ratio/patients/acuity level", and it wasn't uncommon for a nurse to start their shift with 12 patients, and be given several more admits from the ER/Surgery/Direct admits. So this would put a nurse with sometimes 16 to 18 patients.

So during a 8 hour shift a nurse has 12 patients

that means that the nurse has roughly 45 minutes to spend with each patient (if nothing goes long on another patient dressing change/run a code/never use the bathroom/never take a break/don't eat lunch)

The patient that was being seen by staff that was spread really thin and is not getting the best possible care doesn't pay less for their stay. The nurse doesn't get paid more for taking on more patients.

If you are not afforded a voice at the table on who/when/how/why things are done the way they are ...what else can be done? Just leave and look for another job? Curious.

My wife is a nurse and she complains all the time that they are understaffed with too many patients.

Her hospital got sued for not giving them breaks and she received a nice check paying her for her "break" time a few years ago.

Well she should have just quit her job and found a new one. Why would anyone work somewhere were the management would treat employees in this manner?

Just kidding of course, but I have seen those above arguments used over and over again. Let the free market dictate uke:

 

[avoiding injuries]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

So you would be ok if I paid dues with other members and collectively bargained for better wages and benefits? Do you think you should also get the better benefits?

Teachers union works this way. At least in my state.

 

[Rayderr]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

So you would be ok if I paid dues with other members and collectively bargained for better wages and benefits? Do you think you should also get the better benefits?

If you and other union members wanted to bargain together, that's fine. But if I, or other people want to bargain on our own, we should be allowed to do that.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

So you would be ok if I paid dues with other members and collectively bargained for better wages and benefits? Do you think you should also get the better benefits?

Teachers union works this way. At least in my state.

What do you mean that everyone gets the same benefits and pay at the end of the day? Both union and non-union workers?

 

[avoiding injuries]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

So you would be ok if I paid dues with other members and collectively bargained for better wages and benefits? Do you think you should also get the better benefits?

Teachers union works this way. At least in my state.

What do you mean that everyone gets the same benefits and pay at the end of the day? Both union and non-union workers?

Yes.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

So you would be ok if I paid dues with other members and collectively bargained for better wages and benefits? Do you think you should also get the better benefits?

If you and other union members wanted to bargain together, that's fine. But if I, or other people want to bargain on our own, we should be allowed to do that.

Ok that is fine. I would be all for that scenario. I just have never heard of a job that one individual can bargain for benefits and wages alone. Maybe an upper management type person yes, but a grunt worker no.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

So you would be ok if I paid dues with other members and collectively bargained for better wages and benefits? Do you think you should also get the better benefits?

Teachers union works this way. At least in my state.

What do you mean that everyone gets the same benefits and pay at the end of the day? Both union and non-union workers?

Yes.

that is crazy. How do they keep anyone in the union? I mean you are in the union and you and your buddies threaten to go on strike and possibly lose your jobs due to your actions, but somehow get a better working environment or whatever ... meanwhile I am not risking anything and at the end of the day get to reap in the benefits as well?

 

[Rayderr]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

So you would be ok if I paid dues with other members and collectively bargained for better wages and benefits? Do you think you should also get the better benefits?

Teachers union works this way. At least in my state.

What do you mean that everyone gets the same benefits and pay at the end of the day? Both union and non-union workers?

Yes.

that is crazy. How do they keep anyone in the union? I mean you are in the union and you and your buddies threaten to go on strike and possibly lose your jobs due to your actions, but somehow get a better working environment or whatever ... meanwhile I am not risking anything and at the end of the day get to reap in the benefits as well?

But you don't get to play any reindeer union games.

 

[avoiding injuries]

So when is a good time to start the wheels in motion for "representation?" Seems that most in this thread agree that unions are bad. I guess the thought of being able to collective bargain is a sin. Or the old, "just find another job." sentiment. seriously not trying to stir up crap, just wondering at what point would be ok?

I don't think anyone has an issue with the collective bargaining, but rather the forced membership into a union should you work at a union shop.

So you would be ok if I paid dues with other members and collectively bargained for better wages and benefits? Do you think you should also get the better benefits?

Teachers union works this way. At least in my state.

What do you mean that everyone gets the same benefits and pay at the end of the day? Both union and non-union workers?

Yes.

that is crazy. How do they keep anyone in the union? I mean you are in the union and you and your buddies threaten to go on strike and possibly lose your jobs due to your actions, but somehow get a better working environment or whatever ... meanwhile I am not risking anything and at the end of the day get to reap in the benefits as well?

Before she stayed home, my wife was a teacher. She taught 4th grade and the 4th grade team leader was also the union representative for her school. She was a member of the union until she became tenured. She also felt threatened by the union leader. (Not in that way, as they were friends, but just pressured to be a member of the union) She received the same benefits, pay and representation even after she dropped out. The year after the union leader at the school retired, half the teachers in that school dropped out.

 

[Fennis]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The weird thing to me was that VW wasn’t the one who was against the plant from organizing a union, it was big government republican politicians interfering yet again with private enterprise. [/SIZE]

 

[Fennis]

So.... What kind of living are these guys making being non-union? Are they in NEED of collective bargaining?

I'm obviously bias as I REALLY don't like unions (been a member of the Chemical Workers Union, UAW and Teamsters over the course of my life) but I'm curious as to the background of this situation.

Did the workers start this process because they are under paid or because the unions started trying to muscle into the facilities?

Not the only reason, but VW wanted a workers council to negotiate with as is their business model in every plant they own globally, except for the Tennessee one.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The weird thing to me was that VW wasn’t the one who was against the plant from organizing a union, it was big government republican politicians interfering yet again with private enterprise. [/SIZE]