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

[jonessed]

The weird thing to me was that VW wasnt the one who was against the plant from organizing a union, it was big government republican politicians interfering yet again with private enterprise.

And the employees.

 

[DiStefano]

There is no doubt that in many cases (particularly in the first half of the last century), unions significantly improved the lot of the working man. Then, as employees had more legal recourses, and as companies became more enlightened in dealing with their employees, the need for unions became far less acute. But unions tended to keep that adversarial relationship, and as Samuel Gompers replied when asked what his goals were: "More". And in many cases, that became a millstone around companies' necks in seeking to compete internationally (witness the once dominant US car industry).

And then there's the BS stuff...My view of unions is somewhat colored by my experience in my college days. I had been asked to go back to NY to appear briefly on a TV program. In the dress rehearsal before we went on the air, the MC, a well known TV personality, put his hands on the microphone stand and moved it about a foot. He immediately turned and apologized abjectly and profusely for moving the mike. Union rules prohibited him from moving the mike; it had to be done by the proper union member; they could have shut him off the air. Total BS.

 

[Dr Oadi]

That is right America. Stay in the "Be thankful you have a job mentality" you have been stuck in the last decade or so. Your executives salaries thank you.

 

[bakes]

[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]

Yep.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

[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]

Yep.

VW is for a union. VW is not for the UAW.

 

[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).

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.

No, actually I wasn't aware you were in Detroit.

 

[Lutherman2112]

The anti-union knee jerk crowd is quite entertaining.

 

[DiStefano]

The anti-union knee jerk crowd is quite entertaining.

Whereas the pro union knee jerk crowd are deadly boring.

 

[Lutherman2112]

The anti-union knee jerk crowd is quite entertaining.

Whereas the pro union knee jerk crowd are deadly boring.

Case in point.

 

[Sabertooth]

There is no doubt that in many cases (particularly in the first half of the last century), unions significantly improved the lot of the working man. Then, as employees had more legal recourses, and as companies became more enlightened in dealing with their employees, the need for unions became far less acute. But unions tended to keep that adversarial relationship, and as Samuel Gompers replied when asked what his goals were: "More". And in many cases, that became a millstone around companies' necks in seeking to compete internationally (witness the once dominant US car industry).

And then there's the BS stuff...My view of unions is somewhat colored by my experience in my college days. I had been asked to go back to NY to appear briefly on a TV program. In the dress rehearsal before we went on the air, the MC, a well known TV personality, put his hands on the microphone stand and moved it about a foot. He immediately turned and apologized abjectly and profusely for moving the mike. Union rules prohibited him from moving the mike; it had to be done by the proper union member; they could have shut him off the air. Total BS.

Did they shut him down?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Nice work knee-jerk, anti-union folk, celebrate that victory.

VW workers may block southern U.S. deals if no unions: labor chief
BERLIN Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:38am EST
REUTERS/CHRISTOPHER ALUKA BERRY

(Reuters) - Volkswagen's top labor representative threatened on Wednesday to try to block further investments by the German carmaker in the southern United States if its workers there are not unionized.

Workers at VW's factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee, last Friday voted against representation by the United Auto Workers union (UAW), rejecting efforts by VW representatives to set up a German-style works council at the plant.

German workers enjoy considerable influence over company decisions under the legally enshrined "co-determination" principle which is anathema to many politicians in the U.S. who see organized labor as a threat to profits and job growth.

Chattanooga is VW's only factory in the U.S. and one of the company's few in the world without a works council.

"I can imagine fairly well that another VW factory in the United States, provided that one more should still be set up there, does not necessarily have to be assigned to the south again," said Bernd Osterloh, head of VW's works council.

"If co-determination isn't guaranteed in the first place, we as workers will hardly be able to vote in favor" of potentially building another plant in the U.S. south, Osterloh, who is also on VW's supervisory board, said.

The 20-member panel - evenly split between labor and management - has to approve any decision on closing plants or building new ones.

Osterloh's comments were published on Wednesday in German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung. A spokesman at the Wolfsburg-based works council confirmed the remarks.

"The conservatives stirred up massive, anti-union sentiments," Osterloh said. "It's possible that the conclusion will be drawn that this interference amounted to unfair labor praxis."

Republican U.S. Senator Bob Corker, a staunch opponent of unionization, said last Wednesday after the first day of voting that VW would award the factory another model if the UAW was rejected.

The comments even prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene, accusing Republicans of trying to block the Chattanooga workforce's efforts.

Undeterred by last Friday's vote, VW's works council has said it will press on with efforts to set up labor representation at Chattanooga which builds the Passat sedan.

 

[Foosball God]

Nice work knee-jerk, anti-union folk, celebrate that victory.

VW workers may block southern U.S. deals if no unions: labor chief
BERLIN Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:38am EST
REUTERS/CHRISTOPHER ALUKA BERRY

(Reuters) - Volkswagen's top labor representative threatened on Wednesday to try to block further investments by the German carmaker in the southern United States if its workers there are not unionized.

Workers at VW's factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee, last Friday voted against representation by the United Auto Workers union (UAW), rejecting efforts by VW representatives to set up a German-style works council at the plant.

German workers enjoy considerable influence over company decisions under the legally enshrined "co-determination" principle which is anathema to many politicians in the U.S. who see organized labor as a threat to profits and job growth.

Chattanooga is VW's only factory in the U.S. and one of the company's few in the world without a works council.

"I can imagine fairly well that another VW factory in the United States, provided that one more should still be set up there, does not necessarily have to be assigned to the south again," said Bernd Osterloh, head of VW's works council.

"If co-determination isn't guaranteed in the first place, we as workers will hardly be able to vote in favor" of potentially building another plant in the U.S. south, Osterloh, who is also on VW's supervisory board, said.

The 20-member panel - evenly split between labor and management - has to approve any decision on closing plants or building new ones.

Osterloh's comments were published on Wednesday in German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung. A spokesman at the Wolfsburg-based works council confirmed the remarks.

"The conservatives stirred up massive, anti-union sentiments," Osterloh said. "It's possible that the conclusion will be drawn that this interference amounted to unfair labor praxis."

Republican U.S. Senator Bob Corker, a staunch opponent of unionization, said last Wednesday after the first day of voting that VW would award the factory another model if the UAW was rejected.

The comments even prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene, accusing Republicans of trying to block the Chattanooga workforce's efforts.

Undeterred by last Friday's vote, VW's works council has said it will press on with efforts to set up labor representation at Chattanooga which builds the Passat sedan.

I wouldn't exactly use this as a good example to poke at anti-union folks. Basically the German auto workers union is threatening to block VW expansion in the south if they don't ensure that U.S. plant workers are in a union.

 

[DocHolliday]

No win situation for VW.

 

[DiStefano]

That's the ###### thing about unions. They don't care what's best for the company, they only care what's best for the union. And if they have to harm the company in order to have their union jollies, well screw the company. It's the same sort of attitude that drove the downfall of the US car business.

 

[The Commish]

[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]

This is the part that's comical to me. We've been hearing from the GOP for the past how many decades that government interference is bad for big business?? Can't make this crap up.

 

[mad sweeney]

There is no doubt that in many cases (particularly in the first half of the last century), unions significantly improved the lot of the working man. Then, as employees had more legal recourses, and as companies became more enlightened in dealing with their employees, the need for unions became far less acute. But unions tended to keep that adversarial relationship, and as Samuel Gompers replied when asked what his goals were: "More". And in many cases, that became a millstone around companies' necks in seeking to compete internationally (witness the once dominant US car industry).

And then there's the BS stuff...My view of unions is somewhat colored by my experience in my college days. I had been asked to go back to NY to appear briefly on a TV program. In the dress rehearsal before we went on the air, the MC, a well known TV personality, put his hands on the microphone stand and moved it about a foot. He immediately turned and apologized abjectly and profusely for moving the mike. Union rules prohibited him from moving the mike; it had to be done by the proper union member; they could have shut him off the air. Total BS.

When you were in college did you come home in the morning and find a note in lipstick on the mirror saying "Aren't you glad you didn't turn on the light" and a dead roommate? I hear the "he moved the mike stand" urban legend all the time from people who don't want to be in the union here in LA.

But just to let me understand what you were saying on the off chance that it's true. You're mad at unions because they didn't do anything bad when someone moved something that they shouldn't have? And them doing nothing has you now solidly in the anti-union camp? Rules like that are in place so that the production company doesn't have unpaid interns or PAs do a bunch of stuff they're not qualified for. While there's not much training needed for moving a mike stand (thus the damning non-action they took for the offense) but it's part of the sound department's responsibilities and people not in the sound dept may not know why something is placed in a particular spot and chain reactions can happen from seemingly insignificant things that can end in a job not being done correctly, damaged equipment Is that likely to happen for moving a mike stand? Very doubtful, but next time the PA is asked to move something else and on and on.

I also can't get over the fact that people take management's side automatically whenever the word union is thrown out there. Ninety percent of business would scale down on wages, benefits and hours and cut whatever corners they could to increase profitability, but people flock to their sides because there's a union rule against a non-union member doing a union member's job.

 

[mad sweeney]

That's the ###### thing about unions management. They don't care what's best for the company workers, they only care what's best for the union profit margin. And if they have to harm the company worker in order to have their union 2% jollies, well screw the company workers. It's the same sort of attitude that drove the downfall of the US car business.

 

[DiStefano]

That's the ###### thing about unions management. They don't care what's best for the company workers, they only care what's best for the union profit margin. And if they have to harm the company worker in order to have their union 2% jollies, well screw the company workers. It's the same sort of attitude that drove the downfall of the US car business.

 

[mad sweeney]

That's the ###### thing about unions management. They don't care what's best for the company workers, they only care what's best for the union profit margin. And if they have to harm the company worker in order to have their union 2% jollies, well screw the company workers. It's the same sort of attitude that drove the downfall of the US car business.

That's about the only answer you can give because there's nothing to dispute about the content.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I see the Sad Weeney troll is out again.

 

[mad sweeney]

I see the Sad Weeney troll is out again.

I see you're adding as much as you ever add to a thread too.

 

[DiStefano]

I see the Sad Weeney troll is out again.

I see you're adding as much as you ever add to a thread too.

The lap dog of the unions is still eating their ####.

 

[Rayderr]

[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]

This is the part that's comical to me. We've been hearing from the GOP for the past how many decades that government interference is bad for big business?? Can't make this crap up.

And for decades, we've been hearing from the left that government involvement is good, and here we have the unions complaining about the gov't getting involved. Can't make this crap up.

As always when it comes to politics, "It's ok when we do it, but bad when you do it." Both sides are full of hypocrites.

 

[The Commish]

[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]

This is the part that's comical to me. We've been hearing from the GOP for the past how many decades that government interference is bad for big business?? Can't make this crap up.

And for decades, we've been hearing from the left that government involvement is good, and here we have the unions complaining about the gov't getting involved. Can't make this crap up.

As always when it comes to politics, "It's ok when we do it, but bad when you do it." Both sides are full of hypocrites.

While I don't disagree, can you see how these are different?

 

[Rayderr]

[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]

This is the part that's comical to me. We've been hearing from the GOP for the past how many decades that government interference is bad for big business?? Can't make this crap up.

And for decades, we've been hearing from the left that government involvement is good, and here we have the unions complaining about the gov't getting involved. Can't make this crap up.

As always when it comes to politics, "It's ok when we do it, but bad when you do it." Both sides are full of hypocrites.

While I don't disagree, can you see how these are different?

different but same category.

 

[The Commish]

[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]

This is the part that's comical to me. We've been hearing from the GOP for the past how many decades that government interference is bad for big business?? Can't make this crap up.

And for decades, we've been hearing from the left that government involvement is good, and here we have the unions complaining about the gov't getting involved. Can't make this crap up.

As always when it comes to politics, "It's ok when we do it, but bad when you do it." Both sides are full of hypocrites.

While I don't disagree, can you see how these are different?

different but same category.

sure....people ##### about gov't until it's doing something they want or that benefits them. It's why we have the situation in Washington that we do. No argument there.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There is no doubt that in many cases (particularly in the first half of the last century), unions significantly improved the lot of the working man. Then, as employees had more legal recourses, and as companies became more enlightened in dealing with their employees, the need for unions became far less acute. But unions tended to keep that adversarial relationship, and as Samuel Gompers replied when asked what his goals were: "More". And in many cases, that became a millstone around companies' necks in seeking to compete internationally (witness the once dominant US car industry).

And then there's the BS stuff...My view of unions is somewhat colored by my experience in my college days. I had been asked to go back to NY to appear briefly on a TV program. In the dress rehearsal before we went on the air, the MC, a well known TV personality, put his hands on the microphone stand and moved it about a foot. He immediately turned and apologized abjectly and profusely for moving the mike. Union rules prohibited him from moving the mike; it had to be done by the proper union member; they could have shut him off the air. Total BS.

When you were in college did you come home in the morning and find a note in lipstick on the mirror saying "Aren't you glad you didn't turn on the light" and a dead roommate? I hear the "he moved the mike stand" urban legend all the time from people who don't want to be in the union here in LA.

I can't vouch for that particular story, of course, but at my university, we are expressly prohibited from changing our own lighbulbs or hanging pictures in our own offices. That's strictly for our facilities workers. They're not unionized so it isn't a union issue, but these kinds of make-work policies really do exist in some institutions.

 

[GroveDiesel]

There is no doubt that in many cases (particularly in the first half of the last century), unions significantly improved the lot of the working man. Then, as employees had more legal recourses, and as companies became more enlightened in dealing with their employees, the need for unions became far less acute. But unions tended to keep that adversarial relationship, and as Samuel Gompers replied when asked what his goals were: "More". And in many cases, that became a millstone around companies' necks in seeking to compete internationally (witness the once dominant US car industry).

And then there's the BS stuff...My view of unions is somewhat colored by my experience in my college days. I had been asked to go back to NY to appear briefly on a TV program. In the dress rehearsal before we went on the air, the MC, a well known TV personality, put his hands on the microphone stand and moved it about a foot. He immediately turned and apologized abjectly and profusely for moving the mike. Union rules prohibited him from moving the mike; it had to be done by the proper union member; they could have shut him off the air. Total BS.

When you were in college did you come home in the morning and find a note in lipstick on the mirror saying "Aren't you glad you didn't turn on the light" and a dead roommate? I hear the "he moved the mike stand" urban legend all the time from people who don't want to be in the union here in LA.

I can't vouch for that particular story, of course, but at my university, we are expressly prohibited from changing our own lighbulbs or hanging pictures in our own offices. That's strictly for our facilities workers. They're not unionized so it isn't a union issue, but these kinds of make-work policies really do exist in some institutions.

Yup. In a former building I worked in, businesses leasing space could not hang their own pictures or hire someone to do it. You had to put in a work order to have the building's union workers come hang them.

Also had a buddy that was a mechanic's assistant for an airline. He once went to pick up a part. When he got to the storage facility to pickup the part, the guy behind the counter told him he had to wait an hour because the guy whose job it was to load the part into the truck had just gone to lunch. My buddy could see the part sitting on the shelf right behind the guy. The part only weighed about 10 pounds so he told the guy he'd just grab it and go. The guy behind the counter said "I'd hate to see something real bad happen to you on accident if you came behind the counter and did someone else's job."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

[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]

This is the part that's comical to me. We've been hearing from the GOP for the past how many decades that government interference is bad for big business?? Can't make this crap up.

And for decades, we've been hearing from the left that government involvement is good, and here we have the unions complaining about the gov't getting involved. Can't make this crap up.

As always when it comes to politics, "It's ok when we do it, but bad when you do it." Both sides are full of hypocrites.

While I don't disagree, can you see how these are different?

different but same category.

sure....people ##### about gov't until it's doing something they want or that benefits them. It's why we have the situation in Washington that we do. No argument there.

The "small government" thread was on this.

GOP: Tax breaks to encourage mortgages and home buying good.

GOP: Tax penalty to punish people for failure to buy health insurance bad.

Demos: Taxation to punish companies for regulatory reasons good.

Demos: Tax breaks to encourage companies to build and expand in state bad.

None of it is really consistent.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nice work knee-jerk, anti-union folk, celebrate that victory.

VW workers may block southern U.S. deals if no unions: labor chief
BERLIN Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:38am EST
REUTERS/CHRISTOPHER ALUKA BERRY

(Reuters) - Volkswagen's top labor representative threatened on Wednesday to try to block further investments by the German carmaker in the southern United States if its workers there are not unionized.

Workers at VW's factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee, last Friday voted against representation by the United Auto Workers union (UAW), rejecting efforts by VW representatives to set up a German-style works council at the plant.

German workers enjoy considerable influence over company decisions under the legally enshrined "co-determination" principle which is anathema to many politicians in the U.S. who see organized labor as a threat to profits and job growth.

Chattanooga is VW's only factory in the U.S. and one of the company's few in the world without a works council.

"I can imagine fairly well that another VW factory in the United States, provided that one more should still be set up there, does not necessarily have to be assigned to the south again," said Bernd Osterloh, head of VW's works council.

"If co-determination isn't guaranteed in the first place, we as workers will hardly be able to vote in favor" of potentially building another plant in the U.S. south, Osterloh, who is also on VW's supervisory board, said.

The 20-member panel - evenly split between labor and management - has to approve any decision on closing plants or building new ones.

Osterloh's comments were published on Wednesday in German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung. A spokesman at the Wolfsburg-based works council confirmed the remarks.

"The conservatives stirred up massive, anti-union sentiments," Osterloh said. "It's possible that the conclusion will be drawn that this interference amounted to unfair labor praxis."

Republican U.S. Senator Bob Corker, a staunch opponent of unionization, said last Wednesday after the first day of voting that VW would award the factory another model if the UAW was rejected.

The comments even prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene, accusing Republicans of trying to block the Chattanooga workforce's efforts.

Undeterred by last Friday's vote, VW's works council has said it will press on with efforts to set up labor representation at Chattanooga which builds the Passat sedan.

I wouldn't exactly use this as a good example to poke at anti-union folks. Basically the German auto workers union is threatening to block VW expansion in the south if they don't ensure that U.S. plant workers are in a union.

I still don't understand the hubbub.

The German union may just be a better union - does anyone have a problem if the German union is there instead of the UAW? Doesn't sound like VW does or even the TN Goppers.

 

[drunken slob]

There is no doubt that in many cases (particularly in the first half of the last century), unions significantly improved the lot of the working man. Then, as employees had more legal recourses, and as companies became more enlightened in dealing with their employees, the need for unions became far less acute. But unions tended to keep that adversarial relationship, and as Samuel Gompers replied when asked what his goals were: "More". And in many cases, that became a millstone around companies' necks in seeking to compete internationally (witness the once dominant US car industry).

And then there's the BS stuff...My view of unions is somewhat colored by my experience in my college days. I had been asked to go back to NY to appear briefly on a TV program. In the dress rehearsal before we went on the air, the MC, a well known TV personality, put his hands on the microphone stand and moved it about a foot. He immediately turned and apologized abjectly and profusely for moving the mike. Union rules prohibited him from moving the mike; it had to be done by the proper union member; they could have shut him off the air. Total BS.

When you were in college did you come home in the morning and find a note in lipstick on the mirror saying "Aren't you glad you didn't turn on the light" and a dead roommate? I hear the "he moved the mike stand" urban legend all the time from people who don't want to be in the union here in LA.

I can't vouch for that particular story, of course, but at my university, we are expressly prohibited from changing our own lighbulbs or hanging pictures in our own offices. That's strictly for our facilities workers. They're not unionized so it isn't a union issue, but these kinds of make-work policies really do exist in some institutions.

Yup. In a former building I worked in, businesses leasing space could not hang their own pictures or hire someone to do it. You had to put in a work order to have the building's union workers come hang them.

Also had a buddy that was a mechanic's assistant for an airline. He once went to pick up a part. When he got to the storage facility to pickup the part, the guy behind the counter told him he had to wait an hour because the guy whose job it was to load the part into the truck had just gone to lunch. My buddy could see the part sitting on the shelf right behind the guy. The part only weighed about 10 pounds so he told the guy he'd just grab it and go. The guy behind the counter said "I'd hate to see something real bad happen to you on accident if you came behind the counter and did someone else's job."

Here in West Virginia, it's just as bad. I've had delivery people go to a union job-site and have grievances filed against them for taking boxes out of the bed of a pick-up truck. From that point on, I would devote the front of the bed for non-union offices in the plant, and leave all the union material on the back of the truck. Once my delivery guy left, I would accept the fact that one of my trucks would be in the same spot for hours.

Also, if you guys say unions are so great, why is the state of West Virginia such a dump?

Nearly three-quarters of the governors have been democrat for close to a century now, the unions have owned this state for nearly sixty years, and still do for that matter.

Yet, for all this left-wing greatness, we still suck

 

[GroveDiesel]

Weren't the workers in TN already making about as much as the average UAW workers make in Detroit?

 

[Rayderr]

Nice work knee-jerk, anti-union folk, celebrate that victory.

VW workers may block southern U.S. deals if no unions: labor chief
BERLIN Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:38am EST
REUTERS/CHRISTOPHER ALUKA BERRY

(Reuters) - Volkswagen's top labor representative threatened on Wednesday to try to block further investments by the German carmaker in the southern United States if its workers there are not unionized.

Workers at VW's factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee, last Friday voted against representation by the United Auto Workers union (UAW), rejecting efforts by VW representatives to set up a German-style works council at the plant.

German workers enjoy considerable influence over company decisions under the legally enshrined "co-determination" principle which is anathema to many politicians in the U.S. who see organized labor as a threat to profits and job growth.

Chattanooga is VW's only factory in the U.S. and one of the company's few in the world without a works council.

"I can imagine fairly well that another VW factory in the United States, provided that one more should still be set up there, does not necessarily have to be assigned to the south again," said Bernd Osterloh, head of VW's works council.

"If co-determination isn't guaranteed in the first place, we as workers will hardly be able to vote in favor" of potentially building another plant in the U.S. south, Osterloh, who is also on VW's supervisory board, said.

The 20-member panel - evenly split between labor and management - has to approve any decision on closing plants or building new ones.

Osterloh's comments were published on Wednesday in German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung. A spokesman at the Wolfsburg-based works council confirmed the remarks.

"The conservatives stirred up massive, anti-union sentiments," Osterloh said. "It's possible that the conclusion will be drawn that this interference amounted to unfair labor praxis."

Republican U.S. Senator Bob Corker, a staunch opponent of unionization, said last Wednesday after the first day of voting that VW would award the factory another model if the UAW was rejected.

The comments even prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene, accusing Republicans of trying to block the Chattanooga workforce's efforts.

Undeterred by last Friday's vote, VW's works council has said it will press on with efforts to set up labor representation at Chattanooga which builds the Passat sedan.

I wouldn't exactly use this as a good example to poke at anti-union folks. Basically the German auto workers union is threatening to block VW expansion in the south if they don't ensure that U.S. plant workers are in a union.

I still don't understand the hubbub.

The German union may just be a better union - does anyone have a problem if the German union is there instead of the UAW? Doesn't sound like VW does or even the TN Goppers.

Yes. The UAW has a problem with that.

 

[Fennis]

In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler Daimler (Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the nonunionized new employees get $14.50 an hour, which rises to $19.50 after three years

.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nice work knee-jerk, anti-union folk, celebrate that victory.

VW workers may block southern U.S. deals if no unions: labor chief
BERLIN Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:38am EST
REUTERS/CHRISTOPHER ALUKA BERRY

(Reuters) - Volkswagen's top labor representative threatened on Wednesday to try to block further investments by the German carmaker in the southern United States if its workers there are not unionized.

Workers at VW's factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee, last Friday voted against representation by the United Auto Workers union (UAW), rejecting efforts by VW representatives to set up a German-style works council at the plant.

German workers enjoy considerable influence over company decisions under the legally enshrined "co-determination" principle which is anathema to many politicians in the U.S. who see organized labor as a threat to profits and job growth.

Chattanooga is VW's only factory in the U.S. and one of the company's few in the world without a works council.

"I can imagine fairly well that another VW factory in the United States, provided that one more should still be set up there, does not necessarily have to be assigned to the south again," said Bernd Osterloh, head of VW's works council.

"If co-determination isn't guaranteed in the first place, we as workers will hardly be able to vote in favor" of potentially building another plant in the U.S. south, Osterloh, who is also on VW's supervisory board, said.

The 20-member panel - evenly split between labor and management - has to approve any decision on closing plants or building new ones.

Osterloh's comments were published on Wednesday in German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung. A spokesman at the Wolfsburg-based works council confirmed the remarks.

"The conservatives stirred up massive, anti-union sentiments," Osterloh said. "It's possible that the conclusion will be drawn that this interference amounted to unfair labor praxis."

Republican U.S. Senator Bob Corker, a staunch opponent of unionization, said last Wednesday after the first day of voting that VW would award the factory another model if the UAW was rejected.

The comments even prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene, accusing Republicans of trying to block the Chattanooga workforce's efforts.

Undeterred by last Friday's vote, VW's works council has said it will press on with efforts to set up labor representation at Chattanooga which builds the Passat sedan.

I wouldn't exactly use this as a good example to poke at anti-union folks. Basically the German auto workers union is threatening to block VW expansion in the south if they don't ensure that U.S. plant workers are in a union.

I still don't understand the hubbub.

The German union may just be a better union - does anyone have a problem if the German union is there instead of the UAW? Doesn't sound like VW does or even the TN Goppers.

Yes. The UAW has a problem with that.

Exactly.

The people of TN ought to do what's best for themselves. No union has a monopoly; crazy to think of it but these people at the UAW HQ think they own labor moreso than any of the worst monopolists ever from the 19th century.

 

[bigbottom]

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.

Why would these threats be particularly effective against VW workers? They already have jobs. My understanding of the campaign was that it was not these statements from politicians that had an effect on the vote so much as the repeated theme of "do you want to end up like Detroit?" I imagine that's a compelling theme.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler Daimler (Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the nonunionized new employees get $14.50 an hour, which rises to $19.50 after three years

.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/

So let me see if we have this right: VW could be making its cars in Germany at $67/hr. Or it could be making them in TN for $20/hr.

Gee, where will they want to make cars?