• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UAW Appeals Volkswagen Workers' Rejection in Tenn

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,264
Reaction score
10,362
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In an appeal filed with the National Labor Relations Board, the union asserted that "interference by politicians and outside special interest groups" had swayed the election.

The union had faced a midnight Friday deadline for filing the action with the NLRB.
The rejection by Volkswagen workers dealt a harsh setback to the union, especially since Volkswagen did not oppose the unionization drive.

Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor history professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, said the Democratic-controlled NLRB may be looking to set a precedent about union intimidation but that the VW vote doesn't present the best facts to do so.

"If I were a liberal member of the NLRB, I'd look for a really egregious case of management interference to make a point about curbing the capacity of management to close plants or move," said Lichtenstein, who described himself as a labor supporter.
"The prospects are poor here because it was third-party public officials."

UAW Appeals Volkswagen Workers' Rejection in Tenn. - ABC News

smacks of desperation. Gov't officials can comment on what the election would mean - they provided the incentives. I just don't see "interference", but am far from knowledgeable.

Just doesn't pass the smell test
 
just posted about this in another thread, anticipating not only that an appeal would be made but that coker's interference would result in a second union vote
i suspect you guys are talking past each other

the employee knows what he is now making, whether hourly or salaried, and that he would reduce his net income by the expense of the union dues


what is not known is whether the union would be able to increase the wage base to overcome the cost of union dues. nation-wide, union wages exceed non-union wages for the same work. so, that enhanced compensation would not appear to be an unrealistic expectation


you you may both be right. at present, the employees would take a hit, incurring union dues expense they would not otherwise have to pay

over time, they probably would benefit from wage increases the union negotiated, which increase would exceed their dues expenses to be union members




it has not been expressed yet, but there is a very good chance this thing is not over
and due to coker and his 'interference' with the union election

the department of labor will be the organization which certifies the vote. but if the DoL has reason to believe there was undo anti-union influence - this time from the governor's office - that could be found sufficient for DoL to deem the election results tampered with by coker's interference and insist on another election
given that Obama attempted to counter coker's statements, and the DoL employees ultimately report to the president, do not be surprised if another election is held
 
It could be a stupid move because all the NLRB could do is order another election. If the UAW lost again they're toast.
 
just posted about this in another thread, anticipating not only that an appeal would be made but that coker's interference would result in a second union vote

hard to quote you, but what exactly is the definition of "interference" here? I had thought it would be some proximate cause, not just public statements.

In other words.. the Union can say why unions would be beneficial, and the gov't that also has a stake can state why it would not?

Obviously lacking any clues about unionization, but since you were already onto this idea .. thought you could flesh it out?
 
It could be a stupid move because all the NLRB could do is order another election. If the UAW lost again they're toast.

you post that as if it were a bad thing

if a union is not a good fit with the employees it is going to represent, then better not to get in bed together to begin with

but did coker's comments, that the SUV would be built in mexico instead of tennessee - if the union won - cause enough negative votes to vote out the UAW last week? NLRB might gives us a chance to see
 
hard to quote you, but what exactly is the definition of "interference" here? I had thought it would be some proximate cause, not just public statements.

In other words.. the Union can say why unions would be beneficial, and the gov't that also has a stake can state why it would not?

Obviously lacking any clues about unionization, but since you were already onto this idea .. thought you could flesh it out?

the governor's words indicated that the employees who voted for a union would suffer because the SUV would be built in mexico instead of tennessee
but if they voted against the union the employees would build another line, giving them more job security

that would constitute the inappropriate interference
 
hard to quote you, but what exactly is the definition of "interference" here? I had thought it would be some proximate cause, not just public statements.

In other words.. the Union can say why unions would be beneficial, and the gov't that also has a stake can state why it would not?

Obviously lacking any clues about unionization, but since you were already onto this idea .. thought you could flesh it out?

If the union won, could the company appeal citing Democrats supporting the union be a valid reason?
 
the governor's words indicated that the employees who voted for a union would suffer because the SUV would be built in mexico instead of tennessee
but if they voted against the union the employees would build another line, giving them more job security

that would constitute the inappropriate interference

Democratic officials were promising this would benefit the employees, the company and the state. CLEARLY outrageous "inappropriate interference" favoring the union. Under your theory, no vote on unions would ever be anything but reversible.
 
If the union won, could the company appeal citing Democrats supporting the union be a valid reason?

had the union prevailed the company could have appealed citing whatever it thought might cause a second vote to result
but given the comments of VW since the failed vote, it seems they would not have found a vote for the union something they wanted to un-do
 
Democratic officials were promising this would benefit the employees, the company and the state. CLEARLY outrageous "inappropriate interference" favoring the union. Under your theory, no vote on unions would ever be anything but reversible.

not 'reversible'
but most votes do face a challenge by the losing party
the question then becomes was there any egregious action which should merit a re-vote
i am sure that will be the question the NLRB now faces. but since VW would not oppose a re-vote resulting in union representation, and since the president spoke out against coker's interference, it would not surprise me that Obama's appointees in DoL would have word with the deciding officials
 
the governor's words indicated that the employees who voted for a union would suffer because the SUV would be built in mexico instead of tennessee
but if they voted against the union the employees would build another line, giving them more job security

that would constitute the inappropriate interference
hmm. I see that line of argument - it's a quid pro quo - which usually isn't kosher ( sorry for the mixing Hebrew and Latin phrases).
Interesting. I'll thread watch, not capable of arguing the finer points.
 
Back
Top Bottom