• 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!

Tenn. politicians threaten to kill VW incentives if UAW wins election

All Union dues, including the funds used for campaigning, would come from the worker's earnings, not the government subsidy.

In addition, the law allows union members who do not want to contribute to politics to opt out of that portion of the unions' dues.
 
Yes, we've established that this is political. The question is now whether this is normal and natural based on the structure of our 2 party political system. Do politicians have the right to act in their own self-interests or must they only do "what's best for the people"?

Framing it as an either/or question destroys any possibility of considering the subtleties you suggested we need to consider in a prior post.

Instead, we should ask ourselves if this decision tilts too far in one direction, instead of balancing the competing interests, and base our support or opposition on that.
 
Tennessee Republicans approve money to VW so that they can offset the labor cost making it possible for VW to move their plant to Tennessee --> That money goes to help pay employee salaries --> money is taken out of employee salaries to pay UAW dues --> money is taken out of UAW dues to help fund DNC candidates in Tennessee.

It really isn't a terribly complicated money trail.

But it is terribly wrong

The money the UAW donotes to political causes doesn't come from their dues. It comes from contributions that are separate from the dues, and which the members are not required to pay if they don't want to support those actions.
 
And there you go again, justifying the Nanny State Govt when it interferes with free enterprise!

Hah, keep reaching. I never said that the government should ensure lower operational costs, only that lower operational costs are always favorable to a business.
 
Tennessee Republicans approve money to VW so that they can offset the labor cost making it possible for VW to move their plant to Tennessee --> That money goes to help pay employee salaries --> money is taken out of employee salaries to pay UAW dues --> money is taken out of UAW dues to help fund DNC candidates in Tennessee.

It really isn't a terribly complicated money trail.

The workers have the right to spend the money they earned as they see fit. It is no one else's business.
 
Hah, keep reaching. I never said that the government should ensure lower operational costs, only that lower operational costs are always favorable to a business.

The fact remains that, regardless of what you think, the republicans in Tenn think it's great for the Nanny State Govt to get involved in the decisions a free enterprise makes.
 
Which is why big business and unions should not be directly or indirectly influencing elections.

I think they should not be contributing to political parties. However, under the right of free association they can educate the public on their points of view however.
 
Quote Originally Posted by year2late
"Which is why big business and unions should not be directly or indirectly influencing elections."

There is nothing wrong with business interests, unions or any other group from using their money for lobbying or campaigning for candidates. The problem is that some groups have a disproportionate amount of money (and as a result, power and influence) compared to the number of people that they really represent. The best solution is to maker it easier for all groups to have a voice in the media. That is why I support requiring broadcasters to air debates repeatedly in prime time with all candidates included, and also to provide all candidates or ballot measure proponents with prime time air time to state their views.
 
But it is terribly wrong

The money the UAW donotes to political causes doesn't come from their dues. It comes from contributions that are separate from the dues, and which the members are not required to pay if they don't want to support those actions.

False. Local dues are used for political action in support of the DNC which they thinly disguise as "fighting for social justice", and soft money comes from coffers that are filled by dues.
 
The fact remains that, regardless of what you think, the republicans in Tenn think it's great for the Nanny State Govt to get involved in the decisions a free enterprise makes.

And like I said, good thing the UAW muscled its way into the picture and snapped them out of it!
 
The workers have the right to spend the money they earned as they see fit. It is no one else's business.

I never said they didn't. They should also have the choice to not join a union to work in their career field... UAW thinks otherwise.

But either way, when a politician can be reasonably certain that their pet project will end up hurting them politically they tend to abandon their pet project.
 
Has anyone considered, that maybe the politician know some things we do not.
Like VW has let him know that they will leave if the Union get in.
They could not publicly say that, buy could convey the thought.
I apologize in advance if someone already brought this up.
 
Well thought out response.

Do you know where VW is moving from (assuming the move happens under the circumstances)? I tried Googling but no clear answer. I thought they were already mostly using Mexico but that was long time ago.

They build a lot of VWs in Puebla but I am sure there are other plants as well.
 
Well then I am sure that when the Tennessee deal falls through Volkswagen will run to a blue union state rather than Mexico, right?

We in Mexico will welcome a new plant and the jobs it brings, and maybe lower the price of their overpriced new SUV.
 
We in Mexico will welcome a new plant and the jobs it brings, and maybe lower the price of their overpriced new SUV.

I'm sure you would!
 
Hah, yeah. They take your money and then dare you to file a claim to recoup money they spend on political activities. Why don't they just make contributions voluntary?

I don't know, but it was a decision made by the members that can be reversed by the members. With Republican stunts like the one described in the OP, I can see why the members would strongly support having some of their dues used for political activities.
 
Last edited:
I never said they didn't. They should also have the choice to not join a union to work in their career field... UAW thinks otherwise.

UAW probably would not mind if people who elect not to participate in a union were required to sign a contract stating that they are not entitled to any of the privileges or benefits resulting from union negotiation or action.
 
Then I could easily argue that immigration encouragement and negation of ID laws are meant politically to benefit Democrats, not Americans. That's very partisan. So why is that OK? By your standards, you should feel the same way.

After all, the Republicans position in TN is simply they don't want to give breaks to a unionized corporation. They aren't disallowing the corporation from moving there, they just don't want to give them corporate welfare if they are unionized. So, in a way, they are saving the public money. Why are they obligated to give any company a tax break in the first place?
Republicans love welfare when it goes to corporations, but hate welfare when it goes to poor people.
 
UAW probably would not mind if people who elect not to participate in a union were required to sign a contract stating that they are not entitled to any of the privileges or benefits resulting from union negotiation or action.

Same thing as a closed shop.
 
Republicans love welfare when it goes to corporations, but hate welfare when it goes to poor people.

That's a pretty broad statement. When you say "Republicans" are you referring to politicians or just ordinary citizens who vote Republican?

Are there any Republicans here that support Corporate Welfare but not Citizen Welfare? Can you tell us your position on these issues please.
 
That's a pretty broad statement. When you say "Republicans" are you referring to politicians or just ordinary citizens who vote Republican?

Are there any Republicans here that support Corporate Welfare but not Citizen Welfare? Can you tell us your position on these issues please.
Republican politicians especially.

And if the state shouldn't be offering these special tax packages to individual companies. If there's going to be special tax packages then they should be for any company or individual in the state. For example x taxes written off for each person hired/each job created in the state. A person who starts their own small business gets a special write off temporarily. Everyone has an even playing field and small businesses get a small leg up, but in the grand scheme of things at least it's not a $$(*#_ corporate giveaway.
 
Back
Top Bottom