• 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

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
30,412
Reaction score
14,824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tenn. politicians threaten to kill VW incentives if UAW wins election

WASHINGTON -- Volkswagen AG has been soliciting subsidies from Tennessee and Mexico, hoping to pick a production site this year for a mid-sized SUV due to go on sale in 2016.
And it seems that this week's UAW election at the VW assembly plant in Chattanooga could tilt the competition in Mexico's favor.
The reason? Republican lawmakers in Tennessee might no longer want to double down on the $580 million in state and local incentives that they offered VW in 2008.
If the workers opt for UAW representation, VW would have a "very tough time" securing more incentives from the state legislature, Bo Watson, a state senator from suburban Chattanooga, said during a press conference this morning. He was flanked by House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, a powerful figure in Tennessee politics, who said the "heavy hand" of the UAW is unwelcome in the state.
"The taxpayers of Tennessee reached out to Volkswagen and welcomed them to our state and our community," McCormick, a Republican from Chattanooga, said in an e-mail to Automotive News. "We are glad they are here. But that is not a green light to help force a union into the workplace. That was not part of the deal."

So they are willing to give hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies, but only if the company is non union
 
That's the thing some states don't seem to understand. You can give away the farm but there's always a bigger farm.
 
Really ? If they are UAW don't they just hand their ballots over to the DNC (figuratively) on Election Day? What percent of the UAWs money in politics is non partisan? If you were a Republican in Tenn would you want to subsidize Democratic Party donations by the UAW? Really?


Why would they care one way or the other? Am I missing something?
 
Really ? If they are UAW don't they just hand their ballots over to the DNC (figuratively) on Election Day? What percent of the UAWs money in politics is non partisan? If you were a Republican in Tenn would you want to subsidize Democratic Party donations by the UAW? Really?

I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. So, I assume the answer is that if workers unionize they will be ordered to vote Democrat and that's why the Republicans are against the UAW. That seems like a logical answer but....

..... it begs the question, if you work for VW and you are not in a union, do you vote differently? Theoretically, your ballot is secret so you can vote however you like and lie about it if it's uncomfortable. Even if the UAW management votes Democrat, how many management votes could there be compared to the number of line workers? isn't bringing in the jobs the more important issue? It seems like a lot to give up over a few hundred votes.
 
Really ? If they are UAW don't they just hand their ballots over to the DNC (figuratively) on Election Day? What percent of the UAWs money in politics is non partisan? If you were a Republican in Tenn would you want to subsidize Democratic Party donations by the UAW? Really?

So, a politician using their authority to interfere with the oppositions right to speech and assembly is ok with you?
 
That's easy; unions give money to Democrats and not Republicans.

Oh, now that does make perfect sense. It's not about how they'll vote, it's about who they'll donate to.

I understand. Thanks.
 
It goes way beyond the votes Speck! Sure some union guys secretly vote Republican but it's the dues going to campaigns that is the killer. DNC is robustly funded by union dues and there is no reason to subsidize that foothold for the left with tax dollars.


I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. So, I assume the answer is that if workers unionize they will be ordered to vote Democrat and that's why the Republicans are against the UAW. That seems like a logical answer but....

..... it begs the question, if you work for VW and you are not in a union, do you vote differently? Theoretically, your ballot is secret so you can vote however you like and lie about it if it's uncomfortable. Even if the UAW management votes Democrat, how many management votes could there be compared to the number of line workers? isn't bringing in the jobs the more important issue? It seems like a lot to give up over a few hundred votes.
 
They aren't interfering with those rights one bit and you know it. Nice straw fake argument for your hack agenda.


So, a politician using their authority to interfere with the oppositions right to speech and assembly is ok with you?
 
It goes way beyond the votes Speck! Sure some union guys secretly vote Republican but it's the dues going to campaigns that is the killer. DNC is robustly funded by union dues and there is no reason to subsidize that foothold for the left with tax dollars.

You're right. I didn't think about the campaign cash. I'm such an innocent, I'm lucky to be alive.

Still, it does seem kind of selfish. Basically, they have to choose between their careers or gaining jobs. An awkward decision but understandable in the current political landscape.
 
It goes way beyond the votes Speck! Sure some union guys secretly vote Republican but it's the dues going to campaigns that is the killer. DNC is robustly funded by union dues and there is no reason to subsidize that foothold for the left with tax dollars.

Yet the president is a dick because you think he interfered with groups on the right's attempts to become sunsidized by tax dollars through tax exemption.
 
Why would they care one way or the other? Am I missing something?

They have 2 reasons to care.

1. Politically the UAW is a Democratic fundraising organization. So Republicans would be voting to finance a huge fund raising and manpower campaign against them.

2. Whether the company would continue to operate the facility for long would depend upon whether it remained competitive at that location.
 
Ahh but wait....

I could argue they aren't choosing between their careers or the jobs; for if they go ahead and the UAW takes over they lose their jobs, and like Detroit the UAW will likely ruin the jobs in their state too. Where as if they say no, keep their careers, they can live on without the UAW and perhaps generate other jobs that make sense.


You're right. I didn't think about the campaign cash. I'm such an innocent, I'm lucky to be alive.

Still, it does seem kind of selfish. Basically, they have to choose between their careers or gaining jobs. An awkward decision but understandable in the current political landscape.
 
Having trouble staying on topic today for some reason? Yet you'd have no trouble with the president using his political power to influence government to go after his offenders but are some how are hurt inside when the party you hate doesn't want to give subsidies to your beloved union? Impressive bit of hypocrisy but I'm not shocked.


Yet the president is a dick because you think he interfered with groups on the right's attempts to become sunsidized by tax dollars through tax exemption.
 
Well no one ever claimed that all right wingers were intelligent and this case clearly shows that the inbreeding in Tennessee has worked and drawn down the IQ of their right wing politicians.

I don't know about any inbreeding in Tennessee, but I do know that they believe in the right to life---for Giraffes.
 
Why would they care one way or the other? Am I missing something?

Maybe they don't want UAW in Tennessee politics? Maybe they are trying to avoid this?

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



So they are willing to give hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies, but only if the company is non union

No, they are going to continue to get the ~80 million a year from the state's FastTrack program. What they would need to go back to the legislature for is additional subsidies for a proposed plant expansion, since the program doesn't get enough current funding to support the additional subsidies.

In the end, I don't think it matters. Tenn. doesn't allow union membership to be a condition of employment.
 
I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. So, I assume the answer is that if workers unionize they will be ordered to vote Democrat and that's why the Republicans are against the UAW. That seems like a logical answer but....

..... it begs the question, if you work for VW and you are not in a union, do you vote differently? Theoretically, your ballot is secret so you can vote however you like and lie about it if it's uncomfortable. Even if the UAW management votes Democrat, how many management votes could there be compared to the number of line workers? isn't bringing in the jobs the more important issue? It seems like a lot to give up over a few hundred votes.

Who the tiny number of VW workers, in TN, vote for is not the issue - it is where their union dues will go (into DNC coffers) that makes a bigger difference.
 
That's easy; unions give money to Democrats and not Republicans.

Which is why big business and unions should not be directly or indirectly influencing elections.
 
No, they are going to continue to get the ~80 million a year from the state's FastTrack program. What they would need to go back to the legislature for is additional subsidies for a proposed plant expansion, since the program doesn't get enough current funding to support the additional subsidies.

In the end, I don't think it matters. Tenn. doesn't allow union membership to be a condition of employment.


It seems the government is going to an extreme, stating not being part of a union is a condition of employment in this case
 
It seems the government is going to an extreme, stating not being part of a union is a condition of employment in this case

Except that isn't what they said. VW can build their expansion anywhere they want, and they will take unionization, or lack thereof, into their decision as well.
 
Which is why big business and unions should not be directly or indirectly influencing elections.

No. That is why no tax exempt organization should be allowed to do so - "big business" is otherwise subjected to taxation without representation.
 
Back
Top Bottom