By on February 28, 2014

Senator Bob Corker

Former Chattanooga, Tenn. mayor and current United States Senator Bob Corker urged the National Labor Relations Board not to silence him or fellow lawmakers opposed to unionization as the NLRB considers an appeal by the United Auto Workers over the results of the three-day election recently held at Volkswagen’s plant in Chattanooga.

Reuters reports Sen. Corker issued a statement during the election, where conversations led him to believe that if the workers rejected UAW representation, then VW would build a new midsize SUV in his state. He adds that when Democrat politicians voiced support for unions in the past, the NLRB ruled they properly expressed their free speech rights, a ruling Corker hopes will run for the opposition, as well:

I hope that the NLRB will understand and realize the magnitude of what they are going to be deciding and in no way will try to muzzle public officials who are community leaders from expressing their point of view.

Corker said he spoke out against the UAW in order to counteract misinformation about the SUV’s arrival being tied to the plant’s unionization, an allegation the union denies making while consistently stating the vote would not affect where the SUV would ultimately be produced.

Though mum on where his information regarding the rejection originated, Corker stood firm on his criticism of the UAW and its main reason for showing up in his state in the first place:

I think it was very apparent the UAW was in Chattanooga for one reason – dollars.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

106 Comments on “Corker: Labor Board Should Not Silence Lawmakers...”


  • avatar

    Of course, they NLRB shouldn’t silence Bob Corker or anyone else. However, there are laws protecting the process of company/union activities and voting, for better or worse. If the NLRB thinks the process was tainted, the law requires them to authorize another vote. If we don’t like the law, we should change it.

    • 0 avatar
      RogerB34

      The NLRB will find a tainted process.
      We await the Supremes decision on Obama’s NLRB appointments.
      If not upheld, the appointees and their decisions are null and void.
      Impedes and delays NLRB mischief.

    • 0 avatar
      Jan Bayus

      All Corker and or Haslem has to do is to provide evidence of what they claim. If they had a meeting with VW, then provide the facts. The MEDIA is at fault fr not following up or asking for more than sound bites. If he lied he should apologize. HA HA.. I crack me up.

    • 0 avatar
      Superdessucke

      LOL! I’m sure the “review” will be very fair. This will end up before the 6th Circuit where the real ruling will be.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        I don’t think we’ll see anything definitive from the courts until the dust settles in Washington. Corker just signaled a political fight in Congress that will have to play out first.

  • avatar
    slance66

    Given that the Supreme Court will shortly invalidate some appointments to the NRLB, the NLRB really needs to tread carefully here. There is no law on the books prohibiting an outside third party from commenting on these elections, nor could there be. VW was more than fair to the union.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Commenting is one thing. If Corker had simply said, “I don’t support unionizing the plant,” or “I don’t think workers are helping themselves by unionizing,” or even “I think unions are a bad idea,” and left it at that, no problem. He’s well within his rights and purview as a senator to make comments like that.

      But he insinuated that if they did unionize, current or jobs at the plant would he at risk. Since he was the one who put the VW deal together in the first place, that amounts to a not-so-thinly veiled threat. That’s not appropriate.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        How so? Corker has no authority to make anything happen at VW, he is not a spokesman for VA and VW promptly disavowed his comments.

        The essence of the Union’s complaint is that these organizing campaigns should be conducted in a vacuum — except for their own speech of course.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Because he stated on authority from a purported source from VW that if they unionized they wouldn’t get the new CUV line. This is in fact a verifiable fact and can be proven that Corker lied. I’m sure as as a supporter of Corker and his ideological position you want to twist and contort this into a ‘well he can *say* anything….but can he mean it?’ argument which is the weakest of approaches since in court and general public views if somebody says something it is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. Even then as an US senator he is assumed to have greater knowledge than the public so he may have had a ‘secret inside track’ with VW. We didn’t know at the time and frankly he knew full well he was lying to try and influence the vote. The fact that he is an US senator means he should be held to a higher standard.

          I say this as a liberal who would if somebody on the left-side had done the same I would ask for a recount. It isn’t acceptable to lie in a democracy.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          So it doesn’t concern you that he is lying in an effort to sway the vote?

          If he is so confident that the workers would oppose the union, then why was he trying to use threats to influence the vote?

          “The essence of the Union’s complaint is that these organizing campaigns should be conducted in a vacuum”

          Lobbyists such as Grover Norquist et. al. can say what they want. The problem arises when elected officials start trading votes for dollars.

          • 0 avatar
            Morea

            “I say this as a liberal … It isn’t acceptable to lie in a democracy.”

            “If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan. Period.”

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Morea – Wow, you pulled this obnoxious quote out to try and prove that liberals somehow lie? Go ahead and find a non-partisan discussion on WHY it was in fact incorrect. Lying with intent to defraud is the point of Corker’s efforts. He was attempting to redirect an effort by lying about something made from whole cloth. You won’t accept the difference but this is the actual point: The law was written with the assumption that MOST people (if not all) would actually have nominally acceptable insurance. In fact for most people they do have acceptable insurance.

            So here’s an article from Slate that acknoweldges the failure to be accurate and the reason WHY it was and isn’t really comparable to Corker.

            http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/11/obama_said_you_can_keep_your_plan_an_unwise_promise_that_the_president_was.html

            PS: If you want my response to what Obama should do is that he should just admit people’s insurance was awful and that replacing it was an issue.

          • 0 avatar
            Jimal

            This whole discussion is going all “Sharia Law” on us. They are now proactively appealing something that hasn’t happened or is possible to happen.

  • avatar
    3800FAN

    Bob King is the one who stated they’re only there for $$$$ when he said the UAW has no future if they dont organize a transplant. There it is from the head of the union himself!

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      In the face of declining membership what else is the union supposed to do?

      I really doubt they could solicit monetary donations from the public at large to cover the difference between dues and operating expenses plus salaries.

      • 0 avatar
        3800FAN

        They should merge with another union and target workers who actually NEED a union. Not workers who are happy with their relationship with management, happy with their compensation, and don’t want one to mess with success. Their reason for existing is to fight for workers rights and higher pay….not leach dues off of well compensated workers who don’t want them to line their own pockets.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          That’s a good idea. That’s exactly what CAW did, to survive in the face of dwindling membership. It makes no sense to keep all your eggs in a single industrial basket.

          OTOH, you can run into a problem with match-ups. While in college, I worked in a bakery and had to join the Bakery and Confectionery Workers’ Union. It was a small union dealing with small businesses and had to merge to survive. It’s now the “Bakery Confectionery Tobacco Workers And Grain Millers International Union”. Now muffin makers have to list nicotine content on their labels. ;)

  • avatar
    Waterview

    A technical question: Is it actually possible to silence a Washington Lawmaker? If so, I’d kinda like to see that . . . . .

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    So let me see if I get this straight: Corker thinks the NLRB is going to “silence” a United States Senator.

    What are they going to do – get a gag order on him? Good luck with that.

    This guy needs to spend more time doing his job and less time playing victim.

  • avatar
    otter

    Neither the NLRB nor anyone else has the ability to silence the boundlessly self-righteous and self-pitying bloviating of blowhards like Bob Corker.

  • avatar
    UC17

    And Bob Corker shouldn’t try to sway the vote by talking for Volkswagen and making a promise that he is not involved with in any way.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    Two very simple things:

    1.) If the Supreme court invalidates some of Pres. Obama’s appointees it throws all decisions back into the ‘undecided’ column. It invalidates their decision but only to the point that it simply becomes a standing case again. The fact that the opposition party has refused to seat members is merely a breakdown of orderly government. Democrats have not been so obstructionist ever. But that’s besides the point, if the decisions are invalidated and put back into the ‘undecided’ column it will simply wait until the members are seated and then be re-decided the exact same way because Obama will appoint the same ideological people. If not him then his Democratic successor in 2016 will.

    2.) Corker is free to state a great number of views, lying about a verifiable fact is something that is not protected by the first amendment especially in cases pertaining to court proceedings. I saw somebody say something about how it was the media’s fault for letting him get away with it. I would say the media really didn’t, they questioned his statements on most non-right wing news sources but it is still up to Corker to NOT lie. Crazy as that sounds…

    • 0 avatar
      DevilsRotary86

      I could not agree with point 2 more. If he had simply stated “If VW unionizes I would be opposed to any further incentives in the future.” that would be fine. But he didn’t, he said that he had conversations with VW that they would build a new SUV if unionization were rejected. I would like to know WHO he talked to at VW that said that, because everything else they have said publicly has indicated the opposite; if VW rejects unionization then the new SUV may be built at a unionized plant in Mexico. At least that is what would happen if IG Metall had their way.

      • 0 avatar
        Crosley

        I don’t believe Corker lied at all, but yes, public officials are
        allowed to lie, and that doesn’t mean elections get thrown out as a result.

        If a Senator on the other side of the aisle said he heard VW might expand operations with the UAW on board, and the factory voted for unionization, would you really say the election was invalid? Of course not. And I guarantee you Democrat politicians in Tennessee were pulling all the stops for a pro-Union vote.

        These kind of arguments are the kind of childish nonsense that you would see in a student election at an Elementary School. “I want a re-vote because somebody lied?” Grow up.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          I love right-wingers for this reason alone: They love to lie, cheat, and steal. They literally think EVERYBODY ELSE is just like them, low down and slimy. They think lying is completely acceptable premise to win on.

          Public Officials are actually NOT allowed to lie in most cases. In fact lying as part of their position is historically an impeachable offense. If Corker had had a direct relationship in Tennessee (such that he was a state legislature) he could have faced a serious recall election on the matter.

          If you want to debate the actual effectiveness of his lie, I’m willing to go down that route. But you can’t seriously tell me that with a straight face that you want and accept your elected officials that will lie in such a boldfaced way and appreciate it.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            What a load of tripe. You fever swamp lefties – especially the mooks you look to as your leaders – lie repeatedly day after day. You selectively enforce laws, fail to uphold the oaths you have taken, promote destructive behaviors, and eschew responsibility and accountability.

            You Cloward-Piven pinhead, you.

          • 0 avatar

            > What a load of tripe. You fever swamp lefties – especially the mooks you look to as your leaders – lie repeatedly day after day. You selectively enforce laws, fail to uphold the oaths you have taken, promote destructive behaviors, and eschew responsibility and accountability.

            So you mean right-wingers think this is a shouting contest?

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Wow, ok, Gen, why not go ahead and prove your completely ludicrous statement. Atleast I made an inference to the poster’s assumptions, whether that generalization holds true is debatable, but atleast I kept it to reality. So go ahead and prove it, I’ll wait here patiently while you find some partisan BS to shill.

        • 0 avatar
          DevilsRotary86

          I don’t think it’s as baseless as you state. You do have freedom of speech, and you are indeed allowed to lie. However freedom of speech has never protected you from the consequences of speech.

          For example, let’s say my neighbor is hiring a contractor. My neighbor asks me for a reference. I say “don’t hire Jim’s Friendly Fence Building because Jim is a convicted felon”. Jim isn’t a convicted felon, but I hate his guts so I say it anyways. My neighbor doesn’t hire Jim. Jim later finds out what I told my neighbor and why he doesn’t get hired. I am no lawyer, but I am fairly certain that Jim could sue me and rightly so. I was free of course to speak my mind, and I was free to lie. But I was not free of the consequences of my speech.

          Again, I am no lawyer and certainly not one who specializes in labor affairs. However, I believe the issue here is that under the NLRA and subsequent labor laws influencing an election through outright lying, deception, and coercion is of course forbidden. For example, say the Rotary Engine Manufacturing Co of Dallas wants to unionize under the union BCTGM. Senator DevilsRotary tells the employees that if you vote in the BCTGM they will allow in alien mind control slugs. Senator DevilsRotary of course knows full well that BCTGM is not in league with the alien space slugs, but the employees vote to deny the union just in case. BCTGM sees my claim published in papers. They go before the NLRB and argues that the falsehood influenced the election and that the election should be held again with the clarification that BCTGM is indeed a space slug free organization.

          Now the hurdle here that the UAW must overcome is to prove that Senator Corker lied that VW stated that unionization would lead to no new SUV plant, and that the lie influenced the election. It’s not baseless, but it doesn’t seem too easy to prove either. Especially the second part, that the lie influenced the election.

          • 0 avatar

            ^ this guy gets it.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            In theory, you are correct. In practice, not so much.

            Coercion has been part of the unionization effort for decades. It’s why the want card check. All they have to do is corner you and get you to sign and they have your vote forever. The stereotype of union thuggery isn’t a managerial creation.

            Also, this whole thing about the Senator is totally blown out of proportion. Assuming he purposefully lied to influence the election, does it matter? He is no more in charge of plant expansions than he is space bugs. He can’t actually make or prevent either event.

            I would agree that if a Governor threatened to use his power to hurt the company, that would mean something. The Senator, nor the legislators, threatened the company or employees with government actions (which, btw, is pretty much the Democratic Party’s regular M.O. ).

          • 0 avatar

            > Assuming he purposefully lied to influence the election, does it matter? He is no more in charge of plant expansions than he is space bugs.

            I think you need a break from this job since Sen. Corker is fully capable of carrying his own water.

            Conservatives like to talk about responsibility; that word only means something if there’s consequences for forsaking it. Elected office carries with it considerable responsibility in a representative republic, so perhaps you don’t understand what that implies, or just think it’s ok to do wrong as long as he’s your people.

            And to be fair, I can even understand stand sticking for your home boys, but unfortunately he certainly doesn’t think enough of you and the rest to be forthright.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Apply that evenly and we won’t have so many disagreements in the future. ;)

            Let’s say Pelosi had said the opposite. I just couldn’t get as excited about it as you guys and for the same reasons I am not here. I am not defending Corker, I am arguing the reality of this as I see it. My attacks against Pelosi would be that she was actually planning to use the government to persecute the other side. At this point, there are people in Washington that ought to be feared, and frankly, I can’t figure out any on the right. You might be afraid of their ideology, but not of their persecuting you.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            LC – The only problem with your argument (and really there are many more..but I’ll be nice) is that your image of ‘union thugs’ is built by a right-wing corporate construct that has a vested interest in keeping that image alive.

            Lets keep it simple:

            Who has more power?

            1000 workers who individually make 50K

            OR

            A multi-billion dollar corporation?

            It would seem that in the end the corporation has far more power and until the NRLB was created to level out that power people weren’t climbing into the middle-class at any steady clip. In fact most historians agree that the ‘middle class’ was not more than 10-20% prior to WWII and only reached around 50-60% due to various changes including the labor movement. So perhaps you should rethink yours views since you have actual little evidence besides your inferences and mythos to back up your view. As a percentage corporations are the overwhelming offenders in these cases.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Or, my image of union thugs is based on accounts from relatives and military buddies that went to work in union hell holes as well as talking to union idiots who sat in on meetings at places like the USPS, Ford, or the VA and tried to interfere with a process to improve their job conditions and make them need less interference from management to do their jobs and have more autonomy while they did it. The VA guy was interesting, he got a bit uppity on me trying to act like a hero until I made it clear I knew what he had actually done in the service.

            And, btw, your argument is interesting and a clever misdirection. When it comes to coercion on a union vote, I find it hard to believe the corporations are more powerful than the unions. The workers are the judges, it’s the corporation vs the union, and the unions do pretty well since they have the backing of the regulatory state these days.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            LC – This is my final reply and I’ll keep it short:

            Your argument is that because you’re using unnamed sources and I could actually pull out the NRLB complaints given time and energy it seems your argument isn’t really anything more than self-fulfilling anecdotes.

            If you think 1000 individuals can some how manhandle a billion dollar corporation, you really do live in a fantasy.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Xer,
            We aren’t talking about my argument. You generally ignore the heart of my arguments. We are talking about your slant on one of my premises after you already twisted it.

            Because of the way you post here, your personal credibility is about nil. Until I hear an explanation from someone not biased for organized labor, I will believe that there are union people intimidating workers over votes, and that as a worker, they would intimate me more than a billion dollar corporations’ usual tactics. I don’t doubt that somewhere some really nasty people from management have done some really nasty things. However, the corporation is at a huge disadvantage against workers when it comes to nasty.

            As for 1,000 people manhandling a billion dollar corporation, there are billion dollar corporations with less than a 1,000 people running them, so while I get your intent, maybe you ought to think about the realities. Maybe think about Afghanistan as a parallel. Personally, I don’t know how companies like you describe stay in business. I worked at one, and the turnover rate was unmanageable. I can only assume they changed their tune because they ceased to become a common source for trained tech workers in the area.

        • 0 avatar

          > Wow, ok, Gen, why not go ahead and prove your completely ludicrous statement

          To clarify what’s going on, he believes it was a shouting contest and thus he must shout louder than you. It really doesn’t matter what he’s actually saying.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Ha! More self-satisfied, smug smarm. Good show!

          • 0 avatar

            > Ha! More self-satisfied, smug smarm. Good show!

            If you have nothing of substance to say, what exactly are you doing here?

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            “Conservatives like to talk about responsibility; that word only means something if there’s consequences for forsaking it. Elected office carries with it considerable responsibility in a representative republic, so perhaps you don’t understand what that implies, or just think it’s ok to do wrong as long as he’s your people.”

            If this is your true opinion, then I trust you’ll support the impeachment of both Barry Obama and his AG. No??? You lefties don’t “embarrass easy” do you.

          • 0 avatar

            I guess what words mean weren’t the only thing they stopped teaching in school. This thing there: “?” is what’s called a question mark, and it means the words right before ask a question. This is the question:

            “If you have nothing of substance to say, what exactly are you doing here?”

            I thought you were here to engage in a shouting match, but this is your chance to explain if that’s not true. What you’re doing now is only reinforcing (that means strengthening) my point. That’s not what you want to do as your argument.

  • avatar
    VCplayer

    What does this accomplish anyways? They do a revote?

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      More than likely, yes. It would allow the UAW to revote rather than wait the mandatory waiting period. I would argue that a 2nd vote is more likely to pass as the UAW would make a better rallying effort on that 14% that didn’t vote (even if they only vote at a 60/40 split in favor that would end up with almost a 30-40 vote win). If they lost again, so be it, but atleast this time it would be a fair fight…or fairer? The whole argument involves more variables than any human being with a tiny reply box to calculate but I’m sure Corker’s remarks were replayed heavily in TN and in Chattanooga before the vote.

      • 0 avatar
        Yeah_right

        I’m curious as to your logic for why a revote would be more likely to succeed? Honestly curious.

        I assume that the people who really wanted the UAW voted. Most of the workers who didn’t vote were either in the “no” or “don’t care” camp but were too lazy to cast a vote.

        So, a Washington DC, Democrat-controlled organization decides that the UAW gets to come in again and all the same arguments start up again. It seems reasonable to think that more of the “no but lazy” voters will be irritated having to re-live this and you’ll bring out the “I TOLD you to leave, now GIT” vote.

        My prediction, as a life-long union hater, is that the decisive but not a landslide vote in February will turn into an smackdown; that the UAW leaves a revote even worse off than they are now.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Well if you’re willing to believe the Washington DC, Republican-controlled organizations that rallied against the UAW then perhaps you would buy that argument. I’m inclined to believe that:

          A.) Corker’s remarks swayed some votes.

          B.) The no votes were from anti-unionists who are equally as likely NOT to vote against the union as before because they see their efforts were explicitly against everybody but the Republican party and their Corporate backers.

          C.) The same argument I pointed about above works both ways: The fact that all these anti-union groups are coming out of Washington may not be ready for a revote this quickly and may not have the funds ready to dig in deeper.

          Course this is all conjecture as I don’t have boots on the ground there to verify the mood. Once again, our ideologies meet and collide with no clear logical view dominating…

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Sometimes I wish Frank Underwood was a real person.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    No one has yet come up with a an actual argument backing up the point that what Corker did was threaten the members.

    Let’s forget insinuation. Lets forget who he is. Let’s take all the wishy washy crud out of it.

    Let’s say he is the decision maker on whether to expand the plant. And, let’s disregard that he would then be muzzled by NLRB. Let’s just decide whether it’s really threatening for him to say that he won’t expand the plant if it goes union.

    Why is that a threat? He isn’t saying he will fire anyone, or lay off anyone, or lower pay, or anything. If the workers vote union, they would actually be removing themselves from any benefit of plant expansion wouldn’t they? If they stay non union, they could potentially see promotion opportunity by expansion because they could use their positive work history to show they are capable of more responsibility.

    I’ve said this analogy before, and the only real answer was that I know I am wrong. Not much of an argument.

    “If you disagree with me on this, I will not give you a million dollars.” That’s not a threat. It’s also not what happened here. Closer would be, “If you disagree with me on this, your employer will not hire more people to do the same job you are doing.” Not quite mafia level stuff there, sorry.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      “Just days before the vote, Corker said he had been “assured” that if workers at the plant rejected the UAW organizing drive, the company would reward them by sending new work to the plant. He has declined to name the source of the assurance.”

      If you don’t understand that threats need not always be negative to be a threat then you missed the point of this whole discussion. You can’t make up lies whether they be negative threats or rewards for rejecting (in other words threatening the UAW’s voting effort). You don’t get that right as a US Senator and if he was a nobody then nobody would care. Whisper campaigns are harder to prove in court but it’s clear this man had sway in Tennessee and was speaking from a supposed point of authority. It’s clear he overstepped the line.

      But you’re a hard-core conservative who’s anti-union. You wouldn’t care if they were mowed down by armed men as long as you got your way…

      • 0 avatar

        Xeraner, do you have a favorite car? Do you even like cars?

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          I love cars. If anything I follow Murilee’s articles with a passion. Most of your articles are interesting but don’t necessarily draw a comment. You stepped into a political realm where I eat, sleep, and breathe and then you wonder why I post so much against your views?

          As for your question: I’m actually really partial to the 1964 1/2 Mustang through 1969. After that, until the 1990s the mix is hard to find a lover, I liked the SVX in that era. oh, the ford probe is also up there on my list, definitely a car I would take as a track car just for kicks if I could find one that wasn’t completely wasted. I’m still very partial to the WRX and I am debating to replace my xB with a FR-S or a new Beetle, neither is terrible fast but I enjoy the idea of having two doors and screwing practicality. I’ve even mulled over a used Cayman but the cost is just so high for it that I can’t justify the outlay and the age for a reasonable priced model just brings the debate to whether a 3-4 year old Cayman is worth the upkeep because it isn’t going to be bulletproof and it is going to cost some serious dough to replace the bits as it breaks.

          If we’re discussing unrealistic cars to love, I’m personally a 1950s Pontiac/Buick type. I love that sweepspear look. Also the DeSotos have always drawn my love enough they were just gussied up Dodges.

          I read a fair bit of ate up with motor as well. It just becomes disheartening when some of your stuff trends into such hard-right views. If you hate me, I can appreciate that. The feeling isn’t quite mutual, but I don’t like your politics any more than you like mine, I’m sure.

          EDIT: Much as I may have disliked the last EIC he did have a certain panache for his right-leaning views in a way that drew my ire but I don’t know..I don’t want to whitewash his relationship to me since I believe we only hashed it out two or three times in the comments.

        • 0 avatar
          bullnuke

          +1

        • 0 avatar

          > Xeraner, do you have a favorite car? Do you even like cars?

          I hate cars more than republicans but I can’t drive either so I just have my butler run them over.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          Bet it’s the Trabant… maybe the Lada.

        • 0 avatar
          KixStart

          Ronnie,

          What was the purpose of that question? This isn’t the kind of piece where one’s favorite car or enjoyment of cars comes into play… it’s a TTAC piece on politics.

          I can’t imagine why you’d ask that unless your intent was to somehow impugn Xeranar’s standing as a “car guy” and therefore, in some weird way, unqualified to speak up on TTAC in a political thread.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Your personal attack is just slander and out of line. Your argument is exactly the lacking tripe your side keeps using because they can’t change the facts. These workers were not ever promised more work. An expansion meant work for other people. They weren’t promised anything by Corker, nor did his rumor threaten to take away anything he or anyone else had promised them. Evidence or reason to the contrary is all you need. I have not seen any of it.

        It’s well known that a doctorate is not certification that you can honestly reason, and your baseless attacks on others are evidence you cannot. Try again, Professor.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          + Eleventy!

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          What facts do I need to change? Right-wingers love to shout “constitution!” and “facts!” at people when their whole economic view has been proven non-functional and effectively a lie. Please, you live in a fantasy land where you think down is up, right is wrong, and workers should be grateful for whatever scraps they receive. Well too bad, the world doesn’t bend to your whim. In fact you’re not only in the minority in this society but in all the world.

          I love how to try to sling mud at me for being better educated than you because you disagree with my researched view of the world. Tell me again, LC, what degrees do you have? What work do you do that is so intricate to understand economics that you can manage to hold such a mangled perception of reality that you haven’t been run out of business yet.

          PS: Don’t use the term slander and personal attack if you don’t know what they mean. I made an equated statement with conservatives. That isn’t a personal attack unless your name is ‘conservative’ it’s a general attack….

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            What facts? The fact that Corker didn’t have any power and didn’t make any real threats. I heard they are not going to give out any more teaching jobs at your school if you keep posting on this thread. Now, feel threatened?

            My economic views have not been proven wrong. Links? References? What do you know of my economic views? Most of my life I have worked. I’ve even done what you snobs call real work like digging ditches, cleaning toilets, and moving furniture. Those things helped me learn the things that led me to making enough money to buy my own airplanes and start businesses. The most important thing is if the pay isn’t good enough, find a better deal. The hardest job any of us has is finding the right jobs working with the right people. If you aren’t happy, go do something about it rather than blaming others. Even if you are right to blame, it isn’t helping you get anywhere.

            I don’t sling mud at you for your education. I attack your posts. Besides that, it’s pretty rich hearing you complain of mud slinging. I tend to keep posts about the subject at hand, but you generally don’t fail to insult and insinuate. It’s challenging not to attack back constantly.

            I was run out of business by the Feds and their interference in the markets a while back. They made the piston aircraft business unprofitable and I quit. Most of the players are now foreign owned except Cessna. OTOH, when I was in tech, I paid more in taxes than your little school pays you.

            That doesn’t make me smarter than you, but at least I practiced in economics rather than write about it. I have created projects that put hundreds of people to work while you apparently do commentary on how to divide up the pie? Try making one sometime and see if your views don’t change.

            You hear about George McGovern’s experience? He tried to open a business and then took back everything he had ever said about corporations in the campaign trail. You should try it. Don’t forget to unionize your employees. None of mine ever felt they needed one.

            Lastly, you wrote this: “You wouldn’t care if they were mowed down by armed men as long as you got your way…” that sounds pretty personal and not very general to me. It’s certainly pretty insulting, it’s false, and it’s damaging. So, look up slander yourself, it applies.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            A True Believer and a putz… bad combination.

    • 0 avatar
      Jimal

      See, if you forget everything then nothing actually happened.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        What I am proposing to forget is the arguments about what was veiled or meant and assume the worst. The truth is, if he had lied in the most bald faced way it still was not really a threat. You can’t threaten to take away something that someone never had nor will be able to put value on. It doesn’t make sense. It should influence no votes.

        • 0 avatar
          Jimal

          This has been explained repeatedly, by different people. If you can’t see the implied threat you aren’t looking, because it is pretty obvious. When he said that the 2nd production line is contingent on a “no” vote, his statement also implied that a “yes” vote means no 2nd production line. Otherwise the statement is meaningless.

          • 0 avatar

            > When he said that the 2nd production line is contingent on a “no” vote, his statement also implied that a “yes” vote means no 2nd production line. Otherwise the statement is meaningless.

            I think what Landcrusher and whole GOP are trying to say is that there’s no way they could’ve inferred such ivory tower elitist thinking from Corker’s statements and therefore it couldn’t legitimately enter anyone else’s mind either. It’s an airtight case.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Why do the guys on the first line care about a second? I keep asking, and getting no answer other than its obvious. If it’s so obvious, why can’t anyone explain it otherwise than saying its obvious?

            Personally, the only job I had where hiring more people like me was good for me was when I thought it might mean I would get promoted. But if they vote for a union, they don’t get promoted anyway, right? So where is this big up side to a 2nd line for the workers? Likely, it means more chances of layoffs and fighting for a good parking spot.

          • 0 avatar

            > Why do the guys on the first line care about a second?

            In a free market framework if there’s more work to do it implies an increase in the value of labor. Aren’t you guys the ones always going on about supply and demand?

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Sensible. An increase in demand for labor can increase the hourly wage. In this case though, there is more than adequate supply of laborers waiting to take the jobs. All sides know it. Furthermore, unionization seeks to remove demand for labor as a variable in wages and replace it with a fair share or even how much can the company bear to pay instead of how much the market says the company should pay.

          • 0 avatar

            > In this case though, there is more than adequate supply of laborers waiting to take the jobs.

            Only if the labor pool is entirely fungible, which it isn’t. Assuming there’s some quality to the current employees which got them picked, hiring new less qualified candidates only highlights this. If there’s tiered pay at this plant as in our 10/hr liberal arts grad’s, the comparative advantage is obvious. Failing this there’s always seniority; same pool of wages benefits advantage. Generally speaking more demand is better when you’re the supply.

            > Furthermore, unionization seeks to remove demand for labor as a variable in wages and replace it with a fair share or even how much can the company bear to pay instead of how much the market says the company should pay.

            All unionization fundamentally does is give a competitive negotiating advantage to previous weak parties through their union. Any and all other features of choice leveraged using this advantage are incidental to unionization per se.

          • 0 avatar

            Btw, to cut off where this is going, we’re not here to find possible exceptional cases to the general rule, we’re here to discuss the *intent* of the Corker lie.

            More work at the factory is the opposite of less work where people getting fired. The everyman groks this, which is why the lie works: vote my way and I’ll ensure your job is safe, otherwise who knows.

          • 0 avatar
            Jimal

            The plant is currently underutilized. A second line is a vote of confidence in the plant and its current workers, while awarding that second line to another plant – particularly one that might not yet exist – is not. If you work at that plant you want the second line because more people hired behind you means seniority and the possibility of a job change oppoortunity. No second line could signal an end game for Volkswagen in Chattanooga.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Seniority means very little if you don’t go union. I will agree that the workers may have placed more value on the second line than they really should have, and I don’t really care about the Senator’s intent. Intent is a tertiary concern to sensible people because you can never really know it. The bottom line is the system is screwed up, and it just doesn’t deserve the word threat. Even if you make the case it was technically a threat, everyone knows that gives the wrong impression like they are worried for their livelihoods or something. Not the case at all.

            I don’t agree at all on the competitive negotiating points. That ship sailed decades ago. Auto manufacturing jobs are in a warped market and mostly filled with wholly overqualified people. You have fun trying to disprove this since they likely get hundreds of applications for every opening. People with 2 year degrees and more are happy to take jobs as seat catchers. Unionization flips the basis of fair wage from the market of labor to the distribution of profits. That is the main point of the process in the modern economy.

          • 0 avatar

            > I don’t really care about the Senator’s intent. Intent is a tertiary concern to sensible people because you can never really know it.

            One of the two components of a criminal act in common law is “actus reus”, or the guilty act; seems obvious enough. The other is “mens rea”, or the guilty mind.

            So either “sensible” there doesn’t mean what you think it does, or you have no clue how our judicial philosophy works. Since I guess we can never really know your intent, I’ll let you pick; I’d recommend the former.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            And the act is always more important in the law than the intent. So, what’s your point?

          • 0 avatar

            > And the act is always more important in the law than the intent. So, what’s your point?

            Generally recipients of such a sick burn need some time off, so I can only assume it hasn’t caught on what those words mean. Speaking of words, “tertiary” is another one you might want to look up along with mens rea and “sensible”. Note I’m giving you enough credit here that I don’t need to spell it out.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I’m beginning to see that the Department of Education has not been doing its job. It would appear that at least some of our English teachers have failed miserably.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            You guys! You just can’t get it. No one here is falling for it anymore. Saying its obvious, or that I don’t know the language is a clear sign you can’t explain your position because you don’t understand it yourself. Likely, it’s because the position is crap.

            The act is always more important than the intent. You don’t end up in court over your intentions absent of any action. You might try to play semantics with negligence, but that’s just being an ass. Without an act or incident, there is no case for discussion. You can’t, at least not until you idiots let the dictators win, be in court over your thoughts.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            There are some among us who insist on digging holes. Then there are those who not only keep digging, but also hit themselves in the head with the shovel.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Pch101
            Then there are the ones like me who dig holes.

            But the holes I dig are called tunnels and can go to places that can never be bridged;)

        • 0 avatar

          > You guys! You just can’t get it. No one here is falling for it anymore.

          I only say this because you don’t seem entirely like the guy right above this: you don’t want to be one of those guys.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s difficult to communicate with people who are fluent in no languages.

            Perhaps we should start threatening to pull funding from districts that didn’t vote for the president, just because they voted for the other guy. Apparently, it must be legal — who would possibly consider that to be a threat?

    • 0 avatar

      > Why is that a threat?

      The anti-union guys might have a case here if they can prove they were too goddamn stupid to understand it was a threat in the first place.

  • avatar
    Crosley

    So if Corker just keeps talking about this subject, the vote will never be certified, because it could have been tainted? Sounds like a plan to me.

    Something tells me if a Democrat Senator made pro-union statements before a factory vote, the same whiners would not ask for the results to be thrown out if it went their way.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      I know that this is a radical thought, but if your heroes who were elected to the legislature would just keep their mouths shut, then the union wouldn’t have a valid complaint.

      Instead, you’ve just given ammunition to your opponent. Not particularly smart, especially if you genuinely believe that their commentary didn’t influence the voting.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Of course, that’s not his point. Has the NLRB ever, or would they ever, throw out a yes vote due to a pro union statement from a an elected official.

        No, of course not.

        The whole point is to create a situation on campus, in the media, and in the public square where dissent against progressive ideology is not tolerated, or is labeled as derogatory in some way. At least that’s how it seems to me. If you guys are so right and sure of your yourselves, you wouldn’t get so vicious every time someone disagreed.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          I would think that having Grover Norquist and a flotilla of unelected lobbyists to argue on your behalf would be enough.

          You again fail to make the distinction between private citizens and elected officials. Those who serve in government don’t get to behave as private citizens, particularly when they are waving taxpayer money under peoples’ noses in order to induce a vote that is protected under federal law.

          I’ll say it once more, just so that you can’t claim to have missed it: Grover can complain about the union to his heart’s content. But Corker and the GOP legislators need to stay the hell out of it, and allow people to vote in peace.

          • 0 avatar

            > You again fail to make the distinction between private citizens and elected officials.

            Obviously you liberals don’t anything about the first amendment that allows anyone to say anything they want just like the second amendment guarantees free guns for all and the one after that I can’t count that high. Anything contrary to this is just unconstitutional unless I believe otherwise.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Thanks for once again ignoring my whole argument. I know you want anti union pols to stay out, but pro union ones get to praise them all they want and the NLRB would never do anything about it.

            If you want to agree the gag should apply to both sides then you can avoid hypocrisy at some level.

            And Grover is just trying to remain relevant. He doesn’t speak for me.

          • 0 avatar

            > If you want to agree the gag should apply to both sides then you can avoid hypocrisy at some level.

            The way laws/rules work is they’re often based on specifics rather than overgeneralizations. For example, you can’t drink before 21, because don’t want kids to do it and it had to be cut off somewhere. In this case, a public official speaking in his capacity as someone who can carry out his threats may well invalid decisions unduly influenced. It’s simply not the same thing as crazy guy on the street talking about how the world is end if sekrit muzlim obama becomes president.

      • 0 avatar
        Jimal

        @agenthex, Lying is not protected speech.

  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    The unions are going away. In most cases, that is a good thing.

  • avatar
    Joss

    Christ, Corker looks like Stephan Schwarzman in much the same way Ed Sullivan looked like Richard Nixon or Robert Ballard seems Alan Aldaish. I swear you Americans pop out of sausage machines in clumps.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States