By on April 21, 2014

volkswagen-chattanooga-solar-park-08

The Huffington Post reports the United Auto Workers has withdrawn its petition with the National Labor Resources Board challenging the results of the February 2014 election regarding organization of the workforce at Volkswagen’s plant in Chattanooga, Tenn.

UAW President Bob King said the decision to withdraw was made “in the best interests” of all parties involved, citing the “historically dysfunctional and complex process” such a challenge before the NLRB would entail. King added that resistance met by both Tennessee governor Bill Haslam and U.S. Senator Bob Corker regarding the union’s effort to subpoena the politicians also factored into the decision to stand down:

The UAW is ready to put February’s tainted election in the rearview mirror and instead focus on advocating for new jobs and economic investment in Chattanooga.

Though the challenge — which would have led to a new election at the factory had it been successful — has been withdrawn, King said the challenge did shed light on the election by “inform[ing] the public about the unprecedented interference by anti-labor politicians and third parties,” such as the number of documents gathered by Nashville, Tenn. CBS affiliate WTVF-TV linking Gov. Haslam’s administration to incentives made to VW for a new factory on the alleged stipulation that the Chattanooga plant remaining unorganized.

Had the UAW stood firm with their petition, the first hearing would have been held Monday.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

108 Comments on “UAW Ends Fight For Organization Of Tennessee VW Plant...”


  • avatar
    rnc

    Might be really smart/lucky on their part (UAW), why would they want to organize the trans-plant most likely to die in the near future, for reasons completely unrelated to the UAW so it could be blamed on the UAW.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Then why try in the first place?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Perhaps the crossover won’t be coming to Chattanooga, after all.

      If that doesn’t happen and there is nothing to revive Passat sales, then things here are going to get gloomy; at the very least, there could be some layoffs. The union doesn’t need to be blamed for that; instead, they can point to Corker and Haslam as the job killers.

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        Keep searching for the pony in that steaming pile!

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        In your view, could VAG have lured the politicians in behind the scenes with the promise of a crossover in exchange for more gov’t money, when in fact they never planned to build the new model there in the first place?

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          IG Metall wants a works council there.

          Meanwhile, VWoA is in trouble, as the headlines make clear.

          Add to this that the government is playing games with the incentives funding, which creates uncertainty. (Surely, VW doesn’t want to count on and budget around those incentives, only to find that some excuse was later used to yank them once VW is fully committed.)

          All of those factors may not bode well for that plant. And since it builds only one car, the job situation there is tied pretty closely to the popularity of that one vehicle. It would be better for the employees if the plant had more flexibility.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Given those factors, it just may go the way of Westmoreland after all.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The plant may not close entirely, but there’s an effective ceiling on employment if it has only one car to build and that car doesn’t do particularly well.

            In any case, Bob King has friends in Wolfsburg. It wouldn’t surprise me if he had some inside information about what management was thinking.

          • 0 avatar
            fvfvsix

            @Pch – this is what makes me think a bunch of five year olds are at the helm of VW’s manufacturing organization. In today’s global economy, regardless of tax incentives, who the hell builds a huge factory, only to let it wither on the vine by giving it only one thing to produce? Corporations should be in business to make money, period. If VW doesn’t like the political situation on the ground in Tennessee, then they should have done their homework a decade ago…the place hasn’t changed one bit.

            I’m sorry. I can’t support stupid. If they decide to let the Chattanooga plant atrophy because of some political BS, then I will never buy another VW.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You would think that the geniuses who brought us modular platforms would have thought this one through.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            …or as you and others have suggested Pch, IG Metall’s true intentions are to use their influence to at least enclose if not eliminate an internal competitor.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I don’t recall claiming that IG Metall was trying to constrain or sabotage Chattanooga.

            I’m not surprised that a union would like to see more unionization. Presumably, unions like unions.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I may be mistaken, my apologies. I seem to recall the idea circulating that I.G. Metall in fact did not want the plant to succeed because it could pose a direct threat to their interests in Europe. Don’t know enough about the subject to make an accurate judgement but find the idea intriguing.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I know that there are posters here who dislike unions who think that any effort to increase union membership must be part of some sort of dastardly plot.

            The thing is that union leaders actually like unions. They’d like to see more of them, and for those unions to have more members. They believe that unions are good.

            The fact that those who are pro-union would favor unions shouldn’t surprise anyone. But understanding that requires the ability to be objective and to understand that those who disagree with you are genuine supporters of their respective causes. They do it because they believe in it.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I don’t recall anyone claiming pro union people were not pro union. I think you are now just making stuff up.

            OTOH, union leaders being pro union and pro self does not now, nor has it ever, meant necessarily being pro worker. Just like executives, union leaders can be self serving. They certainly can be short sighted and fight for things that are not going to be good for the workers in the long run.

            Instead of using their war chests to be at the Democrat Party table, they could take up corporate governance reform. Instead, when they do get on a board, nothing really changes.

          • 0 avatar

            > If VW doesn’t like the political situation on the ground in Tennessee, then they should have done their homework a decade ago…the place hasn’t changed one bit.

            It’s understandably difficult for foreigners, even the germans, to fully appreciate the rich cultural tapestry that is the conservative south.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        >>The union doesn’t need to be blamed for that; instead, they can point to Corker and Haslam as the job killers.<<

        Actually, the UAW, in their statement, unintentionally acknowledged the opposite. They admitted their efforts clouded the prospect for increased employment, hence they were dropping those efforts.

        Plus they’ve already lost twice – w/ the workers and in the court of public opinion, why add a third loss in the legal arena.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          This is a great answer. It illustrates quite nicely how political ideologues like yourself are so easily duped by your leaders: you’re so committed to your position that you want to be fooled and actively participate in your own duping.

          The government of Tennessee has interfered with VW’s business. VW wants the cash and prizes that the state has to offer, but it most certainly does not want to be turned into a political pinata by any political party.

          Most of all, companies don’t want unpredictable environments. They don’t want to count on subsidies, only to have them cancelled for no partcularly good reason. It’s one thing for the money to have strings, it’s quite another for strings to be arbitrarily added midstream.

          If VW nixes the crossover expansion in Chattanooga, then it’s going to be at least partly the fault of Haslam and his admnistration, while the UAW has clean hands in this particular case. It should be obvious why that is, but it won’t be obvious to you.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            An interesting mix of conservative ideology from a progressive backed into a wall, and unsubstantiated ranting. Nice.

            I heard something akin to Thornmark’s point. A UAW leader was heard remarking something to the effect that winning may have not been a good thing until the plant was bigger. I was amazed.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I’ve done business with government. My guess is that you haven’t.

            The rules are annoying, but they’re a cost of doing business. Anyone who has a partially functioning brain stem will learn to live with them.

            But nobody wants bizarro curve balls lobbed at them out of the blue. They certainly don’t want to be micromanaged any more than they bargained for, or to be turned into evening news fodder in ways that doesn’t help their PR.

            In this case, there is at least one faction within VW management that wants some kind of union. You guys talk a big game about “limited government,” but you don’t really mean it. “Limited government” is code for “government that serves a right-wing agenda”, which is certainly partisan but isn’t necessarily any smaller.

            Haslam and his buddies have stuck their noses into something that wasn’t really their business, putting the money into jeopardy in the process. VW just wants the money, they don’t really want your business advice. If folks of your ilk create bogus litmus tests for handing out that money, then don’t be surprised if those who are on the receiving end of that gamesmanship take their toys somewhere else.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I haven’t done too much biz with Feds. Maybe a quarter million spread over a few years to USPS, DoD, and VA. Also, I took advantage of some stupid depreciation rules for my aircraft leasing business (which is to say I followed the law rather stay out of the business as I should have).

            None of this has anything to do with this discussion as far as I can tell except that I would say anyone with a brainstem would learn that the rules change whenever the Feds choose and you can do nothing about it unless you are Soros/Koch type, media mogul, or politically powerful. In between changes, the rules are Byzantine and subject to interpretation by either the sensible, helpful government employee(s) before you or the idiot(s) you got stuck with.

            Nice to see you share my belief that business prefers stabile rules. Now if we can move you away from your Bush School Statism belief in stable government intervention towards a Tea Party belief that less subsidies and “programs” would be even more ideal I might get canonized! :)

            Anyone at VW who wants some kind of “union” is not one of us guys. OTOH, someone wanting the government to stay out of the way of a company bargaining with its employees to get their participation in managing the factory is likely ready to join the Tea Party.

            Folks of my ilk don’t create litmus tests for handing out money. My belief is that companies should get money from customers and investors, not thieving statist looters. You keep confusing me with Democrats and Republicans who are “pro business” which is just a code word for statist IMO.

          • 0 avatar

            > My belief is that companies should get money from customers and investors, not thieving statist looters. You keep confusing me with Democrats and Republicans who are “pro business” which is just a code word for statist IMO.

            Funny how the Tea Party claims a hero in Ronald Reagan. It’s an open question whether they just don’t know what happens in reality or don’t care because sloganeering is already too mentally taxing.

          • 0 avatar
            Dave M.

            I’m trying to find the written evidence about the crossover expansion plan. Both sides claimed if you played their way they’d get the expansion (Corker and the German union). If anything, the politicians neutralized the heavy handed inside-the-hen-house tactics of the UAW, VW and German union.

            Two simple facts are VW built a plant in a right to work state, and the workers rejected the UAW.

            UAW couldn’t afford (I’d guess literally this time) another beating in the ballot box or court of opinion. Plain and simple.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            So now the new tactic is to deny or doubt that VW has discussed expanding its operations in Tennessee, even though it has been publicly discussed by the company, acknowledged and addressed by government officials, and widely reported in the mainstream press? Seriously?

        • 0 avatar

          > I’m trying to find the written evidence about the crossover expansion plan. Both sides claimed if you played their way they’d get the expansion (Corker and the German union). If anything, the politicians neutralized the heavy handed inside-the-hen-house tactics of the UAW, VW and German union.

          Apparently the politicians toying with careers of those they’re supposed to represent for personal gain are actually the good guys.

          Usually when specious comments pop up they’re almost always line by line copies of some PR.

          It’s quite unusual to see arguments even more oblivious than the convenient ones.

  • avatar
    Yeah_right

    “in the best interests of all parties” and “advocate for new jobs in Chattanooga” my arse. They realized that they would have gotten stomped, and spent millions for the trouble.

    The beginning of the end of an organization that does so much harm for so little benefit (execpt to the union leadership’s finances, of course.) Good riddance.

    • 0 avatar
      Ron B.

      Hear! hear! look to Australia and the UK to see what happens when labour unions and politics are allowed to mix. You get wealthy union officials and unemployed skilled workers leading to the death of industrial bases and eventually vast income producing sectors of economies. Eventually you get social dislocation because the off spring of unemployed never get to work… then you can also look to Detroit.

      • 0 avatar
        cpthaddock

        You make an excellent point regarding the dysfunction of Aussies and Brits. Meanwhile, the Germans and Scandinavians are laughing their “arses” off at them for their moronic class based greed and self destructive dysfunction.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @cpthaddock
          Aussie dysfunction?

          We are the one retaining the high paying engineering and design teams.

          We are not the ones who will be subsidizing each and every vehicle sold in our country.

          We are the ones using your TAX dollars in every vehicle we buy.

          You are subsidising us.

          We aren’t that stupid.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “citing the “historically dysfunctional and complex process” such a challenge before the NLRB would entail.”

    Complex no doubt, but historically dysfunctional? The entire agency officially exists to serve and protect employees in helping them join said union:

    “The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees’ rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.”

    If Mr. King truly believes the words he spoke, aside from the pot and kettle argument about who is more dysfunctional, the NLRB must be really screwed up. Anyone have any constructive information to share on the subject?

    http://www.nlrb.gov/what-we-do

    • 0 avatar
      Mr Barkers

      Wish I could offer more, but agree with most comments above that the UAW lost and is simply spinning their way out of this mess. Time for them to cut ties and try again somewhere else.

  • avatar
    Waterview

    I will admit to being thick-headed most of the time, but if Bob King truly felt that he had an actionable cause and a clear and convincing fact set, why would he drop his action?

    And if, for whatever reason, he did decide that he needed to drop the action, why was it impossible for him to take the high road and build some goodwill? Instead he calls it a “tainted election” and cited the need to “inform[ing] the public about the unprecedented interference by anti-labor politicians and third parties”.

    Either you had a case or you didn’t Bob.

    • 0 avatar
      gtrslngr

      …. to save both jobs as well as the very future of the plant in Tennessee as well as future expansion planned by VW -Audi . Thats why

      See my main post for the very ugly Truth which for some odd reason TTAC [ Anti Union bias perhaps ? ] seems to have ignored since the inception of this conflict

      Full discloser btw . As a reluctant member of the AFM -CIO I am no fan what so ever of the Unions . ANY Unions I might add [ I belong only because in certain instances I must in order to perform in certain venues with certain other organizations ... if mein freund is about he know of what I speak ]

      Simple ugly fact of the matter is though . Especially in this current economic and business /corporation climate/zeitgeist we are in .

      The Unions are now more than ever … a necessary evil

      • 0 avatar
        mr.cranky

        TTAC’s “Best and Brightest” succumbed long ago to anti-union propaganda.

        Nevermind the fact that in this case, it was politicians in a “right to work” state that sabotaged an union effort in order to maintain the status quo.

        • 0 avatar
          Les

          Waitaminute.. Politicians bullied VW into getting their employees to not vote Union…

          …by allowing UAW representatives full-reign of the plant while anti-union representatives had to resort to paying for billboards and air-time out of pocket to get their message out?

          SPLAIN PLZ!!

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Or maybe he realized that even though the facts were on his side, opponents had sufficient capital to fight him into bankruptcy.

      I honestly don’t know all the facts here, but recently had a personal situation where my family was sued without cause by an out-of-work attorney with nothing better to do. Faced with tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees to defend ourselves, we settled with the jerk.

      That’s the thing about our legal system – in an attempt to give everyone his day in court, it opens the door for the wealthiest to buy justice their way.

      I know a lot of people on this blog are anti-union, many with good cause, but I wouldn’t take it that just because someone gives up a lawsuit that they didn’t have the truth on their side.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        So, if improving the lives of workers isn’t going to be easy they back off? Give up? They only fight evil corporations that aren’t too powerful?

        I actually agree with your basic premise about choosing your battles (and wish more people in battles like yours would use a bat), Still, who out there actually thinks the union leadership is a bunch of white hat wearing, worker loving gladiators even mostly motivated by the welfare of workers? I certainly don’t believe that, or that they aren’t a bunch of spin weaving politicians.

        The unionization system in this country is now broken. The unions we have are a product of that system. It needs to get ripped apart and rewritten. I guess I’m becoming prejudiced against big. Big labor, big government, big banks…it seems big is becoming synonymous with bad.

      • 0 avatar
        Yeah_right

        The UAW is quickly getting to a point where financially it has only enough chips for a few big blinds. It is going to have to pick some fights with less than sure odds to avoid going bankrupt. I’m virulently anti-unioin, but I don’t believe that statement to be either untrue or biased.

        So in this situation, you have a company that has invited the union to prolestytize in a way no other foreign, Southern automaker is going to do and the union lost an election, but didn’t lose in a rout. If they felt the facts were on their side, they would be going all-in. They’re too far into this rich pot to back out … unless they know they’ve lost.

        Maybe they believe they were done wrong by Corker et. al (and I find a union complaining about “intereference” to be risible). That King is mucking tells me the facts weren’t on his side. My guess is that they managed to poll the employees and realized that if they re-ran the election, they were going to be embarrased. That’s the only scenario that makes sense.

  • avatar
    gtrslngr

    …. and now ! We can all sit back and watch VW follow thru with their threats [ promises actually ] to no longer expand production of any kind at the Tenn. plant as well as most likely to begin diminishing it . Not to mention forego any further considerations of opening any new plants what so ever ANYWHERE south of the Mason Dixon line [ DW Reuters WSJ etc ]

    Because you see gentlemen . By all agreements with each and every Union VW-Audi works in conjunction with in Germany …. ALL employees at every plant worldwide MUST have the option of belonging to a Union

    So congratulate the Gentleman from Tennessee . In one fell swoop the pathetic little Tea Party @$&kisser has succinctly shot both himself and the grand ole State of Tennessee right smack dab in the center of not one mind you …. but both left feet .

    Brilliant guy ehhh ? Brilliant bunch of Good Ole Boy thugs masquerading as Republicans as well .

    Gee ! Whats next on their agenda . The complete segregation of all Tennessee public schools ? Reinstating the Company Town/Script /Boss way of doing business ?

    Hell … lets save a ton of time and effort and just reinstate slavery and call it a day . That being what the Gentleman from Tennessee really wants in the long run . That and to pad his back pocket as fully as he can

    • 0 avatar
      fvfvsix

      “Because you see gentlemen . By all agreements with each and every Union VW-Audi works in conjunction with in Germany …. ALL employees at every plant worldwide MUST have the option of belonging to a Union”

      Sooooo… you’re trying to tell me that VW couldn’t have possibly seen how this one was going to go in, oh…2002? Hence, a bunch of grown-ass men and women who were smart enough to be in a position to run VW will simply abandon their multi-billion dollar investment because said grown-ass men and women have their panties in a bunch over a unionization dispute.

      Um…yeah…right.

      And should your prediction actually come to pass, this is somehow Tennessee’s fault how?

    • 0 avatar
      mr.cranky

      Yeah! Huzzah for inept Southern politicians and their backdoor shenanigans!

      Huzzah for those who continue to vote against their own interests!

      • 0 avatar
        Yeah_right

        I’ve seen what unions have done to Caterpillar, Boeing, the Big 3, and Southern textile mills. Keeping that job-destroying and company-destroying cancer away from this state IS in the state’s best long-term financial interests. If VW had unionized, no more manufacturing companies relocate to TN.

    • 0 avatar
      carrya1911

      …because opposing the UAW is legitimately an indicator that one wants to reinstitute slavery.

      Perhaps that sort of demagoguery is one reason why people don’t take your arguments seriously.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff Weimer

      They had the option to belong to a union. They declined.

      Or are you really saying that every employee in every plant worldwide *must* belong to a union?

  • avatar
    3800FAN

    This is shocking after all that’s happened….vw wanted the union, they pledged to fight, they had a strong case….then pussy out before hearings begin? I had to read this posts headline 3 times to make sure I wasn’t seeing things. There has to be something else going on here we dont know about yet.

    The only explination i could see is maybe the uaw saw the what ifs and figured theyd try the losing strategy theyve been trying with Nissan for decades instead of forcing themselves onto a workforce that doesn’t want them.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Indeed, I was surprised that the UAW would give up.

      But it’s likely they haven’t given up–just changed strategies, but if so, I doubt the new strategy will be any more effective. It’s also possible that they instead want to refocus there efforts on another target, but given the timing–the first hearing to start Monday (Is that today or a week from today?)–it’s just too fishy to conclude anything but that the UAW felt something worse would happen if they continued.

  • avatar
    mypoint02

    This makes no sense. After fighting tooth and nail to unionize Chattanooga for two years and with a labor friendly NLRB in place, and after supposedly finding thousands of documents and e-mails to support their appeal, the UAW of all organizations is suddenly going to walk away?! I’m waiting for some administrative actions to come down the pike.

    • 0 avatar
      fvfvsix

      My guess is that winning a re-vote would have been a pyrrhic victory. Better to allow everyone to think of them as fools than to remove all doubt.

      • 0 avatar
        carrya1911

        It makes sense if they thought they were going to lose the appeal. Despite having some pretty important support from the company on their side, the workers took a vote and rejected them. All the complaints about “interference” done for the press doesn’t change the core reality that the people working at the plant heard their pitch and rejected it.

        A lot of people who are stuck in a union don’t necessarily like the fact that a chunk of their paycheck is taken from them for people up the union food chain to support causes and candidates they don’t believe in. The UAW’s pitch just may not be sufficiently appealing…and I’d wager that the internal function of the plant hasn’t been helped by all the controversy.

        It’s possible that the UAW knows something the public doesn’t and that explains the move…but it’s also possible that the UAW was playing a losing hand and is following Kenny Rogers’ advice. Gotta know when to fold ‘em.

        • 0 avatar
          Yeah_right

          In the first election, there were a lot of employees who didn’t vote. Most likely, those were people who didn’t care or are mildly opposed but too busy/lazy to vote “no”. You’d assume that the even the mildly pro-union would have been motivated to vote.

          UAW probably did some polling to realize that the people who hadn’t voted before were going to do so this time to make it crystal clear that the UAW is not wanted.

  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    A wise decision. They could ill afford getting their arses handed to them again.

  • avatar
    redav

    from the article: the challenge did shed light on the election by “inform[ing] the public about the unprecedented interference by anti-labor politicians and third parties,”
    ___________________________

    Harsh words, but again I wonder about informing the public on the interference of pro-union third parties. If a company can push for a union, a union can campaign without being invited by the workers, a foreign union can threaten the plant shutdown, etc., what about interference from pro-union third parties?

    I can’t help but feel there really is something deeper and uglier about which the UAW doesn’t want the public to be informed. I’ve been through this myself with lawsuits where one party makes a lot of big noise, but when comes showtime, they’re begging for continuance and willing to settle for a fraction of what they were offered a week earlier.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The uglier, deeper thing is that Haslam and the state officials weren’t going to show up at the hearing. Bob Corker wasn’t going to appear, either.

      So much for that “rule of law” thing that I keep hearing so much about.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Seems as if politicians of all stripes seem to have never heard of it.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Are you implying the Senator is breaking the law? In what way?

      • 0 avatar
        Yeah_right

        The NLRB is a kangaroo court. Given their political shenanigans, there is a good chance that all of their decisions are going to be thrown out. “Rule of law” indeed.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        >>The uglier, deeper thing is that Haslam and the state officials weren’t going to show up at the hearing. Bob Corker wasn’t going to appear, either.

        So much for that “rule of law” thing that I keep hearing so much about.<<

        Actually, Corker et al had the law on their side. That's why you're pounding the table.

        "Haslam and Corker announced that they would not comply with the subpoenas. Federal labor law places limits on what an employer can do to oppose unionization. But my understanding is that it doesn’t place limits on what third parties can say — and I should think that the First Amendment to the Constitution would stand squarely in the way of any such limits. If Haslam and Corker can’t comment freely on a pending union election, can anyone else?" – Michael Barone

        The UAW, colluding w/ foreign parties ag/ American workers, is the villain here.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “Haslam and Corker announced that they would not comply with the subpoenas. Federal labor law places limits on what an employer can do to oppose unionization. But my understanding is that it doesn’t place limits on what third parties can say — and I should think that the First Amendment to the Constitution would stand squarely in the way of any such limits. If Haslam and Corker can’t comment freely on a pending union election, can anyone else?” – Michael Barone

          This is basically how I identified the situation early on. Wagner and subsequent amendments don’t make any mention of restraints on commentary by government officials.

          Other commenters went on to skew the interpretation to suit their views anyway, so I didn’t bother commenting much on it further. People hate who they hate and they won’t let the facts of the matter get in the way.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Well, Michael Barone is certainly an objective source with no political agenda (cough, cough).

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            And, PCH goes ad hominem with absolutely no factual refutation. Classic PCH!

          • 0 avatar

            Barone’s gut-based analysis such as the 2012 electoral college is pretty widely acknowledged political comedy.

          • 0 avatar

            ^ This makes for a good example for many reasons:

            http://www.voteseeing.com/2012/11/2012-presidential-prediction-rankings.html

            A key component is which kind of sources tend to regularly come out on top when being right matters.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Not everyone wants to be a member of the reality-based community. If you don’t believe me, just ask President Dewey.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            You guys are just sad. Barone isn’t even a pollster and you want to trash him over bad calls on an election. He is well known as a conservative commentator. He doesn’t try to pass himself off as a supposedly objective journalist. Are you going to equally trash liberal commentators from 2004 who blew it?

            While we are testing your hypocrisy, consider Barone’s pedigree. He is a lawyer with degrees from Harverd and Yale. By your usual logic, he is an authority on this matter and his opinion should be respected and revered based on his Ivy League stamp of approval. Want to retract your comments?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Barone is a right-winger. He says what right wingers want to hear. He’s not particularly accurate, he’s just a pundit with a predictable point of view.

            You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. (Yes, there is a difference.) Quoting a guy who shares your opinion doesn’t prove you right, it only proves that there is one other person who shares your opinion.

            If you want to quote the guy and say, “Yeah, I share his opinion,” that’s fine. But if you quote him with the expectation that you’ve established some sort of factual truth, then you need to reread what I just wrote and understand the implications.

          • 0 avatar

            > He is well known as a conservative commentator. He doesn’t try to pass himself off as a supposedly objective journalist.

            You should tell that to danio3834, and yourself:

            “and I should think that the First Amendment to the Constitution would stand squarely in the way of any such limits. If Haslam and Corker can’t comment freely on a pending union election, can anyone else”

            That should sound oddly familiar.

            > He is a lawyer with degrees from Harverd and Yale. By your usual logic, he is an authority on this matter and his opinion should be respected and revered based on his Ivy League stamp of approval. Want to retract your comments?

            An education is often a prerequisite to understanding moderately complex things. For example, a high school education is perhaps a prerequisite to understand that “prerequisite to” is a different logic than “necessarily means”, but in no way ensures it.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            The thing that needs to be learned here is that I don’t especially give any credibility to Barone, but in this case he is EXACTLY the type of expert you guys seem to think are reliable. He is an Ivy League lawyer giving a legal opinion. I find him no less credible in this roll than most academics commenting on anything controversial which is to say I think he is likely giving an opinion.

            In usual form here, I am now being bashed for a position I clearly did not take. My point here is that your hypocrisy is showing. You love to appeal to experts and their products. Now that someone else does it, you guys trash the expert, the poster, and the guy pointing out what’s going on. The bias you need to check is your own.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Some people need to go back to Constitution school.

            Offers of and threats to withhold money and political favors are not matters of speech.

            Again, I will say this one more time — if the issue was one of the governor telling VW that it would cut subsidies if the company hired Republicans, then we would not have to endure this moronic “First Amendment” claim ad nauseum. It would be obvious to you right wingers that it is not appropriate to swap tax breaks, cash and prizes in exchange for squeezing out your favorite people.

            Just because you can open your mouth doesn’t mean that whatever spills out of it is protected speech. They weren’t offering political points of view, they were horsetrading tax dollars for NLRA violations.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Jeez, back to that again?

            You really think if that were true the NLRB and wouldn’t be making a big stink? No, the game here is to drag them through the mud because that’s all that can be done. If they could possibly be prosecuted they would be since their opponents have all the power to do so.

          • 0 avatar

            > but in this case he is EXACTLY the type of expert you guys seem to think are reliable

            Sometime I get the feeling people just pretend to be stupid even on the internet because there’s no way this can be so hard to grasp:

            An education provides a set of tools to do more than can be done without them. Therefore it can funny to mock someone failing at pounding nails with his head instead of a hammer. However, that doesn’t mean the guy who gets the full set at Home Depot will use them correctly. It’s therefore also funny to mock someone trying to use the back side of their hammer to pound said nails.

            > If they could possibly be prosecuted they would be since their opponents have all the power to do so.

            Similarly, the legal defense here isn’t that a threat (“shame if that new line gets taken away”) is protected speech, but rather there exists sufficient plausible deniability to make the burden of proof by the state harder than the slam dunk prosecutors prefer.

            I swear that folks who know what’s up can start listing the multiplication table and these people would think it’s some kind of leftist trick.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        NLRB subpoenas can be judicially enforced. If the court orders you to show up, and you don’t show up, you’re in contempt of court and subject to being fined and/or incarcerated. Of course the subpoena respondent gets to appear in court, too, and argue that the subpoena should be quashed for any number of reasons, starting with the fact that it is not likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence. I would imagine that lawyers for Corker and the other politicians would argue — with some success — that public statements by politicians can not be the basis for an unfair labor practice complaint and can not be the basis for the election results to be thrown out. While the NLRA restricts what management can do and say with respect to elections, it has no jurisdiction over third parties.

        My guess is that the union knew this from the beginning — they have smart lawyers. However, for PR purposes they made a lot of this claim perhaps trying to influence people not to vote for officials who take such a forthright anti union stance, which the union is certainly free to do. I personally don’t think its a winner. The public perception of unions is pretty bad these days, not only in the private sector but very much in the public sector — which has zero history of worker abuse, etc. The fact is that an increasingly small percentage of American workers are on “defined benefit” pensions . . . probably a lot of them wish they were right now. So, they have little sympathy with public employees yelling about “don’t cut my pension!” when huge portions of state and municipal budgets are being devoted to funding pensions of people who don’t work any more.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Additionally, the subpoenas cannot be enforced without first being approved by the AG who is currently in contempt of Congress. He has also stretched prosecutorial discretion beyond sensibility into political hack territory. He is in no position to be stretching the NLRB’s powers by allowing them to call a senator on the carpet over what amounts to at worst an open mouth insert foot moment.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    It was a battle the UAW couldn’t win (morally and financially), especially the external interference claim. Haslam and Corker had no intention of appearing; in their minds their actions were simply to neutralize outside interference of the UAW and German unions.

    Meanwhile this would have been tied up for months locally, and then either side could appeal to Washington, taking months more. They’ve agreed to chill for one year before pursuing another vote.

    VW needs a Works Council….it’s their MoO worldwide. What other organization can step up to represent the workers in a Works Council? Why can’t a new organization form to appeal just to transplant factories?

  • avatar
    vent-L-8

    They will never have a better time than right now with a sympathetic administration ready to overturn the worker’s vote. I wonder what caused them to blink?

  • avatar
    jimbob457

    It is all very simple. Back in the day when the Detroit Big Three was a shared monopoly, the purpose of the UAW was to see that the workers got their piece of the pie. Those days are gone forever.

    To survive, the UAW must reinvent itself. Helping to preserve 15k jobs in Chattanooga is a start. Kudos to someone at the UAW who seems to have at least some common sense. Rule One. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

  • avatar
    wmba

    The Huffington Post had actual content not aggregated from someone else? That’s the real news.

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      I was surprised when I saw it there and no where else. I visited TTAC and Autoblog a few times to make sure I wasn’t things, then finally realized HuffPo was in fact the only source at that point….

  • avatar
    readallover

    This proves that the UAW needs to rid itself of the stupid card check system they have been running. It has shown once again that you can intimidate workers into signing a piece of cardboard, but not a private ballot. How many more of these fiascos are they willing to go through?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    It isn’t over yet.

    The capitalist UAW needs money. They might preach equality to all.

    Like many capitalist ventures, maybe amalgamation with another union, a change of business model to strengthen to executives position and opulent life styles.

    Some heads will need to roll at the UAW. King?

  • avatar
    Jimal

    My gut tells me this is far from over, and here is why.

    Immediately before the vote, Senator Corker alluded to a conversation he had with VW management, saying that the second line at Chattanooga was contingent on the UAW losing the vote. As long as the appeal process was going on, the vote wasn’t final and the appeal process gave Corker wiggle room on the statements he made prior to the vote. With the appeal ended, there is nothing standing in the way of VW announcing the second production line.

    Since most people with a shred of common sense realize that Corker was lying through his teeth, how long does the UAW wait for the SUV that is likely never to come before seeking other legal relief, and what would that relief be?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The UAW doesn’t have much recourse.

      Passat sales YTD are down 6%. IG Metall must surely oppose adding the crossover to Chattanooga following the works council vote.

      Some kind of bad news for the plant may not be far behind. That’s not the kind of sandwich that Bob King would want to eat.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      “Since most people with a shred of common sense realize that Corker was lying through his teeth, how long does the UAW wait for the SUV that is likely never to come before seeking other legal relief, and what would that relief be?”

      Not sure I follow you here. You think the UAW is waiting for plant expansion before wanting another vote?

      • 0 avatar
        Jimal

        I think the UAW is hoping/expecting to catch Corker in his lie. To what end I’m not sure, but according to Corker’s own words, the way is now clear for the SUV line. Time to [CENSORED] or walk.

        • 0 avatar

          > I think the UAW is hoping/expecting to catch Corker in his lie.

          It’s doubtful that’s an effective strategy given support for Corker quite evidently isn’t predicated on his truthfulness (“he can say anything he wants, ain’t illegal!”, lol).

          Avoiding a dead plant walking seems like the smarter move. The comedy here is those for voted against (incl in spirit) because they honestly thought it would lead to expansion and more secure jobs.

  • avatar
    Crosley

    The UAW blinked because it would have only further eroded their standing to make the case that the Union was able to muzzle elected leaders by calling them up for some ridiculous Kangaroo Court.

    An organization as litigious as the UAW would have gone to the mat if they thought there was the slightest chance they would have prevailed. It looks like they knew they were beat and didn’t want any further humiliation.

    I guess the poor exploited workers at Chattanooga were just not worth fighting for.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I’m stunned the UAW didn’t follow through; they finally saw the light.

    As I said in prior posts on this subject, the vote wasn’t nearly as close as a casual look makes it seem.

    When you have a large percentage of the voters biased FOR, and a large percentage biased AGAINST, and you subtract them out of the total, then the SWING voters showed a heavy anti-union (or anti-UAW) stance that could not be overcome by re-running the election.

  • avatar
    kitzler

    Could someone explain to me why a Work council would have to be part of the UAW, why could it not join another union, or just be an independent entity?

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      It can be administered by a different union. It’s just the UAW has the most weight to throw around in the arena.

      I assume the peculiarities of the law prevent a works council can be independent because it would be considered a company union or something similar.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      The Wagner Act banned what were known as “company unions,” as they weren’t truly independent entities. It’s my understanding that a works council not affiliated with an independent union would be deemed a company union, and thus illegal under the Wagner Act.

  • avatar
    kitzler

    How can you call the NRLB a kangaroo court, look at all the crap they dished to Boeing when Laffe was at the helm! Boeing had to bring work back to Seattle to appease it and its machinists.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      I believe from the context we can tell he meant that they are not the sort of court that follows any sort of standards. Instead they just do what it takes to get the result they desire. I understand one meaning of the term is a court with no power, but that’s not what was intended.

      On the other hand, I supposedly have very poor reading comprehension skills because I don’t always get the obvious and desirable conclusions from a set of words according to our progressive friends here.

  • avatar
    mvlbr

    Union or no union that plant was doomed from the get go and it doesn’t matter since consumers here have already spoken with their wallets. People here tend to like practical and reliable which VW is not known for.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    About Barone: “He is a lawyer with degrees from Harverd and Yale.”

    Rick Cruz went to Harvard and is crushing Texas with vast stupidity. Shrub went to Yale and we know his history.

    Impress me with something that actually impresses me.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      Great. We are all agreed then? Next time someone does the usual ad hominem and/or appeal to authority we will all just tell them to stuff it? You guys are with me, now? Doctorates have no weight here anymore? Peer reviewed is just as skewed?

      Yeah, I smell hypocrisy in our future.

      • 0 avatar

        > We are all agreed then? Next time someone does the usual ad hominem and/or appeal to authority we will all just tell them to stuff it?

        Hey guyz, you know when you meet somebody mind-boggling stupid and you poke fun at their expense and they’re too oblivious to get it, *even after the joke is explained*? This is one of those situations.

        http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/04/uaw-ends-fight-for-organization-of-tennessee-vw-plant/#comment-3136258

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Reading comprehension remains a problem with you.

        Hint #1: The guy who made the bogus appeal to authority was you.

        Hint #2: “Ad hominem” doesn’t mean what you think that it means.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Lessons learned:

          1. Try harder to ignore the troll.

          2. PCH will always assert unsupportable statements by simply stating them as fact. Window dressing such as ad hominem attacks, insulting remarks, and self aggrandizement are just to distract from the lack of any actual argument.

          3. Stop bothering to argue with PCH, just point out where he is wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            This is hilarious. Even you described Barone as a “conservative commentator.”

            Yet despite knowing this, you are incapable of connecting the dots and understanding the implications of what it is to be a “conservative commentator.”

            Barone doesn’t analyze facts, he sells an agenda. That agenda may match yours, but it’s still just a sales pitch (and not a very good one at that.)

          • 0 avatar

            > Yet despite knowing this, you are incapable of connecting the dots and understanding the implications of what it is to be a “conservative commentator.”

            At this point it’s no longer a matter of connecting the dots as seeing the line that’s already been drawn and highlighted with neon arrows pointing to it.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Yes, I describe Barone just that way. This is not unclear to anyone.

            I can connect the dots, and do get the implications, and you have no evidence to the contrary. It appears you don’t get my point here nor have any interest in trying to get. Could you try to state my point? Can you even clearly state your own without insulting anyone?

            Barone does analyze facts. Must I provide evidence?

            I am not a fan of Mr. Barone, nor does his agenda really match mine as far as I can tell.

            Your post is once again littered with insults and implications. You seem to find having and selling an agenda distasteful. Since you do both, perhaps you would prefer to fairly outline his agenda and then object to it or would you settle for simply stating you don’t like his agenda as far as you can tell since you don’t really know his agenda?

          • 0 avatar

            > Barone does analyze facts. Must I provide evidence?

            This might be true for sufficiently wrong definitions of “analyze” or “facts”, or “evidence”.

            I’m trying to think of a new term for this sort of obstinacy. Perhaps a test trial is in order:

            1. Landcrusher level of wrong
            or
            2. gtrslngr level of wrong

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I can connect the dots, and do get the implications”

            Apparently not. Even the notion that a “conservative commentator” would have a “political agenda” confuses you.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            It seems there is nothing to be gained here except more insulting remarks.

            The bottom line is that there is functionally no difference between liberal academics selling an agenda of global warning and a conservative lawyer pushing his own agenda. They both have fancy degrees, work for pay and fame, and are fallible.

            I question both the pundit and the scientist. I have pointed out Barone was being unjustly criticized and that failure of certain people such as PCH to respect his degrees is hypocritical. His legal opinion is certainly as respectable as forecast by certain climatologists, but he is dismissed for being conservative while the others are revered for being liberal extremists even when they consistently promote useless solutions.

            The hypocrisy of the liberals is obvious to everyone but themselves here.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The comedy doesn’t stop.

            Barone’s completely laughable election prediction is but one example of how the guy is an agenda peddler, rather than an analyst.

            Someone who is that consistently wrong doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. But I don’t fault him for being so unserious, but rather the fools who allow themselves to be suckered by such an obvious agenda and an easier lousier track record.

          • 0 avatar

            > The bottom line is that there is functionally no difference between liberal academics selling an agenda of global warning and a conservative lawyer pushing his own agenda. They both have fancy degrees, work for pay and fame, and are fallible.

            It doesn’t need to be made more clear that many americans lack the most basic math or science education to discern there exists objective right or wrong.

            The only curiosity here is far this mental relativism can be pushed. Statist educators teaching our kids socialist arithmetic? Liberal physics denying divine creation?

    • 0 avatar

      > About Barone: “He is a lawyer with degrees from Harverd and Yale.”

      It’s also worth pointing out that “incompetent book-learned” is the charitable interpretation.

      Barone can almost certainly grasp how the first amendment works if he put his mind to it. Why he doesn’t is left as an exercise to the reader.


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

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India