UAW Ends Fight For Organization Of Tennessee VW Plant

by Cameron Aubernon

April 21st, 2014 4:23 PM

uaw ends fight for organization of tennessee vw plant

The Huffington Post reports the United Auto Workers has withdrawn its petition with the National Labor Resources Board challenging the results of the February 2014 election regarding organization of the workforce at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Though the challenge — which would have led to a new election at the factory had it been successful — has been withdrawn, King said the challenge did shed light on the election by “inform[ing] the public about the unprecedented interference by anti-labor politicians and third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.

#Anti-union #BillHaslam #BobCorker #BobKing #Chattanooga #ElectionChallenges #NationalLaborRelationsBoard #OrganizedLabor #Petitions #SoutheasternUnitedStates #Volkswagen #Tennessee #UnitedAutoWorkers

Comments

Join the conversation

20 of 108 comments

Kitzler on Apr 22, 2014

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?

Like Reply
- See 1 previous
- Redav on Apr 22, 2014
  
  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.
  
  Like
- Geeber on Apr 22, 2014
  
  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.
  
  Like
Kitzler on Apr 22, 2014

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.

Like Reply
- Landcrusher on Apr 22, 2014
  
  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.
  
  Like
Mvlbr on Apr 23, 2014

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.

Like Reply
Dave M. on Apr 23, 2014

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.

Like Reply
- See 12 previous
- Landcrusher on Apr 23, 2014
  
  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.
  
  Like
- U mad scientist on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @Landcrusher > 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
  
  Like
- Pch101 on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @Landcrusher 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.
  
  Like
- U mad scientist on Apr 23, 2014
  
  > 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.
  
  Like
- Landcrusher on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @Pch101 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.
  
  Like
- Pch101 on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @Landcrusher 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.)
  
  Like
- U mad scientist on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @Landcrusher > 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.
  
  Like
- Landcrusher on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @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?
  
  Like
- U mad scientist on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @Landcrusher > 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
  
  Like
- Pch101 on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @Landcrusher "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.
  
  Like
- Landcrusher on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @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.
  
  Like
- Pch101 on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @Landcrusher 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.
  
  Like
- U mad scientist on Apr 23, 2014
  
  @Landcrusher > 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?
  
  Like