By on August 28, 2014

volkswagen-chattanooga-solar-park-08

In response to the United Auto Workers establishing a union local in Chattanooga, Tenn., anti-UAW Volkswagen employees have begun the process of forming their own union.

Reuters reports Mike Burton, who helped in the effort to defeat the UAW’s attempt to unionize the VW plant in Chattanooga earlier this year, is leading the charge for what he says will be the first local of the American Council of Employees. He claims that since the UAW lost in February, VW has strengthened its ties to the union, and wants ACE to become the alternative to Local 42, the local established by ACE’s opponents last month.

Meanwhile, UAW secretary-treasurer Gary Casteel believes Burton’s counterattack doesn’t have much of a chance because of the consensus between his union and the automaker, proclaiming Local 42 has “substantially more than 700 members” from the 1,500 hourly employees who work the floor in Chattanooga. He added that it would be up to VW to recognize ACE.

Though VW has said nothing regarding ACE thus far, it has repeatedly supported the establishment of a works council at its sole U.S. factory.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

145 Comments on “New Union Goes Up Against UAW For Chattanooga VW Plant...”


  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    Wow. Now their is competition to be the union. There must be a lot of money in this union thing. I thought it was all about fairness and equality and helping the little guy….

    Ah, never mind. :)

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      You do realize this is a faux-union setup to slow the UAW’s inevitable victory, right? Oh you don’t….that’s ok, I just told you.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        Or that it’s the logical alternative to representation that should have been made available from the get-go without the UAW propping up from the German union and VW…

        Is choice grand? Didn’t the workers already clearly make one?

        Democracy at its best….

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Seems like they are following the process to become an actual union following the rules you seem to think are oh so sound. Also seems they want to defeat rather than slow the UAW.

        But hey, you are the expert.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          I am, your view is wholly unsubstantiated. This man is being propped up by right-wing forces. He has no organizational history nor an office to work from. He is being paid to present a false choice because if he did win his political allies would have to undercut him. It’s not hard to understand if you’re not blind. Regardless of my political leanings this man’s faux union is a rouse at best.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            So he IS following the process, and he DOES want to defeat the UAW, and he IS getting money.

            Everything I say seems to be true, but you add irrelevant factoids and the claim my view is “unsubstantiated”.

            How many degrees do you have again?

            Go down to the philosophy department and ask a grad student for some help. Don’t show him this discussion or you may never get tenure.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Landcrusher, Xer is right on this one. The UAW’s objective was to have a union, preferably the UAW, represent the VW workers in TN.

            Even if it is another union, it is still a union, and the insidious ways of the UAW will eventually make it part of the UAW.

            Lots of independent local unions have aligned themselves with a national labor union over decades past.

            No doubt in my mind this will happen here too.

            Will it be good for the employees? I doubt it. Too much of a dismal track record of doom and damnation for employers already established by the UAW.

            But it remains up to the individual VW employees to choose if they want representation, or not.

            They’ll be the ones forking over the dues.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I’m not arguing with his prognostication. He may be be correct.

            I object to his characterization of my position. He is just dodging my argument and insulting me. The UAW is in it for power and unions ceased to be about fairness decades ago.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            It is not uncommon for unions to raid other unions. It happened here in BC. The BC Nurses Union “raided” the Hospital Employees Union and took all of their Licensed Practical Nurses.
            National Unions protested and blackballed the BCNU but it still went ahead.

            We see steel workers representing office workers and all sorts of odd combinations.

            A regional trucking company broke from the Teamsters by doing what is happening in Chattanooga. A “rat” union moved in and became the union for the company. the Teamsters took it to court and lost. I don’t hear of any upset drivers just upset Teamsters.

            I don’t see a great conspiracy.

            Unions have turf wars too.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Landcrusher, of course these pro-union fans have to attack your position and insult your intelligence. They cannot get past the logic of your argument.

            Theirs is a declining membership, promoted by individuals rich in theoretical hypocrisy and lacking any practical experience as business owners, corporate managers or shareholders.

            ALL unions exist to enrich their ruling class at the expense of the membership and their employers.

            There was a time when there was a need for unions to protect the working class, but with all government regulation and employer mandates that ceased to be so decades ago.

            Hence the declining membership.

          • 0 avatar
            TNVWEMP

            Xerenar, you speak as one who has no understanding. WE are the American Council of Employees. Mr. Burton is only ONE of us, and the spokesperson for us. And YOUR views and opinions are unsubstantiated. Please prove he is being paid by anyone to be part of our organization? You cannot do so. All of us are in fact – UNfunded. We have paid for most of our activity out of our own pockets. We have had some help pro-bono, by those who support our concept of an independent union. Those who supported Anti-UAW, were also anti Union, and have no part of our activity. This includes the political ties you allege support us.
            Please get your facts straight BEFORE spouting off on things you know nothing about.
            ACE is most definitely NOT the VW selected union. If anything, the UAW is the one being shoved down our throats by the company.
            Speak facts or shut up. We are, as Dave M. And Landcusher have said – a NEW union following the rules to become the representatives of VW’s workers, so they can have a works council and be compliant with US law. UAW in fact, by their charter, CANNOT have works council involvement.

      • 0 avatar
        an innocent man

        As soon as I saw the title to this article, I thought, “Dammit, now someone done lit the Rain-X signal.”

    • 0 avatar
      challenger2012

      Let’s suppose the fake union (non- UAW) gets in at VW. When the workers actually expect it to work like a union and it turns out to be a subsidiary of the GOP, the workers, through an open election, will toss out the fake union clowns, and install people who really have an interest in the workers. Next, the union will then ask to work with the UAW. And the anti-unions guys/GOP will be responsible for the establishment of the union. Oh the irony.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Unfortunately some Unions look at how much money, the Union Secretary and other Officers make rather than the interests of their membership

  • avatar
    Aquineas

    Beware of flying feces hitting the air rotating device.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “He added that it would be up to VW to recognize ACE.”

    So… companies have to recognize a union for it to be legit? What if they choose to not recognize one, i.e. do the opposite and not recognize UAW?

    Seems like a conflict of interest to base apparent legitimacy on recognition by a host company.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      A company has a right to recognize one bargaining agent, thus they usually do to save on desperate infighting and one ups manship. It’s in the company’s interest to recognize one. Stop trying to imply conspiracy, you’re supposed to be educated so you should understand basic premises like this.

      Nevermind that this is an astroturf union just trying to play spoiler and has no real intention of succeeding.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Interesting.

        “Stop trying to imply conspiracy, you’re supposed to be educated so you should understand basic premises like this.”

        I am not implying a conspiracy, I am questioning why a company needs to consent to whether a union is able to do business or not. You answered this with information stating a company has the right to recognize a bargaining agent.

        If my goal is compliance with US law in order to get a works council why would I choose to recognize the union which will invariably cause more problems down the line then the home-grown variant which in comparison won’t know what its doing?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          I don’t think that a company has to approve of the union to be a valid union but has to accept validity of the union as the vehicle for collective bargaining.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Unionization or the lack thereof is the choice of the workers. Companies are required to recognize unions under the NLRA; they don’t get to pick and choose the unions that their workers can join or not join.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            They can pick and choose the Union that they want to recognise , would be cold day in hell, when a company can direct employers to choose a particular Union

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Those premises aren’t basic to people who have spent their time learning more useful things. Not knowing labor law hardly make one uneducated.

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          “Not knowing labor law hardly make one uneducated.”

          No, but it does make one uneducated about labor law.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Which was not a reason to insult someone, wouldn’t you agree?

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            LC – If your big complaint is I hurt your feelings you’ve already lost the argument. At this point if you aren’t educated about labor laws you shouldn’t be making presumptive statements and should instead be asking educational questions or doing the research on your own. I don’t pretend to know how to write in JAVA so I don’t make assertions on that. Just some food for thought.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Why would my feelings be hurt, you didn’t insult me this time.

            How is it not obvious that my post was meant to point out your unnecessary rudeness?

            And furthermore, I don’t need to know about labor laws to find the flaws in most of your posts. You haven’t once on this page contradicted me on anything factual while I have many times pointed out the flaws in your posts. And, unlike you I have shown many times a willingness to concede an error or apologize for rudeness.

            Nope, you can frustrate me, but not hurt my feelings. Your continuous need to insult others does grate on my nerves like fingernails on a chalk board though. The very idea the government pays you to teach is just depressing.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            LC – Why? Because you expect me to listen to your tripe and simply nod and accept it? It’s an ideological view that dictates your reasoning (i.e. reasoning is self-supporting) so I have no reason to care and frankly I can dissect your reasoning but it doesn’t really do much to resolve your personal reasoning.

            I can point out WHY you make these clearly dis-proven assumptions and rationales but what is there to say beyond that? Also, I’m glad it makes you sick that the Federal Government pays me a bonus on top of my base salary to teach accurate and factually supported arguments to young minds. Perhaps you should have been more driven to be an educator if you wanted to have the same position.

            Oh that’s right you were too busy being a ‘real american’ to bother with such ‘liberal’ tripe as I did. Funny how that goes…

            Anyways, LC, I’m done after this round. Clearly we’re getting into pointless Ad hominems, I don’t need to demean you as a person, I can destroy your subjective arguments.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            X,
            You just made my point.

            You rarely disprove what I say because you never address it. On top of that, you don’t support your own statements because you really have a problem connecting things you know to things you believe. You can’t pick apart my reasoning you just keep saying you can but don’t want to bother.

            You are like that old joke about running around the world really fast, but you expect us to believe it.

            BTW, I am an excellent teacher. I have been praised for it in school, business, and the military. Sales pays better though. I have had teachers like you. While so e are competent, they are not enjoyable.

  • avatar
    tonycd

    So, the same person who led the opposition to joining the acknowledged nationwide union of workers in this industry — the in-plant manifestation of the drive heavily funded, and arguably illegally pursued, by numerous outside politicians blatantly acting on behalf of opposition to labor unionism in general — now wants to form a union himself?

    Hmm, nothing suspicious about anyone’s motives here.

    Students of history might note the rather striking similarities between this move and the notorious “company unions” of a century ago. Now, cue our usual army of Koch Brothers house slaves to post vitriolic condemnations of this post.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      Do you even know what the Koch brothers use their money to promote?

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Mostly low corporate taxes, minimal government oversight and regulation, and next to no social safety net. Basically they got to rule Kansas into the ground.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Your last sentence isn’t very well connected to the rest. I hadn’t heard Kansas was run into the ground, nor that the Koch’s were piloting the ship. Seems it’s a bunch of SoCons running things there, and most aren’t really even small government types when you really dig into what how they vote and lead.

          I don’t know why it’s so wrong for the Koch’s to give their own money put perfectly okay for unions to use dues money of others to support their ideology. I suppose it’s because I’m a hateful idiot stooge and don’t know anything?

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            Why is it so wrong for the Koch’s to give their own money? Let me defer to a far more eloquent political expert than myself:

            http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2014/08/24?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+uclick%2Fpearlsbeforeswine+%28GoComics.com+-+Pearls+Before+Swine+by+Stephan+Pastis%29#.U_93PVaBDHM

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            My question was really why it’s different for the unions. Your comic represents a valid concern of corruption, but does not address the hypocrisy of wanting to stop the Koch’s and not the unions.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Clueless MSNBC watchers, so all they know is nothing or wrong.

      • 0 avatar
        challenger2012

        LC

        Read and weep. This is about Fred Koch, father of the Koch brothers

        In 1929, after hosting a delegation of Soviet planners in Wichita, Kansas, Winkler and Koch signed a $5 million contract to build 15 refineries in the Soviet Union. According to Oil of Russia, a Russian oil industry trade magazine, the deal made Winkler–Koch into Comrade Stalin’s Number One refinery builder. It provided equipment and oversaw construction:

        The first Winkler–Koch plants were set up in Tuapse in 1930. The cracking unit operated commendably, and would in the future be the type preferred by the heads of the Soviet Union’s petroleum industry when purchasing new cracking equipment.

        In 1931, two Winkler–Koch cracking units were launched in Baku, another two in Batumi, and six at once in Grozny; the last had a combined refining capacity of 900,000 tons per year. In 1932, a Winkler–Koch unit commenced operations in Yaroslavl.

        Koch lived up to the slogan: “Work hard enough for Comrade Stalin to thank you!”

        Information taken from, A People’s History of Koch Industries: How Stalin Funded the Tea Party Movement,By Yasha Levine

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Challenger,
          Is there a point to your stating that bit of history? It certainly has little or nothing to do with my question.

          • 0 avatar
            challenger2012

            Sir You wrote this,”Do you even know what the Koch brothers use their money to promote?

            I just thought you would like to know where the Kochs got their money in the first place, in light of their past. Their views today are hypocrical compared to where the money came to support them.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Challenger,
            I don’t see anything at all hypocritical in the Koch’s using their property to promote their beliefs. They seem to be quite earnest in what they want and compare very well to Mr. Buffett whose agenda is cloaked in progressivism but is exclusively for benefit if his bottom line.

            Furthermore, I don’t think we know how much of their wealth was inherited versus how much they earned. I get the impression they built a lot of what they now give away themselves.

            Hypocrisy is a communist leaving money to his children. Hypocrisy would be for them to say that children should refuse to take inheritance.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I’m not a fan of the Koch brothers and I’m not going to dispute the story because I haven’t read enough about the pre-WWII Soviet Union. However, Yasha Levine is a poor source to quote. He’s shown to have below tabloid level ethics when it comes to the printed word.

          • 0 avatar
            challenger2012

            Sir There are many sources. Google Koch and Stalin and the screen will fill with sources. Wikipedia is one there are about 20 others.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Again. I’m not doubting that Sr Koch or the brothers were/are bad dudes. The fact that you rely on a google search and pick an article based on that doesn’t mean you picked the right article.

            I would ask you to look at any industialist family of the last 100 years and tell me you don’t see the same stuff. All the auto companies have been filled with people that did bad things too. Gunther Quandt wasn’t exactly a nice fellow.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Behind every great fortune is a great crime.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            28,
            Really? Great crime? I suppose you don’t swim after eating for fear of drowning.

            The whole hate the rich thing is evil. It really is. If you want to hate someone have a reason other than envy and prejudice.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’m just passing along a bit if wisdom paraphrased from de Balzac.

            The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done.

            Part II

            A variant, “Behind every great fortune there is a great crime,” has appeared as a quotation of Balzac; but it may have originated in a paraphrase in The Oil Barons: Men of Greed and Grandeur (1971) by Richard O’Connor, p. 47: “Balzac maintained that behind every great fortune there is a great crime.”

            http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Honor%C3%A9_de_Balzac

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          This is not news, Wall Street funded both the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of NSDAP in order to profit.

          http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X

          http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Hitler-Antony-Sutton/dp/0945001533

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            That’s why I said that I’m not going to dispute it. Levine is only standing on top of the works of others though. The fact that Wall Street or the US Government did bad things now or 75 years ago doesn’t surprise me. Levine makes the jump to say that Stalin funded the Tea Party Movement in order to make the Tea party look bad (not that I particularlly care for them either). He doesn’t make that jump with the trillions of dollars spent by billionaires over the last 100 years on all kinds of crazy stuff because it doesn’t fit his agenda.

            His premise is also false because the Koch family made plenty of money outside of the Soviet Union. It’s like saying the Silverado and F-150 exist because GM and Ford did business with the Nazis.

            This is the same guy whos publication said Pavel Bure broke up with Anna Kournikova because she has double the lady parts.

        • 0 avatar
          grinchsmate

          And?

          Some dead guy won a government contract what does that have to do with unionisation in Chattanooga? While I agree it is interesting it is hardly relevant.

          Even if you think it is relevant what does it actually say? That the current Kochs are Soviet sympathisers, that they like to make money, that they have a family history of successful business? What is your point?

          You cant make people weep if you cant make a point.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    The astroturf right-wing faux union is hilarious. They’re just trying to ploy workers to keep the local 42 from getting the majority votes needed to be considered the sole bargaining unit. The irony here is that local 42 will be certified by the end of the year most likely and ‘ACE’ will fade away like all the other faux employer unions made.

    The right hates organized labor, until they embrace it this whole partisan argument is irrelevant.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Actually, America dislikes organized labor as much as it dislikes organized crime, not that there’s much of a difference.

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        One difference is that by resisting the payment of taxes through “inversions” and other maneuvers, the richest people in America pay much less to destroy organized crime than they do to destroy organized labor.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      Which whole partisan argument are you referring too?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Some of the workers want the works council, but don’t want the UAW to be part of it. I don’t see why that is such a shock.

      Of course, there are anti-union forces outside of the plant that would like the UAW to lose the fight. But doesn’t mean that there aren’t workers in the plant who aren’t fans of the United Auto Workers.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        PCH, nothing you said there is anything but obvious. Nothing shocking at all. However, that isn’t what he meant, or if it is, the last sentence makes no sense.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Actually my argument makes perfect sense, LC. You’ve repeatedly said how organized labor is the devil in your mind and how you resent the very existence of the working class and the need for them to have a living wage by choosing to self-associate.

          Now if you’re a social conservative and dislike the UAW for supporting candidates that want socially liberal issues that’s vaguely understandable. The point of the matter that this man’s financial backers are the core GOP anti-labor supporters, so why would they suddenly want to endow a company with an organized labor force? It’s simple logic. I understand this is too much partisan discussion for you to use your frontal lobe and I’m sorry but you really should take off the blinders and accept this is a bold faced attack on unionism at its core.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I’ve never said anything about resenting the working class. You are now just making stuff up. I have also continuously stated support for a right of workers to both organize and strike. You just don’t even try to understand any of my positions. I bet some others here can likely get a close read on it, but some of you just hear something vaguely conservative and argue against straw men.

            There is no argument over why anyone would back the other union. It’s been a non issue here except you keep acting like it is. All you have is a reasonable conspiracy theory took very little insight and you offer no evidence (which is all well and good except No One Cares so you act like we are arguing with you).

            As usual, I would ask you to quote something I have said and argue against it. You have ignored what I actually write.

            I asked a question and never got a clear answer. An argument has two sides. What are the two sides in the “partisan argument”? What are their positions? If you can’t or won’t be clear I am sure we can dismiss you as not having any defensible points yet again.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            LC – Meh, at some point your resentment of the UAW just becomes tiresome and you’ve repeated yourself numerous times about how Unionism causes the evils of the world. You’ve been more globalist scarer than straight out resentment but it’s the same argument.

            The follow up statements are simple:

            No one cares? You keep replying, so why does it matter. Frankly it isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s clearly designed to do as such, it has a historical backing and if I was in a classroom I would give you the various historical examples of these faux unions.

            Partisan argument? The same one we’ve had for some time, the right has made a serious attempt to make it criminal to unionize and your unwavering support of ‘Right to work’ i.e. right to fire has made it clear your support is designed to provide for a right-wing hypocrisy. Regardless, you’re being intentionally obtuse and I find it more so funny than anything else.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Once again, you argue against straw men and fantasy. You put words in my mouth and instead of apologizing you just press harder. A clear sign you don’t care about truth or civility.

            Try contradicting a quote rather than what you think I said.

            “The right hates organized labor, until they embrace it” our disagreements are meaningless? That’s now what you say you meant?

            The right isn’t going to embrace organized labor. That’s a silly condition unless you mean something strange by “the right”. Our disagreements may seem meaningless to you, but I think they do a great job of revealing the character of your side to anyone who bothers to read them.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            LC – Sure, ok, for the last 2 years I’ve posted here you’ve been a bastion of left-wing economic model support. Truly you have been nothing but my biggest supporter and ally in the reasoning for unions!

            Oh….You mean you weren’t? In fact outside of PCH and some more recent posters I’ve consistently been one of the few left-wing economic supporters here. The right does not like organized labor. What don’t you understand in that statement? Are you willing to offer some sort of evidence to counter this statement? Never mind that you’re getting into this weird and tragic argument of subjective ‘character’ assassination. You mind as well be saying because I’m mean I’m wrong which is completely irrelevant to my logical and factually based analysis.

            But at this point you’ve all but conceded you don’t have facts and would rather just keep playing martyr. I’m going to stop posting after this round as stated earlier, so feel free to have the last word. I’m not going to bother if you’re not going to produce some reasonable argument of WHY this union has an relevancy other than to try to limit the UAW’s success by holding them down from the threshold not that it would or could work. It was a political stunt designed to draw attention away from their inevitable success. A last ditch effort to slow down the inevitable.

            By the way, I’m not actually against competition in the union democratic system, I’m just against faux unions setup to prevent an union from actually being successful. There have been rival unions operating within the same industry and in the same factory at times in history. What happens though is that inevitably one wins better benefits and draws more members which is a boon to the employer because without competition the union has less incentive to drive an employer to the maximum bargaining position due to the lack of competition for representation.

            Also historically the AFL & industrial unions have been center-right bastions of social order. The CIO was historically the far-left organization. Even today the national unions fall on the spectrum from center-right to far-left depending on their national affiliations and their industry. It just so happens that the Republican party who makes up what I call the ‘Right’ in this country has made organized labor persona non-grata since before the Wagner Act. It has continued this position for the fact that they are ideologically aligned with the management and capitalist class. Suffice to say any union that operates today has a goal of seeing Democrats elected because they will allow them to operate in status quo rather than harm their rights. The whole partisan argument we’ve been having is you’re more or less coming out to challenge that this union isn’t just a faux union because it supports your political position as a right-wing oriented union. The problem is that the core of the right’s economic argument is opposed to unionism so this union is having a hypocritical position and thus appears as a clear political maneuver.

            But more power to them if they can get off the ground and survive. I guarantee once the UAW wins the sole bargaining right they’ll fold OR be voted out and replaced with left-wing officers willing to fight for their rights and wages.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            X,
            Straw man yet again. I did not say what you think I said, and I am happy to concede what you think I contradict.

            You have failed, for the umpteenth time, to point out a wrong fact on my part. I don’t concede all the facts, I generally just think your “facts” have nothing to do with anything.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I’ve TRIED to follow this thread, but to be honest I may have gotten lost a couple of dozen comments back.

            Let me ask you this: when you say “Union”, do you mean civil union or full on marriage? Because I personally don’t really care who you marry, so long as it’s a consulting adult and all.

            But this idea those people in Tennessee have seems really out there. Are they saying that EVERYONE in a factory has to be in a civil union together? That just seems wrong.

            I mean, a lot of those guys are already married, right? And it’s mostly dudes, right, and I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it and all, but I doubt they’re all gay or anything. Maybe they liked ‘Top Gun’ a little too much, but that doesn’t mean anything, does it?

            And what if you got into a union with a co-worker, and it’s a woman, but she’s, you know, kind of a fattie? I mean I’m sure she’s beautiful and stuff, but there’s like too much of that beauty, especially around the belly and thighs? I mean I shouldn’t have to marry her, should I?

            Is this why the UAW fought so hard to make GM pay for Viagra? Because now it kind of makes sense.

            Still, I’m glad I don’t live in Tennessee.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            VoGo – unlike Viagra, you weren’t able to get a rise out of either protagonist ;)

            They must be taking Degarelix.

  • avatar
    DevilsRotary86

    “…and ‘ACE’ will fade away like all the other faux employer unions made.”

    Except ACE isn’t an employer union. VW has been pretty clear from the onset that they were willing to work with the UAW. At least as clear as they could legally be.

    This is something started apparently by an employee with very outspoken right wing political views (I swear every workplace seems to have one of them) and funded by various far right wing political groups. I don’t think VW has any involvement here whatsoever.

    I have said it before and I will say it again: this is the weirdest unionization fight ever.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      I do understand it isn’t being backed by VW but it’s the same principle concept. Simply the managers pulling strings to create a faux union for the sake of challenging an established one.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Okay, so it isn’t management pulling the strings, but it is.

      • 0 avatar
        DevilsRotary86

        Except it’s not VW managers pulling strings. At least not officially. Maybe there are some lower level supervisors who are helping Mr. Burton along. As I said, there are outspoken right wing/anti union types at most work places that I have been in. But noone important at VW has been acknowledged as approving this.

        Again, as I said it seems to me to be low level employees with funding from various far right wing lobby groups that are anti-union. This really is the weirdest unionization fight in American history.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Simply the managers pulling strings to create a faux union for the sake of challenging an established one.”

        You appear to be mixing up your facts here. There are workers (or at least one worker) in the Chattanooga plant who oppose the UAW being at the plant.

        That worker may or may not care about the works council, but he certainly doesn’t want the UAW to be there. Consequently, he has received some outside support from anti-union “right to work” groups that want relationships with line workers like this, just as the UAW wants relationships with those line workers who support unionization.

        IG Metall, which is part of VAG management, has a pretty cozy relationship with the UAW. Companies are supposed to be neutral, but it is hard to miss in this case that IG Metall’s involvement got the UAW as far into this as it has.

        The bankroll for a UAW alternative is coming from right-wing groups outside of the plant, not from within VW corporate. This is not a plan for a company union. This situation is a bit out of the ordinary in many respects.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          I’m sorry, for some reason my brain left out ‘class’. I’m perfectly up to date on the understanding of the VW plant relationship. I meant the management class or the capitalist class, those who openly oppose organized labor. The management at VW come from a pro-worker/union society so it’s less directly antagonistic.

          I know everybody got in a tizzy but forgive me for leaving out the word that explained it. Sorry!

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Xeranar – the lack of class in many of the posts is most disturbing ;)

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I still don’t see the argument supporting the position that this resembles a company union. If the workers get their works council without UAW membership and are happy with the result, then why would you scorn that?

            It’s one thing to support the right to unionize generally. It’s quite another to argue that only one particular union is acceptable, and that the membership should leave it to an outsider such as yourself to make that decision for them.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Not buying it. You just blew it. Own it.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            PCH – It’s being put together by management and capitalist class to try to counter the left-wing unions. This has a historical parallel to the company-sponsored unions of the past. My lack of the word ‘class’ makes it misleading.

            Lou – OOOHHH SNAP!

            LC – Meh, who cares what you think? :)

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            What you’re missing is that there is at least some grassroots element here.

            I seriously doubt that the anti-union movement planted a shill on the production line in order to stir up a sentiment that wasn’t already there. Rather, there is some anti-union sentiment within the workforce (is this supposed to be a surprise in Tennessee?), and those groups have tapped into it because they want allies for their cause, just as the UAW looks for allies for its side.

            Maybe you need to realize that not everyone who opposes the UAW is a henchman for Grover Norquist. There are individuals on both sides of the issue who are sincere in their beliefs that the UAW is a force for good or bad.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            PCH – So the argument requires a plant? I thought it just required a true believer and we’ve long established that labor unions still only vote about 70/30 Democrat. The natural demographics of these positions indicate there are always willing workers for these types.

            This is why I like you PCH but then you fall into the false dichotomy trap. It’s fine, I don’t really feel the need to hash out a 15 page retort for what is effectively already known. Yes, poor people vote against their interests and these people are willing to become pawns/slightly higher level pawns within the hierarchy of these arguments. The only point I remain to make is that in the end using rational choice theory regardless of his individual agency his choices are really those of management class and capitalist class. Sorry to be so academic but it is where I view this argument from and that’s fine to disagree with. :)

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            The academic naval gazer’s management ‘class’ of external meddlers cannot create a company union in a company that they don’t work for. Keep dancing.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The point remains that it isn’t a company union.

            You haven’t really provided a compelling reason — or, for that matter, any reason at all — why a works council in Chattanooga specifically benefits from UAW leadership. You just presume that anyone who rejects it is either part of or else a dupe of some sort of right-wing conspiracy.

            While it is certainly true that right-wing interest groups and politicians are anti-union, they aren’t alone in their sentiments. And not everyone who has reservations about unions is an idiot, contrary to your assertions.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Right Wing groups starting Unions, interesting concept. Maybe VW is playing the Devils Advocate and pressing for more flexible Union arrangements, that the current UAW cannot deliver. Much more like their arrangements in Germany

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    A right wing union?

    How do they convince workers to accept low wages and paying for their own retirement and medical plans?

  • avatar
    jetcal1

    Is it possible there are individuals who see benefits of union representation but see the UAW in a negative light?

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      Objectively, yes.

      Of course, in the view of progressives, anyone not publicly pro UAW is clearly suspect and is only pretending to be pro union to hurt the cause.

      Just in case you haven’t realized it yet, you are now persona non grata. Welcome to the Republican Party. :)

      • 0 avatar
        badtzmaru

        Persona no grata where? Here? In the friendly confines of TTAC? Lousy liberals not welcoming conservative opinions with open arms? Testify! Yes, it was just the other day in which this little supporting gem was posted: “Be clear on this VoGo: This is not the proper forum for you to vent your unwashed lazy liberal nonsense. This is an auto forum. We don’t need people like you here. Go back to HuffingtonPost dot com. You can sip your lukewarm herbal tea while reading liberal bloggers and waiting for your Social Security Disability check. Do you even have a drivers license? I mean besides picking out your clothes, hasn’t your mother gotten tired of driving you around?” Uh, wait, that wasn’t it…

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Huh?

        • 0 avatar
          challenger2012

          LC is this your mother?

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            My mom is 78 and just got out of the hospital. Perhaps by the time you guys grow a sense of humor, I will once again find mother jokes funny.

          • 0 avatar
            challenger2012

            LC I bet your mother gets SS and Medicare. Are not you against socialistic programs?

            Do you not see the similarities between you and the Kochs? You both received benefits from socialistic/communistic sources and now rail against such states while enjoying the benefits from them.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The greater issue is everyone at the top has their hands in the till to some degree.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Landcrusher,
            Best wishes for your mother’s recovery.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Challenger,
            That is one of the most pernicious arguments around. It’s wholly a bunch of BS. If you want to make it optional, I might drop out even at my age, but that would be an expensive protest. Especially expensive since Medicare has robbed us all of so much and ruined much of healthcare for seniors.

            So, I bet I paid more for those programs than you. I do not advocate their abolishment. I want them reformed greatly. I want the government to live up to its promises which seems to be something people on the left don’t ever care about when they can change things the way they want.

            For future reference, why don’t you not make any assumptions about what I believe and stick with what I say.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Thank You, VoGo

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @badtzmaru – one must differentiate between foreigners doing jobs that nobody wants and union pay level jobs that most would want.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        It’s irrelevant whether you personally like the UAW. All the arguments put forward have been dispelled by basic research. Hating the UAW is a fruitless endeavor, the reason you’re suspect is that you, thornmark, and others have been outspoken against organized labor. So why should we treat your views as anything less than suspect?

        PS: You do realize the Republican party is dying a slow demographic death? I mean I guess you’ll be dead before they cease as a party but in the next decade they’ll be irrelevant on the federal stage. Short of complete disenfranchisement the Republican pro-capitalist class agenda is dragging itself off to die in a lonely corner. Be proud in your broken partisan ideals but recognize your agenda has no future. :)

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          You realize you just made an argument that might makes right?

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            No, he made an argument that majorities deserve to govern. Which is very unlike today’s gerrymandered House (you do know the Democrats won the aggregate House vote in the last election, right?), rigged Supreme Court and resulting “corporations are people” hegemony of money.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Tony,
            The elections are indeed rigged. The courts demanded it decades ago. It was a bad idea then, but well intentioned. A better solution should have been found. Most people do not really understand the corporations are people thing, but it’s nit the big deal. It’s a necessity of having too many laws trying to fix things government cannot fix. Fix the tax code and it can go away.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Pch101 – ha ha. Try boxer shorts, speedo’s must be cutting off circulation.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          “I mean I guess you’ll be dead before they cease as a party but in the next decade they’ll be irrelevant on the federal stage.”

          Because embracing one party rule has worked out so well throughout the past century.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            But Government is so much more efficent that way! Skull crushingly efficient.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @danio

            The beatings will continue until morale improves.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            One party rule?

            Those Koch brothers keep popping up ;)

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Which assumes that it would remain one party? I mean that seems obnoxious, since throughout our history we’ve had atleast 2 active major parties that dissolved. Just because you’re too young to remember a time before the last party dissolved and was reborn doesn’t mean it won’t happen again. Though honestly, I highly suspect the name and structure of the Republican Party will simply live on because of our institutionalized system and name recognition.

            Simply put, the Democrats are more likely to split and go towards the Elizabeth Warren wing and the Andrew Cuomo wing. The Cuomo’s will assume control of the Republican Party while the Warren’s will retain national leadership in the Democratic Party. Regardless the fascist Tea Party and most of the Koch-type corporatists will be weeded out by age. We’re likely looking at a division of parties that stop supporting capitalism without regard for satisfaction which would be a major leap.

            As for LC, what about might making right? When did the people who like your ideas dying out and being replaced by people who like my ideas become might? It took decades of Jim Crow to weed out the Racists enough to finally overturn it. It took decades of Goldwater Republicans to do the same thing now. Never mind that the whole argument about districts is irrelevant because you’re essentially citing a few cases that dictate minority districts be carved out but even then the current system is more based on gerrymandering with intent to keep as many seats safe as possible. I’m actually all for a balanced district system but you do realize that would make Republicans a near-permanent minority in Federal elections, right? The whole reason they’ve been able to hold seats in the high population states like New York, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania is because they specifically create unbalanced rural districts that if balanced towards a 50/50 split would be viable Democratic seats every election.

            The system favors my agenda in this day and age, I’m not gloating, I’m pointing out a factual reality.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Xeranar – I have to agree with a large portion of your assessment. The “far” right is a combination of extremes. We have the very rich on one end and the poor and uneducated on the other with rural populations in the mix.
            I find it odd that the poor and uneducated support the right since their policies hurt the poor and uneducated the most.

            Doctrine/belief is an amazing animal that kills logic.

            I’ve seen that in my province of BC where the “far right” has died and we have the Liberal Party against the New Democrat Party. Basically slightly right of centre Liberals versus far left socialists.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            X,
            Koch’s corporatists? Tea Party Fascists? How, who, what are talking about? The only thing separating you from a fascist is your lack of nationalism, racism (I presume), and and militarism. OTOH, the tea party is on the opposite end of the spectrum on just about everything from the fascists and the Koch’s are pro individual more than corporatists.

            And, your argument above appeared to say that because the people who believe as I do are becoming a minority (which is ridiculous, libertarian leaning types seem to be more numerous) that we were wrong. Since you seem to be saying we are getting crushed by demographics rather than reason, that’s might makes right (unless you admit your side is wrong just more numerous I suppose).

            Like all truly moral and civilized people ever, I prefer to be right and proper than to give up my principles to join a majority of fools. It is made more easy every time I hear you represent your side.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            LC – So angry, just so angry.

            1.) The right is by definition going to result in extreme cases fascism. The Left will result in anarchy. What happens is that the tea party regardless of their publicly stated views have had continuous issues with people of color and if you refuse to acknowledge that is not my problem. I simply don’t care to argue further with you on the matter, you’re inconsequential to my teaching career and I refuse to bother with ignorance after a certain point.

            2.) How can I be a fascist if I’m not a nationalist, racist, or militarist? It’s just a case of deflection in desperation. It’s not even cute, it’s just tiresome. I’m a left-wing libertarian just as you are a right-wing libertarian. Yet the ‘libertarians’ that are increasing in the youth generation are on the left, so it isn’t as if demographics are changing much in favor of big L Libertarians who are represented by the Paul (Ron & Rand).

            3.) Actually you’re already a minority, you’re just losing more ground in a democracy. Frankly the idea of ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ is more an issue of effectiveness at goals. The Right has failed miserably at their stated goals so in effect they’re ‘wrong’ but that’s neither here nor there. The fact that you insisted on turning it into an argument of being a martyr for being ‘right’ is a bit pathetic. Obviously in a democracy if your ideas are good they should rise to the majority. Now of course the social class, race, and sex have a big effect on that. This is best exemplified by white working class workers who vote Republican in the name of keeping down people of color (see #1 and why they’re fascists).

            4.) By the way you complained about me insulting you earlier, you’re a damn hypocrite. Stop insulting me and complaining when I return the favor. I would rather we just trade barbs instead of whining like a petulant little child.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I doubt anyone else is still reading, but I if they were, I still bet you are the only one who thinks I am angry here.

            1) nonsense
            2) I didn’t call you a fascist. I am accusing you of socialism
            3) your support of closed shop laws alone precludes you from being any sort of libertarian. Just not liking being told what to do doesn’t make you a libertarian. I am also not really a libertarian, I merely have libertarian leanings.
            4) you start the insults every thread. Go back and check. And where did I insult you? Not that I deny that I hit back.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Politics, pickups, and religion bring the best out in people.

            Interesting debate and despite the name calling considerably more civil than having Pch101 disagree with your point of view ;)

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s not a matter of “disagreement.” It’s a matter of your inability to distinguish between good research and bad research, to perform basic arithmetic and to understand concepts as fundamental as inflation that is tedious.

            You’re the same guy who can’t understand that prices that don’t keep up with inflation have actually declined in real terms. And that’s exactly what happened to your small trucks during the early 80s, when the US inflation rate was in double digits and your dreaded chicken tax came into effect. Your inability to do math should not be the internet’s problem.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            1.) Ignorance will be ignored. Ironic, yes?

            2.) Socialism isn’t a bad word. You do realize that right? I mean socialism has become more liked than capitalism in the last few years. Never mind that I’m barely a socialist by its own standard. I’m more a mixed economist from a practical view but I do support socialism on a full scale endeavor. Seems to work for the Scandinavians.

            3.) Closed shop laws? Look up left-wing libertarianism, you’ll find I’m still well within the boundaries of it. Never mind that the Right-wing form of libertarianism is the one obsessed with private property which is what causes unions to be despised by them mainly because it challenges their absolute authority in ownership of property which the workers have to use. It creates a complicated relationship to the agency of workers who have to use said property who have agency independently of the owner.

            4.) If I do is it your job to play martyr because you can’t stand somebody half your age calling you out? You know who are my worst students? The returning students who look at me and realize I’m younger or the same age and they try to bully me or demand their life experience supersede my academic research and readings. It gets tiresome, not because I don’t want to challenged, it’s because I want you to challenge me with your than suppositions and anecdotal views.

            Build reasonable arguments that don’t contradict evidence easily available and I will listen. The problem is when I keep hearing the ‘Hostess’ argument brought up as fact when we know it was the management looting the pension funds and draining excess value when they should have been saving up for downturns. It’s a prime example of WHY I don’t care to hear it anymore. It’s truly tiring because I don’t feel like hearing the same broken arguments every time something happens that involves unions. If you could bring factual research I’ll gladly parse it out myself and reply back with something thoughtful. Otherwise it’s just babble that goes in one ear and out the other anymore.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            “The returning students who look at me and realize I’m younger or the same age and they try to bully me or demand their life experience supersede my academic research and readings.”

            It’s no fun when they know about life outside the classroom, is it? I can’t really tell if you were trying to be funny or not, but you succeeded. I suspect the worst thing anyone could ever do to you would be to grant you self awareness. How is it that your education didn’t involve learning the definition and function of company unions? It isn’t just that your returning students know more about your field of study than you do, it is that you can’t even regurgitate the propaganda you’ve been indoctrinated with without ending up talking out of both sides of your mouth like Obama saying that Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth without committing a crime. You’ve got the ideological rigour part down, but you’re just not that able.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            X,
            If you would try respecting the students and their experience, not acting like a know it all jerk, and learning to listen to what people actually say, you would have an easier time with students who actually know something.

            Even when you have the facts, and I no longer trust your facts, you persuade no one who doesn’t want to listen. First thing you need to do in the classroom is to stop telling people they are wrong. Just don’t bother. Address what they said, not what they think. Help them express themselves as well as possible, then show them the RELEVANT information that addresses their belief. Let them make their own conclusions. Much of what you teach is going to be opinion so try to only grade on the facts.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Simply put, the Democrats are more likely to split and go towards the Elizabeth Warren wing and the Andrew Cuomo wing.”

            Oh ok so like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks?

            Yeah those won’t be the same thing at all. Wake up.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            28 – So you prefer the debate between Goldwater small government republicans and the other two Democratic wings? It sounds like a matter of being marginalized which is traditionally what happens in Democracies. In fact outside of the US, Britain, and Canada there are pretty much no small government parties that have any success. Note that those three countries have had medium recoveries because of those parties compared to excellent recoveries elsewhere.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Xeranar

            In an ideal world I would prefer two or more opposition parties because that’s whats best for all of us. From the detail standpoint (ie Goldwater Republican, Eisenhower Republican, Kennedy Democrat etc) I cannot say which is best. Extreme right wing people get in charge, well we’ve seen that movie. The Communists win power, well we’ve seen that movie too. The only shot the people have as a whole is multiple sides fighting and mostly ending up in centrist compromise. This assumes of course, this country is still a Republic and embraces Democracy, both of which seem to be effectively behind us.

  • avatar
    BigWill

    Stepping back from this a bit, and the UAW’s tunnel vision is rather obvious. While the UAW has been fighting The Battle of Chattanooga, both Mazda and Kia have skipped the US altogether for new plants, made a run for the border, and I’d expect they’re not going to be the last. All the UAW/VW skirmish has done is make companies cognizant of exactly how attractive Mexico is for assembly.

    So the UAW will get into Chattanooga one way or another, and the US will get no more plants. Yeah, that’s a good deal.

    • 0 avatar
      petezeiss

      “Stepping back from this a bit,..”

      So glad someone has. The enforced proliferation of 300lb substance abusing schlubs throughout the American workforce may be a holy crusade for some here, but the foreign companies that matter needn’t and won’t play along.

      • 0 avatar
        Kevin

        You are also calling your local police officers, firefighters, and your kid’s teacher 300lb substance abusing schlubs. Was that your intention?

        People who hate unions make no sense to me. Get your butt to work this Sunday (and this Monday for that matter) for a good 14 hours if you hate unions so much.

        • 0 avatar
          petezeiss

          “Was that your intention?”

          Not firefighters, no.

          • 0 avatar
            Kevin

            And what makes a firefighter better than a police officer or a teacher? I doubt the firefighter would agree with you, btw.

            I hope that whatever profession you have chosen to dedicate yourself to is more valued than the noble professions that continually get vilified in today’s society by the Faux News watching, brainwashed masses that start foaming at the mouth at the mention of the “U” word.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/05/272144424/police-officer-arrests-firefighter-at-accident-scene-in-california

            I didn’t know whether to go with this story or the one about the cop that ran down a cyclist and was revealed to be above trivial laws like manslaughter.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/237940150/Official-document-Deputy-won-t-be-charged-in-death-of-Calabasas-bicyclist-Milton-Olin

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            “And what makes a firefighter better than a police officer or a teacher?”

            Firefighters can’t be 300lb substance abusing schlubs or they’d die of heart attacks before reaching 30.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Basically the reason people hate unions is because they’ve been taught a social understanding of resentment. That a person’s job security is bad and we’re ‘uncompetitive’ because the management class has beat it into their heads that they’re only worth as much as they can do and without that job they’re really not worth anything.

          They’re more like sad lost souls, hell bent on punching babies and kicking puppies in the name of their self-worth. I’m absolutely sure I’ll hear anecdotal responses that have no measure on the total institutional actions of the idea but merely are manifestations of their own self-loathing designed to propel them as the super human who holds society together.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Xeranar – there are pro’s and cons to unions just like any organization. The UAW gets singled out because they are seen as being a parasite feeding off of the auto industry.
            There is truth to that argument since pensions and wages advanced much faster than what the industry could hope to sustain. Unions have also stifled flexibility of the workforce through rigid trade lines.
            We’ve seen clawbacks of wages and benefits which were necessary.

            Workers at companies like Wallmart would benefit from trade unions since a large percentage of that workforce needs food stamps to survive.

            The problem is the extra cost. Big corporations do not want the decreased profits and consumers do not want to pay more.

            I’d rather pay more to buy stuff at Wallmart knowing that its workers are self-sufficient than pay more taxes to a government that needs to issue food stamps.

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            Xeranar,
            Your every comment reveals such an adolescent certitude and 3rd rate articulation of the few injection-molded ideas you possess, yet you persist in thinking you’re tenure track o_O

            You’re silly and you really cheer up this site.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Petezeiss – I’m already on tenure track, I took the federal contract while I wrote and worked but my home university is keeping tabs on my accomplishments as I continue to publish. By the time I return I’ll most likely face the committee and be awarded a permanent position.

            But no doubt you’ll keep scoffing, I don’t mind. Small minded children who claim life experiences supersede data and analysis don’t really bother me. Never mind your base argument is ‘You’re childish and you don’t speak so good!’ which is hilarious considering the level of articulation I’ve long displayed.

            But hey, if it gets you off to insult me, be my guest, friend.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Don’t blame the unions, blame the free trade agreements.

      And who do they benefit?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Arthur Dailey – blaming FTA’s are a convenient scapegoat.

        Protectionistic measures lead to a “blind to the realities of life” mentality present in the auto sector. That applies equally to big unions and big companies.

        Are you willing to pay considerably more money for products made in the USA shielded by protection?
        The cost to consumers went up by billions in the USA with tariffs and VRA’s in the 80’s.

        With that being said, taxpayers subsidize Walmart and McDonalds through welfare payments to their workers.

        Are you willing to pay more taxes to continue with the privilege of buying cheap crap at Walmart or McDonald’s?

        “Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.”
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

        “According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance. As it turns out, McDonalds has a “McResource” line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs. It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.”
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/apologies-but-welfare-payments-to-employees-are-not-subsidies-to-walmart-and-mcdonalds/

        Markets in the USA are already protected in various ways.

        Are you willing to find out what would happen if the USA were to become completely insular?

        Hint – look at Cuba.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I find it a real pity that the Right has to stoop down to the level of the socialist intestinal worms in the UAW and form a Union as such.

    I do believe a person should be able to tell someone to “Get the f4ck out of my space and leave me alone in this world”. This is what I call freedom of choice.

    But to have two competing groups based on paradigms is akin to a religious war.

    But to have the right form a group is pathetic and takes away from the individual.

    Unions shouldn’t be allow to seek the taxation of individuals either with their exise dues on monthly pay packet either. Unions shouldn’t be allow to contribute to polticial parties, nor should any business.

    Unions should be manned by volunteers. With no money involved. But unions like any large institutionalised organization are in it for the power and not the worker, no different than any other institution.

    Tell them all to get f4cked.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Don’t take what I wrote above as anti union, as I’m not. I’m against anything that will produce a negative outcome, as this is against my human instincts for progress.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Al,
        It is all about balance.

        Yes unions with too much power are bad. In Canada we see it in the public service unions.

        But what else has the ability to counter the power of the 21st Century Robber Barons?

        For every action, there is a reaction (hopefully equal). The pendulum continually swings.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Arthur,
          One of my best friends used to be a shop steward and believe it or not we see many issue the same, politically that is.

          At the lower levels of any large organisation irrespective of what the day to day activities are for that organization empathy towards each other diminishes.

          I do think this is a problem. Unions end up being more about the perception of the union rather than making good an logical decisions.

          If these union leaders are that good at organising, leading, managing do you think they would be in a union?

          They would be working for some large corporation working their way up the ladder for power and glory.

          I do think changes are needed to curb the influence of any large organization or institution, left, right, centre or whatever.

          Self interest creates corruption. Unions are full of people with self interest, no different than the Catholic Church, Dems, GOP, etc.

          But if both sides are affected by change that will curb their influence do you really think this will occur? No.

          I’m for the individual, the consumer.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Arthur Dailey – we do see swings from left to right both politically and economically.

          There does need to be a balance but unfortunately it all boils down to one tribe battling against another tribe.
          Tribal culture and societal/group structure is replaced by 200 page contracts and 400 page contact interpretation manuals.
          Instead of clubs to the head we have grievances and disciplinary reviews.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          First off, the so called Robber Barons were neither Robbers or Barons. The continued use of that term without pointing out how misleading it is tells you it’s propaganda.

          I think unionization lost the plot years ago. There is so much more competition and information sharing now that I have to wonder if some serious rethinking of the whole system is way overdue.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Unfortunately the term Robber Baron is very apt.

            They lived higher than Barons and engaged in illegal activities such as collusion. They ignored or prevented the implementation of legislation protecting workers.

            How exactly did unions lose the plot?

            The whole idea behind unionism is that there is an imbalance of power and that workers only have the ability to redress this imbalance through collective action. Individually a worker has very little power, collectively they can ‘fight’ unilateral actions by management.

            What disrupted this is the implementation of free trade with 3rd world nations. Now workers in North America must compete with 3rd world workers. Due to the cost of living, taxes and environmental controls this is an impossibility in most situations.

            Thus unions/workers are demonized rather than identifying the root cause of the problem.

            Al, some unionists do join management. Others stay in the union because at the top levels the salaries are fairly munificent. And in Canada a surprising number become politicians.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            AD,
            They were no more robbers than they were pedophiles (well, we don’t really know). The point is that they were not robbers. Conspirators in cases? Fine, go with that. Barons were born into the ruling class and had military and police powers which the industrialists did not.

            I’m not saying they were saints, nor denying their transgressions. Many were very bad, even evil, men. They are called Robber Barons to hide the guilt of the politicians who were instrumental in their successes and excesses.

            Unionism lost the plot when it became less about empowering the worker and more about empowering and glorifying the union itself. When it became less about improving the workers lives and more about improving the union and hurting management just for the sake of it. When the unions cared more about party politics than their workers well being.

            I can’t give you a date on it.

            Lastly, nobody is demonizing the workers except for the fact they empower the unions.

      • 0 avatar
        Kevin

        You have to be joking. You wrote that rambling stream of consciousness above and you expect us to believe you DON’T have an axe to grind with unions? People deserve to be paid for their efforts.

        The only part of your argument I agree with is that unions shouldn’t be able to contribute to elections. But then neither should SuperPACs or wealthy individuals. Make elections publicly funded to be completely fair. Until that happens, I support unions making political donations.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Kevin
          I do apologise for the apparent tardiness in my response. But my job is quite demanding at times.

          I do believe that you could be incorrect in your assumptions.

          I do believe people should be paid for their efforts. I do believe in a liveable minimum wage, public health and education up until the end of high school. Anything after highschool is career driven.

          What you don’t seem to understand is the left supports a regime of standards set to the lowest common denominator.

          I don’t support that view. I support that the best should be given an advantage before anyone else, irrespective of creed, colour, nationality or whatever.

          If you do look at my above comments you will see that this will give EVERYONE in our society a ‘fair go’.

          Unions only look at themselves and quite often at the expense of an industry or country.

          Just look at Detroit.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Unfortunately much like democracy, unionism as it stands is not great. However it is better than the existing alternatives for the majority of workers.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            They are a majority of government workers, but a small minority of private sector ones.

            It puts the lie to the whole idea really. Clearly the current model is less successful than the market in dealing with bad companies, but still successful in milking better benefits from monopolies.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Isn’t the real issue here that the workers are being told they’ll have a union whether they want one or not? This may be their only chance to avoid becoming pawns of organized crime. Their vote isn’t being respected by the thugs, so this may be their only move left.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Of course the real issue is that the workers are being told they’ll have a union, come hell or high water. Was there ever any doubt that it would turn out otherwise?

      But even if they form their own local union, the UAW will strong-arm them into becoming a limp limb of the UAW. This agenda is existential for the UAW because of declining membership. There’s even a movement afoot to sue for refunding union dues in a state that recently became Right-To-Work, a worst case nightmare for the UAW and other unions.

      How are they going to rebate those dues? Give them back as Wal-Mart Gift Cards?

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Come on CJ, I told you to read the book….Do I need to repost the title for you? I’ll start posting exerts from the book if you’re that lazy and want to keep discussing how unions are criminals.

      Union Democracy is your friend and the UAW is actually very union democratic.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        They took off their democracy mask when they lost the election and said they’d set up shop anyway. Sorry to inject reality into your life, but you still can’t tell me to do anything. If your side does win in our lifetimes, the prize is nothing for people like you. The avaricious few holding your strings will get to enjoy the royal lifestyle stolen from them by the American Revolution. Serfs make less noise at resorts than the middle class does. Marinas are nicer when it’s the right crowd and no crowding. Some day you may learn what sustainable really means. Enjoy. When it’s all over, if you’re lucky you won’t be accountable for eternity.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Your rhetoric is hilarious if a bit superficial in any way of understanding. I always wanted to understand this ‘us’ you keep speaking of? I mean who do you think is getting excluded if the left is pressing for higher wages and an expanded middle class? We have documented evidence to support that the right-wing policies pushed in the 1990s and 2000s shrunk the middle-class substantially and that left-wing policies prior to that in the 30-70’s expanded it.

          Never mind that Union Democracy is the power to elect people within the union, hence why we call it Union Democracy which makes any kind of mob control extremely hard which is what you were implying with your ‘organized crime’ routine. Suffice to say I don’t care if you read the book, you’ve proven yourself an ignorant fool on more occasions than I care to remember. I just enjoy trying to educate the people, most are flexible but it’s people like you who remain stubbornly obstinate in your opposition to any kind of education.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            The left and the progressive branch of the right exist for the sole purpose of eliminating the middle class. The bourgeoisie has been the enemy since day one. You might want to educate yourself, because your ignorance is rank. Creating artificial constructs of meritless union haves and noble have-nots is merely a method of hastening the collapse of capitalism, itself a misnomer applied to the most basic element of freedom by a villain.

            That you think democracy can only exist within the forced servitude of a union is pathetic. Does the flight of industries afflicted by the union cancer trouble you a bit? You’re a new stooge for an old failed faith system. Nothing more, and in many ways much less.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Scoutdude: You don’t want to use that wrap stuff on your calipers, it says it is for wheels and accessories and...
  • Scoutdude: Back when we used to turn rotors instead of replace them it wasn’t uncommon to find “Jesus...
  • Peter Gazis: FreedMike The Pilot has more space. Becky wins!
  • Scoutdude: There are some premium calipers out there that are powder coated in the OE color if that was they way the...
  • Jeff Semenak: I bought a 2001 Olds Bravada used, in 2004. The most left Button under the Stereo was unmarked and, the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber