UAW loses VW vote

[Len_A]

http://www.freep.com/article/20140214/BUSINESS0104/302140095/uaw-volkswagen-chattanooga

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140214/AUTO0104/302140116/Tennessee-Volkswagen-workers-reject-UAW-representation

[cal50]

Looks like the workers decided......

 

The UAW is loosing a lot of support of its existing membership let alone trying to entice others to join and its from their own doing and not doing.

[FiredMotorCompany]

A big loss for Bob King. You can bet I'll never vote for him again to be UAW President.

Oh, wait.

Edited February 15, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[RangerM]

I've read a lot of negative responses on the Web about this result.

 

What amazes me is the active hatred of the ones on the losing side. They WANT the VW workers to suffer some form of tragedy.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Brotherhood. Huh?

[Len_A]

I'm pro union, but this puts the nail in the coffin for the UAW. They're finished.

[RangerM]

Brotherhood. Huh?

I wish I understood (what can best be described as) the irrationality.

 

I bought a Ford because I thought it the best vehicle, AND it's built by Americans. NOTE: I did NOT say unionized-Americans. I'm largely indifferent to the UAW (itself). If someone else is all for it, fine.

 

But, it doesn't help attract others when the people on the "losing" side (and I use that term loosely, because many of these people didn't live in Tennessee, or work at the VW plant) refer to the majority as "fools", "assholes", "ignorant Southerners", and "deserve what's coming to them" (some malady I presume, based on the tenor of the rest of the post).

 

I didn't vote for Barack Obama in either election, but I don't recall wishing evil upon those who did.

[FiredMotorCompany]

I wish I understood (what can best be described as) the irrationality.

 

I bought a Ford because I thought it the best vehicle, AND it's built by Americans. NOTE: I did NOT say unionized-Americans. I'm largely indifferent to the UAW (itself). If someone else is all for it, fine.

 

But, it doesn't help attract others when the people on the "losing" side (and I use that term loosely, because many of these people didn't live in Tennessee, or work at the VW plant) refer to the majority as "fools", "assholes", "ignorant Southerners", and "deserve what's coming to them" (some malady I presume, based on the tenor of the rest of the post).

 

I didn't vote for Barack Obama in either election, but I don't recall wishing evil upon those who did.

I hear ya.

 

The UAW was, at one time in it's youth, powerful because they offered something compelling. It sold itself! An employee at a plant could SEE the benefit of risking their personal safety and possible ridicule or worse, for supporting the unionization of his workplace.

 

Today, he'd see the UAW as capitulating and incompetent, particularly when we concede benefits hard-won benefits, paid for in years of sacrifice to get what was in the best interest and effective benefits and wages, in the name of saving the company from failure, but never with any assurance they would be reinstated when the company returned to a stable and, dare we say, prosperous operation. How much was sacrificed to GET what they GAVE away? How many strikes were staged, pickets toted, lines walked, families suffering while they used their only leverage available to them to extract compensation and protections for each employee and their workplace safety and elimination of "favoritism".

 

We lost......LOST....COLA in 2007......GAVE IT AWAY!!!!! And we've haven't seen 1 penny of pay increase in 7 years....with no hope in sight for one either.

Can anyone show that that was NOT lost income? That costs of living hasn't eroded our pay every day since then? That we'd need as much as $4-$8 in wage increases to recoup the losses to our livelihoods.

 

Oh, they dangle the "Profit-Sharing" carrot every year. But, haven't you noticed each was offset by "one time charges" that ensure we get no more than they have to. Whereas, wages are paid by the hour and accrue overtime premiums, that also affect Social Security and retirement benefits.

 

And retirees have been ripped a big one as well.

 

Active employees hoping to retire someday can not expect any increase in their pensions, and the VEBA health plan is woefully underfunded, yet the UAW has plenty of administrators who's pay and benefits exceed many of the retirees who's money they manage. Their cut comes off the top. Who's the last guy to get anything from VEBA? THE RETIREE!!!

Oh, what a slick deal THAT was. Especially for the IUAW dude or dudette that gets to sit on the Board of Ford. VERY prestigious. And piss on the peons that must beg for alms for the poor.

 

Do I hate Unions. Not at all. Do I like what our Union has evolved into and how it operates today? No!

It used to be about protecting the membership. Today, it's about promoting the solvency of the union and it's employees and local cronyism. My favorite is the UAW rep's refrain heard plant wide, "The company can do this or that." As if their new assignment is educating the membership on what the company's rights are and to suck it up.

IMHO.

Edited February 15, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[Len_A]

I hear ya.

 

The UAW was, at one time in it's youth, powerful because they offered something compelling. It sold itself! An employee at a plant could SEE the benefit of risking their personal safety and possible ridicule or worse, for supporting the unionization of his workplace.

 

Today, he'd see the UAW as capitulating and incompetent, particularly when we concede benefits hard-won benefits, paid for in years of sacrifice to get what was in the best interest and effective benefits and wages, in the name of saving the company from failure, but never with any assurance they would be reinstated when the company returned to a stable and, dare we say, prosperous operation. How much was sacrificed to GET what they GAVE away? How many strikes were staged, pickets toted, lines walked, families suffering while they used their only leverage available to them to extract compensation and protections for each employee and their workplace safety and elimination of "favoritism".

 

We lost......LOST....COLA in 2007......GAVE IT AWAY!!!!! And we've haven't seen 1 penny of pay increase in 7 years....with no hope in sight for one either.

Can anyone show that that was NOT lost income? That costs of living hasn't eroded our pay every day since then? That we'd need as much as $4-$8 in wage increases to recoup the losses to our livelihoods.

 

Oh, they dangle the "Profit-Sharing" carrot every year. But, haven't you noticed each was offset by "one time charges" that ensure we get no more than they have to. Whereas, wages are paid by the hour and accrue overtime premiums, that also affect Social Security and retirement benefits.

 

And retirees have been ripped a big one as well.

 

Active employees hoping to retire someday can not expect any increase in their pensions, and the VEBA health plan is woefully underfunded, yet the UAW has plenty of administrators who's pay and benefits exceed many of the retirees who's money they manage. Their cut comes off the top. Who's the last guy to get anything from VEBA? THE RETIREE!!!

Oh, what a slick deal THAT was. Especially for the IUAW dude or dudette that gets to sit on the Board of Ford. VERY prestigious. And piss on the peons that must beg for alms for the poor.

 

Do I hate Unions. Not at all. Do I like what our Union has evolved into and how it operates today? No!

It used to be about protecting the membership. Today, it's about promoting the solvency of the union and it's employees and local cronyism. My favorite is the UAW rep's refrain heard plant wide, "The company can do this or that." As if their new assignment is educating the membership on what the company's rights are and to suck it up.

IMHO.

Like I said, the UAW is finished. No coming back from this.

[Len_A]

VW vote shows Detroit and labor still have bad raps to shake:

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20140216/COL06/302160149/Tom-Walsh-UAW-Volkswagen-Bob-King

[rn4]

Don't you think that the politicians of Tennessee had something to do with the outcome of this election. Corker basically said during the 1st day of the vote that the plant wouldn't be considered for any new product that it would go to Mexico.

[Len_A]

Don't you think that the politicians of Tennessee had something to do with the outcome of this election. Corker basically said during the 1st day of the vote that the plant wouldn't be considered for any new product that it would go to Mexico.

I don't think it determined the outcome, but it didn't help. Still, there's nothing illegal about it.

[Imawhosure]

Don't you think that the politicians of Tennessee had something to do with the outcome of this election. Corker basically said during the 1st day of the vote that the plant wouldn't be considered for any new product that it would go to Mexico.

 

I agree with you rn4, that if it was not true, he had no business saying it.

 

On the other hand, at least he didn't say-----------> "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," or "if you like your policy, you can keep your policy." Those statements affect far more people than 1500, so I will show rage with you against Corker, if you will reciprocate and show rage with me against Obama!

 

Oh hell, you don't even have to. Corker is a rino full of crony capitalism. Wouldn't break my heart if when his election came due, if he was defeated firstly by a conservative; if not secondly by a libertarian. A Blue Dog Democrat would be all good too. But if he losses to a progressive, you end up with virtually the same pile of poo-poo. One may be red, and one may be blue, but they both stink to high heaven.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Imawhosure

[Langston Hughes]

 

I agree with you rn4, that if it was not true, he had no business saying it.

 

On the other hand, at least he didn't say-----------> "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," or "if you like your policy, you can keep your policy." Those statements affect far more people than 1500, so I will show rage with you against Corker, if you will reciprocate and show rage with me against Obama!

 

Oh hell, you don't even have to. Corker is a rino full of crony capitalism. Wouldn't break my heart if when his election came due, if he was defeated firstly by a conservative; if not secondly by a libertarian. A Blue Dog Democrat would be all good too. But if he losses to a progressive, you end up with virtually the same pile of poo-poo. One may be red, and one may be blue, but they both stink to high heaven.

 

What does Obama have to do with the vote? Nothing that's why you mentioned him, to deflect away from the fact that conservatives decided to meddle in the vote.

[cal50]

Its easier for Bob King to blame someone or something else for the failure rather than look in the mirror.

It does mimic our existing president in that context.

 

Take VW out of the failed vote / organizing category, exactly how many "new" companies has the UAW signed up lately ?

The UAW does not "serve" its existing members really well and that should be a clue for the clueless at the IUAW level.

[Langston Hughes]

Its easier for Bob King to blame someone or something else for the failure rather than look in the mirror.

It does mimic our existing president in that context.

 

Take VW out of the failed vote / organizing category, exactly how many "new" companies has the UAW signed up lately ?

The UAW does not "serve" its existing members really well and that should be a clue for the clueless at the IUAW level.

 

I would have to disagree with Cal on the UAW and it's attempts to represent it's members. While the recent contract is not as good as the workers would have liked it's foolish to believe that Ford motor got what it asked for. Instead it got a compromise while giving some new product to it's American workers, which is more important than raises. I mean we can debate what good raises are when your plant doesn't get any new work and your laid off, but i think that getting new product beats raises in a debate.

 

And I'm not sure what "Organizing" Cal is aware of but there was more than just the car transplants going on.

I would say that casino workers, Faurecia, IC bus and others count as new companies.

[cal50]

Its pretty bad when VW management wants and needs a union structure to move ahead with its management style and the UAW still can not get people to join.

Bob King and company are WAY out of touch with rank and file people / workers on par with politicians. They all suck.

 

 

 

Some stinging truths in these words.

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140217/BLOG06/140219874/why-the-uaw-can-only-blame-itself-for-losing-at-vw

[Langston Hughes]

Nobody is talking about the 800 guerrilla in the room, union members throwing the union under the bus because they aren't getting raises or whatever their pet peeve is about the union. ^^^^^^

[Len_A]

Its pretty bad when VW management wants and needs a union structure to move ahead with its management style and the UAW still can not get people to join.

Bob King and company are WAY out of touch with rank and file people / workers on par with politicians. They all suck.

 

 

 

Some stinging truths in these words.

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140217/BLOG06/140219874/why-the-uaw-can-only-blame-itself-for-losing-at-vw

This is, for both the UAW leadership, and the rank and file, especially the Tier One rank and file, a classic "no win" situation.

 

I see you union guys, including my own family members, bitch, and piss, and moan over the lack of a raise since 2007, loss of cost of living allowance, the two tiered wage structure, the loss of defined benefit pensions for all new hires, yada, yada, yada. Yes, the Detroit Three are profitable again. So what? Your North American Auto Manufacturing competition is still Toyota, Nissan, and Honda. THey still have their two tiered wage structure through the use of perma-temps, their associates (their tier one workers) still don't get raises, never got cost of living allowance, and don't have defined benefit pensions. GM, Ford & CHrysler still have to compete against them, and their labor costs, whether you like it or not, are still a factor. And yes, the Detroit Three CEO's make huge bucks. Sorry sports fans, there's no correlation between the factory workers incomes and the CEO's, as unfair as it is, not seems, but it is unfair. Deal with it, accept it, and move on.

 

The UAW leadership, whether you want to see it or not, is caught in the classic position of being between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, you guys are extremely unhappy with them, because of not only the give backs, but the position that seems to be not seriously trying to get any of it back. The IUAW leadership knows that if they do try, they risk not only making the Detroit Three uncompetitive again, but also the bad publicity from trying to get those give backs restored, that will alienate not only some customers, but Wall Street as well, and the bad effect on GM & Ford stock and bonds. At the same time, the IUAW leadership knows that if they can't get the transplants organized, there's no chance of being able to negotiate raises, COLA, pensions back again. At the same time, the track record of the last fifteen years does NOT make a compelling case for organizing a plant, as you yourself pointed out.

 

A classic no-win situation, and a vicious circle on all arguments one way or the other.

[Imawhosure]

This is, for both the UAW leadership, and the rank and file, especially the Tier One rank and file, a classic "no win" situation.

 

I see you union guys, including my own family members, bitch, and piss, and moan over the lack of a raise since 2007, loss of cost of living allowance, the two tiered wage structure, the loss of defined benefit pensions for all new hires, yada, yada, yada. Yes, the Detroit Three are profitable again. So what? Your North American Auto Manufacturing competition is still Toyota, Nissan, and Honda. THey still have their two tiered wage structure through the use of perma-temps, their associates (their tier one workers) still don't get raises, never got cost of living allowance, and don't have defined benefit pensions. GM, Ford & CHrysler still have to compete against them, and their labor costs, whether you like it or not, are still a factor. And yes, the Detroit Three CEO's make huge bucks. Sorry sports fans, there's no correlation between the factory workers incomes and the CEO's, as unfair as it is, not seems, but it is unfair. Deal with it, accept it, and move on.

 

The UAW leadership, whether you want to see it or not, is caught in the classic position of being between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, you guys are extremely unhappy with them, because of not only the give backs, but the position that seems to be not seriously trying to get any of it back. The IUAW leadership knows that if they do try, they risk not only making the Detroit Three uncompetitive again, but also the bad publicity from trying to get those give backs restored, that will alienate not only some customers, but Wall Street as well, and the bad effect on GM & Ford stock and bonds. At the same time, the IUAW leadership knows that if they can't get the transplants organized, there's no chance of being able to negotiate raises, COLA, pensions back again. At the same time, the track record of the last fifteen years does NOT make a compelling case for organizing a plant, as you yourself pointed out.

 

A classic no-win situation, and a vicious circle on all arguments one way or the other.

You have spoken the 100% truth. From the time I started posting on this board, along with far before I retired from my facility, I proclaimed just like you, that unless we could beat the transplants under the current contract we had, they would at sometime dictate our contract, unless we could unionize them.

 

I am not going to sit here and diss the UAW, but after repeatedly being turned down over the years by a host of other manufacturers workers, it would take someone blind to not understand that something has to change on what is being offered to them. It has been many, many, many, years, and still the UAW has failed to get the transplants on board. Instead of grousing, UAW members need to figure out what it is that is wrong with the presentation, or if there is nothing wrong with the presentation, then what is wrong with the offer.

[RangerM]

Nobody is talking about the 800 guerrilla in the room, union members throwing the union under the bus because they aren't getting raises or whatever their pet peeve is about the union. ^^^^^^

I've seen estimates that about 40% of union members are Republican, so I'd imagine things like this don't help the solidarity......

 

Labor to spend $300 million to unseat five GOP governors

 

That's more money than the Koch Brothers have spent for all their political activities (past and present) combined, iirc.

Edited February 21, 2014 by RangerM

[Langston Hughes]

I've seen estimates that about 40% of union members are Republican, so I'd imagine things like this don't help the solidarity......

 

Labor to spend $300 million to unseat five GOP governors

 

That's more money than the Koch Brothers have spent for all their political activities (past and present) combined, iirc.

 

oh, so that's more than two individuals have spent. Well, that's nice but the AFL-CIO and labor are not two individuals and they are not always opposed to conservatives. The UAW has endorsed pro-labor conservatives, albeit moderates before. Candidates are welcome to fill out the issue surveys and if they fit the labor issues the UAW is looking for they will give them an endorsement. It doesn't happen often but it has happened.

 

i believe if you started to add up the Koch's with the pro-business lobby, and the other rich people their would be about the same money. The difference is that the union money is under much stricter scrutiny as they fall under different laws.

[RangerM]

I used the Koch Brothers as they are the examples cited by liberals to promote their "campaign finance reform" ideas.

 

Point being, $300 million is a lot of the members' money NOT being used for the benefit of the members. (and it's likely a significant portion would be against spending it for defeating Republican governors)

 

The money spent by unions for political activities is no different than Citizens United. Distinct perhaps (under the law actually SCOTUS eliminated the legal distinction), but no different.

Edited February 21, 2014 by RangerM

[Langston Hughes]

I used the Koch Brothers as they are the examples cited by liberals to promote their "campaign finance reform" ideas.

 

Point being, $300 million is a lot of the members' money NOT being used for the benefit of the members. (and it's likely a significant portion would be against spending it for defeating Republican governors)

 

The money spent by unions for political activities is no different than Citizens United. Distinct perhaps (under the law actually SCOTUS eliminated the legal distinction), but no different.

 

The money spent by labor is different than citizens united as union funding for political campaigns falls under different laws and is subject to different recording procedures. Unions have to account for their political funding in ways that the Koch's and others do not under Citizens United. Still.

 

And the purpose of political funding is to get politicians that support labor which is to ultimately benefit the membership. You may see it differently but they have legislative issues that they support based on their belief that it would benefit the worker.

 

Take Gov. Rick Snyder, a conservative who raised taxes on pensions here in Michigan. This hurt the union's members who were retirees so the union is opposing him, adding in that they oppose other issues with him too.

[RangerM]

 

The money spent by labor is different than citizens united as union funding for political campaigns falls under different laws and is subject to different recording procedures. Unions have to account for their political funding in ways that the Koch's and others do not under Citizens United. Still.

 

And the purpose of political funding is to get politicians that support labor which is to ultimately benefit the membership. You may see it differently but they have legislative issues that they support based on their belief that it would benefit the worker.

 

Take Gov. Rick Snyder, a conservative who raised taxes on pensions here in Michigan. This hurt the union's members who were retirees so the union is opposing him, adding in that they oppose other issues with him too.

And what makes the (union) "worker" more noble than the business owner, or the shareholder, or the worker who would rather NOT be part of a union?

 

You make the distinction, but you fail to cite the difference other than suggesting that the union's political motivations are more noble than those with opposing views.

 

The union is against Rick Snyder more because he signed Michigan's Right-to-Work law, not because he raised taxes. If the union were anti-tax, they wouldn't support democrats so enthusiastically.