12-12-2014 08:04 AM
350 ... 121314
tools
  1. NoYankees44's Avatar
    To address the situation that spurred the creation of this thread:

    Much has happened sense i last updated the status of the VW plant in Chattanooga TN.

    The hearing with the National Labor Board never happened. The UAW dropped their case the day of.

    Not long after they dropped their case disputing the lost election, the UAW started a Local in Chattanooga. This Local is basically a club at the moment. They take no dues and do not have any power in terms of negotiation. VW has promised to recognize the Local if they get 50% of the hourly works to join. The last claim was that they were close to 50% at the end of August.

    The anti-UAW workers are attempting to start an independent union that includes both salaried and hourly workers to appease the requirement so that VW can have a Works Council. No word or how successful they are being...

    Also, TN gave VW incentives to bring a new SUV to Chattanooga and VW announced that they would indeed build it there. These incentives were apparently tied to the results of the UAW election, just as Corker claimed during the campaign. I do not know what would happen if VW recognizes the UAW now. Obviously these incentives are a sealed deal, but future incentives could be blocked I guess.



    My source in the plant left a couple of months ago for unrelated reasons, so I do not have any idea how all this is or is not affecting the moral at the facility. I can imagine that all of this has cause some tension.
    09-11-2014 01:40 PM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    To address the situation that spurred the creation of this thread:

    Much has happened sense i last updated the status of the VW plant in Chattanooga TN.

    The hearing with the National Labor Board never happened. The UAW dropped their case the day of.

    Not long after they dropped their case disputing the lost election, the UAW started a Local in Chattanooga. This Local is basically a club at the moment. They take no dues and do not have any power in terms of negotiation. VW has promised to recognize the Local if they get 50% of the hourly works to join. The last claim was that they were close to 50% at the end of August.

    The anti-UAW workers are attempting to start an independent union that includes both salaried and hourly workers to appease the requirement so that VW can have a Works Council. No word or how successful they are being...

    Also, TN gave VW incentives to bring a new SUV to Chattanooga and VW announced that they would indeed build it there. These incentives were apparently tied to the results of the UAW election, just as Corker claimed during the campaign. I do not know what would happen if VW recognizes the UAW now. Obviously these incentives are a sealed deal, but future incentives could be blocked I guess.



    My source in the plant left a couple of months ago for unrelated reasons, so I do not have any idea how all this is or is not affecting the moral at the facility. I can imagine that all of this has cause some tension.
    I'm not sure having a "union" that includes management would be a good idea. The whole reason for having a worker's union is in the event that management tries to circumvent a policy or tries to play favoritism in the workplace. The whole premise behind a union is to provide balance for a worker and to keep management in check. Without that counter-balance, you'll have that place operating like a Walmart. You have to keep in mind that you working for a company is an agreement. You agree to follow guidelines that the employer has put in place and the company agrees to follow those guidelines. A union will bargain those guidelines so that they're mutually beneficial and do not just favor the employer. Now while I agree that maybe some of the larger unions have lost sight of that, it's still no reason to lump all unions as bad.

    The way a union SHOULD operate is the same way any groups should operate, compromising for the good of the whole group (which believe it or not also includes the company in which they're gainfully employed). Some of the unions I've worked for in the past haven't placed much emphasis on that. I worked for one union that had a member who would work through his breaks and lunches, would finish early and would start doing other peoples' work. One day he and management got into an argument and he was dismissed for the day. He shoulder checked the manager and at that point the manager "fired" him (typically the union gets these people re-hired). The guy then went to his car, popped his trunk, and sat in his car for a little while. Security had to contact the police and have him physically removed from the premises. A few weeks later, he was re-instated by the union and was given back pay for the missing weeks of work. Having such a volatile person in the workplace is not safe at all. Even management understood that, but because the management union relationship is never on good terms, bringing this guy back is the union's way of saying "screw you management!", which puts the union's membership in danger.

    If a union does right by its members as a whole, then I don't see why a union couldn't exist in every sector of industry. Think of it in terms of the current state of this country, if our politicians do what's right for the majority of its citizens then we succeed, it's when we start enacting policy that only benefits special interests that as a group we fail.
    09-11-2014 03:07 PM
  3. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I'm not sure having a "union" that includes management would be a good idea. The whole reason for having a worker's union is in the event that management tries to circumvent a policy or tries to play favoritism in the workplace. The whole premise behind a union is to provide balance for a worker and to keep management in check. Without that counter-balance, you'll have that place operating like a Walmart. You have to keep in mind that you working for a company is an agreement. You agree to follow guidelines that the employer has put in place and the company agrees to follow those guidelines. A union will bargain those guidelines so that they're mutually beneficial and do not just favor the employer. Now while I agree that maybe some of the larger unions have lost sight of that, it's still no reason to lump all unions as bad.

    The way a union SHOULD operate is the same way any groups should operate, compromising for the good of the whole group (which believe it or not also includes the company in which they're gainfully employed). Some of the unions I've worked for in the past haven't placed much emphasis on that. I worked for one union that had a member who would work through his breaks and lunches, would finish early and would start doing other peoples' work. One day he and management got into an argument and he was dismissed for the day. He shoulder checked the manager and at that point the manager "fired" him (typically the union gets these people re-hired). The guy then went to his car, popped his trunk, and sat in his car for a little while. Security had to contact the police and have him physically removed from the premises. A few weeks later, he was re-instated by the union and was given back pay for the missing weeks of work. Having such a volatile person in the workplace is not safe at all. Even management understood that, but because the management union relationship is never on good terms, bringing this guy back is the union's way of saying "screw you management!", which puts the union's membership in danger.

    If a union does right by its members as a whole, then I don't see why a union couldn't exist in every sector of industry. Think of it in terms of the current state of this country, if our politicians do what's right for the majority of its citizens then we succeed, it's when we start enacting policy that only benefits special interests that as a group we fail.
    The biggest gripe i have always had with unions is the division it causes. You are either trying to make the work place better for everyone, or you are only trying to make it better for yourself.

    I see no problems with salaried employees being members. The hourly employees would always out number the salaried and it would give everyone a chance for everyone to actually have a say. It would give a chance for salary and hourly to work together instead fostering an "Us vs Them" mentality that so many unions seem to have. That is what the Works Council that VW is advocating for seems to be about in spirit anyway.

    Honestly, if unions really wanted to make the environment better for everyone, they would police themselves and make sure the employees such as the one you described was fired and never returned. The union would fight to be the best work force it possibly could. It would evaluated its members for effectiveness. Then when negotiation time came, the union would present the data of how much better their employees were doing. They would show how much training they were performing on the side. They would show how great their attendance was and how much overtime they had worked. THEN they could easily demand reasonable increases.

    Maybe some unions do this? Idk. The union that ran my town growing up sure didn't. And their members sure looked down their nose at my father while he worked in a nonunion facility. They looked down their noses up until the facility shut down anyway. Then they twiddled their thumbs while my father earned a living and rose from a line worker to a manager over a large section of the facility.
    09-11-2014 08:00 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    Honestly, if unions really wanted to make the environment better for everyone, they would police themselves and make sure the employees such as the one you described was fired and never returned. The union would fight to be the best work force it possibly could. It would evaluated its members for effectiveness. Then when negotiation time came, the union would present the data of how much better their employees were doing. They would show how much training they were performing on the side. They would show how great their attendance was and how much overtime they had worked. THEN they could easily demand reasonable increases.
    That's actually what management should be doing in the first place, but somehow managers have also lost sight of their responsibilities as managers. Instead, you have managers that promote the people that they feel kiss up to them best, or people that they think they'd be ok with having a beer with after work. One of the reasons I have a more positive outlook on unions is because I've seen it on more than a few occasions, people being promoted and given higher raises not based on productivity, but based on how chummy they are with their managers.

    A union shop is generally not necessary if a company's management team is treating its employees fair. Costco and Sams Club are perfect examples. From what I've seen, Costco employees average around $25 an hour while Sam's Club employees make around $12 an hour. Having worked at a Super Walmart in high school, I can tell you that sometimes you can be on your feet for 6-7 hours at a time before you even get relieved for a break. The fact that Costco can afford to pay its employees a decent wage and still compete with the likes of Walmart, to me that lets me know that maybe Walmart employees need to unionize. The fact that so many people are ok with being exploited by Walmart is beyond my comprehension, but I think that Walmart also uses strong arm tactics when talk of unionizing in their stores takes place. Do you think Walmart employees should unionize or is their level of exploitation ok?
    09-12-2014 02:53 AM
  5. NoYankees44's Avatar
    That's actually what management should be doing in the first place, but somehow managers have also lost sight of their responsibilities as managers. Instead, you have managers that promote the people that they feel kiss up to them best, or people that they think they'd be ok with having a beer with after work. One of the reasons I have a more positive outlook on unions is because I've seen it on more than a few occasions, people being promoted and given higher raises not based on productivity, but based on how chummy they are with their managers.

    A union shop is generally not necessary if a company's management team is treating its employees fair. Costco and Sams Club are perfect examples. From what I've seen, Costco employees average around $25 an hour while Sam's Club employees make around $12 an hour. Having worked at a Super Walmart in high school, I can tell you that sometimes you can be on your feet for 6-7 hours at a time before you even get relieved for a break. The fact that Costco can afford to pay its employees a decent wage and still compete with the likes of Walmart, to me that lets me know that maybe Walmart employees need to unionize. The fact that so many people are ok with being exploited by Walmart is beyond my comprehension, but I think that Walmart also uses strong arm tactics when talk of unionizing in their stores takes place. Do you think Walmart employees should unionize or is their level of exploitation ok?
    While I dont disagree that good management is hard to find, that is no excuse for a union not to curate themselves. A union should be constantly evaluating itself, constantly trying to improve its value to the company it works for. If all you have walking into a negotiation to bargain with is your work force walking out, then it is not a negotiation at all. A union should have to prove its value just an every other employee has to prove their worth during an evaluation.

    If unions are doing this and proving their continued improvement, then great. They have a right to consistently demand better compensation. But if all the union shows up with is an unskilled labor force that can be easily replaced, then quite frankly they deserve nothing because their value has not improved.

    Honestly all unions should have a large stake in their company. That way they are risking their own money with the success of the company beyond their wage.


    The walmart issue is a somewhat different one(i would personally love to see them unionize and for **** to hit that fan), but I will say this: There are 2 reasons that walmart gets away with what it does. 1. Our government is kind enough to subsidize their low wages with entitlement programs. 2. Retail jobs are very low skilled and I cannot imagine that the employees' value to the company is very much higher than their compensation.
    09-12-2014 07:15 AM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    While I dont disagree that good management is hard to find, that is no excuse for a union not to curate themselves. A union should be constantly evaluating itself, constantly trying to improve its value to the company it works for. If all you have walking into a negotiation to bargain with is your work force walking out, then it is not a negotiation at all. A union should have to prove its value just an every other employee has to prove their worth during an evaluation.

    If unions are doing this and proving their continued improvement, then great. They have a right to consistently demand better compensation. But if all the union shows up with is an unskilled labor force that can be easily replaced, then quite frankly they deserve nothing because their value has not improved.

    Honestly all unions should have a large stake in their company. That way they are risking their own money with the success of the company beyond their wage.


    The walmart issue is a somewhat different one(i would personally love to see them unionize and for **** to hit that fan), but I will say this: There are 2 reasons that walmart gets away with what it does. 1. Our government is kind enough to subsidize their low wages with entitlement programs. 2. Retail jobs are very low skilled and I cannot imagine that the employees' value to the company is very much higher than their compensation.
    The other part of the equation from a business standpoint, why would you pay your employees such a low wage that they can't afford your products or services? As far as places like Walmart and the fast food industry, the rest of us are subsidizing their wages via government assistance. Wouldn't you rather they get paid a decent wage, get off of government assistance, and contribute tax money to their local and national governments? Then hopefully the government can start repairing our aging infrastructure.

    When I talk to people that are extremely opposed to unions and do nothing but regurgitate what the oligarch class tells them via fox news or other right wing propaganda, sometimes I get caught up in the rhetoric and find myself a little frustrated when arguing the benefits of working in a union shop. I know it's not all positive. You don't have incentive to work harder because you know that your raises are going to be the same, the lazy guy working next to you is going to advance the same. At the General Motors plant near me, you'd have some people out on sick leave for 49 weeks out of the year. They'd come back a few days before Christmas, work a few days AFTER the New Year, and collect a big holiday bonus (You had to work a few days before and after a big holiday break to get that money, and then if you worked overtime, you'd get triple pay). You can bet that would irritate the hell out of me. I guess I should probably explain that it's not so much a matter of me being 100% pro-union as much as me knowing that there is a huge imbalance in our current system. Unions would be a good counter-balance to what's currently happening to our economic landscape, and that's the only reason I'm pro-union. Do unions need to change their MO? They most certainly do. Are unions responsible for our stagnant wages, record profits for large businesses, and record poverty? Most certainly not. My resolve is not to see every worker become a union worker. My resolve is restoring the balance that made this country great. After the Great Depression, it was unionization that brought the pendulum back the other way.
    09-12-2014 02:21 PM
  7. NoYankees44's Avatar
    The other part of the equation from a business standpoint, why would you pay your employees such a low wage that they can't afford your products or services? As far as places like Walmart and the fast food industry, the rest of us are subsidizing their wages via government assistance. Wouldn't you rather they get paid a decent wage, get off of government assistance, and contribute tax money to their local and national governments? Then hopefully the government can start repairing our aging infrastructure.

    When I talk to people that are extremely opposed to unions and do nothing but regurgitate what the oligarch class tells them via fox news or other right wing propaganda, sometimes I get caught up in the rhetoric and find myself a little frustrated when arguing the benefits of working in a union shop. I know it's not all positive. You don't have incentive to work harder because you know that your raises are going to be the same, the lazy guy working next to you is going to advance the same. At the General Motors plant near me, you'd have some people out on sick leave for 49 weeks out of the year. They'd come back a few days before Christmas, work a few days AFTER the New Year, and collect a big holiday bonus (You had to work a few days before and after a big holiday break to get that money, and then if you worked overtime, you'd get triple pay). You can bet that would irritate the hell out of me. I guess I should probably explain that it's not so much a matter of me being 100% pro-union as much as me knowing that there is a huge imbalance in our current system. Unions would be a good counter-balance to what's currently happening to our economic landscape, and that's the only reason I'm pro-union. Do unions need to change their MO? They most certainly do. Are unions responsible for our stagnant wages, record profits for large businesses, and record poverty? Most certainly not. My resolve is not to see every worker become a union worker. My resolve is restoring the balance that made this country great. After the Great Depression, it was unionization that brought the pendulum back the other way.
    See I can respect someone as long as they recognize that unions are not faultless. They are an imperfect solution to a problem. I have seen what unions can become as well as how great work environments can be without them. They are and always will be necessary to some extent, but their roles will shift as time goes on.

    The only change that will truly shift the pendulum back to the way if the workers is education and skills. Workers have to become more valuable relative to the rest of the world again. No wars will be won by forcing companies to pay workers more than they are truly worth. The companies will simply move over the border to Mexico or across the ocean to China, and the American economy will shrink. We must give companies reason to come here and stay instead of giving them every reason to leave.
    09-12-2014 06:04 PM
  8. anon8126715's Avatar
    See I can respect someone as long as they recognize that unions are not faultless. They are an imperfect solution to a problem. I have seen what unions can become as well as how great work environments can be without them. They are and always will be necessary to some extent, but their roles will shift as time goes on.

    The only change that will truly shift the pendulum back to the way if the workers is education and skills. Workers have to become more valuable relative to the rest of the world again. No wars will be won by forcing companies to pay workers more than they are truly worth. The companies will simply move over the border to Mexico or across the ocean to China, and the American economy will shrink. We must give companies reason to come here and stay instead of giving them every reason to leave.
    I hate to disagree with you, but it still comes down to employers trying to line their pockets by paying as little as they can. Back about 10 years ago I was just getting started in IT, I had maybe 3-4 years experience in a helpdesk role. I was contacted by a company that was looking for someone with Cisco training, with an A+ (back then it was a big deal to have one), a 4 year Computer Science degree (at this point I thought to myself that I was a sure fit for this position), and you had to be fluent in Portuguese. I was honest with the recruiter and advised him that I didn't speak Portuguese. But I did ask him what the rate was for this position. What I was expecting to hear was at least $25 an hour given how much education and training they wanted from their candidates. The guy casually stated, "$12.50 an hour". That's TWELVE-FIFTY an hour. I told the guy with no disrespect that a recent college grad would need at least that much if all they were doing was living to pay off their student loan (minimum monthly payment as well as rent and food, etc).

    Employers understand it, if you're not part of a union or their backs aren't up against the wall trying to find someone that knows how to do a very specialized skill and they could get away with paying you dirt from the ground, they would do it. You are right though in an extreme sense. The more specialized your training is and the more in demand it is, the more you can demand. That is until the company finds some college grad that's willing to do your type of work for less than half. Which by the way, that's another thing unions will fight for, is to make sure their members have access to some form of education.
    09-12-2014 07:45 PM
  9. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I
    See I can respect someone as long as they recognize that unions are not faultless. They are an imperfect solution to a problem. I have seen what unions can become as well as how great work environments can be without them. They are and always will be necessary to some extent, but their roles will shift as time goes on.

    The only change that will truly shift the pendulum back to the way if the workers is education and skills. Workers have to become more valuable relative to the rest of the world again. No wars will be won by forcing companies to pay workers more than they are truly worth. The companies will simply move over the border to Mexico or across the ocean to China, and the American economy will shrink. We must give companies reason to come here and stay instead of giving them every reason to leave.
    While no wars will be won by forcing companies to pay workers more I would be all for taxing companies if they do not pay their employees enough. Aka your wage is so low that people have to be on aid so now they get tax more heavily to cover their expensive on society. Walmart is an example of a company living on government hand outs.

    I stop listening to the oh companies are in trouble when I heard massive lay offs with record profits. Sorry but if you do layoffs your profits better not some how be record levels. That to me told me something is really wrong when companies are doing great but the workers are struggling.

    Thing like H1B1 visa should be reduce not increased. The companies say oh shortage of train workers is bs in the tech field because if there was really a shortage wages would be increasing not staying stagnant big time I the tech field. I would love to see companies say oh we can not find train workers explain that excuse away.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    09-13-2014 06:15 PM
  10. anon8126715's Avatar
    Thing like H1B1 visa should be reduce not increased. The companies say oh shortage of train workers is bs in the tech field because if there was really a shortage wages would be increasing not staying stagnant big time I the tech field. I would love to see companies say oh we can not find train workers explain that excuse away.
    What they're really saying is that they can't find enough trained workers that are ok with slave wages.
    09-13-2014 08:18 PM
  11. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I hate to disagree with you, but it still comes down to employers trying to line their pockets by paying as little as they can. Back about 10 years ago I was just getting started in IT, I had maybe 3-4 years experience in a helpdesk role. I was contacted by a company that was looking for someone with Cisco training, with an A+ (back then it was a big deal to have one), a 4 year Computer Science degree (at this point I thought to myself that I was a sure fit for this position), and you had to be fluent in Portuguese. I was honest with the recruiter and advised him that I didn't speak Portuguese. But I did ask him what the rate was for this position. What I was expecting to hear was at least $25 an hour given how much education and training they wanted from their candidates. The guy casually stated, "$12.50 an hour". That's TWELVE-FIFTY an hour. I told the guy with no disrespect that a recent college grad would need at least that much if all they were doing was living to pay off their student loan (minimum monthly payment as well as rent and food, etc).

    Employers understand it, if you're not part of a union or their backs aren't up against the wall trying to find someone that knows how to do a very specialized skill and they could get away with paying you dirt from the ground, they would do it. You are right though in an extreme sense. The more specialized your training is and the more in demand it is, the more you can demand. That is until the company finds some college grad that's willing to do your type of work for less than half. Which by the way, that's another thing unions will fight for, is to make sure their members have access to some form of education.
    The soul purpose of any business is to generate profits for its owners. Part of that is paying workers as little as they can.

    It is the same as a company saying "well I can get this raw material for 10$ a pound, but I and going to pay the supplier 15$ a pound." It makes no sense. Value is negotiated and relative. Workers must do everything in their power to become more valuable so they can demand higher wages. Just like any other good or service. You are not going to suddenly pay your trash man or mail man double their wages for the same service are you?

    And computer science is a saturated market from what I have seen. Students would be much better off going the extra mile with computer engineering instead these days.
    09-15-2014 08:25 AM
  12. Timelessblur's Avatar
    The soul purpose of any business is to generate profits for its owners. Part of that is paying workers as little as they can.

    It is the same as a company saying "well I can get this raw material for 10$ a pound, but I and going to pay the supplier 15$ a pound." It makes no sense. Value is negotiated and relative. Workers must do everything in their power to become more valuable so they can demand higher wages. Just like any other good or service. You are not going to suddenly pay your trash man or mail man double their wages for the same service are you?

    And computer science is a saturated market from what I have seen. Students would be much better off going the extra mile with computer engineering instead these days.

    you scream how much you hate unions yet your counter is huge reason why we need them. Union give real negotiation power to the employees. Saying oh someone can do better is false. Vast majority of employees are going up against someone who knows how to negotiate, knows the rules and the tricks vs employee who lacks those skills sets and does not really have to practice them. It is not a level playing field and you and I both know that.

    Business hate unions because OMG they have to complete on a level playing field. They have to go up against someone who knows how to do that stuff. You say they have gotten out of hand. I counter and say business have got out of hand and stop respecting their employees a LONG LONG time ago. If business respected their employees things would be different. I have to point no farther to that long string of record profits and massive layoffs to say other wise. Or the lies fed for things like oh I can not find workers so H1B1 visa it is (another lie as wages are not increasing).

    We need the playing field to be level. Right now in terms of employer to employee it is far from level. Saying that it is for most people is stupid.
    09-15-2014 10:13 AM
  13. NoYankees44's Avatar
    you scream how much you hate unions yet your counter is huge reason why we need them. Union give real negotiation power to the employees. Saying oh someone can do better is false. Vast majority of employees are going up against someone who knows how to negotiate, knows the rules and the tricks vs employee who lacks those skills sets and does not really have to practice them. It is not a level playing field and you and I both know that.

    Business hate unions because OMG they have to complete on a level playing field. They have to go up against someone who knows how to do that stuff. You say they have gotten out of hand. I counter and say business have got out of hand and stop respecting their employees a LONG LONG time ago. If business respected their employees things would be different. I have to point no farther to that long string of record profits and massive layoffs to say other wise. Or the lies fed for things like oh I can not find workers so H1B1 visa it is (another lie as wages are not increasing).

    We need the playing field to be level. Right now in terms of employer to employee it is far from level. Saying that it is for most people is stupid.
    I do not hate unions in principal, I hate what many unions have become.

    What are the unions negotiating though? The are simply compounding the cost of hiring and retraining new employees. In most cases that I have seen, they are not negotiating increased value or skill of their employees. Those that collectively bargain, usually have nothing to bargain with individually. THAT is the core problem in all of this. People can no longer expect to make a living on labor that anyone else can learn to do in a couple of weeks. We have to fix education and people's expectations.
    09-15-2014 11:10 AM
  14. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I do not hate unions in principal, I hate what many unions have become.

    What are the unions negotiating though? The are simply compounding the cost of hiring and retraining new employees. In most cases that I have seen, they are not negotiating increased value or skill of their employees. Those that collectively bargain, usually have nothing to bargain with individually. THAT is the core problem in all of this. People can no longer expect to make a living on labor that anyone else can learn to do in a couple of weeks. We have to fix education and people's expectations.
    Again it is a 2 way street. Businesses honestly started the mess. They are demanding a change to continue to abuse it to make it worse.
    The regulations has swung way to far in the business direction. Business complaining I again say cry me a river and point at record profits mix with layoffs and employees wages not increasing.

    So again same answer. If companies what to get ride of unions treat you employees with respect and pay them what they are worth.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    09-15-2014 11:14 AM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    The soul purpose of any business is to generate profits for its owners. Part of that is paying workers as little as they can.

    It is the same as a company saying "well I can get this raw material for 10$ a pound, but I and going to pay the supplier 15$ a pound." It makes no sense. Value is negotiated and relative. Workers must do everything in their power to become more valuable so they can demand higher wages. Just like any other good or service. You are not going to suddenly pay your trash man or mail man double their wages for the same service are you?

    And computer science is a saturated market from what I have seen. Students would be much better off going the extra mile with computer engineering instead these days.
    This would be fine if the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest wasn't as wide as it is. A system that is top heavy cannot sustain itself. There needs to be balance. What happens when our economic leaders have decided that paying everyone minimum wage is the way to go, consumer spending tanks, and companies shed even more to stay competitive? You need a healthy middle class to make a strong economy. We're not there right now.
    09-15-2014 02:17 PM
  16. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Ok so long time sense a volkswagen update. Being brief:

    UAW lost in organized election but kept talks going with volkswagen. UAW created a local at Chattanooga with no power at the plant and started taking members. Second union(forgot what they call themselves) starts taking members and includes all facility workers instead of just hourly and presents itself as a UAW alternative. Around July, volkswagen enacts policy that would potentially allow any group representing a portion of the employees to to be represented at their Works Council and have bargaining privileges. This week, the UAW was recognized as having more than 50% of hourly workers as members and will be included in the Works Council.

    I can provide news links to all this upon request.

    I am not sure what power the UAW will have for non members at this point. I am also not sure if any other groups will be recognized. My last contact within the plant left a few months ago for unrelated reasons, so I do not know how all of this is effecting the work environment.

    I am interested to see how this section of the UAW behaves itself. Tennesseans are generally not big fans of the UAW because of what transpired at the GM plant in Spring Hill TN. If the union representatives don't play nice, there will be a lot of public backlash and "I told you so". Volkswagen seems to treat their hourly workers well, so there should not be much reason for altercation.

    Sent from my XT1096
    palandri likes this.
    12-10-2014 09:06 AM
  17. palandri's Avatar
    Thanks for the update! Sounds like it's time for the Tennessee government to intervene again and threaten everyone if they join the UAW or take part in a workers council.
    12-10-2014 09:23 AM
  18. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Thanks for the update! Sounds like it's time for the Tennessee government to intervene again and threaten everyone if they join the UAW or take part in a workers council.
    Actually, with the leaked documents and events that have transpired sense the election, everything that was "threatened" was more or less true. Volkswagen was in talks with Tennessee about tax incentives that involving the new model coming to the plant and were contingent on the UAW vote being "No". You could make the argument that the truth was expanded upon, but there was stock behind what the Governor stated.

    Also, I love how it is OK for the union leaders in Germany to threaten to block further investment in the Chattanooga plant based on unionizing, but when Tennessee threatens to not freely give money, it is somehow completely out of line. O the hypocrisy...

    Sent from my XT1096
    palandri likes this.
    12-10-2014 09:59 AM
  19. palandri's Avatar
    ....Also, I love how it is OK for the union leaders in Germany to threaten to block further investment in the Chattanooga plant based on unionizing, but when Tennessee threatens to not freely give money, it is somehow completely out of line. O the hypocrisy...

    Sent from my XT1096
    Things are looked at differently in Europe. Labor creates the capital.
    12-10-2014 10:32 AM
  20. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Things are looked at differently in Europe. Labor creates the capital.
    But no one that was crying foul when Tennessee politicians were "interfereing" had anything to say about the same threats coming from the union in Germany. If anything, the threats from Germany were potentially much more powerful than the threats coming from politicians.

    I personally don't care, but the unapologetic bias is hilarious.

    Sent from my XT1096
    12-10-2014 12:09 PM
  21. anon8126715's Avatar
    But no one that was crying foul when Tennessee politicians were "interfereing" had anything to say about the same threats coming from the union in Germany. If anything, the threats from Germany were potentially much more powerful than the threats coming from politicians.

    I personally don't care, but the unapologetic bias is hilarious.

    Sent from my XT1096
    A Union is a body of people looking for financial gain. A politician is a sneaky snake oil salesman looking for financial gain. That's just one difference I can see.

    It's a damn shame that these aren't more highly skilled jobs, but hopefully they're decent paying jobs. One thing I got from working at General Motors for 5 years that I never experienced anywhere else is that feeling of doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. At the end of the day my body was physically spent, but I knew I was being nicely compensated. Even though I've had jobs later that paid me more, I never had the same feeling of work satisfaction that I did while working at GM.
    12-10-2014 06:47 PM
  22. NoYankees44's Avatar
    A Union is a body of people looking for financial gain. A politician is a sneaky snake oil salesman looking for financial gain. That's just one difference I can see.
    A politician represents the interest of their electorate the same way a union representative represents their electorate... Both are susceptible to the same corruption and temptations.

    Corker said that the new car coming to Chattanooga could be contingent on the UAW vote being No. Afterward it came out that the 300 million in incentives that TN was offering for the new car to come to the plant was contingent on the vote being No. Volkswagen received these benefits after the the employees voted down the UAW. German union leaders threatened to block any future investment in Chattanooga if they did not unionize(which would mean the new model). They both literally did the same thing. But sense one side is pro-union, it gets a pass and is not interfering at all despite potentially effecting the vote just as much.

    It is a perfect example hippocracy.
    palandri likes this.
    12-10-2014 07:06 PM
  23. palandri's Avatar
    A politician represents the interest of their electorate the same way a union representative represents their electorate... Both are susceptible to the same corruption and temptations.

    Corker said that the new car coming to Chattanooga could be contingent on the UAW vote being No. Afterward it came out that the 300 million in incentives that TN was offering for the new car to come to the plant was contingent on the vote being No. Volkswagen received these benefits after the the employees voted down the UAW. German union leaders threatened to block any future investment in Chattanooga if they did not unionize(which would mean the new model). They both literally did the same thing. But sense one side is pro-union, it gets a pass and is not interfering at all despite potentially effecting the vote just as much.

    It is a perfect example hippocracy.
    Interesting!

    What are your thoughts on employee owned businesses? We had a Woodman's grocery store open by us and they do a lot of advertising that they're employee owned. I've only been there once, but I was impressed with the staff that I interacted with. Here's a link: Woodman’s Foods – Home
    12-11-2014 06:12 PM
  24. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Interesting!

    What are your thoughts on employee owned businesses? We had a Woodman's grocery store open by us and they do a lot of advertising that they're employee owned. I've only been there once, but I was impressed with the staff that I interacted with. Here's a link: Woodman’s Foods – Home
    I mean it's a great way to connect the employees to their work. I would imagine it would be hard to manage if employees on all levels had equal shares sense the lower level managers would probably not be elected but rather decided on unilaterally.

    You would run into the same problem that many publicly traded companies run into in that I would be afraid that the company would loose its sense of direction. One thing I love about small businesses is that there is usually one person or a small group giving the company direction. Unilaterally making all the big decisions to reach their own vision. Making sure that they do all they possibly can to protect their name and life savings that they dumped into their business.

    A very interesting culture to look at in these discussions is the Japanese. They have very different views from a fundamental level, but are effectively the same as much of the Western world(in recent years anyway). I have worked directly for 2 different Japanese companies and with several others and love much of their philosophy.

    Sent from my XT1096
    12-11-2014 07:16 PM
  25. palandri's Avatar
    ....A very interesting culture to look at in these discussions is the Japanese. They have very different views from a fundamental level, but are effectively the same as much of the Western world(in recent years anyway). I have worked directly for 2 different Japanese companies and with several others and love much of their philosophy.

    Sent from my XT1096
    That's always a good idea to look at how others approach it.
    12-12-2014 08:04 AM
350 ... 121314

Similar Threads

  1. How do I transfer pix from my Mac to this thing?
    By thebignewt in forum Verizon HTC One
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 11:16 AM
  2. How to relock the boot loader and unroot the galaxy nexus.
    By Ridgerunner20 in forum Verizon Galaxy Nexus Rooting, ROM's, and Hack's
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-21-2014, 05:25 AM
  3. Possibly Switching from Verizon to T-Mobile
    By wodehousefan1 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-20-2014, 01:58 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 02:33 PM
  5. Galaxy Note 3 "Unable to connect to proxy server"
    By Jelly Belly in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 03:00 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD