That's a nice VW plant you have there. Would be a shame if something happened to it.

[Falchion]

@Snowboarder_Bo

So what you meant was that “the Volkswagen board is controlled by representatives of BOTH the German labor unions AND the local German government”. Okay, so your poor choice of words seems to have set back your argument a bit, at least in making your thoughts clearly understood. Regardless, it’s all fantasy from your own head and not supported by reality.

I’m going to respond to both of your posts, but quoting them both seemed too long and I don’t think your second post adds anything (other than accusing me of making something up).

I understand that you purport to have understood the sentence: “The Volkswagen board is controlled by representatives of either the German labor unions or the local German government” to mean that either labor controlled the board or government controlled the board. I guess I can see that reading.

I meant: Representatives of labor and representatives of the government are numerous enough so that if they share the same interests they constitute control of the board.

In fact, I would have read your proposed change to be even more confusing becuase “representatives of BOTH the German labor unions AND the local German government” suggests to me that a single representative represents two parties, and that it quite clearly is not what I intended to convey.

I question the sincereity of your confusion, because, even after I explained the reasoning, you felt it necessary to make two more posts refuting a claim I didn’t make (and that you now knew I didn’t make).

I omit your discussion of German labor law becuase, while interesting, it’s another attempt to defeat your (now deliberate) misunderstanding of my statement.

Also, your attempt to include government reps with the workers is false; they are shareholder reps. If they are sympathetic to some of the things that workers want, well, that’s what Boards and Committees are all about: negotiating for consensus on projects, policies and purposes.

That’s the point, of course. I don’t know why you seem to think I’m making some sort of american-centric assumption of antagonism between labor and management. (It occurs to me that maybe you think the word “control” is somehow nefarious. It isn’t intended to be. It means: has enough votes to pass things). My assumption rests on the view that representatives represent their constituencies interests. I don’t think that’s purely American.

My point, quite simply, is this: labor controls 50% of the seats (or, I’ll concede, slightly less than 50%, which was your point). The government controls 10% of the seats. It is in the interest of both of those parties to keep jobs in Germany. Assuming that low labor costs elsewhere can motivate expansion in those locales to the expense of the higher labor cost areas, it is in the interest of those two parties to keep labor costs high for factories outside of Germany. If those two groups vote together, they can control the board.

Your bold refutations of things I didn’t say and accusing me of making shit up is certainly charming, but I’m not sure how you’re actually challenging my claims.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Falchion

I’m going to respond to both of your posts, but quoting them both seemed too long and I don’t think your second post adds anything (other than accusing me of making something up).

I understand that you purport to have understood the sentence: “The Volkswagen board is controlled by representatives of either the German labor unions or the local German government” to mean that either labor controlled the board or government controlled the board. I guess I can see that reading.

I meant: Representatives of labor and representatives of the government are numerous enough so that if they share the same interests they constitute control of the board.

In fact, I would have read your proposed change to be even more confusing becuase “representatives of BOTH the German labor unions AND the local German government” suggests to me that a single representative represents two parties, and that it quite clearly is not what I intended to convey.

I question the sincereity of your confusion, because, even after I explained the reasoning, you felt it necessary to make two more posts refuting a claim I didn’t make (and that you now knew I didn’t make).

Not so much refuting your claim as criticizing your writing. You didn’t mean what you wrote, you meant something else. If you’re going to try and make points in a debate, it’s more helpful if others can understand the point your trying to make. You weren’t clear, and you continued to use unclear language, that’s all.

I omit your discussion of German labor law becuase, while interesting, it’s another attempt to defeat your (now deliberate) misunderstanding of my statement.

It’s also highly relevant to understand how German law affects Supervisory Boards and how they function. You don’t seem (or did not when you posted) to understand them at all.

That’s the point, of course. I don’t know why you seem to think I’m making some sort of american-centric assumption of antagonism between labor and management. (It occurs to me that maybe you think the word “control” is somehow nefarious. It isn’t intended to be. It means: has enough votes to pass things). My assumption rests on the view that representatives represent their constituencies interests. I don’t think that’s purely American.

My point, quite simply, is this: labor controls 50% of the seats (or, I’ll concede, slightly less than 50%, which was your point). The government controls 10% of the seats. It is in the interest of both of those parties to keep jobs in Germany. Assuming that low labor costs elsewhere can motivate expansion in those locales to the expense of the higher labor cost areas, it is in the interest of those two parties to keep labor costs high for factories outside of Germany. If those two groups vote together, they can control the board.

Your bold refutations of things I didn’t say and accusing me of making shit up is certainly charming, but I’m not sure how you’re actually challenging my claims.

See, your still doing it: The government controls seats because they are shareholders, not because they are the government. Their interests align with the shareholders, not the workers. If you think it doesn’t, and you can’t provide any evidence, then you are just making shit up. I’m sure that in your opinion, what you are saying is perfectly reasonable, but to me (and I wager to lots of others), since what you keep saying flies in the face of German law and history, its obvious that your are invoking your own biases. The fact that you don’t see it that way isn’t surprising.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Falchion

I would think the obvious explanation is that the Volkswagen board is controlled by representatives of either the German labor unions or the local German government who both have an interest in making sure that Volkswagen’s overseas operations relatively expensive.

@Melchior

Yes, that was my point #1, above. They don’t want ‘cheap-labor American plants’ that undercut them and cause work to be shipped overseas.

You are both wrong. If it’s “obvious” find a cite for it. You won’t be able to tho, because this is just more shit you made up.

[Melchior]

@Snowboarder_Bo

You are both wrong. If it’s “obvious” find a cite for it. You won’t be able to tho, because this is just more shit you made up.

Moderator? Is this appropriate? I don’t think so.

[Steely_Dan_Fan]

@Johnny_L.A

There’s also The Battle of Blair Mountain, where strong-arm tactics by agents of the mine owners resulted in armed resistance. Agents of the mine owners dropped gas and explosive bombs on the miners from private aircraft, and a leader of the strikers and a good friend of his were assassinated by mine agents on the courthouse steps.

And let’s not forget the American Legion’s proud and unrepentant history of engaging in outright pogroms against labor unions (as well as peace activists).

[elucidator]

As much as I approve your proletariat ardor, “pogrom” just isn’t the word.

[Falchion]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Not so much refuting your claim as criticizing your writing. You didn’t mean what you wrote, you meant something else. If you’re going to try and make points in a debate, it’s more helpful if others can understand the point your trying to make. You weren’t clear, and you continued to use unclear language, that’s all.

I’m not sure, then, what is accomplished by pretending to misunderstand me to demonstrate that my writing is unclear.

And I did mean what I wrote. I get that there was more than one plausible reading of the sentence, but I don’t think it was inaccessibly opaque. Especially when one reading is objectively false, but I suppose it makes sense that you would prefer to assume the most absurd reading. But I don’t think that’s terribly productive. (For example, your rendition of what I “really” meant to write is equally open to multiple readings, but I’m not accusing you of thinking that any particular representative owes allegiance to multiple parties).

See, your still doing it: The government controls seats because they are shareholders, not because they are the government. Their interests align with the shareholders, not the workers. If you think it doesn’t, and you can’t provide any evidence, then you are just making shit up. I’m sure that in your opinion, what you are saying is perfectly reasonable, but to me (and I wager to lots of others), since what you keep saying flies in the face of German law and history, its obvious that your are invoking your own biases. The fact that you don’t see it that way isn’t surprising.

Okay, perhaps your desire to call me names is clouding things. Becuase I don’t understand your points.

I understand that the government controls seats becuase it owns 20% or so of the company (although, as I understand it, their seats are filled outside of the standard shareholder process). What I don’t necessarily believe is that corporate governance has two “sides” - shareholders and labor. I believe that the interests of any particular shareholder may not align with the interests of other shareholders. And that the government representatives represent the government. I’m also willing to beleive that the interests of IG Metall and the members of the works councils may sometimes diverge. Like you’ve said, boards negotiate consensus and coalitions. So I believe that it is possible that the interests of a minority shareholder and of labor might align, but even might align contrary to the interests of the other shareholders.

Now, it may well be that these propositions are inconsistent with German law and history. It may be my American-centric biases assume too much individualism on the part of the representatives and does not appreciate the monolithic “us versus them” relationship that characterizes the interactions between labor and shareholders. But, if that’s right, then I really don’t understand your initial complaint that I’m assuming too much antagonism between labor and management.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Falchion

I’m not sure, then, what is accomplished by pretending to misunderstand me to demonstrate that my writing is unclear.

And I did mean what I wrote. I get that there was more than one plausible reading of the sentence, but I don’t think it was inaccessibly opaque. Especially when one reading is objectively false, but I suppose it makes sense that you would prefer to assume the most absurd reading. But I don’t think that’s terribly productive. (For example, your rendition of what I “really” meant to write is equally open to multiple readings, but I’m not accusing you of thinking that any particular representative owes allegiance to multiple parties).

Okay, perhaps your desire to call me names is clouding things. Becuase I don’t understand your points.

I understand that the government controls seats becuase it owns 20% or so of the company (although, as I understand it, their seats are filled outside of the standard shareholder process). What I don’t necessarily believe is that corporate governance has two “sides” - shareholders and labor. I believe that the interests of any particular shareholder may not align with the interests of other shareholders. And that the government representatives represent the government. I’m also willing to beleive that the interests of IG Metall and the members of the works councils may sometimes diverge. Like you’ve said, boards negotiate consensus and coalitions. So I believe that it is possible that the interests of a minority shareholder and of labor might align, but even might align contrary to the interests of the other shareholders.

Now, it may well be that these propositions are inconsistent with German law and history. It may be my American-centric biases assume too much individualism on the part of the representatives and does not appreciate the monolithic “us versus them” relationship that characterizes the interactions between labor and shareholders. But, if that’s right, then I really don’t understand your initial complaint that I’m assuming too much antagonism between labor and management.

I’ll state it as succinctly as possible, then: your notions of what the VW Supervisory Board is, how it works and what their concerns are with respect to the failed organizing effort at the Tennessee VW plant are wholly unsupported by the facts. If you can find some facts to back up your notions, please post them here and I’ll gladly admit that your ideas have merit. Until I see that, your notion of VW workers and German government officials wanting to keep the price of VWs artificially high is wholly without merit and indicates a bias in thinking that, as far as I can tell from my knowledge of German labor law, German society and statements from VW officials, bears little to no resemblance to anything anyone has said or done regarding the organization effort.

When come back, bring facts and not flights of fancy.

[Melchior]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I’ll state it as succinctly as possible, then: your notions of what the VW Supervisory Board is, how it works and what their concerns are with respect to the failed organizing effort at the Tennessee VW plant are wholly unsupported by the facts. If you can find some facts to back up your notions, please post them here and I’ll gladly admit that your ideas have merit. Until I see that, your notion of VW workers and German government officials wanting to keep the price of VWs artificially high is wholly without merit and indicates a bias in thinking that, as far as I can tell from my knowledge of German labor law, German society and statements from VW officials, bears little to no resemblance to anything anyone has said or done regarding the organization effort.

When come back, bring facts and not flights of fancy.

The question here was why ‘Volkswagen’ did not oppose the unionization effort. If we understand that ‘Volkswagen’ is not governed the way an American company is governed, it is easier to understand.

[lance_strongarm]

@Melchior

The question here was why ‘Volkswagen’ did not oppose the unionization effort. If we understand that ‘Volkswagen’ is not governed the way an American company is governed, it is easier to understand.

If VW is indeed controlled by its unions, then the next inconvenient question for you is: why is it succeeding? Shouldn’t it be out of business by now?

[Melchior]

@lance_strongarm

If VW is indeed controlled by its unions, then the next inconvenient question for you is: why is it succeeding? Shouldn’t it be out of business by now?

I didn’t say it was controlled by unions. It is governed differently than American companies are. The State of Saxony(?) owns part of it and must, by law have some ownership. It is in their interest to make sure that jobs and taxes are not lost needlessly, and that overseas plants represent growth, not cannibalization.

[Iggy]

The UAW is asking the NLRB to void the election and call a new one. They cite outside influence from “politicians and outside special interest groups.”

I guess the UAW doesn’t view their union as an outside special interest group.

I don’t think this will end well for the UAW though I think the current administration is likely to give them another bite at the apple.

[elucidator]

@Iggy

…I guess the UAW doesn’t view their union as an outside special interest group…

No, most likely they don’t consider themselves outsiders, seeing as how they are the union being voted on. Probably think that makes them even more directly relevant than even the state legislature! Weird, huh?

[Iggy]

The UAW inserted itself into a relationship between the workers and the company - a relationship that was just forming. The UAW began the unionization drive before the plant ever produced its first Passat. The UAW is an outside influence.

The company gave the UAW a list of workers names and contact information. The company let the UAW set up an information table on company property. But the company denied that information and access to workers who organized an opposition to the unionization.

Nevertheless, the UAW lost the election. Now they want a do-over because it’s not fair play when other outside influences express their opinions.

[elucidator]

May we trust that you know the difference between an expression of opinion and a threat to enforce that opinion?