Trick question, sort of. I can think of several plants that build quality cars (gear heads tend to follow that sort of thing) - I can’t think of a single US union plant known for quality. In fact, for the first time I’m wondering is the Mercedes-Benz plant in Tuscaloosa is union, as it’s the only foreign-owned auto plant I know of with a rep for poor quality. (I checked - it’s not, though the UAW tried to get in there last year).
As opposed to those non-union people working the line at Ford, who never took a bailout and the company is making money. Oh wait…
This was a victory for the UAW but rather than showing how it changed its ways, the story instead shows how they cripple the manufacturers that use them. Spring Hill used to build Saturns and how a unique agreement with the UAW that eliminated most work rules and gave slightly less pay in exchange for a profit sharing agreement. Then the UAW president that negotiated that agreement retired and the UAW started trying to kill the deal. The Saturns produced under the new rules were much more reliable than anything else GM was making and they were selling well. The UAW negotiated with GM to have the newest small GM car made at a different plant and campaigned against the local UAW leadership at the plant. Finally they were able to get the previous agreement overturned, quality declined, Saturn went out of business and the plant closed. Now the plant is back up with a smaller workforce and the regular union rules, although the new workers there get paid much less than the regular workers do.
The UAW helped kill the plant with innovative work rules and a superior product and replace it with a plant that employs fewer people for less money but doesn’t make products that show how bad the work rules are for quality.
The people at Volkswagen are fools for trying to get into bed with these people.
Well, that’s less encouraging.
The vote ends today, I guess there’s nothing to do but wait and see if the UAW won, and if they will hold up their arrangement with VW to start a works council.
I have to wonder if anyone proposed certifying a new union for this shop, instead of going with UAW.
You’re kinda of glossing over some important bits there. The entire brand was such a successful experiment (from the plastic body panels, to the no-haggle pricing, to the new assembly methodology) that everyone involved was promoted or moved to other products. Because of that, there was an entire vision for Saturn that was never truly realized. Instead, they cranked out the same basic S-series car for a dozen years, while their Japanese competition was constantly improving. By the late '90s, Saturn’s R&D department, which had originally been an independent entity, was rolled into the global GM portfolio and completely starved of cash. The “new” Saturn management was little more than GM hacks who decided to start importing Opels to expand the product line rather than build on the great foundation they already had. The fantastic S-series was considered redundant and replaced with the rather mediocre Ion, which really was redundant since the same basic car was being assembled in Lordstown as the Cobalt/G5.
In short, the entire experiment was abandoned because management was chasing a fast buck. GM could have kept the plant opened if they’d had a car to build there that made a lick of sense at that point, but since Saturn had no R&D money and they were being forced to sell redundant, janky cars, what was the point? I’m not sure how that’s the UAW’s fault.
VW supports the unionization.
That means the GOP hates unions more than it likes jobs or business. It is threatening to chase an employer out of town just for acting in what it believes is its own best interest.
Pathetic.
Come on. Think. That’s obviously a load of horseshit.
No union reg would allow smoking pot on the job. Come on. No employer would sign such a contract with a union, even if a union asked for it, which it wouldn’t anyway (who would want to endanger their safety or ruin labor’s reputation by allowing the guy next to you to use drugs?).
As usual, what this probably involves is the right of the accused worker to have a process of appeal before being fired. For instance, maybe he’s not actually guilty of smoking pot! He would have a chance to give his side of the story. If he is guilty, though, he’ll be fired after the process concludes. That’s not the same thing as not firing him at all.
So you’re basically saying the entire U.S. auto industry has been a failure throughout history?
You either had an in-house UNION, or you had a sham union that didn’t actually represent you independently of management.
The difference is that VW supports this union election.
So. We have stick, and we have carrot.
So now Corker is speaking for VW?
It was 13 workers, they were filmed by an undercover news crew (with what appears to be a big zoom lens) passing a cigarette of some kind and drinking beer on their lunch break. Chrysler had no choice but to fire them, and the UAW really had no choice but to file grievances on their behalves. It’s the name of the game. When all of the grievances were denied, it went to arbitration, per the union-negotiated contract, and the “arbitrator decided in the workers’ favor, citing insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold the dismissals.” The workers were subsequently rehired.
Make of that what you will. The UAW was mostly acting like a defense attorney, but those guys really should have been fired. I blame the arbitrator.
Thanks for the details.
Yes. It would seem the arbitrator was really generous, unless there’s even more to the story. If there’s outrage to be expressed here (and I can’t say for sure until I know even more), it’s to be directed at the arbitrator, not the union. But it’s quite possible the workers were drinking soda and smoking cigarettes. Maybe it wasn’t clear that it was drugs or alcohol in the videotape.
What you’ve described above is a FAR cry from the way it was first described by the other poster. Essentially, for his version to work, union rules would have to allow drugs on the job. No union rule allows drug use on the job and forbids firing workers for drug use on the job. That’s absurd.
This is just another one of those urban myths that falls apart when you actually examine it.
It was clear to anyone with a brain.
The union negotiated rules to protect workers from wrongful termination. This is a good thing, until those some rules are exploited by dickheads who claim that they were totally just slamming root beers. The system failed, but I have to believe that the union was just as surprised as Chrysler by the arbitrator’s decision.
Should firing someone require the similar standards of evidence as a courtroom? I’m not sure, but with the UAW, that’s what you get, for good and bad.
That’s not the same thing as admissable evidence though.
Much like in a courtroom, this would require a threshold of evidence that apparently wasn’t met.
Probably.
And that leads us to the bottom line, which is that the union does not condone and did not seek to protect drug or alcohol abuse among workers.
What’s more, the union is required to represent workers, kind of like the role of a defense lawyer.
No, with the contract that the UAW and the company negotiated and signed, jointly, that’s what you get. You can’t blame it all on the union just because this particular case came out in favor of workers.
The result happened because of a process negotiated by the union. There is no way Chrysler insisted upon having a third party determine whether or not they could fire workers who were drinking and smoking drugs on the job. The union insisted on that, they won and thus the conclusion was reached. It is silly not to blame the union for an outcome of the process they designed and insisted on having implemented. How do you think the attitude of the people at the plant toward their jobs changed? You can work hard and keep your nose clean, or you can drink and drug at work and in both cases you get to keep your job.
This is not an abberation, unions must represent all the members both good workers and bad. Because businesses are greedy, they want to keep the best workers and get rid of the bad ones. Thus the union goes to bat for the worst workers, trying to ensure they can’t be fired. The marginal workers see how hard it is to fire someone and start slacking off. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the company goes under.
Again, that’s an unfair phrase. It happened because of a process the union and employer negotiated and jointly agreed to.
Wrong.
Nobody “insisted.” Chrysler signed a contract agreeing to it.
Yes, it’s silly, because the union didn’t design it or “insist” on it, the two parties negotiated on it and agreed to it.
You’d better warn VW, because its management SUPPORTS the UAW certification at its plant. Why is that?
He seems to think so.
The way negotiations work is that each side brings certain proposals to the table which are then negotiated until the final product is agreed upon. Who do you think the idea of having a mandatory arbitration in case of firings. the unions or the company? You would have to be deliberately obtuse to think that is something the company would propose. Who knows what Chrysler received in exchange for letting that happened, but it was likely more compensation for the workers who were not coming back from lunch drunk or high.
VW management is officially neutral in the unionization, probably because a german labor union has seats on its board. They are also pouring billions into auto plants in Mexico and if this plant votes for unionization they can expand into Mexico instead of Tennessee.