How have you determined that this is “unrelated to the normal offing and granting of such funds”? Sure, you don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it “abnormal”. Besides, one need only look at Detroit to understand that people might not be so keen on the UAW coming to town.
Doesn’t matter. You take a job that is dependent on government largess, and there is no guarantee that largess is going to last. You know that going in whether you have other employment opportunities or not. It’s a risk like many people take, and sometimes risks don’t pan out.
I don’t know either, but if you think there’s an argument there, why don’t you let us know.
Frankly, though, I don’t see that it matters. Per above, it’s a risk you take whenever you accept a job that is dependent on someones largess-- be that the government’ largess or that of St. Francis himself. The largess might not be there forever.
Are they right to think so, that the UAW bears the major responsibility for the decline of Detroit, if it had not been for those greedy union workers, it would never have happened? You don’t think that, do you, or at least don’t believe its that simple?
To my biased and partisan ear, it sounds like right-wing buttwhistle, a flim-flam talking point. To be taken with salt, preferably distilled from the tears of a ruling class jackal.
So, I gotta think to myself, no way, no way does John actually think that, I must be missing the snarkasm. Am I?
Yes, quite, used to do this all the time, applying for work. Just let them know straight out that I couldn’t accept any employment without a full accounting of their revenue sources, to ensure that my personal standards not be defiled. Tell you what, they look at you with considerable respect and admiration as they call security.
Certainly true, the largess of the Free Market (blessings and peace, etc…) is often fickle. But that is indifferent circumstance, there is nothing deliberate or malicious involved, nor consciously directed to enforce a political philosophy. There is nothing illegitimate about unionization, it is not within the purview of a legislative body to discourage it.
If you don’t want to use an outdated term like “class war”, then come up with a new one, but it will still be a synonym.
Given that union businesses are suffering in almost all of the private sector, that would indicate that they do indeed present a threat to workers’ jobs and the viability of the businesses in which they organize.
Competition between non-union and union labor will result in union labor losing every time. Its not so much the idea of a union that’s the problem, it’s the anti-trust exemption. Workers shouldn’t be organized into a labor monopoly in an industry. They should organize within their companies and compete with one another. Monopolies fail to innovate, and they fail to compete. It also doesn’t help that unions aren’t so much a collection of workers anymore so much as another corporation that workers hire to represent them. Except their choices tend to be the monopoly or nothing.
Wow! You string together so many huge assumptions and gigantic interpretations, its like watching someone try to dribble a bowling ball.
Just for instance:
What in the hell are you even talking about? Me and Kim and Sandra are the “IT dept”. So, we’re the IT Union of WeSaySo/Aperture Industries. We gonna make competitive bids for the jobs being held by the Accounts Receivable Union? Don’t know anything about Accounts Receivable. That’s where they pay us, right?
If we bid against Human Resources, won’t they fire us?
It should be to the standard of a civil, not criminal court, as one is fired for breach of contract, so if he probably did it (as in, balance of probabilities) then he should be fired.
The correct action for the company to take would be to suspend the alleged rapist whilst the investigation occurs, as part of it’s duty of care to the alleged victim and respect for the rights of the accused.
Not every attempt, no, just the ones where the influence takes the form of the threat of some adverse consequence, to be carried out by the person or party attempting the influence.
The government handing out incentives doesn’t give them any right to try and stop workers from exercising their rights. It’d be just as distasteful for politicians to threaten to withhold future incentives if the workers didn’t go to a Baptist church, or show up at rallies for Republican candidates.
They don’t waive their rights in order to do so, and unionizing (or not) is a right.
What I find interesting is how the UAW prefers the “card check” method. Because walking up to someone, shoving a card in their face, and demanding that they sign it isn’t the least bit intimidating :rolleyes:
Seriously, this exact scenario has happened time & time again: Unions get a majority of workers to sign cards, the company holds an actual anonymous vote, and the vote fails.
I’d say the UAW has a big problem. VW is just about the most union-friendly automaker on the planet. If they can’t unionize a VW plant, they can’t unionize anyone anymore.
For comparison, look at what Toyota did with the NUMMI plant. NUMMI was a joint venture between Toyota & General Motors. The plant was unionized. Eventually, General Motors ended the joint venture, leaving Toyota with the NUMMI plant (its one & only unionized plant in the US). Guess what happened? If you guessed “Toyota shut down that plant as fast as it possibly could,” then you guessed correctly.
I always liked working with unions, because they knew a deal was a deal and that their jobs depended on producing a quality, cost effective product.
but I’ve also had experience with a union where a deal wasn’t a deal…they couldn’t get their own members to abide by the terms. Frivolous grievances began happening all the time because the union agents knew they could be sued if they refused to advance grievances to management and to try to win them.
So, I’d say, if the union wants to be effective, they have to help enforce discipline in the ranks…
Smoking pot, for example? Who wants a pothead running a chemical process? No one wins.
Do you have any evidence that them wanting to end its relationship with the UAW had anything to do with Toyota’s decision to close that plant?
Seems to me that Toyota closed the plant because their partner went bankrupt, and they couldn’t rationalize keeping a plant in CA operating at half-capacity. Is this another case of conservatives rewriting history in order to slag unions?
It seems, from reading your posts, that anti-union people fall into these categories:
Have some ideological bent that is disconnected from reality
Have heard some horror story about union employees getting away with murder
Have been in a union and have been screwed over somehow
Let’s start with 3. I’m sorry for you, but perhaps it was lack of effective leadership on the part of one person whose decision screwed you over, not some structural aspect of the union.
I’m sure some of these horror stories are true, and that, yes, being a member of a union generally means your job is more secure, but consider that there are also horror stories about mistreatment of employees.
Present a cogent argument and I will debunk it for you, seriously.
Found an interesting article discussing the results of the vote. It makes a good point: The UAW hasn’t really done much for its workers lately. I disagree with some of his conclusions, for example trying to undo the 2-tier wage system is foolishness that would just serve to make the Big 3 unprofitable again. But you have to ask: “What would I, a worker in the year 2014, get for my union dues?” If the answer is, “Not a hell of a lot,” then how can you blame people for voting no?
Nobody’s *blaming *the workers for anything here. If they don’t want the union, that’s perfectly fine, it’s their right not to unionize. We’re blaming Republicans for making threats to try and coerce the vote.
If it’s so bloody obvious that the workers won’t benefit from a union, then why did Republicans feel the need to taint the water?
The very fact that Volkswagen is so union friendly is a happy result of union power in the past. The very fact that the workers of Tennessee can reasonably conclude that they do not need a union is another result. Volkswagen isn’t all that likely to reverse course in relation to their workers, and that is all to the good.
These good results were paid for in blood and pain, by generations long gone and long forgotten. They did not drop gently from the generous hands of capitalist owners and managers, they were fought for, and fought against. Bitterly. Violently.
Usually, in the course of such debates, someone who saunter in and pat me on the head in a condescending and avuncular fashion, and give me that astonishing news, the corporations are there to make a profit, they are not humanitarian concerns. If you are just about to do that, don’t bother, I know. Kinda the problem, isn’t it? If unions are not to protect workers from the indifference of a single minded piece of machinery, who is? Have our corporate leaders evolved to such a degree that they need no such checks and balances? Recent history would suggest otherwise.
Unions are human institutions, and therefore imperfect, and therefore sometimes corrupt. I would be happy to replace them with something better. I just don’t happen to know what that might be.
Because all politicians have an inherent need to feel important and demonstrate that they are “in-tune” with their constituency, thus making exaggerated statements that make them think they are making an impact in the lives of their voter base.
It is a calculated move and I haven’t seen a politician, yet, that doesn’t do it.
If the politicians had launched a public smear-campaign against unions (in general) or the UAW (specifically), using some of the same bullshit exaggerated anecdotes spouted in this very thread, that’d be one thing. It’d be sleazy, but as you say, expected. Their anti-union constituents could nod along and the actual workers would be free to either buy the bullshit or ignore it.
Republicans went a step further here, issuing a specific threat that they and only they could carry out in order to coerce the vote.
And I have seen other politicians do just the same thing in other arenas, because some politicians (just like some people) don’t understand that there is a line they shouldn’t cross, in this case between what will possibly happen (“society will tumble!”) and what they will do (“we will cause society to tumble!”)
I’m not defending them, but this is just more rhetoric. If they were to stop the subsidies because the UAW was voted in, they would get voted out of office fairly quickly as there would be no reason for VW to stay, causing people to lose (or potentially lose) their livelihoods.
What I find interesting is that the UAW poll matches the general populace we see in national polls: 53% vs 47%. I wonder how much of that is the ‘swing’ vote that could have been influenced by political tiddlywinks.
