Credit where due, UAW finally got a foreign owned, and South based automaker to unionize.
I think in about 5 years it would be a good time for an independent economic analysis of the plant before and after the unionization. Only problem is COVID may skew the results.
VW Works Closely With Unions in Germany, but UAW May Be Less Cuddly (yahoo.com)
I recall that in 2014 VW wanted the UAW in so they could implement a works council but the rank and file voted it down.
I have a feeling they will have a different opinion of the UAW jow that Shawn Fain is in charge.
.
After a big campaign against it by local politicians if I recall correctly.
I think you give local politicians too much credit.
The vote was 712 to 626 . That close, with interference by local politicians, I’d guess it might have been the deciding factor.
Did they actually interfere, as the law describes it, or just publicly oppose it?
The last incentives VW received from the state may have to be returned.
Interference?
You know…like Russian interference…an abstract term used for justifying votes on the opposite side of a Liberals position.
So should we look forward to the same quality issues that highly unionized Boeing has ?
Like I said, there should be an unbiased analysis in about 5 years.
Since you two are unlikely to get a response from mcarley, whose tongue frequently gets caught by the cat when challenged, I’ll translate:
Since the UAW award was obviously the right, noble, and just thing to do, any opposition thereto is hereby referred to as “interference” or “obstruction,” etc.
Saw the same thing back when those evil Repugs opposed Obamacare. “Obstructionists” they were called.
Local resistance to a measure banning abortion would of course not be referred to as interference.
In summary, “interference” means any barrier, even a legitimate one, to legislation mcarley supports.
Of course this is perfectly clear to everyone, but I just enjoy being an asshole when people are inconsistent and partisan.
They took out billboards opposing a unionization drive. Probably not illegal, but not appropriate at all.
That is referred to as “advertising”.
Ummmm…sure.
Because, clearly, they should have supported it instead of opposing.
I wish the CHB was still up so I could link to the thread on that. I remember it being pointed out in an article that VW made its facilities available to the UAW and allowed easy access to its employees there, which employers are not required to do and which normally does not happen. MCarely had said that US labor law requires employers to allow union representatives access to their employees at their facilities.
There were other examples, but the bottom line was that MCarley felt that the UAW had been screwed over and that it was not possible that the VW employees decided that they did not want union representation. .
Or, left those affected by the decision to make it themselves.
Without exposure to Union propaganda?
The union is allowed to present their case. If the company is opposed to unionization, they can present the case against, and they often do, in mandatory meetings and pressure campaigns. (In this case, as I recall, VW didn’t actually oppose. As a German country, they’re probably not used to the American idea that unions might be a bad thing.)
Outside politicians have no business pressuring workers not to join a union with misleading scare ads.
That’s how freedom of speech works, Einstein. Everybody gets to influence.
Admit it. You disagree ideologically, and you are conflating their persuasion with the concept of interference.
You are assuming no politicians publicly support voting pro union.
Your premise is ludicrous.