VW Union Vote

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: wkcars
I can't think of any benefit a union can do or provide that isn't covered by law or the employee can't negotiate themselves directly, so what's left with union involvement is the employee getting a chunk of their paycheck taken and employers having to spend more which they then pass on the costs to consumers.

One employee doesn't have much leverage against a whole company in a negotiation, nor can one employee match the legal resources of a whole company.

I don't want to defend the unseemly things that unions do, but the basic idea makes a whole heck of a lot of sense.

 

[Blaze]

Originally Posted By: opus1
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: harbor
Although the vote was fairly close, the VW workers rejected the union


I will never understand why people willing vote against better working conditions.
Apparently enough people felt that conditions were just fine and the union wouldn't add anything to their life but another payroll deduction...


Exactly! folks need to keep in mind not all companies treat their employees like dirt and I would imagine VW has an entirely different management concept that doesn't create a hostile work environment.

 

[joaks]

I was under the impression that VW WANTED the plant to be unionized.

 

[shDK]

Originally Posted By: Taildragger
Originally Posted By: Gabe


I will never understand why people willing vote against better working conditions.


That is a rather simplistic way to look at it,,,,


may be a simple way of looking at it. however you can not deny, that unity is power. what a union and it's members choose to do with that power is another discussion.

no union with a bit of sanity will make demands that kill there jobs. however you can not trust the company's to be fair.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Blaze
I would imagine VW has an entirely different management concept that doesn't create a hostile work environment.

Indeed.

Not surprising, given that several seats on VW's board are held by labor reps.

 

[wkcars]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: wkcars
I can't think of any benefit a union can do or provide that isn't covered by law or the employee can't negotiate themselves directly, so what's left with union involvement is the employee getting a chunk of their paycheck taken and employers having to spend more which they then pass on the costs to consumers.

One employee doesn't have much leverage against a whole company in a negotiation, nor can one employee match the legal resources of a whole company.

I don't want to defend the unseemly things that unions do, but the basic idea makes a whole heck of a lot of sense.


That may be partly true, but it depends on the employee and how much the employer wants to keep that employee. The negotiating power that comes with unions I would say has the effect of averaging out the employee's worth because the good employees are lumped in with bad employees, meaning good employees who may have gotten better deals are now averaged out with bad employees getting benefits that they may not have gotten by themselves.

 

[Cutehumor]

Tennessee is a right to work state. So Nissan, GM, and VW have plants here. only Nissan and VW are not part of a union, so they can get fired at any time without Union involvement!

 

[R80RS]

Originally Posted By: joaks
I was under the impression that VW WANTED the plant to be unionized.


VW wants to set up a "works council", which is a panel of management, labor and professional staff. Works councils are required under VW's corporate structure, and are in place at all VW plants except in TN. The works council addresses productivity, efficiency, and so forth, but not wages, benefits, etc. Under US labor law, a works council is considered a management led employee organization, which is forbidden under US labor law. The only way a council could be formed in the US is if the labor contingent is represented by a union that is independent from management. Hence the opening for the UAW.

 

[Doog]

This topic has no business being on this forum.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: wkcars
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
One employee doesn't have much leverage against a whole company in a negotiation, nor can one employee match the legal resources of a whole company.

I don't want to defend the unseemly things that unions do, but the basic idea makes a whole heck of a lot of sense.


That may be partly true, but it depends on the employee and how much the employer wants to keep that employee.

Yes, in theory, that's true. In practice, the companies we're talking about could afford to replace just about any of their employees. By contrast, most of those employees could not so easily afford to lose their jobs. Yes, each side has something to lose, but those somethings are far from equal.


Originally Posted By: wkcars
The negotiating power that comes with unions I would say has the effect of averaging out the employee's worth because the good employees are lumped in with bad employees, meaning good employees who may have gotten better deals are now averaged out with bad employees getting benefits that they may not have gotten by themselves.

Very true.

This kind of thing makes me feel that American companies should adopt the European model of having labor reps on their boards. Right now, our labor reps (i.e. union bosses) mostly see one side of the equation. They live and breathe in labor echo chambers where management is the enemy. If they could see the other side of the equation and work alongside management as partners, a lot of the problems with unions could diminish or disappear.

 

[xxch4osxx]

Originally Posted By: Doog
This topic has no business being on this forum.
Why not?

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: wkcars
And when dealing with public employee unions, the costs are paid by taxpayers.


I'm curious what you mean by that. Would you explain?

 

[zloveraz]

Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: harbor
Although the vote was fairly close, the VW workers rejected the union


I will never understand why people willing vote against better working conditions.


I didn't hear that the working conditions were so bad, please explain.

 

[zloveraz]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
Tennessee is a right to work state. So Nissan, GM, and VW have plants here. only Nissan and VW are not part of a union, so they can get fired at any time without Union involvement!


And that's an issue?

 

[wkcars]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: wkcars
And when dealing with public employee unions, the costs are paid by taxpayers.


I'm curious what you mean by that. Would you explain?


The benefits that the unions negotiated to get employees, when they are government/public employees, those costs are paid by tax money/taxpayers. I'm not saying there aren't cases where the costs might be proportioned or paid through other sources, but for the most part taxpayers are on the hook for government/public employees.

 

[andyd]

If the plant management observes safety regulations and there is some sort of management/ labor board to smooth out ripples. That is best for all.

IF management isnt observing safety regs , then that is different kettle of fish.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: harbor
Although the vote was fairly close, the VW workers rejected the union


I will never understand why people willing vote against better working conditions.


The working condition of virtually all of the union employees around here is: unemployed - permanently.

To be fair, they had some help putting themselves in between that rock and hard spot ( NAFTA - thanks, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton ), but they also voted themselves closer to unemployment at almost every opportunity.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: opus1
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: harbor
Although the vote was fairly close, the VW workers rejected the union


I will never understand why people willing vote against better working conditions.
Apparently enough people felt that conditions were just fine and the union wouldn't add anything to their life but another payroll deduction...


Exactly!

Here is how weird it can get when you have so-called "union rules."

When I was at a major aerospace firm we had a ""professional" union (scientists and engineers union) and the manf. area had their Union as well, but we were both in the IAM. I thought, heck I'll join as this should be interesting to see how this works out.

When an engineer went to the shop to speak with a machinist, he had to locate the union steward, and then the steward went with you to speak to the machinist. Union rules. Same union.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
Tennessee is a right to work state. So Nissan, GM, and VW have plants here. only Nissan and VW are not part of a union, so they can get fired at any time without Union involvement!


This is a reason to be union? So you cant get fired?

Do your job right and that wont happen. Dont be a leach. Layoffs are another story and happen with union shops all the time.

 

[morepwr]

Originally Posted By: opus1
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: harbor
Although the vote was fairly close, the VW workers rejected the union


I will never understand why people willing vote against better working conditions.
Apparently enough people felt that conditions were just fine and the union wouldn't add anything to their life but another payroll deduction...


Well said.