I was actually surprised the UAW made it so close, with the Governor threatening all new biz locations, a US Senator warning against it, the local businesses giving warnings and yet the margin was only 86 votes -- meaning that if just over half of 86, i.e. about 45 workers, had voted the other way, the labor victory would have elated the UAW. The anti-labor attitude in the South is even stronger than elsewhere, so the near miss shouldn't be grunds for despair.
On the other hand, organized Labor has a long road to a better perspective in the future. Gene On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > The Chattanooga plant vote is a grim illustration of the old labour movement > maxim: "The workers don't need a union to go backwards; they can do that by > themselves" - the typical outcome in conditions of labour surplus rather than > labour shortage. But the VW setback was extraordinary in that, even with the > open support of management, the union was unable to overcome the fear of job > loss gripping the working class in the US and other developed capitalist > economies - MG > > UAW's failure to sway VW workers clouds future > By Robert Wright in New York > Financial Times > February 16 2014 > > In the months leading up to last week’s vote on union recognition at > Volkswagen’s Chattanooga factory in Tennessee, officials of the United Auto > Workers’ union went out of their way to sound calm and measured. Bob King, > the union’s president, regularly spoke approvingly about the company’s > commitment to workers’ right and strong business record. > > But there was no disguising how nerve-racking the vote was for senior > officials, who many observers suspected were concerned about the solidity of > its support at the plant. > > The ballot was “a matter of life and death” for the union, Nelson > Lichtenstein, director of the centre for the study of work, labour and > democracy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told the Financial > Times in October. If the union could not organise workers in such > non-unionised, foreign-owned factories – which account for a growing number > of jobs in the US car industry – the industry would have effectively a > “non-union pay structure”, Prof Lichtenstein said. > > The question for Mr King and the UAW is whether, after workers at the > Chattanooga plantvoted 53 to 47 per cent against union representation, the > union’s role is fated to dwindle. > > In the defeat’s immediate aftermath, union officials criticised the > interference from outside conservative lobbyists and politicians in the vote. > But the longer-term issue for the union may be a practical one: it was unable > to persuade workers that they would be better off with union membership than > without. > > Dennis Williams, the UAW’s secretary-treasurer, said after the vote that the > union was “outraged” by the interference from politicians and lobby groups > but proud of the workers who had been “brave” and stood up to the “tremendous > pressure”. > > “We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers’ right to > organise,” he said. > > The ideological aspects of the struggle have certainly been eye-catching. The > UAW extolled the virtues of Volkswagen’s continental European-style way of > dealing with workers through unions and their representatives on works > councils, which make workplace decisions jointly with management. The UAW’s > opponents stressed its links to political decisions that were unpopular in > the conservative south, such as the Obama administration’s bailout of General > Motors, Chrysler and other parts of the domestically-owned auto industry. > > The Center for Worker Freedom – funded by Grover Norquist, the anti-tax > campaigner – posted adverts near the Chattanooga factory bearing the United > Auto Workers’ name with the word “auto” crossed out and replaced with > “Obama”. The UAW may yet challenge the ballot results based on complaints > about such outsiders’ campaigns. > > However, both pro and anti-union workers at the Chattanooga plant > consistently stressed practical rather than ideological factors as their > reasons to support or oppose unionisation. > > In that regard, the critical intervention may have been that by Bob Corker, > the junior US senator from Tennessee, who last Wednesday claimed that > Volkswagen’s management would allocate badly needed work on a new sport > utility vehicle to Chattanooga only if workers rejected unionisation. The > company denied its decision on where to build the SUV would depend on the > union vote. Indeed, managers at the plant have privately complained VW’s > German management might deny the plant the work if it failed to adopt some > form of worker representation. > > Mr Corker said after Friday’s vote he was “thrilled” for the VW employees. > > Mr Corker’s claim had the power to change workers’ minds precisely because > work levels at the factory are among the workers’ biggest concerns. The plant > builds only the Passat midsize car, for which demand has been declining. > Workers at the plant tend to cite the need to win new work for the plant as > an issue than pay – which is high for the area – or management behaviour, > about which few have specific complaints. > > “The threats against the workers were what shifted things,” Mr King said. > > However, while specific local factors may have hampered the UAW’s efforts in > Chattanooga, many observers believe local factors at other non-unionised auto > plants could be still less favourable. > > Jack Nerad, executive editorial director at Kelley Blue Book, the car > information service, calls the Chattanooga vote a “serious setback” for the > union, pointing out that the plant’s management maintained a neutral stance > on the issue. > > “The UAW’s attempts to organise other non-union plants in the United States > are very unlikely to be greeted with as much co-operation from other > manufacturers,” he says. “This could mark the end to UAW hopes to gain > traction in these non-union southern state plants.” > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
