On 2014-02-16, at 10:29 PM, Eugene Coyle wrote: > 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.
True, but let's not overlook the fact that with such a narrow mandate, a union would have negligible power bargaining power, even if it wanted to exercise it, and would be precariously vulnerable to decertification. In this case, more egregiously than in most, the UAW leadership renounced the exercise of power in the workplace in favour of formal consultation through a joint works council. That's why Volkswagen endorsed the unionization drive and facilitated the UAW's access to the workers in the plant. No union is going to be given such free rein by an employer anywhere, including outside the South, unless they are able to provide the assurance that they will engage in collective begging rather than collective bargaining. And even then employers will very rarely invite a union into the workplace, for the same reason why we would support one with even the weakest leadership: Because the instrument will be in place if conditions change and the workers are emboldened to take miltant action. > 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 _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
