On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:56 PM, 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 Am I the only one who will come out and say that maybe the workers didn't like what the UAW was selling? In a series of contract negotiations<http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/08/uaw-faces-revolt-over-two-tier-wages/>in the late 1990s and 2000s, the UAW agreed to a two-tier wage system at Volkswagen's competitors at the Big Three automakers--General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. Two-tier agreements specify that new hires will earn significantly less than existing workers. Fiorello notes that currently, new non-union assembly line workers at Volkswagen start at $14.50 an hour<http://www.labornotes.org/2013/10/auto-workers-try-new-angle-volkswagen>--which, with cost-of-living differences between Tennessee and the Midwest factored in, is arguably slightly higher than the just-under-$16-an-hour starting pay<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/us-autos-uaw-wages-idUSBRE9BG10Y20131217>under the UAW two-tier contracts at the Big Three. "See, that's the kind of problem. Our guys are being paid more than the union [workers at the Big Three]," says Fiorello. "What the UAW is offering, we can already do without them," says hourly worker Mike Burton, who created the website for the No 2 UAW campaign. "We were only given one choice [of a union]. When you are only given one choice, it's BS. It would be nice if we had a union that came in here and forthright said, "Here is what we can offer." "I am not anti-union, I am anti-UAW," Burton continues. "There are great unions out there, and we just weren't offered any of them." http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/after_uaw_defeat_at_volkswagen_in_tennessee_theories_abound Given the opportunity to be represented by a union with a history of delivering less for its members than what we already have, I, and presumable Raghu and others on this thread, would vote "yes" on the principle of the thing, then fight to improve it. But most people - and I cannot stress this enough - are not like us. They don't want everything to be a big damn fight. I can't say I have an objective basis from which to blame them. The biggest takeaway from Chattanooga I can see is that when unions set out to organize the unorganized - which is imperative - they ought not start with the unorganized who already have it better than their organized. I mean, really. Out of all the workplaces the UAW could organize, why the hell would that one vote for UAW representation? The joy of struggle? Good luck with that, guys. But on the bright side, I find the bourgeois press' "If the UAW couldn't win this one, what can they win?"<http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-17/uaws-devastating-defeat-at-a-tennessee-volkswagen-plant-four-blunt-points>line silly. Maybe they can win a workplace where the prospect of their representation doesn't look, to a reasonable and not-terribly-political worker, like a shit sandwich? God knows there's no shortage of 'em. -- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
