UAW not leaving Chattanooga and may contest the vote.

[RobertNashville]

Crappy employees deserve jobs too :)

Crappy jobs, maybe. ;)

[Mark@Sea]

Get off my lawn.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Sam1" post="1112491" timestamp="1392653391"]They should contest it, Haslam was trying to coerce them by threatening to take away freebies for the sole reasoning if they organized. I also like how they claim to be friendly to private business and are for less interference of government in them, but they are playing interference as much as possible because they don't like it. Am not pro-union, but this is a matter between the business and its employees, not politicians and people not working for VW[/quote] So Haslam came down on the side of the corporate interests that bought and paid for him. Just curious, how is that any different than the Democrats coming down on the side of the unions that have bought and paid for them? The only positive thing I can say about Haslam is that as a politician he at least appears to stay bought.

[bersaguy]

Get off my lawn.

 

Exactly!!!!!!!! :up: :up: :up:

[Mark@Sea]

So Haslam came down on the side of the corporate interests that bought and paid for him. Just curious, how is that any different than the Democrats coming down on the side of the unions that have bought and paid for them? The only positive thing I can say about Haslam is that as a politician he at least appears to stay bought.

 

Heinleins' definition of an honest politician.

[nightrunner]

Haslam is a businessman first, Governor second. Unions are bad for business. Why would he sway any other way?

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Mark@Sea" post="1112528" timestamp="1392657489"]Heinleins' definition of an honest politician.[/quote] Yep. What a lot of folks should realize is that they may have voted for Haslam but they didn't elect him. VW, FedEx and all of the other large corporate interests that paid for his campaign bought him lock, stock and barrel and it is their interests he represents. I don't like what the man does in office but I can't fault him for representing is actual constituency. Edited February 17, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

Haslam is a businessman first, Governor second. Unions are bad for business. Why would he sway any other way?

Yes he is but ANY governor of Tennessee should have opposed the UAW in this instance. Tennessee has a vested (financial) interest both in terms of revenue as well as what the state gave to VW to open their plant here. Since VW didn't seem to care whether their plant went union or not somebody needed to step in and speak for the state's interest (which means OUR interest if we live here and pay taxes here). Whether it was Haslam, or whoever got elected four years ago.

[Sam1]

So Haslam came down on the side of the corporate interests that bought and paid for him. Just curious, how is that any different than the Democrats coming down on the side of the unions that have bought and paid for them? The only positive thing I can say about Haslam is that as a politician he at least appears to stay bought.

 

My point is that there is nothing to differentiate the two.  However, while Haslam (and other pols) run around the state claiming to be business friendly and stating that the government has no place interfering with private business, he is also essentially attempting to extort a private business for partaking in activities that only involve them.  To put that in perspective on a gun forum, that is like the gov. being pro 2a, but then threatening to implement a firing range tax to businesses that open their range on Sundays because we think their employees should be at home instead.

 

Think about this in the long term, the pols have come out and blatantly said that they are scared that if VW unionizes that other businesses will not come to the state, that's why they are interfering.  Now, if you are a business thinking of coming in, do you not now consider that if the current administration is willing to go to these measures, what guarantees are there that the next one that doesn't line with your beliefs isn't going to do the same?

 

We're getting to the point where common sense is being replaced with "because I said so" on the conservative side of the fence, and that's not good.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Sam1

[QuietDan]

There was a war fought here about 150 years ago and most in Tennessee have never forgotten. Having a bunch of UAW thugs come down here and start using intimidation tactics is NOT going to go down well. No is NO.

 

You can be pretty sure that the VW men in Chatt and their neighbors can get pretty intimidating RIGHT BACK if the UAW thugs want to play silly games. I'm thinking it wouldn't just be gut punches or a poke in the nose, but broken noses, broken arms and the occasional shotgun wound. 

 

I would suggest they not wear their UAW jackets while shooting off their big fat mouths.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Sam1" post="1112545" timestamp="1392659962"]My point is that there is nothing to differentiate the two. However, while Haslam (and other pols) run around the state claiming to be business friendly and stating that the government has no place interfering with private business, he is also essentially attempting to extort a private business for partaking in activities that only involve them. To put that in perspective on a gun forum, that is like the gov. being pro 2a, but then threatening to implement a firing range tax to businesses that open their range on Sundays because we think their employees should be at home instead. Think about this in the long term, the pols have come out and blatantly said that they are scared that if VW unionizes that other businesses will not come to the state, that's why they are interfering. Now, if you are a business thinking of coming in, do you not now consider that if the current administration is willing to go to these measures, what guarantees are there that the next one that doesn't line with your beliefs isn't going to do the same? [b]We're getting to the point where common sense is being replaced with "because I said so" on the conservative side of the fence, and that's not good.[/b][/quote] Your tense is wrong. ;) Edited February 17, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[bersaguy]

I think the Governor and other elected officials were all acting in behalf of the employees and the VW Corporation as a whole since our state did make concessions on behalf of the state and the people of the great state of Tennessee to bring the company here and I just don't really think they should just stand back and allow some thugs and bullies from up north come down here and try and intimidate people into joining a union and taking money away from the employees and also demanding that VW make changes in their policies. That is what they did in Detroit and they did it so much that they bankrupt the Automakers up there. We don't need that kind of trash in Tennessee causing trouble........................jmho

[leroy]

"We're not leaving Chattanooga"

Maybe a group of good ole boys should go to their hotel and suggest that they might be more comfortable back up North.

 

Windbaggery i say... They lost; but they cant afford to say they lost or that they will quit...They will quietly slink away or find a new way to intimidate the VW work force... My guess is that they will just slither away in the nite.... If the UAW cant win with VW's help; why would they think they could win without it...

 

I fully remember (...and some older folks here too, im sure....) when Chattanooga was an industry based city with union jobs.... Think Combustion Engineering, Continental Fabricators, Chattanooga Boiler and Tank, and others here... They are all gone now; and the jobs they provided are gone... Some of that is due to changes in the market, environmental regulations, ect, ect; but lots of it is due to the "global market"...

 

The 1950's idea of the union shop is dead now; along with the industries they helped to make non-competitive... It simply aint 1933 and most folks down here are smart enough not to buy into the "one big union" malarkey thing... Most folks are educated enough to understand that the manufacturing unions finish off the very hosts they seek to organize...

 

Read the comments from the folks who work at VW about the union vote and why they voted that way.... They fully understand what the UAW is and what it does... That's why the union wasn't voted in... 

 

The UAW is dead... I say good riddance to the sons of satan....The hell with them....Let 'em go back home to Detroit and finish what they've started there....

 

Non UAW leroy

Edited February 17, 2014 by leroy

[Smith]

My point is that there is nothing to differentiate the two.  However, while Haslam (and other pols) run around the state claiming to be business friendly and stating that the government has no place interfering with private business, he is also essentially attempting to extort a private business for partaking in activities that only involve them.  To put that in perspective on a gun forum, that is like the gov. being pro 2a, but then threatening to implement a firing range tax to businesses that open their range on Sundays because we think their employees should be at home instead.

 

Think about this in the long term, the pols have come out and blatantly said that they are scared that if VW unionizes that other businesses will not come to the state, that's why they are interfering.  Now, if you are a business thinking of coming in, do you not now consider that if the current administration is willing to go to these measures, what guarantees are there that the next one that doesn't line with your beliefs isn't going to do the same?

 

We're getting to the point where common sense is being replaced with "because I said so" on the conservative side of the fence, and that's not good.

 

The UAW is the one that was interfering with private business by trying to steal money and power from both employees, VW, and Tennessee. So yes, Haslam getting involved is exactly what a TN Governor should be doing. He didn't overstep his bounds, he did his job. I don't like him on a lot of things but this one is right.

 

As far as you analogy, it is more like a Governor being Pro 2A and getting involved when someone like Bloomberg tries to add a tax on to TN ranges for everyday of the week to curb gun violence in NY.

 

I think you are a victim of you own ideology on this one and it won't let you be objective because your trying too hard to be objective.

[Sam1]

 

 

I think you are a victim of you own ideology on this one and it won't let you be objective because your trying too hard to be objective.

 

I am a victim of my own ideology and that is to allow private business to function without interference from the same people who say that government interferes too much with private business.

 

Let the vote happen freely as it should without interference, if no union is good, then the people will not vote it in.  If it is, then they will.  The personnel agreements of a private entity do not impact the lives of people not associated with that entity.  The people involved are adults, they can handle their business just fine.

 

And again, I'm not pro-union, but I think everyone should stop telling everyone else how to run their lives because they don't like one thing or another.  How many times have you been upset recently over gun-banning libtards trying to tell the government what to restrict that directly impacts you?  But that application is different right, cause we like guns and we don't like unions.

[tnguy]

So I should have input on how much vacation time a secretary gets at an asphalt company? Every decision always has implications on people outside of the situation.

Just because we don't like what two private entities agree on doesn't mean we get to inject our personal beliefs on them.

 

Certainly you should be able to make comment upon it.

[Spiffy]

"We're not leaving Chattanooga"

Maybe a group of good ole boys should go to their hotel and suggest that they might be more comfortable back up North.

 

If the Germans didn't stop ya. They want the union. I don't see why the didn't just start it as a closed shop to start with if they wanted it to be union.  Isn't the property it's on declared something so it's under German trade laws or something? I read/heard something about that of course didn't pay much attention to it.

[tnguy]

Sam1: I understand where you are coming from. But first let's strip out those laws that protect the unions such as those that prevent employers from firing employees who want to unionize and more besides. Shouldn't be interfering with private entities, right?

 

http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-and-obligations

 

 

Examples of employer conduct that violates the law:

• Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity.
• Threatening to close the plant if employees select a union to represent them.
• Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act.
• Promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support.
• Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they engaged in union or protected concerted activity.
• Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they filed unfair labor practice charges or participated in an investigation conducted by NLRB.

Edited February 17, 2014 by tnguy

[Smith]

I am a victim of my own ideology and that is to allow private business to function without interference from the same people who say that government interferes too much with private business.

 

Let the vote happen freely as it should without interference, if no union is good, then the people will not vote it in.  If it is, then they will.  The personnel agreements of a private entity do not impact the lives of people not associated with that entity.  The people involved are adults, they can handle their business just fine.

 

And again, I'm not pro-union, but I think everyone should stop telling everyone else how to run their lives because they don't like one thing or another.  How many times have you been upset recently over gun-banning libtards trying to tell the government what to restrict that directly impacts you?  But that application is different right, cause we like guns and we don't like unions.

Your sarcasm is well meant but errant. The government has an application to intervene when it is Constitutional to do so. That is the very nature and created purpose of the US/State government. We agree with government when government is operating within it's created purpose. It is not an all or nothing proposition.

 

BTW somebody will always be telling someone else what to do. Whether it's the Constitution or a progressive liberal. I and the founding fathers prefer that it be principals of absolute truth that restrains overzealous individuals or governments from imposing arbitrary personal will.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Smith

[Sam1]

Your sarcasm is well meant but errant. The government has an application to intervene when it is Constitutional to do so. 

 

May I point you in the direction of the first amendment? 

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

That ties into the freedom of association and so on... out of respect for brevity on a conlaw debate, unionizing is just as a right for citizens as owning a gun; both afforded to us on the same document.

[frankmako]

vw did all they could to help the union.  but the workers knew better to vote the union crap in.  the union will make a noise for a while, but it will not change the vote.  it they get the federal government to let them have a second vote they will lose by a bigger number.  unions have killed more jobs than any other thing except the federal government.  the only people that win in the union are the leaders.  the workers just pay money to keep the bosses in big money. 

[Smith]

May I point you in the direction of the first amendment? 

 

That ties into the freedom of association and so on... out of respect for brevity on a conlaw debate, unionizing is just as a right for citizens as owning a gun; both afforded to us on the same document.

Union "democracy" is hardly the model of free assembly or assopciation that you cite. In fact, the very fact that the Unions have used the government to prevent their member from being able to vote anonymously, or to assemble or meet outside of Union presence, or to be able to negotiate with the company outside of Union presence flies in the face of the Constitution on many levels. What started out as a needed median has become an incredible roadblock to workers.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Smith

[Sam1]

vw did all they could to help the union.  but the workers knew better to vote the union crap in.  the union will make a noise for a while, but it will not change the vote.  it they get the federal government to let them have a second vote they will lose by a bigger number.  unions have killed more jobs than any other thing except the federal government.  the only people that win in the union are the leaders.  the workers just pay money to keep the bosses in big money. 

 

+1 but I think they will put up a bigger fight than expected because of the gov's interference.  If the unions were just shut down by workers and VW, they would've whistled on down the road to the next stop... 

[Sam1]

Union "democracy" is hardly the model of free assembly or assopciation that you cite. In fact, the very fact that the Unions have used the government to prevent their member from being able to vote anonymously, or to assemble or meet outside of Union presence, or to be able to negotiate with the company outside of Union presence flies in the face of the Constitution on many levels. What started out as a needed median has become an incredible roadblock to workers.

 

What some of the unions have done in the past is irrelevant to the employees' right to organize.  

 

Not directed at you Smith, but I think the misunderstanding of the union impact on TN's right to work law is what has caused this entire debacle.  The law would not be affected in any manner and in fact, it would keep the union in check for just going 'rogue' if you will since the employees would and could not legally be forced into paying union dues.  There was never a chance of some massive collapse/loss of jobs like what happened with unionized jobs in non-right to work states.

 

It wouldn't have mattered one way or another, I just think everyone should've let those people decide on their own if they want to organize or not.

[leroy]

There's lots of bandwidth and pontification in the last couple of pages of posts in this thread about the role of government (...both federal and state...) in chilling the effect of "workers right to organize"... The fact is that there was some; and it wuz mandated by none other than Uncle Sam himself...The fact is that Uncle Sam always comes down on the side of the union in organizing... The great god FDR enshrined that because he was, in fact, a socialist; as were lots of other Ivy League educated "intellectuals" in his day...That's why there is an NLRB and a genuine federal backing of the concept of "collective bargaining"....In any union organizing activity; the union always has the backing of the federal government....There aint a bigger bully than Uncle Sam when he takes the notion to be one.... More that that; he's armed... both with laws, courts, and the bayonet; and he is spendin your and my tax money to make it stick...

 

The "right to work" laws which are being vilified by some here were codified in the 50's as an attempt to control the rampant use of unions and thug tactics to coerce people to join the union... It allowed for the individual state governments to adopt a "right to work" provision in their individual state... Simply stated, the "right to work" thing allowed for union membership to be optional; not compulsory; just as it should be in a truly free society... The "closed shop" mandated compulsory union membership as a pre-requisite to work.... I dont know about you; but that dont sound too "American" and "free" ta me; but that's just me....

 

Some here on this forum and some of those on the outside who are apparatchiks of the UAW would have us believe that "Snozz Haslam" and Bob Corker are so powerful and so scary that they "coerced" the workers of VW not to join the union and likened their public pronouncements concerning the chilling effect of unionization at VW to "improper", even semi-criminal, abuse of public trust by an elected officials; both state and federal...

 

The fact is that both "Snozz" and Corker have their right to an opinion; and the public expression of those opinions regarding issues of public concern just like us fellow posters here do... More than that; in an unusually lucid moment for the both of them; i think they told the Gospel Truth...

 

The union never causes any business to get any bigger; it causes it to get smaller... Look at the american auto industry for proof....

 

The fact of the matter is that this country is built upon the proposition that everyone gets a say in the public forum regarding issues of public interest; and this certainly is one... Folks; ya cant have this First Amendment thing muzzled or slanted one way... You have to hear all sides of all arguments whether you agree with them or not; and that is exactly what happened here; its called "free speech" and the "arena of ideas".... a very important part of any free society....  If ya dont like public officials, ya can mount a campaign to vote them out; but it aint right (...nor is it legal...) to try to muzzle their opinions; just as it aint right to try to muzzle my or your opinions....

 

Remember this; the UAW had the blessing of the VW corporate management, the German IG Metall union, and the Federal Government on their side on this thing and they lost.... I think it is hilarious on the face of it; and on a more sober and intellectual note; it is a great testament to the insight and wisdom of those who are currently working at this facility...

 

The manufacturing unions are dead... They just aint been buried yet... Again; i say:"...good riddance...". Loosing the dammed manufacturing unions will make this country a better place...

 

leroy

Edited February 17, 2014 by leroy