Volkswagen and Tennesee

[Fallakin Kuvari]

The "Work council" could still vote to unionize and not be part of the UAW. The GOP is blocking this because they got the business here and if UAW runs the workers union, all donations from fees collected from the workers (sans like 5%, maybe) go to their opponents.

I think you're pointing the finger at the wrong strawman.

[Arathena]

Right. It's OK to threaten your constituents to make sure the other party doesn't get donations. Got it.

[Kulaf]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... gen-plant/

What was the winning argument? Jarvis said people on the fence were persuaded by a clause in the Neutrality Agreement negotiated between Volkswagen and the UAW before the election, which established this as one of the principles of collective bargaining: "maintaining and where possible enhancing the cost advantages and other competitive advantages that VWGOA enjoys relative to its competitors in the United States and North America." In other words, keeping wages and benefits from getting too high relative to the already-unionized Big Three automakers in Detroit.

The UAW seemingly signed away the best interests of the TN plant's workers before even gaining the right to represent them. Nice.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I was listening to an interview of an employee of VW that was involved in the process. His thoughts were along the line of: if unionized, the UAW contract would have cut $3/hour off my wage and imposed a bunch of stuff that would have made it more difficult to put out a quality product.

That $3/hour cut goes to what Kulaf was speaking to, I think. The UAW can't have comrades in one collective making more than comrades in another. Bad for the morale of the proletariat.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

It is ok to threaten your union members to get your party donations, though.