These days there is very little journalism than covers labor issues. No one is talking about it. Like collective bargaining itself, news concerning labor is scarce. Tennessee workers’ rejection of the unionization of a Volkswagen plant is one of the few times we even hear about organizing workers. From a publicity point of view, this is a good thing.
Once upon a time, such was not the case. Labor leaders were well-known. People knew who Samuel Gompers and George Meany were. Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto Workers, was one of Time Magazines most influential people of the 20th century. There was plenty of racism in unions, particularly in union locals, but Reuther was a friend an staunch supporter of Martin Luther King. Reuther even co-chaired the March on Washington with A. Philip Randolph, president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and vice president of the AFL-CIO. Today, CEO’s are lionized, and labor is marginalized. How many people even know who Richard Trumka is? Any news is good news.
The UAW is, In the words of its president Bob King, “deeply disappointed” about the result of the unionization vote at the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee. Workers voted 712-626 against joining the union. Much has been made about the fact that Volkswagen was not opposed to, even encouraged, the formation of the union. A majority of workers at the plant Typically, it is employers that run a campaign of misinformation and intimidation against workers, but in the case of Volkswagen, Republican politicians did the job.The lies are astounding.
Governor Bill Haslam, a Republican, warned that auto part suppliers would not locate in the Chattanooga area if the plant was unionized, while Senator Bob Corker said Volkswagen executives had told him that the plant would add a new production line, making SUVs, if the workers rejected the U.A.W. In a series of interviews this week, Mr. Corker, a Republican and a former mayor of Chattanooga, asserted that a union victory would make Volkswagen less competitive and hurt workers’ living standards.
To step up the pressure, State Senator Bo Watson, who represents a suburb of Chattanooga, warned that the Republican-controlled legislature was unlikely to approve further subsidies to Volkswagen if the workers embraced the U.A.W., a threat that might discourage the company from expanding.
Volkswagen officials had urged “third parties” to remain neutral and stay out of the unionization battle. Grover Norquist, the anti-tax crusader, helped underwrite a new group, the Center for Worker Freedom, that put up 13 billboards in Chattanooga, warning that the city might become the next Detroit if the workers voted for the union.
Frank Fischer, chief executive and chairman of Volkswagen Chattanooga, rushed to respond after Mr. Corker said VW officials had told him they would expand the plant if the U.A.W. was defeated. Some legal experts said that if Volkswagen officials made such a statement, it might be construed as an illegal intimidation or inducement to pressure the workers to vote against the union.
In a statement, Mr. Fischer said, “There is no connection between our Chattanooga employees’ decision about whether to be represented by a union and the decision about where to build a new product for the U.S. market.”
Bob Corker’s lies should come as no surprise. Nor should the Norquist-funded bill boards saying “Auto Unions Ate Detroit. Next Meal: Chattanooga,” Tennessee newspapers aided and abetted the anti-union movement.
Volkswagen wanted workers councils,which it has in Germany, but “the U.A.W. and many legal experts say it would be illegal for an American company to set up a works council without first having a union, asserting that otherwise the works council might be an illegal, employer-dominated workers group.”
The workers councils, according to “Michael Cantrell, 56, an assembly line worker… would give the workers more of a voice and help VW by fostering a smoother-running plant…. It gives them a great competitive advantage if they do this [unionize]… They have this standardized across the world. We feel we’re not as competitive if we don’t have this collaboration. This would be a paradigm shift.” Cantrell has an MBA and used to run a tax preparation business.
VW headquarters in Germany has acceded to the UAW because the company’s Global Works Council, with representatives from factories around the world, has said U.S. workers should have a plant-level works council. At present the Tennessee factory is the only major VW plant without one.
Under German law, which requires works councils in many enterprises, a council’s explicit charge is to work for the interests of both workers and company, finding non-conflictual ways of dealing with new technologies, reorganization of jobs, and plant closings. Works council members are elected by non-management employees and paid by management. (See box.)
But that job description goes against U.S. labor law, which says management may not “dominate” a labor organization nor “contribute financial or other support to it.” A works council would be legally possible under U.S. law only if the workers involved also had their own independent representative: a union.
The Volkswagen Vote is disappointing, but at least there was a vote. Without Volkswagen’s support, it’s unlikely there would have even been a vote at all. It’s also the first effort to organize the Chattanooga plant. Progress takes time and effort. The UAW won’t give up as long as there are workers that want to unionize.
The publicity of this unionization drive isn’t entirely negative either. A majority of plant workers signed cards to authorize a union vote. A large company even encouraged unionization. It is very possible that the negative propaganda tipped the vote against the UAW. Tennessee, after all, is a very red state. Workers there are more receptive to wingnut propaganda.
The Right has tipped its hand on this one, next time, we know what to expect. They won the battle, but the war goes on.
Or were Democrats in practical common-sense adult both-sides-have-legitimate-concerns mode?
We need forceful advocacy for the right things from those in power, otherwise workers will feel unprotected if they try to do the right things
in Tennessee? There are two congressmen not representing Chattanooga.
I think national Democrats–who–as you suggest–wouldn’t tend to say much, were as caught by surprise as the UAW. I don’t think they had time to go into any mode against a well-coordinated, well-funded opposition, even if the will was there.
I think it is a lot more than “disappointing”. When you have management wanting a union (they are European Socialists after all) and we can’t win a union election, the left has problems.
Thanks to Citizen United, will we ever know how much rightwing/Koch money went into this defeat? Crocker, the Gov, the Legislature were the public faces of the corporate resources that went into this defeat.
I put this defeat on the same level as Reagan’s decertifying the Air Traffic Controllers union, which resulted in a cascade of union set backs.
The country is slowly waking up to how screwed up things are. I’m not a historicist, but I believe change is coming.
At this point, we have put into place a system where the deck is entirely stacked against working men and women. Obama is completely at ease with it, as are most Democrats. The UAW know how to organize and had a number of advantages in trying to establish the union, and still fell short. While I don’t think it’s wise to overstate the impact of a vote by 1500 people when hundreds on the West Coast _just_ voted to unionize in a hospital the same week, it is certainly a disappointment.
I think we’re nearing a tipping point, where things will start to get better or they will get much worse. I won’t make any predictons as to which way it will go. I do think that if Hillary’s the next President, I don’t see huge movement on these issues. We’re looking at 8 more years of muddle or worse.
I agree with you, Fenway 49, that if Hillary Clinton becomes president there will be very little change on unionization or any issues that will improve day to day lives of the middle class. We really need to be looking for a real progressive to run and get behind him or her 100 percent.
Issue is she doesn’t want to run. She didn’t want to run for Senator until we elected her recently.
I recall Bill running precisely on the theme of the forgotten middle class and have always thought of Hillary as a bit to his left.
Bill deregulating Wall Street so that the middle class today is not forgotten but disappearing, and Hillary going just recently to speak at Goldman Sachs for $400K.
…that differs notably from other Dems on economic issues, or as a thought exercise, which I realize is hypothetical since their terms did not overlap, is there legislation you are certain on which she and Elizabeth Warren would cast opposite votes? I’m still not convinced.
Professor Warren testified against it while Sen Clinton votes for it. Worse setback for consumer protection in a decade. She opposed the war that Clinton has yet to apologize voting for. She supports single payer which Clinton as First Lady, then Senator, then candidate did not. She supports ending payday lending, saving the post office and banking via an ingenious new proposal to let local low interest banks serve there-something I doubt Clinton supports. Third Way-a think tank that ran ads assailing Warren in the WSJ was founded by Clinton veterans and they and the DLC heavily backed her candidacy. Clinton voted for a constitutional amendment banning flag burning which Warren opposes.
Clinton has my support as the nominee, I’d even say that since Obama has been as bad on civil liberties and hawkish as she has been that her Presidency might’ve been more successful than his in the last six years on domestic issues, but I would like a strong progressive nominee and President and Hillary needs a challenger to either supplant her or mold her into that standard bearer.
when it comes to an electable candidate than we will when it comes to pressuring her or him. If we get a progressive, we should support him or her, at least as pressure.
Democratic ideology is changing, even if the party and power structure has yet to respond. Support for the eventual nominee should be contingent on cabinet picks and policies.
I recall John Sweeney bragging in 1999 about how the AFL had gotten behind Gore ages before the primaries. My thought: this guy’s from the administration that gave you NAFTA and WTO and wanted Fast Track. Did you get anything in exchange for this support?
It seems like it took an act of God to get rid of Kirkland in the 1990s with Sweeney the compromise candidate. The leadership had gotten pretty fat and happy over the years. I prefer the new people like Stern better, but I have to say, my opinion is very uninformed.
That was my thought at the time of the split, but I recall hearing something since then that sounded fishy. I think he left SEIU and went into private equity and was involved in some “ed reform” group with Harold Ford.
The broader point about more aggressive unions focused on organizing, yes. I was disappointed in Sweeney; I expected more based on his campaign in ’95.
VW Mgmt announced they will still try to launch a non-union works council.
UAW will have to at least consider suing to stop it.
precedent risk. If VW can have a “company union,” other companies can as well.
and have been since 1935, but when I worked at Colonial Press in Clinton in the ’70s, they had a company union. It was a radically different experience from an earlier job at a printing house with an international union, and not in any good ways.
“company unions” were outlawed to prevent them from undermining actual unions and collective bargaining.
That said, I’m in favor of workers having a major role in running their companies.