Are they like traveling proselytizers, trying to win people over to the flock?

They weren't satisfied ruining GM and Chrysler, and almost Ford... so now they're gonna "target" Japanese automakers in the US?

Enjoy the article:

The United Auto Workers (UAW) Union, which has already bagged contracts with three big auto makers in Detroit - GM, Ford and Chrysler, is now training its guns on foreign automakers' plants in the U.S. Its most likely target is Nissan.

According to reliable sources, Nissan has already been discussed as a target for organizing by union leaders. Although the UAW has always been against organizing workers in foreign plants in the U.S., it is adopting different tactics this time.

Any decision will not be made by the union's executive board, until it sees the automakers reaction to UAW demands to be allowed to pitch workers and let them vote on joining the union.

Nissan Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., BMW AG, Daimler AG, Volkswagen AG and Hyundai Motor Co./Kia Motors Corp. have been asked by the union to let workers vote on union representation in a free election.

The UAW signed new four-year deals early in 2011 that did not include pay raises for most workers. Though, it opted for profit-sharing. The deals have resulted in the creation of thousands of extra jobs in those factories.

There has been a fall in membership of UAW to just more than 376,000, which is just a quarter of what it was in 1979. Last year it rose 6 percent, going up for the first time since 2004.

_____________________________
OK, let's break this down:

Nissan has already been discussed as a target for organizing by union leaders. Sounds like plotting and scheming, doesn't it? Hasn't Nissan been getting along just fine in the US without their help? Or did I miss something?

The deals have resulted in the creation of thousands of extra jobs in those factories. So, what wasn't getting accomplished before? Were those jobs needed? Not likely.

Any decision will not be made by the union's executive board, until it sees the automakers reaction to UAW demands to be allowed to pitch workers and let them vote on joining the union. Nissan Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., BMW AG, Daimler AG, Volkswagen AG and Hyundai Motor Co./Kia Motors Corp. have been asked by the union to let workers vote on union representation in a free election.

Well, which is it? Asked, or DEMANDED? We all know what it'll turn into. The asking precedes the demanding, which precedes the pressure, which precedes the systematic FORCING of the company to allow them in.

Are they THAT concerned about the "plight" of US workers building cars with Japanese and European nameplates? Are they really THAT mistreated? I don't see people leaving Hyundai to work for Chrysler, that's for damn sure....

There has been a fall in membership of UAW to just more than 376,000, which is just a quarter of what it was in 1979.

Ah. Well, there you have it. They're the Encyclopedia Brittanica salesmen of this decade, but you don't just say "no thanks"...

Bring on the flaming.

A link to the article fosters enjoyment.

AZhitman wrote:Sounds like plotting and scheming, doesn't it? Hasn't Nissan been getting along just fine in the US without their help? Or did I miss something?

The union isn't supposed to care if Nissan's been getting along just fine in the US without their help. Their job is to make life better for Nissan's employees. Not saying that Nissan's employees have it rough, but you're asking exactly the wrong question.

AZhitman wrote:So, what wasn't getting accomplished before? Were those jobs needed? Not likely.

Not sure what the word "extra" is supposed to mean there. It sounds like the Union opted for lower pay in exchange for more employees. You have a problem with this?

AZhitman wrote:Well, which is it? Asked, or DEMANDED? We all know what it'll turn into. The asking precedes the demanding, which precedes the pressure, which precedes the systematic FORCING of the company to allow them in.

Simmer down, old man.

AZhitman wrote:Are they THAT concerned about the "plight" of US workers building cars with Japanese and European nameplates? Are they really THAT mistreated? I don't see people leaving Hyundai to work for Chrysler, that's for damn sure....

I don't see anybody leaving Nissan to work for Hyundai, either. Not that the 300 mile difference between their factories has anything to do with it, though.

AZhitman wrote:There has been a fall in membership of UAW to just more than 376,000, which is just a quarter of what it was in 1979.

Ah. Well, there you have it. They're the Encyclopedia Brittanica salesmen of this decade, but you don't just say "no thanks"...

Well, in a right-to-work state, you undercut a union's ability to fund itself. You get the all the benefits of union membership but don't have to join, and don't have to pay. In the meantime, the union's having less and less money, so that it can't, say, hire the quality lawyers it might want for contract negotiations, or provide its union stewards with the best training they'll need on union matters. So of course the service the union can provide goes downhill, too.

AZhitman wrote:Bring on the flaming.

Yes, you did.

IBCoupe wrote:Their job is to make life better for Nissan's employees.

They don't HAVE a "job" with Nissan Corporate. They're an interloper, a carpetbagger, an uninvited intrusion.

The employees aren't asking for representation. The union is inserting themselves into an environment of their own accord.

IBCoupe wrote:Well, in a right-to-work state, you undercut a union's ability to fund itself. You get the all the benefits of union membership but don't have to join, and don't have to pay.

Hmmmm. Maybe that's the solution. Seems to work pretty well for us.

Now, we need an auto manufacturer here in the Valley... while we've acquired a great number of high-tech jobs, it might be nice to have some manufacturing as well.

AZhitman wrote:They don't HAVE a "job" with Nissan Corporate. They're an interloper, a carpetbagger, an uninvited intrusion.

The employees aren't asking for representation. The union is inserting themselves into an environment of their own accord.

Really? The "employees" aren't asking for representation? My guess is there's at least some who want it, and the way you'd find out if the "employees" want representation is by having the kind of election UAW is asking Nissan to allow. Unless you've got a poll that shows 100% of the employees there don't want union representation, I'm not sure you can honestly say that "the union is inserting themselves into an environment of their own accord."

Ditch the hostility to unions, Greg; you just come off as unhinged.

AZhitman wrote:Hmmmm. Maybe that's the solution. Seems to work pretty well for us.

Now, we need an auto manufacturer here in the Valley... while we've acquired a great number of high-tech jobs, it might be nice to have some manufacturing as well.

You get all the benefits of union membership up until the union ceases to function because nobody's paying for it. Then you get none of the benefits of union membership. I was describing the free ridership problem inherent in the right-to-work arrangement.

IBCoupe wrote:Ditch the hostility to unions, Greg; you just come off as unhinged.

Ditch the blind loyalty to them, Isaac; you come off as uninformed.

Greg, it's not blind loyalty. I'm simply not drinking the conservative flavor-aid and taking your vague, unsupported assertions about unions as fact.

IBCoupe wrote:Really? The "employees" aren't asking for representation? My guess is there's at least some who want it, and the way you'd find out if the "employees" want representation is by having the kind of election UAW is asking Nissan to allow. Unless you've got a poll that shows 100% of the employees there don't want union representation, I'm not sure you can honestly say that "the union is inserting themselves into an environment of their own accord."

You're right, I'm not certain.

But I'll bet there's some employees who would support a LOT of things the employer doesn't currently offer (strippers in the break room? Beer breaks? Free leases on new cars? T-shirt and shorts day?).

Granted, all I have is the article author's words to go on - But I don't sense any real indication of the employees clamoring for the UAW's involvement:

The United Auto Workers (UAW) Union, which has already bagged contracts with three big auto makers in Detroit - GM, Ford and Chrysler, is now training its guns on foreign automakers' plants in the U.S. Its most likely target is Nissan. According to reliable sources, Nissan has already been discussed as a target for organizing by union leaders. Although the UAW has always been against organizing workers in foreign plants in the U.S., it is adopting different tactics this time.

AZhitman wrote:(strippers in the break room? Beer breaks? Free leases on new cars? T-shirt and shorts day?)

Greg, when you demonstrate that you're operating in a pretend world where only scumbags work in unions, you demonstrate that you're a crazy person. Try Trifluoperazine.

AZhitman wrote:Granted, all I have is the article author's words to go on - But I don't sense any real indication of the employees clamoring for the UAW's involvement:

From a guy who says contracts were "bagged" and had "guns" "trained" on them? Yeah, no wonder you got no impression that the employees would have any desire for union representation.

It's hard to take you serious when you get so angry about so very little.

IBCoupe wrote:Try Trifluoperazine.

Let's not play junior pharmacist. You've got your field of study, and you're gifted for it - but getting a C- in comprehending a point being conveyed by an obviously extreme illustrative example.

"Scumbags"? Ouch. What do you have against strip club clientele?

IBCoupe wrote:It's hard to take you serious when you get so angry about so very little.

The magnitude of the issue is in the eye of the beholder. Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's not an issue. As I recall, you were quite concerned about SB1070 (which was 3000-miles and 3 shades of brown away).

Anyway, if you want to impress upon me how wrong I am, which I welcome (and always have), then some examples of how workers in Japanese- and European-marque facilities in the US are clamoring for collective representation would really shut me up.

Dismissive comments work about as well on me as they do on you - we're not terribly different in that regard, and you don't have the market cornered on logical thought... Step outside your present worldview and consider for a moment that this just *might* be something more than a wild rant.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Automotive/2 ... maker.html

^ This article sounds an awful lot like they're trying to kick in a closed door.

And, in case we're concerned about Nissan worker salaries and benefits:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 971057.htm

....and, this just in: UAW President backpedals on prior comments. Today.

http://hr2012.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/ ... -strategy/

Notice all of the commentary involved the UAW "targeting" a manufacturer, "strategizing" entry, and "organizing transplants".

So, no apologies for making it sound invasive - those aren't my words.

Whether it affects me is immaterial, as I've told you before. The only part of this conversation that affects me are the aspersions you cast upon union members (the UAW in particular), because I am one: UAW Local 571. So when you make those disparaging remarks, you're making them about me and my coworkers. You're probably joking, but these concocted stereotypes seem to form the basis for your predetermined opinions on everything union-related, and that makes them that much worse.

AZhitman wrote:Anyway, if you want to impress upon me how wrong I am, which I welcome (and always have), then some examples of how workers in Japanese- and European-marque facilities in the US are clamoring for collective representation would really shut me up.

I don't need to, Greg. My point isn't that they're clamoring. My point is that it's rather presumptuous for you to say that, as a group, they do not want the union there. The only way you'd know that is if the union got the election it was looking for and lost.

AZhitman wrote:Dismissive comments work about as well on me as they do on you - we're not terribly different in that regard, and you don't have the market cornered on logical thought... Step outside your present worldview and consider for a moment that this just *might* be something more than a wild rant.

Well, if you weren't to make completely baseless assertions about, well, anything, there wouldn't be any need for dismissive comments. I'll treat it as something more than a wild rant when you get to the punchline: what's the terrible thing that's going on? What horrible deeds is the UAW doing?

AZhitman wrote:^ This article sounds an awful lot like they're trying to kick in a closed door.

The only people suggesting it's closed are the employers, Greg, and that's not an unusual thing to hear from an employer. Might be true, but it's hardly a reliable source. The UAW says they've heard "complaints of civil and human rights violations by Nissan from employees and the community." Nissan's response? "The UAW didn't bring them to our attention." The proper response: why would they? If people are reaching out from Nissan and complaining to the UAW, as your own link suggests, it sounds a bit like maybe somebody's interested in representation.

And if that's the case, this is an entirely private dispute between employer and employee about individual rights (as union organization and membership is a protected civil right: 29 U.S.C. § 157). Accordingly, the amount of "give-a-s***" I assign to your opinion as to whether the union's request is proper is pretty low, and all that remains are the insulting comments you make about the sorts of people who happen to work in a union shop.

AZhitman wrote:....and, this just in: UAW President backpedals on prior comments. Today.

http://hr2012.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/ ... -strategy/

Notice all of the commentary involved the UAW "targeting" a manufacturer, "strategizing" entry, and "organizing transplants".

So, no apologies for making it sound invasive - those aren't my words.

I don't mind "strategizing" or "organizing transplants" or "targetting." I don't mind the language. It was your assertion that the union's uninvited that rubbed me the wrong way, because there was nothing to support that claim.

(loving this conversation, by the way. It's a wonderful distraction from preparing my final exam outlines)

IBCoupe wrote:My point is that it's rather presumptuous for you to say that, as a group, they do not want the union there. The only way you'd know that is if the union got the election it was looking for and lost.

The UAW failed in 1986 to get even enough support to call for a vote at Honda's plant in Marysville, Ohio. Therefore, they reconcentrated their efforts on the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, in 1989. After 17 months of arduous campaigning, millions of dollars, and 30 professional union organizers, they called for a vote before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The employees defeated the union effort by a resounding 2 to 1 margin.

In 1997, the UAW again tried to unionize the Smyrna plant, distributing literature and flyers at the gate to Nissan workers and using all the organizing tactics. Once again, Nissan employees, whose ranks had swollen to almost 5,000, rejected the union by such a margin that the UAW never even called for a vote. This was followed by a letter delivered to each employee's house by the UAW on September 5, 1997. Most employees determined that the UAW's benefit and wage package couldn't even compare with what Nissan was already giving them.

In 1989 the UAW lost its first certification election at Nissan by a wide margin.

In 2001, the same result: Nissan workers rejected the UAW by 68% to 32%.

DO NOT WANT.

IBCoupe wrote:What horrible deeds is the UAW doing?

I asked what they hope to accomplish. No mention of "horrible deeds".

But, not that you mention it, the NLRA permits unions to harass workers and automakers with threats of certification elections indefinitely. What does this mean? It means that automakers waste resources allocated to dealing with these repeated inquests that could otherwise go to training, R&D, salaries, benefits, infrastructure improvements, etc.

They don't care about the costs they impose on the manufacturers... their goal is the continued justification for their existence and increasing paying membership (thus, more political influence).

Not presumptuous. Not personal. No butt-hurt allowed.

Now, go do your damn homework. I don't want you to become a leech on the system.

AZhitman wrote:But, not that you mention it, the NLRA permits unions to harass workers and automakers with threats of certification elections indefinitely. What does this mean? It means that automakers waste resources allocated to dealing with these repeated inquests that could otherwise go to training, R&D, salaries, benefits, infrastructure improvements, etc.

They don't care about the costs they impose on the manufacturers... their goal is the continued justification for their existence and increasing paying membership (thus, more political influence).

"Threats of certification elections?" Forget about what you think the implications of union promotion are, what the heck does that phrase even mean?

Seems to me, Greg, if employees are so darned happy with their employer, the company needn't expend many resources fighting the union advertising. It's been a full decade since the last time they were told "No thanks." They could have had nine elections since then, but they didn't. In the event that allegations regarding human and civil rights violations have any amount of truth to them, is it at all possible that maybe opinions have changed? They've gone from getting no votes to getting some over the past half century. What will you say if they win? Or come closer?

That it's dirty union tricks? Or that the employees whose choice it is have spoken?

"National Labor Relations Board" - sounds as if the name was plucked straight from the pages of Atlas Shrugged

IBCoupe wrote:My point is that it's rather presumptuous for you to say that, as a group, they do not want the union there. The only way you'd know that is if the union got the election it was looking for and lost.

I addressed that. You're welcome. I see we've changed the subject without so much as an acknowledgment.

IBCoupe wrote:"Threats of certification elections?" Forget about what you think the implications of union promotion are, what the heck does that phrase even mean?

All argumentativeness and disagreements aside, read up on it.

As I stated earlier, pushing for certification elections (which are protected by the NLRB) costs a company time, money and man-hours, even if BOTH sides know that the UAW will be sent home, hat-in-hand.

If unionization is declining steadily since the 70's, what makes any reasonable person think that "Oooh, maybe this is the year they let us in!" ? That's simply ignorant no matter WHICH side you believe.

IBCoupe wrote:In the event that allegations regarding human and civil rights violations have any amount of truth to them...

...then the agencies that handle such issues should have been notified. Or maybe they were, and after a thorough investigation, the complainants lost their case. The point is, there are plenty of safeguards already in place to ensure workers are treated fairly. If you think they're insufficient, perhaps you should be railing against them for failing the workers, rather than championing a group whose presence is historically shady, disruptive to business, and clearly unwelcome in the "target" company.

I see this crap all the time with the EEOC - I defend the Agency against EEOC claims, most of which are frivolous and ill-advised, but since they're protected, people can continue to file complaints until someone at the EEOC (at great legal risk) says, "Enough." Meanwhile, legitimate investigations into fraud, misuse of property, contract violations, and other useful, productive work goes undone.

I'm sure you can see how this would be problematic.

AZhitman wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:My point is that it's rather presumptuous for you to say that, as a group, they do not want the union there. The only way you'd know that is if the union got the election it was looking for and lost.

I addressed that. You're welcome. I see we've changed the subject without so much as an acknowledgment.

Congratulations? That's why I didn't argue it, though it is notable that the last example was a decade ago.

IBCoupe wrote:All argumentativeness and disagreements aside, read up on it.

As I stated earlier, pushing for certification elections (which are protected by the NLRB) costs a company time, money and man-hours, even if BOTH sides know that the UAW will be sent home, hat-in-hand.

First, they're protected by the NLRB because it's an individual right.
Second, it doesn't cost the company anything to let it happen.

AZhitman wrote:If unionization is declining steadily since the 70's, what makes any reasonable person think that "Oooh, maybe this is the year they let us in!" ? That's simply ignorant no matter WHICH side you believe.

Because the workers at a factory are representative of the population at large? Our employment trends have shifted to fields that aren't typically organized, Greg.

AZhitman wrote:...then the agencies that handle such issues should have been notified. Or maybe they were, and after a thorough investigation, the complainants lost their case.

Assuming there's been enough time for that to have happened.

AZhitman wrote:The point is, there are plenty of safeguards already in place to ensure workers are treated fairly.

The right to organize being one of them.

AZhitman wrote:If you think they're insufficient, perhaps you should be railing against them for failing the workers, rather than championing a group whose presence is historically shady, disruptive to business, and clearly unwelcome in the "target" company.

If they have failed workers, I'll do that, too. Labor organization is an individual right. I'm totally capable of championing better minimum wage laws and better office safety laws, but I'm not gonna get in someone's way because they and the federal government have a disagreement on what is adequate.

AZhitman wrote:I see this crap all the time with the EEOC - I defend the Agency against EEOC claims, most of which are frivolous and ill-advised, but since they're protected, people can continue to file complaints until someone at the EEOC (at great legal risk) says, "Enough." Meanwhile, legitimate investigations into fraud, misuse of property, contract violations, and other useful, productive work goes undone.

I'm sure you can see how this would be problematic.

Sucks to be you, I guess. You don't argue for reform, Greg, you argue against unions in general. Make yourself useful and come up with a solution that doesn't involve stripping people of their rights.

IBCoupe wrote:they're protected by the NLRB because it's an individual right.

Right. No outside influence necessary. So why "target" a company? Why knock on workers' doors? Why call them at home? Why hand out leaflets?

Do they really think auto workers are unaware of the existence of the UAW?

IBCoupe wrote:Sucks to be you, I guess. You don't argue for reform, Greg, you argue against unions in general. Make yourself useful and come up with a solution that doesn't involve stripping people of their rights.

Actually, being me is pretty awesome.

Sometimes there's no reform needed, but I can see how that'd be a hard concept for you to accept.

No one's been stripped of their rights, nor am I advocating such.

Nor is my "usefulness" (let's not go there, you'll lose) tied in any way to gerrymandering in a system that works damn well without the influences of an overpaid lobbyist.

See, the part you miss, when you get all pompous and arrogant with your 3rd-year academia, is that my disdain for the unions doesn't involve prohibiting them from doing anything. Anything. You're so blinded by your loyalty to a useless organization whose time has come and gone that you see anything oppositional as an artificial obstacle, put in place by "those big mean anti-union people".

See, nowhere have I suggested impeding their right to do their thing - I've asked "what do they hope to gain" and criticized their desperate attempts to remain relevant in a world that has passed them by. It's almost laughable from the outside.

Anything you think they can do for Nissan's workers, lay it out there - and I'll show you statistics that back up WHY Nissan's people have overwhelmingly rejected the UAW's "divide and conquer" tactics.

BTW, I spend just as much time looking out for individual employee rights (and making sure the Agency hasn't acted in anything other than a purely legal and defensible capacity) as I do defending the Agency against baseless claims.

So, you can stack that on top of the pile of "things I admire about Greg".

AZhitman wrote:Right. No outside influence necessary. So why "target" a company? Why knock on workers' doors? Why call them at home? Why hand out leaflets?

Do they really think auto workers are unaware of the existence of the UAW?

Well, for one because most people don't understand their rights. My parents thought they could be fired for organizing, when I suggested that if the company isn't responsive to their reasonable complaints, there were other ways to gain influence over their working conditions. I also told them they would be fired for organizing, but that it would be illegal. I imagine that wasn't any comfort. So, there's that.

But also because there's nothing wrong with selling your argument. All anybody ever hears about the UAW is how terrible it is from folks like yourself who've had no experience with it, and simply base that on things they've heard from other people, or from outside analysis of an economic relationship they may or may not grasp. The UAW may have its faults, but certainly you can't seriously believe that factory workers in Smyrna, TN are privy to any objective truth on the matter.

AZhitman wrote:Sometimes there's no reform needed, but I can see how that'd be a hard concept for you to accept.

No one's been stripped of their rights, nor am I advocating such.

Well, if there's no reform needed and you're railing against union organization and the people who organize unions, what exactly is it you're trying to accomplish?

AZhitman wrote:See, the part you miss, when you get all pompous and arrogant with your 3rd-year academia, is that my disdain for the unions doesn't involve prohibiting them from doing anything. Anything. You're so blinded by your loyalty to a useless organization whose time has come and gone that you see anything oppositional as an artificial obstacle, put in place by "those big mean anti-union people".

See, nowhere have I suggested impeding their right to do their thing - I've asked "what do they hope to gain" and criticized their desperate attempts to remain relevant in a world that has passed them by. It's almost laughable from the outside.

Criticized to what end, Greg? I have no loyalty to the UAW. I simply recognize unions for what they are: collective activity for mutual benefit. It is an exercise of individual rights. I do not care if the Nissan workers reject the UAW. I do not care if the UAW collapses. It doesn't matter a lick to me. What matters to me is what you seem to mistakenly believe about unions: that they're obsolete. That's not at all the case. That there are federal laws that serve as back-stops does not lead one to conclude that workers couldn't reasonably want more than the federal minimum, and that they shouldn't have a right to do it.

You say you're not arguing for the abolishment of unions, but every argument you make appears to have that baseline assumption: that we're better off without them.

AZhitman wrote:Anything you think they can do for Nissan's workers, lay it out there - and I'll show you statistics that back up WHY Nissan's people have overwhelmingly rejected the UAW's "divide and conquer" tactics.

I neither work for Nissan nor do I represent the UAW. There's no way I would know what the UAW can, or plans to offer to the Nissan employees. If you'll look back over the thread, you won't once see me argue that the Nissan employees should take the UAW up on its offer for representation, and that's because it's not my call to make.

I have argued that the UAW should be allowed to make that offer. And, if you may permit me to preempt what I imagine will be your response to this last bit, yes you did argue that they shouldn't:

AZhitman wrote:As I stated earlier, pushing for certification elections (which are protected by the NLRB) costs a company time, money and man-hours, even if BOTH sides know that the UAW will be sent home, hat-in-hand.

Sure, maybe you meant "they shouldn't do it," but then why the allusion to NLRB protection?

IBCoupe wrote:Well, for one because most people don't understand their rights.

Underestimate much?

IBCoupe wrote:But also because there's nothing wrong with selling your argument.

Thanks. That's what I've been getting at.

IBCoupe wrote:...from folks like yourself who've had no experience with it

Sure about that? Stick with me...

IBCoupe wrote:...certainly you can't seriously believe that factory workers in Smyrna, TN are privy to any objective truth on the matter.

Why, because they're backwards? Dumb? Uninformed? Sounds like a dismissive, stereotypically-based "Howie-ism" to me. I hope that's not what you meant.

IBCoupe wrote:Well, if there's no reform needed and you're railing against union organization and the people who organize unions, what exactly is it you're trying to accomplish?

Challenging the status quo, perhaps. I think the misinformed ones are the ones coughing up good dollars (on TOP of the tax dollars that support entities designed to protect employees' rights) to an organization that doesn't provide a good ROI. The culture of the domestic manufacturer is faulty - fix that, and there'll be much less need for outside arm-twisting.

IBCoupe wrote:That there are federal laws that serve as back-stops does not lead one to conclude that workers couldn't reasonably want more than the federal minimum, and that they shouldn't have a right to do it.

Interestingly, if a group of employees get together in the break room and decide they want to troop down to HR and present a list of demands in lieu of resignation letters, guess what? No outside involvement needed - and it's free.

IBCoupe wrote:If you'll look back over the thread, you won't once see me argue that the Nissan employees should take the UAW up on its offer for representation, and that's because it's not my call to make.

I know - and I appreciate that. Sometimes, you're just a well-qualified foil for a good rant.

IBCoupe wrote:Sure, maybe you meant "they shouldn't do it," but then why the allusion to NLRB protection?

You're right on both counts. I believe in leaving well-enough alone, but I also see that the NLRB "protections" are a bit lopsided in that they don't offer any protections for the employer themselves. It DOES cost the employer money and time to go through the vote process, that is undeniable.

See, there's a whole cultural difference in Japanese automakers that the UAW is seemingly ignorant to - The corporate culture is such that workers may disagree with management, but it's absolutely dishonorable to ask for proxy interference. (I recommend a reading of "The Japanese Organizational Culture Scale", you'll like it.) In recognition of that, management makes it easier for line staff to voice concerns at the lowest level and takes them seriously, thereby averting a lot of institutional mayhem. They empower their supervisors to make decisions, free of external interference - The first line supervisors at most Japanese manufacturers thereby become the best 'union organizers'.

Of note, since you mention Smyrna: Not one person has been laid off there since the plant started back in 1980. A quote in 2007 from a newsletter at the Smyrna plant: "The employees determined that the UAW's benefit and wage package couldn't even compare with what Nissan was already giving them." (If this was false, you can bet there would have been some gnashing of teeth amongst the "disgruntled"... I'm guessing they were few and far between).

Maybe here's someplace you can educate me on something, if you will: OK, you pay your dues. Now, 30 professional UAW organizers trundle off to Smyrna, spend 17 months campaigning and lobbying for a vote, spending millions (yes, millions) of dollars, and get soundly defeated by a 2 to 1 margin in front of the NLRB... Is that what your dues pay for? I'm not being snippy, I'm just wondering why your dues go towards an obviously ill-fated effort at another plant - even if it succeeds, how does that benefit you and your peers? Seems like someone needs to do their homework and get a little better ROI for the hard-earned money YOU guys contribute. I'm unclear on how that works and who it benefits.

AZhitman wrote:Underestimate much?

No, just well-read.

Steven Greenhouse wrote:Workers are not dummies. They realize the risks they face if they seek to unionize. A federal commission headed by John Dunlop, the late, great former U.S. Labor Secretary and Harvard professor, found that 79 percent of Americans believe it is “very” or “somewhat likely” that “nonunion workers will get fired if they try to organize a union.”

AZhitman wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:But also because there's nothing wrong with selling your argument.

Thanks. That's what I've been getting at.

Okay...

AZhitman wrote:Why, because they're backwards? Dumb? Uninformed? Sounds like a dismissive, stereotypically-based "Howie-ism" to me. I hope that's not what you meant.

I went out of my way to make it clear that it wasn't what I meant, Greg. Thanks, though. If you disagree with my statement, don't just ask me why I said it, suggest to me how you think factory workers in Tennessee have an objective understanding of the costs and benefits associated with union membership when the vast majority of Americans don't understand their own labor rights, let alone what they might be missing out on without a union.

AZhitman wrote:Challenging the status quo, perhaps. I think the misinformed ones are the ones coughing up good dollars (on TOP of the tax dollars that support entities designed to protect employees' rights) to an organization that doesn't provide a good ROI. The culture of the domestic manufacturer is faulty - fix that, and there'll be much less need for outside arm-twisting.

A good return on investment? As compared to what? If I point to a union shop and a comparable non-union shop, statistically you'll see a 20-25% higher compensation in the former. And, with my union contract, that's in exchange for 2 hours of my time a month, or 1.2% of my annual income. Only counting the raw dollar amount (and not the improved job security and other benefits) ,that's a 17-21x return on investment. You go ahead and find me a better ROI, and I'll hand you my union-contract-guaranteed 401(k) to invest on my behalf.

There are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't want union membership (you already have direct access to your bosses and a great deal of influence over the terms of your employment, for example), but "bad ROI" is not among them.

AZhitman wrote:Interestingly, if a group of employees get together in the break room and decide they want to troop down to HR and present a list of demands in lieu of resignation letters, guess what? No outside involvement needed - and it's free.

Holy crap, and they've just exercised their NLRA-protected rights. Why is it you think only union organization comes from the outside?

AZhitman wrote:I know - and I appreciate that. Sometimes, you're just a well-qualified foil for a good rant.

Curse you!

AZhitman wrote:You're right on both counts. I believe in leaving well-enough alone, but I also see that the NLRB "protections" are a bit lopsided in that they don't offer any protections for the employer themselves. It DOES cost the employer money and time to go through the vote process, that is undeniable.

I don't believe it's lopsided. In 1947, the NLRA was amended, and basically anything an employer is prohibited from doing, a union is prohibited from doing, too.

AZhitman wrote:See, there's a whole cultural difference in Japanese automakers that the UAW is seemingly ignorant to - The corporate culture is such that workers may disagree with management, but it's absolutely dishonorable to ask for proxy interference. (I recommend a reading of "The Japanese Organizational Culture Scale", you'll like it.) In recognition of that, management makes it easier for line staff to voice concerns at the lowest level and takes them seriously, thereby averting a lot of institutional mayhem. They empower their supervisors to make decisions, free of external interference - The first line supervisors at most Japanese manufacturers thereby become the best 'union organizers'.

In that the company actually respects its employees, that's great. In the event that local managers don't live up to the high standards of the Japanese headquarters on the other side of the planet, I'm not going to fault a few dissatisfied employees from going to the UAW to ask for its help. I won't even fault the UAW for offering its help if no one asks.

AZhitman wrote:Maybe here's someplace you can educate me on something, if you will: OK, you pay your dues. Now, 30 professional UAW organizers trundle off to Smyrna, spend 17 months campaigning and lobbying for a vote, spending millions (yes, millions) of dollars, and get soundly defeated by a 2 to 1 margin in front of the NLRB... Is that what your dues pay for? I'm not being snippy, I'm just wondering why your dues go towards an obviously ill-fated effort at another plant - even if it succeeds, how does that benefit you and your peers? Seems like someone needs to do their homework and get a little better ROI for the hard-earned money YOU guys contribute. I'm unclear on how that works and who it benefits.

My union dues pay for that among many other things. In order for a union to be effective in a market like the automotive market, where there's a lot of concentrated economic power in a few employers, it has to keep pressure on them. Otherwise, competition will undermine the things its gained for its members: better pay, better benefits, better time, better conditions, better retirement - a better life. And that will happen across the board. The stagnation of wages has mapped to (among a great many other things including job environment shifts - from assembly lines to cubicles) the decline in union membership.

Regardless of whether the union actually represents anybody in Tennessee, the union members in Detroit benefit because they know that employers in Tennessee can't simply pull the rug out from under the industry's feet. Nissan USA knows that if they treat their workers bad enough, they'll organize, and they'll be fully within their rights to do so. The fact that the margin of defeat for the union has shrunk over the past few decades suggests that they might be slipping towards that. The UAW probably doesn't have to be successful in order to gain by their actions.

And if the union abuses the power we members hand them, the democratic nature of the institution provides a natural check on them.

Looks like the "democratic nature of the institution" might just allow for a little "natural selection" in 2012:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/23/news/ec ... ce=cnn_bin

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickal ... e-as-much/

Some food for thought.

Not a dismissal of that point, but from what I've read elsewhere, they're also quite a bit more technically-trained overall.

Also, it's not hard to pay more when the overall ERE (employee-related expenses) are significantly less. Since they have free healthcare and other amenities provided by the government, that keeps employer costs down. (In most industries, ERE is approximately 90% of an employee's total cost... So, an employee who makes $36K a year costs the employer around $70K.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but that means the German's get free healthcare AND higher pay? And they have a strong economy? We must learn something...

No offense, BBB, but if this is news to you, there's a couple community college courses I'd like you to enroll in...

There's always a trade-off. BTW, I did a little research after reading that article, and it's only partially accurate. Wages in almost all other professions in Germany are on a par with US wages, and they're not making "double" (that's a slight exaggeration).

It's probably not hard to make a lot of profit on a VW - they sure as hell don't spend much on design, ergonomics, or new technology.

AZhitman wrote:No offense, BBB, but if this is news to you, there's a couple community college courses I'd like you to enroll in...

There's always a trade-off. BTW, I did a little research after reading that article, and it's only partially accurate. Wages in almost all other professions in Germany are on a par with US wages, and they're not making "double" (that's a slight exaggeration).

It's probably not hard to make a lot of profit on a VW - they sure as hell don't spend much on design, ergonomics, or new technology.

except the VW Passat won Motortrend car of the year?

bigbadberry3 wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong but that means the German's get free healthcare AND higher pay? And they have a strong economy? We must learn something...

It's not free, it's paid for by rapacious taxation, 47.5% income tax, number 9 in the world. Higher pay? How about the net earnings after the tax man takes his tribute?
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-tax ... -germany-6


Nothing is free. Get that idea out of your head.

That's the problem with most peoples' idea of entitlement systems, that they are free. Someone has to pay for things. This basic accounting principle is ignored by most people and why our respective national debts are through the roof around the world and why this little experiment is going to fail.

bigbadberry3 wrote: except the VW Passat won Motortrend car of the year?

2007: Toyota Camry
2005: Chrysler 300
2002: Ford Thunderbird
2001: Chrysler PT Cruiser
1999: Chrysler 300M
1997: Chevrolet Malibu
1996: Dodge Caravan
1995: Chrysler Cirrus
1994: Ford Mustang
1991: Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ
1990: Lincoln Town Car
1988: Pontiac Grand Prix
1986: Ford Taurus LX
1984: Chevrolet Corvette
1983: American Motors Renault Alliance

Yeah, that's a real winners' circle.