Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So you won't support American workers because a non-American company is paying better wages and benefits and providing better working conditions to their American workers than many American manufacturers? And because these American workers decided together (collectively you might even say) that their bargaining with the company has been excellent and the workers feel that being unionized is not in their interest despite the company being okay with them unionizing?

In pro-union. I'm a dues-paying union member. If companies would rather not have their workers unionize they have two options: bully the union away or provide working conditions so that the workers feel like their needs are taken care of and a union is not needed. I have a problem with the first tactic, but from anything I have heard the union was "defeated" via the second tactic. The workers made the choice, and if you refuse to support happy and satisfied workers then that's really pretty weird...

 d-usa wrote:
So you won't support American workers because a non-American company is paying better wages and benefits and providing better working conditions to their American workers than many American manufacturers?

That is a little bit of false equivalency there. Because I won't buy a Volkswagen made in a non-union plant doesn't mean I don't "support American workers" especially considering the fact that I buy American-made automobiles that are made by Americans, who also happen to be organized.

And because these American workers decided together (collectively you might even say) that their bargaining with the company has been excellent and the workers feel that being unionized is not in their interest despite the company being okay with them unionizing?

Again, that is fine. If the workers feel that they are getting a fair shake, I'm happy for them and I hope that they always do. That doesn't mean I will buy one of the cars they build.

In pro-union. I'm a dues-paying union member. If companies would rather not have their workers unionize they have two options: bully the union away or provide working conditions so that the workers feel like their needs are taken care of and a union is not needed. I have a problem with the first tactic, but from anything I have heard the union was "defeated" via the second tactic. The workers made the choice, and if you refuse to support happy and satisfied workers then that's really pretty weird...

I've been a member of the United Association for 13 years. I said it before, being union is a choice that we have the right to make. No one should be forced in to joining a union. Not only that, there are bad unions out there, no one is denying that. Yet, I see a lot of, "This one union is bad so therefore they must all be bad. I think they're terrible!" However, for every corrupt union officer (of which there are many) there are twice as many corrupt CEOs. For every poorly run union there are just as many poorly run non-union companies. It seems that whoever has the most money and power (the non-union) is able to deflect the negatives to the other side (unions) and people just go along with it.

I am a realist when it comes to this. I will never shout, "MOAR UNIONS!!! NOW!!" because they aren't for everything and everyone, but when I can show a sign of solidarity to a fellow union brother or sister (such as what I choose to buy), I'll do it/

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


Is Volkswagen a bad company? Are they guilty of anything I described? I would like to think not. By all accounts, it seems like a decent place to work. That being said, their workers do not support what I believe in, therefore I will choose not to spend my money there. I'm sorry you find my principles "silly."

It is odd because VW are a good company. Surely unions are like armies. We have them out of necessity and anyone pro worker should be supporting a company who's workers are treated well enough that they don't feel the need for a union?

They voted against organizing and I respect that. Even though I feel a unionized work force is better trained and better paid, no one should be forced to organize. If the UAW is not wanted there, than so be it. If the UAW were to try to force their way in to the VW plant, I would oppose it. That is how I support them.

That being said, I will not support their foreign-owned company using my union-earned wage. I will instead use it to buy a union made vehicle from an American-owned manufacturer.

You do realize that a lot of the components for "American" vehicles are outsourced to other countries.

Relapse wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


Is Volkswagen a bad company? Are they guilty of anything I described? I would like to think not. By all accounts, it seems like a decent place to work. That being said, their workers do not support what I believe in, therefore I will choose not to spend my money there. I'm sorry you find my principles "silly."

It is odd because VW are a good company. Surely unions are like armies. We have them out of necessity and anyone pro worker should be supporting a company who's workers are treated well enough that they don't feel the need for a union?

They voted against organizing and I respect that. Even though I feel a unionized work force is better trained and better paid, no one should be forced to organize. If the UAW is not wanted there, than so be it. If the UAW were to try to force their way in to the VW plant, I would oppose it. That is how I support them.

That being said, I will not support their foreign-owned company using my union-earned wage. I will instead use it to buy a union made vehicle from an American-owned manufacturer.

You do realize that a lot of the components for "American" vehicles are outsourced to other countries.

That;s true about most "american made" things.

I'm conflicted on the topic of unions. I've worked a few years now as a non union stagehand, and found that unions can cause a workforce to range from "excellent" to "terrible" thanks to their policies. I've had union members not just talk down to me for being non union, but downright hostile as I was "stealing their work", despite the fact that I tried to join that very same union for over a year, even though we were both working at the same job. I've had to deal with stuff like not being allowed to push a case 10 feet to clear a path for a forklift because I "stealing" work, when I could see the guys who were supposed to be doing it outside smoking.

However, other union crews have been extremely professional, hardworking, and polite. Some of the best crews I worked with were union, but I couldn't shake the feeling that they worked so well because they IGNORED some of the really crazy crap some unions enforce. Maybe that's because they knew their stagehand help could be more flexible because it wasn't unionized, maybe they were breaking rules, maybe I'm just a stupid kid and don't know better, but that's how it always felt. It always felt like the good union crews were good in spite of being in a union, rather than the other way around.

I wouldn't be against joining a union, I know they get paid better and can do a lot to protect me, but the laziness, stupidity in policies, and general red tape that some Unions seem to breed would make me extremely leery.

If VW treats its employees so well that they don't feel the need to unionize, that's awesome. I don't care if the company is American owned or not because I couldn't give one flying gak if the higher management saw my money. I only care about the guys lower in the chain, who do need that money. Cars like VW, Toyota, and Kia are all foreign business, but they seem to do a lot more for American jobs than the big 3 up in Detroit did.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I'm conflicted on the topic of unions. I've worked a few years now as a non union stagehand, and found that unions can cause a workforce to range from "excellent" to "terrible" thanks to their policies. I've had union members not just talk down to me for being non union, but downright hostile as I was "stealing their work", despite the fact that I tried to join that very same union for over a year, even though we were both working at the same job. I've had to deal with stuff like not being allowed to push a case 10 feet to clear a path for a forklift because I "stealing" work, when I could see the guys who were supposed to be doing it outside smoking.

However, other union crews have been extremely professional, hardworking, and polite. Some of the best crews I worked with were union, but I couldn't shake the feeling that they worked so well because they IGNORED some of the really crazy crap some unions enforce. Maybe that's because they knew their stagehand help could be more flexible because it wasn't unionized, maybe they were breaking rules, maybe I'm just a stupid kid and don't know better, but that's how it always felt. It always felt like the good union crews were good in spite of being in a union, rather than the other way around.

I wouldn't be against joining a union, I know they get paid better and can do a lot to protect me, but the laziness, stupidity in policies, and general red tape that some Unions seem to breed would make me extremely leery.

If VW treats its employees so well that they don't feel the need to unionize, that's awesome. I don't care if the company is American owned or not because I couldn't give one flying gak if the higher management saw my money. I only care about the guys lower in the chain, who do need that money. Cars like VW, Toyota, and Kia are all foreign business, but they seem to do a lot more for American jobs than the big 3 up in Detroit did.

I give this one an exalt, alright.

 Rismonite wrote:

I am a union employee in an enviroment with both Union and non Union employees. Yes there are bad examples and practices inside a union. However, if you think the non Union and contract employees are somehow better off or happier I would say you are misinformed, under duress, or have willingly accepted blissful ignorance. I've seen all walks of construction workers, factory workers, engineers, and technicians all in relevant fields that I could work. I do not want what they have at all. I could tell you volumes, sadly few are listening here. But please, ignore me and continue getting your education from every example the tv or other media can parade around between thier sponsor's commercials for you to see and believe that unions are actually detrimental to anything other than a corporation's bottom line.

I am glad that your own personal experience with a union has worked out for you... However, as I said in my post earlier, there are some unions that are still good/doing good things (even if the media like to villify them), and there are some unions that were once upon a time needed, but have either outgrown or outlasted their usefulness.

I have 2 close friends that are in unions (different unions), each union, in return for dues, etc. PROMISES gainful employment for its members on a certain timescale... Well, one friend who works finishing contracts gets a job for a couple weeks, then nothing for nearly the maximum time, every time... He's supposed to receive some form of compensation during that time, yet nearly never does receive anything close to what the union has promised him. My other friend is constantly in a similar situation... The only difference is, because he has kids, he somehow gets bumped up on the list (behind the other guys/gals who fit his same category)... The kicker is, while waiting on a job, he decided to get a further license/certification, and found out, because he got that, out of his own pocket mind you, that his "Work clock" had been reset, and he had to wait even longer for work.


What either of them realistically gets out of their respective unions is beyond me... I do know that my friend in construction, his union has been battling members for YEARS over disbanding, that is how unhappy the guys are with the union as a whole (and by disbanding, I mean the local chapter, since it definitely has the appearance of being an extremely corrupt organization). And, he is almost forced to continue doing construction work, as he cannot get enough work to actually save up for retirement, and he should be there, because he has 3 fully grown kids who are in their 30s/40s.


It seems to me, from the outside looking in, the companies that are on the whole, non-union seem to have happier employees, because most of their CEOs and top leadership are not so busy lining their pockets that they actually stop for a second and try to do good by the workforce... I think that in cases like VW, the top guys who are in Germany have their CEO pay capped (IIRC), and are thus able to put more money back to the community, the workforce and other charities and activities.

My paternal grandfather was a lifelong union man. He sings the praises of the unions he worked under, and he considered them a bulwark against the predations of callous businessmen. My father loathes unions because they tried to use physical intimidation on him to get him to join (Protip: do not attempt to physically bully a Marine just back from his second tour of duty in Vietnam) and sees them as corrupt and vile.

My own opinion is firmly in the middle. Unions can be a great boon to workers (and businesses) as long as they are properly run. The problem is, a lot of unions are more concerned with perpetuating their own power and existence (and wealth) and are concerned much less with helping their dues-paying members.

A lot of the problems with unions these days stems from a period in the mid 20th century when the mafia had a lot of influence in unions. I'm not 100% on the history of how it started, but I do know that the results of that influence included widespread corruption, the draining of union pension funds, nepotism, physical intimidation, and other unsavory things. Eventually, law enforcement began targeting mob involvement in labor unions, and actual mafia control of unions began to drop off sharply. There aren't a lot of unions that have any dues-paying made men on the payroll anymore.

However, although the actual mafia got run out of the unions, the kinds of people who learned how to be a union man from the mobsters are still there. The mentality of corruption remained in a lot of cases, even when the ones responsible for creating the corruption were gone. This is the problem that a lot of unions have yet to overcome, and I don't see an easy fix for it. The young union leadership is being trained (corrupted) by the older union leadership (who were themselves corrupted by mobsters) and without a removal of those at the top (whether by those at the bottom or by law enforcement) things will continue much as they are.

Newer unions, which haven't been around as long as the more famous unions seem to be avoiding these problems, as they came about after the Feds began monitoring mob/union activities more closely.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
There are definitely certain areas where, I think, Unions can/ and do good things... some of these are like the Teachers' Unions, because I'm sure we've all seen personally, how much local/national politicians just LOOOOVE cutting educational funding, and often times, the school boards want to look at teacher salaries, rather than unnecessary programs, such as sports.
t.

You may want to reevaluate this. Teachers unions are becoming increasingly unpopular with the teaching population, and especially with those teachers under 30 that the unions do absolutely nothing for.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
There are definitely certain areas where, I think, Unions can/ and do good things... some of these are like the Teachers' Unions, because I'm sure we've all seen personally, how much local/national politicians just LOOOOVE cutting educational funding, and often times, the school boards want to look at teacher salaries, rather than unnecessary programs, such as sports.
t.

You may want to reevaluate this. Teachers unions are becoming increasingly unpopular with the teaching population, and especially with those teachers under 30 that the unions do absolutely nothing for.

If they are becoming unpopular with the actual teachers, then I'd hope they are basing this on their experience, in which case, I fully support them getting rid of the union... It's just that from being a (now) casual observer of the primary educational areas (K-12 here in the US), it seems that school boards want to continually cut jobs, educational programs, arts, and everything else BEFORE they touch sports (there's a couple of exceptions), and as I think we've had threads covering the disaster zone that is the Federal Education organization, we can see that the teachers desire to be free to teach what is needed to succeed, not teach what's "needed" to pass a test. If unions are exacerbating these problems, then yeah, I'd be more than happy to be rid of them.

The fact that VW employees voted against a union seems like less an indictment of unions and more of a positive statement about VW's policies as an employer. That seems fine, where employers are not attempting to exploit their employees, unions aren't really a huge requirement.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
There are definitely certain areas where, I think, Unions can/ and do good things... some of these are like the Teachers' Unions, because I'm sure we've all seen personally, how much local/national politicians just LOOOOVE cutting educational funding, and often times, the school boards want to look at teacher salaries, rather than unnecessary programs, such as sports.
t.

You may want to reevaluate this. Teachers unions are becoming increasingly unpopular with the teaching population, and especially with those teachers under 30 that the unions do absolutely nothing for.

If they are becoming unpopular with the actual teachers, then I'd hope they are basing this on their experience, in which case, I fully support them getting rid of the union... It's just that from being a (now) casual observer of the primary educational areas (K-12 here in the US), it seems that school boards want to continually cut jobs, educational programs, arts, and everything else BEFORE they touch sports (there's a couple of exceptions), and as I think we've had threads covering the disaster zone that is the Federal Education organization, we can see that the teachers desire to be free to teach what is needed to succeed, not teach what's "needed" to pass a test. If unions are exacerbating these problems, then yeah, I'd be more than happy to be rid of them.

Well you can't blame schools for wanting to keep sports. Parents and students would have fits if the football or soccer program was eliminated. They're caught between a rock and a hard place with not having the funding to do frivolous activities and said frivolous activity being a deeply ingrained part of our culture.

I can attest to younger teachers not wanting to join teachers unions. I know quite a few younger teachers and they are trying to avoid joining. I also see at my college some fairly aggressive advertising for the teachers union too.

I've spent most of my teaching career outside of unions. Under certain administrations though, you do need the union's protection and support. I've taught 7 years and just went beyond 30 last year. Of those years, I've been in the union for only one administration because of the way they evaluated teachers and abused their power.

Well, the interesting thing about teachers unions is I think they are actually worth it when it comes to legal protection and providing attorneys in our increasingly litigious and accusatory, especially male teachers in the jr high and high school level.

Interestingly, i think that's a perfect reason that teachers, like doctors, should have an option for something akin to malpractice insurance; basically something that will help cover legal costs should (god forbid) some kid accuse you of something untoward.

On the other hand, if a teacher does do something bad fooling around with kids they should get thrown to the wolves. Pension removed, jail time, and total job loss.

 Grey Templar wrote:
On the other hand, if a teacher does do something bad fooling around with kids they should get thrown to the wolves. Pension removed, jail time, and total job loss.

Couldn't agree more.

An arrangement like this would be amiable to me.


You can unionize to protect teachers from false accusation. Protect innocent teachers and such. But if the teacher is found to be guilty of the charges, the union gets heavily fined as well in addition to what happens to the teacher.

That would provide a disincentive for the union to protect a guilty teacher and police their own ranks.

 Grey Templar wrote:
An arrangement like this would be amiable to me.


You can unionize to protect teachers from false accusation. Protect innocent teachers and such. But if the teacher is found to be guilty of the charges, the union gets heavily fined as well in addition to what happens to the teacher.

That would provide a disincentive for the union to protect a guilty teacher and police their own ranks.

That doesn't seem fair at all. How would the union know if the teacher was guilty or not before the trial?

They could do their own internal investigation to make sure they aren't protecting a bad teacher.

It would also encourage them to boot bad teachers before things got bad enough to warrant legal action.

Unions should be held accountable for protecting members who are engaging in illegal activity. They'd have incentive to head off bad behavior before it became an issue. It would result in a better environment all around. They wouldn't keep questionable individuals in the union and that would mean less people slipping through the cracks.

And we wouldn't have horrible teachers sticking around for years because they have seniority which makes them basically immune to repercussions.

Teacher's unions would have their own Internal Affairs? This IA would act upon complaints before the police would get involved? With sex crimes involving minors? To be honest, I don't think this has really been thought through.

It sucks that sometimes the teachers Union has to defend teachers from horrible allegations that turn out to be true. But that's really the only way to do things fairly.

If there was a situation like in the Catholic Church where there was a widespread systemic cover up going on to hide and protect criminal teachers, then I can get behind the heavy fine idea. But there is no such cover up in the teachers union afaik.

feeder wrote:
But there is no such cover up in the teachers union afaik.

There will always be coverups in large organizations, especially when there are levels of seniority and personal privilege.

But its not so much a reaction to existing coverups as it is an attempt to ensure they don't happen, by making the organization pay in the event they take the wrong side.

It may not be a equitable solution, the Union might unknowingly protect a guilty teacher and then get fined despite their ignorance. But they can just deal with it. And again, its incentive to do your absolute best to make sure your members are not doing anything questionable.

I am afraid we will have to disagree.
I don't believe anyone should be punished for acting in good faith.

But they should be punished for acting in poor judgement.

Teachers should also be held to excruciating standards. They have immense power and responsibility in their position after all.

I don't mind stepping on a few toes in this matter, better to let a organization that can take the fall take it than to let a bad teacher be protected.

Back to the original topic, this is what I have the biggest problem with: http://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/2/10/269310/Bo-Watson-Says-VW-May-Lose-State-Help.aspx

In a press conference to address the potential unionization of the Volkswagen plant, State Senator Bo Watson said, "Should the workers at Volkswagen choose to be represented by the United Auto Workers, then I believe any additional incentives from the citizens of the state of Tennessee for expansion or otherwise will have a very tough time passing the Tennessee Senate."

He said, "I do not see the members of the Senate having a positive view of Volkswagen because of the manner in which this campaign has been conducted."

He stated, "The workers that will be voting, need to know all of the potential consequences, intended and unintended, should they choose to be represented by the United Auto Workers."

This, in my opinion, is even worse: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/us-volkswagen-corker-idUSBREA1C04H20140213

U.S. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said on Wednesday he has been "assured" that if workers at the Volkswagen AG plant in his hometown of Chattanooga reject United Auto Worker representation, the company will reward the plant with a new product to build.

Not only is Senator Corker's statement worker intimidation, it is inconsistent with what executives at Volkswagen had been saying. He is also a Senator trying to discourage collective bargaining, which runs in contrary to the Nation Labor Relations Act:

29 U.S. Code § 151

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Well you can't blame schools for wanting to keep sports. Parents and students would have fits if the football or soccer program was eliminated. They're caught between a rock and a hard place with not having the funding to do frivolous activities and said frivolous activity being a deeply ingrained part of our culture.

I'm not convinced that they're frivolous. Sport participation* looks great on any college app, because it demonstrates an ability to do work beyond the academic in much the same way an employment history does.



*Arguably any sort of participation can be considered similarly.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But they should be punished for acting in poor judgement.

Teachers should also be held to excruciating standards. They have immense power and responsibility in their position after all.

Do you also want to pay them more?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I'm sure you have your stories why just as most of here have our stories why we don't. At one time unions were good, but that time is long past.

Outside of anecdotal stories, what has a union done to you specifically that has turned your opinion on them?

In reality, you don't have a right to work in thi country. If I start a business I don't have to hire anyone.
What unions believe and then in turn convert you into believing is that a businesses number one priority is to provide employment.

In reality, an individual starts a business to make money. If making money is not your priority, then your business will most likely fail.

Unions don't care about workers. They only care about the dues they receive. It's simple, take profits from the company and hire more people. Take profits from the company and give workers better pay, take profits from the company and give workers a pension.

Eventually the company runs out of money or has to restructure and those pensions that were promised, those jobs disappear. The Tyranid hive then moves on to another world and sucks them dry.

Why do you think Detroit is in shambles? Why do you think every major inner city community is in terrible disarray?

Unions are a parasite.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I'm sure you have your stories why just as most of here have our stories why we don't. At one time unions were good, but that time is long past.

Outside of anecdotal stories, what has a union done to you specifically that has turned your opinion on them?

In reality, you don't have a right to work in thi country. If I start a business I don't have to hire anyone.
What unions believe and then in turn convert you into believing is that a businesses number one priority is to provide employment.

In reality, an individual starts a business to make money. If making money is not your priority, then your business will most likely fail.

Unions don't care about workers. They only care about the dues they receive. It's simple, take profits from the company and hire more people. Take profits from the company and give workers better pay, take profits from the company and give workers a pension.

Eventually the company runs out of money or has to restructure and those pensions that were promised, those jobs disappear. The Tyranid hive then moves on to another world and sucks them dry.

Why do you think Detroit is in shambles? Why do you think every major inner city community is in terrible disarray?

Unions are a parasite.

If you think Detroit is the way it is today solely because of "parasitic" unions, you need to get your economic news from an accurate source.

It's a long read, enjoy it: http://www.freep.com/interactive/article/20130915/NEWS01/130801004/Detroit-Bankruptcy-history-1950-debt-pension-revenue

Hate to break it to you, but you have plenty to thank unions for.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

In reality, you don't have a right to work in thi country. If I start a business I don't have to hire anyone.
What unions believe and then in turn convert you into believing is that a businesses number one priority is to provide employment.

Your looking at that completely the wrong way. No, you don't have to employ anyone. A business dose not have to employ anyone. Unions are not telling people they have to employ people. People all over the world run one man businesses. What they are saying is that if you do CHOSE to employ people you should treat them fairly and with respect. Thats nothing to do with having a right to work, but with having a right to be treated fairly and to prevent businesses from abusing the position of power they hold. Unions go wrong they the balance of power tips to far in their direction and they abuse it. Both sides have abused their power at some time or other. In the case of VW the workers don't feel the need for a union BECAUSE the employer is treating them fairly and not abusing the place of power they have.

Spoilered for language; a good representation of my view on unions -

We should certainly punish lawyers for defending guilty people. After all, we cant have people doing the things they are paid to do if it means occasionally they have to work to defend the guilty.