Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    HEY VOLAND! THIS ISN"T GERMANY! Ergo we don't use german laws, and OUR union laws ARE DIFFERENT THAN YOURS.

    Noone has said that, not even remotely. Read again. VW has not broken any american laws, nor has anyone voiced disrespect for american laws. And VWs (german) labour management system should be a market issue to prove successful or not, not a political, and most certainly not a scare propaganda issue ( post 99)

    ?


    • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

      Originally posted by Voland View Post
      Noone has said that, not even remotely. Read again. VW has not broken any american laws, nor has anyone voiced disrespect for american laws. And VWs (german) labour management system should be a market issue to prove successful or not, not a political, and most certainly not a scare propaganda issue ( post 99)
      And I haven't said that VW american broke any laws. I myself have quite openly voiced disrespect for american union laws so maybe the trouble is that you're not paying enough attention.
      All I pointed out was that a UAW union vote does not in any way shape or form equal or resemble, the worker's council you spoke of.
      I brought up american laws because you keep talking about german laws. Not only that but you keep talking about this UAW vote (which is governed by those US laws) as if it would mean that the company couldn't say "as a condition of your employment each of you is now on this worker's council apparati, you elect reps etc and this is all part of our company policy for our employees" when all it means is that UAW was voted down. That's it. Nothing more.
      What propaganda? That these reps didn't want to extend tax incentive to the UAW run union that would form? That in the opinion of those representatives, the UAW would seriously shit the bed if given power? Surprise surprise. I wonder why? Could it have anything to do with their track record of strangling the goose that lays the golden fucking eggs, and not be even remotely related to a commentary on the german model which is not what was being proposed to be put in place?
      The german labor system, being a decision of the company itself and not a compulsory association forced upon other employees and the corp by a bare majority of workers voting, IS a market issue. Since the german labor system was not what was going into place, and what was being voted on would in fact be compulsory UAW membership, this is most decidely not a "market" issue. FFS.

      ?


      • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

        Originally posted by Voland View Post
        Noone has said that, not even remotely. Read again. VW has not broken any american laws, nor has anyone voiced disrespect for american laws. And VWs (german) labour management system should be a market issue to prove successful or not, not a political, and most certainly not a scare propaganda issue ( post 99)
        See, and everyone wonders why crazy people strap bombs on themselves and blow people up. It is because they don't THINK like us, the experiences aren't our experiences, their culture isn't our culture.

        It is the same with unions. A Euro model has absolutely nothing to do with an American model. A word that sounds good to some, sounds bad to those from a different culture.

        I will say this.....and I do believe someone else made the point---------->the union probably would have gotten voted in if it was an extension of a European union, and they explained themselves as well as Voland has. But, UAW?!?!?!?! Not gonna happen, because of the leadership and corruption known to exist in American unions.

        ?


        • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

          Originally posted by reality View Post
          And I haven't said that VW american broke any laws. I myself have quite openly voiced disrespect for american union laws so maybe the trouble is that you're not paying enough attention.
          All I pointed out was that a UAW union vote does not in any way shape or form equal or resemble, the worker's council you spoke of.
          I brought up american laws because you keep talking about german laws. Not only that but you keep talking about this UAW vote (which is governed by those US laws) as if it would mean that the company couldn't say "as a condition of your employment each of you is now on this worker's council apparati, you elect reps etc and this is all part of our company policy for our employees" when all it means is that UAW was voted down. That's it. Nothing more.
          What propaganda? That these reps didn't want to extend tax incentive to the UAW run union that would form? That in the opinion of those representatives, the UAW would seriously shit the bed if given power? Surprise surprise. I wonder why? Could it have anything to do with their track record of strangling the goose that lays the golden fucking eggs, and not be even remotely related to a commentary on the german model which is not what was being proposed to be put in place?
          The german labor system, being a decision of the company itself and not a compulsory association forced upon other employees and the corp by a bare majority of workers voting, IS a market issue. Since the german labor system was not what was going into place, and what was being voted on would in fact be compulsory UAW membership, this is most decidely not a "market" issue. FFS.
          I brought the issue of german law up only to the extent that is necessary to explain why a german company might seek to establish its (sucessful) system of labour management at its US plant. It is you who keeps bringing up legalistic arguments as if someone was claiming that german law should be recognized in Tennesee now. Nope.
          The legal obstacle here is, if I understand correctly, US law that prevents companies from setting up these bodies, UNLESS they hold a union vote. Thus the deal between Volkswagen and the UAW. Therefore the question may be letigimate wether that particular law actually makes any sense (probably it made once during a different period) if it bans companies from institutionalized cooperation/consultation with their workers UNLESS a union has been voted in before. And wether dropping that requirement could help to get the old school combative unions like the UAW out or force them to change and adapt to survive ? But that is an american issue.
          Wether the UAW would have re-invented itself or exposed itself as a trojan horse in spite of the agreement with VW is a separate question (probably the latter). Taking over a workers council would not have been that simple however (organizational structures have already been linked. They couldnt have run it f.e. And couldnt have gone on strike on behalf of it). And yes, THAT was on offer. Has been linked often enough.
          In Germany (to clear up an apparent misunderstanding) companies are required to have workers councils. Who gets elected to these bodies, union, non-union, which union (there can also be several unions within the same company) is an internal matter though that noone interferes in as long as no laws are broken.
          And as far as the Tennesee Reps are concerned : No, they dont have to grant VW tax incentives for factory enlargement. But VW doesnt have to build in Tennesee, pay taxes and create jobs there. Therefore these kind of threats are not extremely wise to use against an investor like VW ( that would be welcome in many other places, in-and outside the US, right ? And they still have plants in Mexico after all. And the claim that VW was linking a non-union vote to new models made at Chattanooga---was pretty much without doubt a lie. :

          http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...ooga-uaw-vote/

          In VW's model, much of what happens in the factories is reviewed by a "works council," a group to which workers and managers belong. Sounds reasonable, no? U.S. manufacturers in the 1980s, studying the success of Japanese manufacturers like Toyota (TM), began to experiment with worker-management teams. They had names like "kaizen committees," referring to the Japanese word for "continuous improvement."
          But an obstacle to these groups arose: U.S. federal law, which many say is antiquated, preventing or at least limiting companies from forming such committees. The restrictions pertain to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Back in the 1920s and 1930s, some employers formed company-dominated unions to thwart organization of their workers. The pro-union NLRA prohibited such company-dominated groups.
          As American business in the 1980s began to confront the reality of global competition, a nagging question arose: Why must the UAW or any union monopolize a management-worker group that explores solutions to problems as varied as smoking policy, bonuses, and the pace of production? Unions argued that managements could hand-select the worker representatives friendly to their viewpoint, instead of allowing peers to select them.
          In 1992, the NLRA's restriction was tested in the famous Electromation Inc. decision, covering an Indiana company that had formed "action committees" to address worker grievances. The Teamsters, which were trying to organize Electromation, filed a complaint to the NLRB. The NLRB ruled in favor of the Teamsters.
          The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative law professors, plus Republicans in the U.S. Congress, argued that the NLRA unnecessarily and impractically tied the hands of companies wishing to consult their own workers. Both Houses of Congress passed the Teamwork for Employees and Management (TEAM) Act, which would have allowed companies to form committees. But President Bill Clinton, responding to pressure by organized labor, vetoed the TEAM Act.
          Last edited by Voland; 02-21-2014, 12:20 AM.

          ?


          • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

            Originally posted by Voland View Post
            ...Therefore the question may be letigimate wether that particular law actually makes any sense (probably it made once during a different period) if it bans companies from institutionalized cooperation/consultation with their workers UNLESS a union has been voted in before. And wether dropping that requirement could help to get the old school combative unions like the UAW out or force them to change and adapt to survive ? But that is an american issue. ...
            I think it truly is an American issue & I don't think anything you've said or any of the articles you've quoted disagrees with this point.

            I think it comes down to adapting to an ever-changing environment. This is something humanity has been dealing with from the earliest times deciding to live in groups or communities versus trying to make it on your own as an individual. Survival, even in a business sense, is of the fittest.

            The American model favors an adversarial labor management model focusing on short term shareholder profits. You have eloquently explained the German model.

            The American model, to achieve its desired outcomes, seems to favor moving operations to where it can produce the most profits, even if these are recognized as being short term gains. The German model has different desired outcomes & since long term gains are the focus, can be more flexible in strategies to attain them. I think it would be safe to say if German companies could achieve the same desired outcomes, they would likely keep operations in Germany. I don't think the same could be said for American companies.

            I think flexibility is underrated. When any kindof 'framework' is used, 'the map is not the territory.' Convictions very often make for convicts, that is, one may become imprisoned by the framework, rather than realizing there are many things outside the frame.

            ?


            • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

              Originally posted by Voland View Post
              Well, yes, the political bias of the UAW may have been an issue. German unions independence in wage and other negotiations and from politics as a whole is even enshrined in law. Their role is to be "partners" for business, not political platforms for this or that party and candidate and agenda. Which is certainly part of the rather consensus-oriented german mentality and something that VW possibly underestimated in the US. ( though I am rather leaning towards the interpretation that the entire controversy was calculated. VW reaps a bit of PR and in the end a way will be found to ensure a workers co-determination model in the US. In any case a very healthy contribution to the american debate).

              Yet also the model of a workers council is something quite different than what Americans are used to and that would inevitably also have affected the UAW ( that had to make a deal with the VW management in advance anyway).

              -A workers council is for example part of company structures, not part of or run by a union. It is elected by and represents ALL workers, with and without union membership. Workers councils dont strike. They have responsibilities for the company. The UAW as a union could still go on strike, but only outside the factory gates. Inside it would have to explain why it is part of the company structure yet instead of working constructively is being obstructionist. At least it would have to if the workers were german . Yet also their american colleagues could decide not to vote them on the workers council anymore. And thereby shut them out.

              -Establishing a workers council is actually a sign that a german company, regardless where it sets up shop, intends to actually stay. Which workers should see as an encouragement, since the company obviously plans their jobs to be still there in a couple of years. German companies almost always plan for the long term, not until the next quarterly report. If the UAW was really mad enough to kill that goose with golden eggs, than there would still be Volkswagens plants in Mexico to serve the american market as well.
              Which they could also have used as a threat scenario.


              http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...its-own-plant/


              In that way, works councils can be an ally of management in keeping the business strong for the sake of keeping workers employed over the long term. Weiler was given this example:
              [The parent company made] an agreement with the works council to introduce a flexible work-time system, around-the-clock operation through Saturday, starting again Sunday night. They were under tremendous pressure from the union not to do this, but let us go ahead. We couldn't have gotten that out of the union. Our works council people are not hostile to rationalization of automation. On the contrary, they ask us to automate, to modernize our machinery so that our operations can be competitive. They say, 'We know that we lose jobs by this, but we agree that this is a good thing.'
              Works councils are also typically not allowed to call strikes, but they also don't usually need to, because their authority is baked into their agreements with the company (and, in Europe, usually enforced by law). If the UAW wants to strike over wages and benefits, it's still able to do so, but the likelihood of arriving at a mutually agreeable solution without one is much higher.
              That's why VW wants its plant to go union. According to VW's global works council leader, Bernard Osterloh, the company even sees its culture of worker codetermination as a "competitive advantage."
              I did not bring up my points for all of this, does not matter what the German Union model is. I already know what that is anyway. What matters to this debate is how the UAW operates, and it is not all that surprising to see political opposition to the UAW coming from the party opposed to whom the UAW does support. What I am trying to get at is the UAW did this to themselves, and it is probably good for VW in the long run to not have the UAW at the table of any "co-determination" model.

              ?


              • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

                Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                I did not bring up my points for all of this, does not matter what the German Union model is. I already know what that is anyway. What matters to this debate is how the UAW operates, and it is not all that surprising to see political opposition to the UAW coming from the party opposed to whom the UAW does support. What I am trying to get at is the UAW did this to themselves, and it is probably good for VW in the long run to not have the UAW at the table of any "co-determination" model.
                That's most likely true. However, VW has other options. We seem to have fewer options because we seem to insist on the same model & its assumptions or axiomatic theories often disconnected to present day realities. Stubbornness is often mistaken for stupidity.

                ?


                • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

                  Originally posted by Quinn View Post
                  That's most likely true. However, VW has other options. We seem to have fewer options because we seem to insist on the same model & its assumptions or axiomatic theories often disconnected to present day realities. Stubbornness is often mistaken for stupidity.
                  Well, that is our own fault I agree. VW has plenty of options to satisfy the business model they want to go with here, I have no issues with that. I just take issue with the US union model, the economics tends to be on my side of that debate given where we are. Less about my assumptions as more points to realized effect.

                  ?


                  • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

                    Originally posted by Quinn View Post
                    I think it truly is an American issue & I don't think anything you've said or any of the articles you've quoted disagrees with this point.

                    I think it comes down to adapting to an ever-changing environment. This is something humanity has been dealing with from the earliest times deciding to live in groups or communities versus trying to make it on your own as an individual. Survival, even in a business sense, is of the fittest.

                    The American model favors an adversarial labor management model focusing on short term shareholder profits. You have eloquently explained the German model.

                    The American model, to achieve its desired outcomes, seems to favor moving operations to where it can produce the most profits, even if these are recognized as being short term gains. The German model has different desired outcomes & since long term gains are the focus, can be more flexible in strategies to attain them. I think it would be safe to say if German companies could achieve the same desired outcomes, they would likely keep operations in Germany. I don't think the same could be said for American companies.

                    I think flexibility is underrated. When any kindof 'framework' is used, 'the map is not the territory.' Convictions very often make for convicts, that is, one may become imprisoned by the framework, rather than realizing there are many things outside the frame.
                    As to the bolded statement above, you see short term shareholder profits as the problem. I see the problem as unions always needing to get something more for the employees even if they are already significantly above the surrounding wage and benefit level. If the Union can't get employees something more, they are no longer needed so even if they have gotten the employees all they need or deserve, they still have to demand more just to justify their existence. That is what has broken our U.S. auto makers. They now have far too many retirees that they are paying for than they can support.

                    ?


                    • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

                      Originally posted by Quinn View Post
                      I think it truly is an American issue & I don't think anything you've said or any of the articles you've quoted disagrees with this point.

                      I think it comes down to adapting to an ever-changing environment. This is something humanity has been dealing with from the earliest times deciding to live in groups or communities versus trying to make it on your own as an individual. Survival, even in a business sense, is of the fittest.

                      The American model favors an adversarial labor management model focusing on short term shareholder profits. You have eloquently explained the German model.

                      The American model, to achieve its desired outcomes, seems to favor moving operations to where it can produce the most profits, even if these are recognized as being short term gains. The German model has different desired outcomes & since long term gains are the focus, can be more flexible in strategies to attain them. I think it would be safe to say if German companies could achieve the same desired outcomes, they would likely keep operations in Germany. I don't think the same could be said for American companies.

                      I think flexibility is underrated. When any kindof 'framework' is used, 'the map is not the territory.' Convictions very often make for convicts, that is, one may become imprisoned by the framework, rather than realizing there are many things outside the frame.
                      As to the bolded statement above, you see short term shareholder profits as the problem. I see the problem as unions always needing to get something more for the employees even if they are already significantly above the surrounding wage and benefit level. If the Union can't get employees something more, they are no longer needed so even if they have gotten the employees all they need or deserve, they still have to demand more just to justify their existence. That is what has broken our U.S. auto makers. They now have far too many retirees that they are paying for than they can support.

                      ?


                      • Re: Tennessee Autoworkers organize, defeat UAW

                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        As to the bolded statement above, you see short term shareholder profits as the problem. I see the problem as unions always needing to get something more for the employees even if they are already significantly above the surrounding wage and benefit level. If the Union can't get employees something more, they are no longer needed so even if they have gotten the employees all they need or deserve, they still have to demand more just to justify their existence. That is what has broken our U.S. auto makers. They now have far too many retirees that they are paying for than they can support.
                        I see not having a pragmatic long term economic model as the problem.

                        ?

                        Working...
                        X