It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
Do you really think the LAPD leadership was all "shucks, I really wanted to fire these guys, I did. But that mean old union just won't let me!"?
Yes. When has there ever been a structurally rotten organization that doesn't jump to throw the lowest guys on the totem pole under the bus(rightly in this case), when they screw up publicly and the heat gets too hot?
"look we may have created a culture where ________[murder/rape/fraud/racism/ etc] was permissible in our ______________[Police Department/Sports Program/Banking Division/News Organization/etc], but we fired the guy who exposed that culture too egregiously to the public, and _______[We are reviewing policies/further training our staff/ blowing sunshine up your ass] to make sure that this(getting caught) doesn't happen again." Is basically a standard press release at this point.
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
The other option is firing every cop who has ever started a controversy over justified actions.
Or unjustified. It's hard to tell what they did until an investigation is done. Guilty cops aren't going to put their hands in the air and say "You got me!" They'll be covering it up and thinking up a reasonable explanation. They don't need to be fired, but they don't need to be handled with kid gloves either. The union needs limits, and if a cop is doing illegal shit they need to find a good method so they don't end up protecting criminals with badges from all consequences. That makes the government look like they're unable or unwilling to protect the public, the organizations appear corrupt and the cops who are guilty continue working.
Nope, best practice is having the city on one side representing ther interest and the union on the other side.
I'm not saying this isn't a reasonable situation, it works well on paper. In practice, not so much.
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
Do you really think the LAPD leadership was all "shucks, I really wanted to fire these guys, I did. But that mean old union just won't let me!"?
Yes. When has there ever been a structurally rotten organization that doesn't jump to throw the lowest guys on the totem pole under the bus(rightly in this case), when they screw up publicly and the heat gets too hot?
"look we may have created a culture where ________[murder/rape/fraud/racism/ etc] was permissible in our ______________[Police Department/Sports Program/Banking Division/News Organization/etc], but we fired the guy who exposed that culture too egregiously to the public, and _______[We are reviewing policies/further training our staff/ blowing sunshine up your ass] to make sure that this(getting caught) doesn't happen again." Is basically a standard press release at this point.
That is one way of dealing with corruption, yes. The other is constant denial. Cover up everything and hope it goes away. It's bred from a fear that any corruption will taint the entire organization, even if you're actively rooting it out. You usually see it in organizations that are supposed to have moral/legal authority, and they're worried they will lose that respect.
Like the whole catholic church sex thing.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
No, it's more like "Charging officers with a crime for 'doing their job' is a dangerous precedent to set" and no police chief wants to go there. Charging these officers will stop them from doing it again, of course, and may also stop future instances of officer's firing on innocent people,
Whose saying anything about charging officers for doing their job? I'm not. Its been a dangerous precedent to let reckless, incompetent and corrupt cops slide because the Thin Blue Line mustn't be crossed. When innocent people are hurt there needs to be accountability. If it was accident they should be disciplined correctly and when bad shit goes down their asses need to be fired and thrown in prison.
but it will also stop officers from firing on people who are not innocent who should be fired on and create a very dangerous atmosphere for officers who already work under a very large cloud of danger.
Then the cops need to come up with new procedures to account for this. Being in a very dangerous atmosphere isn't an excuse to cover up corruption, crooked behavior, criminal activity or incompetence.
If you really want someone to blame, blame gun culture and anti-police culture. It has led officer's to assuming that every contact they make is with an individual who absolutely will pull a gun and shoot them at a moments notice. This leads to an incredibly heightened and usually false sense of danger on the officer's side which can make someone reaching for their wallet a credible threat that can be fired upon
True. Unfortunately that's one piece in the equation, police corruption is a thing. As is being poorly trained with the public, like that officer who angered the black community a few years back that got Obama's personal attention. Despite being his force's resident expert on racial relations he was terrible interacting with minorities.
As most of us probably know, this Wednesday through Friday the VW Chattanooga plant is holding its unionization vote after VW invited the UAW to form a 'works council.' The state Republican's have been less than pleased by VW's move.
So today U.S. Senator Bob Corker (TN-R) dropped this bombshell:
I've had conversations today and based on those am assured that should the workers vote against the UAW, Volkswagen will announce in the coming weeks that it will manufacture its new mid-size SUV here in Chattanooga.
VW's official response delivered by the CEO and Chairman of the Chattanooga plant:
There is no connection between our Chattanooga employees’ decision about whether to be represented by a union and the decision about where to build a new product for the U.S. market.
I'm really kind of shocked at Corker's statement," said Dau-Schmidt. "It's so inconsistent with what VW has been saying and VW's labor relations policy in general."
The Indiana professor also said Corker's comments "would be grounds to set the election aside and have to run it all over again at a later date" because it could be ruled to be interfering to the point that it is against federal labor law.
And from another labor expert (according to Reuters), Harley Shaiken, from UC Berkeley:
The senator's comments amount to economic intimidation that undermines the whole nature of union representation elections. If the senator's statement doesn't violate the letter of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of the law.
We're also getting to the point of needing a new thread. If someone wants to make a super awesome OP, go for it! I'm a little tied up today but could do so over the weekend.
It's the union's job to represent you in termination (and other job disciplinary) matters. It's the attorney's job to represent you in court. Two different forums.
This is an exception where a union does too good a job at this. Cops aren't random employees at McDonalds, their job is vital to the country to keep the law working. Their organization being corrupted and crooked meant its tainted, puts every citizen at risk when they're let off for crimes that'd get an average employer fired before the day is out and builds distrust for the government when they can't keep law enforcement in line.
Unless the position of using force to defend arbitrary and often classicist and racist laws is inherently crooked. The issue is not with a generic aspect of American culture or with the unions, it's with the policies the police have been taking over the last thirty to forty years (or honestly to the beginning of police forces in this country). It's a policy that leads to needless deaths, which the lower levels get blame for. And it's the unions job to represent its constituents regardless of managerial policy.
Now, I do think that police unions are rather problematic (for the reasons I've stated), but we have a tendency to deal with issues like police violence on a case by case basis which leads us to ignore policy and systemic causes for those cases.
Results are in. VW's workers voted against having a union 712 to 626.
My state makes me so sad.
It is understandable if the state's legislators were making it known that any vote would come with retaliation. What is interesting to me is that I read early on that VW's push to create the workers' council was brought on by threats of legal action from the German union, but I never saw any reporting on this after the GOP waded into the fray.
If that true, there's a non-zero possibility that this could end with VW pulling out of Tennessee. It would take a lot to make them walk away from the infrastructure investment, but companies have done worse in the face of massive legal challenges.
+1
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Especially since Detroit wants them bad.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I do think that this is the beginning of something though. Last year when I did a project on works councils there was nearly no knowledge about them outside of management academics and Europeans. Now its something that a lot of people have some degree of knowledge about.
I really really really hope VW pulls plant and cites the lack of a union as the major reason for moving.
I know it wont happen, and if it does I'll also feel really really really sad for the employees who got screwed, but it would serve those cowardly republicans right
VW isn't leaving TN over this. They basically got to set up there for free and got some deal to not even have to pay any local taxes for like 5 years or so.
Chattanooga all but sold its soul to get them, and when you average in benefits the workers there are making about 20 dollars less an hour than they would outside the southeast and the plant is still known for really great pay (relatively) in town.
VW isn't leaving TN over this. They basically got to set up there for free and got some deal to not even have to pay any local taxes for like 5 years or so.
Chattanooga all but sold its soul to get them, and when you average in benefits the workers there are making about 20 dollars less an hour than they would outside the southeast and the plant is still known for really great pay (relatively) in town.
The original motivation for all of this was that the German unions were heavily pressuring VW to standardize unionization across their plants, with threats of lawsuits. It's less a question about whether VW will pull out because of this vote, and more a longterm question of what happens if German labor wants to make a legal issue of it.
How much legal standing could they have over the actions taken by the workers at a plant in a different country?
Standardize across any plants in Germany sure, but I don't think what a German Union wants should have anything to do with the workers at an American plant.
VW isn't leaving TN over this. They basically got to set up there for free and got some deal to not even have to pay any local taxes for like 5 years or so.
Chattanooga all but sold its soul to get them, and when you average in benefits the workers there are making about 20 dollars less an hour than they would outside the southeast and the plant is still known for really great pay (relatively) in town.
The original motivation for all of this was that the German unions were heavily pressuring VW to standardize unionization across their plants, with threats of lawsuits. It's less a question about whether VW will pull out because of this vote, and more a longterm question of what happens if German labor wants to make a legal issue of it.
This. I know it wont happen, but if it does it will be because the plant isn't unionized, and I want VW to make it very super extra clear that it is this reason it is leaving. It's the "laborer who always loses to the Boss Man" in me when I voice that desire, which means it wont ever come to pass.
Edit: and as you said Viskod, the plant cost them nothing to set up so it will only cost them the set up of another plant, which could very easily be covered by another foollocal government, if they decide to move. I want to believe that the Tennessee GOP is on much thinner ice than they could imagine
How much legal standing could they have over the actions taken by the workers at a plant in a different country?
Standardize across any plants in Germany sure, but I don't think what a German Union wants should have anything to do with the workers at an American plant.
Because American workers should not be subjected to the interests of a German Union.
As opposed to German Executives?
There isn't a way around the union having influence. The only question is how much, and that depends on German law and the agreements they have. (eg the union could have negotiated to be sure no overseas plant would have it worse- making VW in violation of a German legal agreement)
Because American workers should not be subjected to the interests of a German Union.
Fun fact: the world is interconnected!
If VW wants to have a presence in Germany, they are subject to German interest groups and legal challenges. If VW decides that relationship is more important to them than some plant in a anti-union shithole, then thats VW decision. International companies make these sorts of choices all the time.
Even the most right wing GOP hasn't managed to make unions illegal yet, so..
It's not about making them illegal it's about forcing membership, which is what this entire vote was about. The workers had to choose to be part of a union or works council, and they did not.
Because American workers should not be subjected to the interests of a German Union.
Fun fact: the world is interconnected!
If VW wants to have a presence in Germany, they are subject to German interest groups and legal challenges. If VW decides that relationship is more important to them than some plant in a anti-union shithole, then thats VW decision. International companies make these sorts of choices all the time.
Fun Fact: You don't get to ignore the laws of a country, just because you build a plant there.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
No, you don't. Which means you have to meet all of your obligations in all the places where you have operations. If you can't, you are left with the option of leaving some of them.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
No, you don't. Which means you have to meet all of your obligations in all the places where you have operations. If you can't, you are left with the option of leaving some of them.
Yep.
VW options are (Stay in TN + Comply with TN Law + piss off German Union) vs (Leave TN + Don't piss off German Union).
How they choose to go is up to them, but the I was objecting to the idea that the interests and rules for American VW workers are unconnected to the interests and rules for German VW workers. Both are factors a company considers
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
What I am amazed about seeing (not really amazed) is the us-centric view that the intrests of the state of TN somehow trumps the intrests of the workers of Germany to a company headquartered in Germany.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Not the interests of the state of TN specifically, but the interests of the American workers at the VW plant in Chattanooga certainly should. A German Union has no place controlling American workers, and the question posed here is could a German Union legally force VW to leave Chattanooga if their demands are not met, I would not think they would be able to but I am no expert in German law or international labor relations.
I certainly don't think they should be able to. That seems like complete nonsense.
Not the interests of the state of TN specifically, but the interests of the American workers at the VW plant in Chattanooga certainly should. A German Union has no place controlling American workers, and the question posed here is could a German Union legally force VW to leave Chattanooga if their demands are not met, I would not think they would be able to but I am no expert in German law or international labor relations.
I certainly don't think they should be able to. That seems like complete nonsense.
American workers working for a German company. Globalization means that what happens in Germany can have an impact in Tennessee.
Not the interests of the state of TN specifically, but the interests of the American workers at the VW plant in Chattanooga certainly should. A German Union has no place controlling American workers, and the question posed here is could a German Union legally force VW to leave Chattanooga if their demands are not met, I would not think they would be able to but I am no expert in German law or international labor relations.
I certainly don't think they should be able to. That seems like complete nonsense.
American workers should be able to join the German Union if they want, nobody's forcing them to. Think of all the good that will come for the American work forces had this new system of unions been allowed to spread through the nation in different industries. No wonder the GOP was shitting it pants about this development. It'd put wind in the sails of unions again.
Not the interests of the state of TN specifically, but the interests of the American workers at the VW plant in Chattanooga certainly should. A German Union has no place controlling American workers, and the question posed here is could a German Union legally force VW to leave Chattanooga if their demands are not met, I would not think they would be able to but I am no expert in German law or international labor relations.
I certainly don't think they should be able to. That seems like complete nonsense.
American workers should be able to join the German Union if they want, nobody's forcing them to. Think of all the good that will come for the American work forces had this new system of unions been allowed to spread through the nation in different industries. No wonder the GOP was shitting it pants about this development. It'd put wind in the sails of unions again.
Not the interests of the state of TN specifically, but the interests of the American workers at the VW plant in Chattanooga certainly should. A German Union has no place controlling American workers, and the question posed here is could a German Union legally force VW to leave Chattanooga if their demands are not met, I would not think they would be able to but I am no expert in German law or international labor relations.
I certainly don't think they should be able to. That seems like complete nonsense.
No one is talking about 'legal forcing' it is the German union using their influence to negotiate with management - "leave A because we don't like it, and we will do B for you". You know, like unions are meant too.
Also remember that German unions get to sit on the board so have a direct voice in company policy, they already control the american workers to some extent!
Not the interests of the state of TN specifically, but the interests of the American workers at the VW plant in Chattanooga certainly should. A German Union has no place controlling American workers, and the question posed here is could a German Union legally force VW to leave Chattanooga if their demands are not met, I would not think they would be able to but I am no expert in German law or international labor relations.
I certainly don't think they should be able to. That seems like complete nonsense.
So American workers should not be able to negotiate a deal with, say, Nike including a clause that Nike not use child labour or non-unionised sweatshops in the developing world? Of COURSE American workers should be able to negotiate that, it's part of protecting their own jobs, the same way the MANY more German VW workers should be able to extract a promise that VW not use non-unionized workers out of country, to prevent destructive outsourcing. It has nothing to do with the German workers controlling American workers and everything to do with the German workers protecting their livelihoods.
Not the interests of the state of TN specifically, but the interests of the American workers at the VW plant in Chattanooga certainly should. A German Union has no place controlling American workers, and the question posed here is could a German Union legally force VW to leave Chattanooga if their demands are not met, I would not think they would be able to but I am no expert in German law or international labor relations.
I certainly don't think they should be able to. That seems like complete nonsense.
No one is talking about 'legal forcing' it is the German union using their influence to negotiate with management - "leave A because we don't like it, and we will do B for you". You know, like unions are meant too.
Also remember that German unions get to sit on the board so have a direct voice in company policy, they already control the american workers to some extent
Legal forcing is the exact thing that started the discussion.
The original motivation for all of this was that the German unions were heavily pressuring VW to standardize unionization across their plants, with threats of lawsuits. It's less a question about whether VW will pull out because of this vote, and more a longterm question of what happens if German labor wants to make a legal issue of it.
So American workers should not be able to negotiate a deal with, say, Nike including a clause that Nike not use child labour or non-unionised sweatshops in the developing world? Of COURSE American workers should be able to negotiate that, it's part of protecting their own jobs, the same way the MANY more German VW workers should be able to extract a promise that VW not use non-unionized workers out of country, to prevent destructive outsourcing. It has nothing to do with the German workers controlling American workers and everything to do with the German workers protecting their livelihoods.
That apple is not this orange, this isn't child labor and sweatshops.
I also never aside anything against mutual negotiation.
Does anyone have any links to these lawsuits? I mean it makes sense for the works councils to want to integrate all plants but it doesn't make sense for them to use for it (since they are on the board after all)
The news I have read has said that the Germans would likely vote "no" on opening another plant in the South it if we're not likely to be integrated into the council. Not that there is some hilarious legal threat.
As far as I can tell, German management didn't oppose the move to hold a unionization vote in TN's VW plant. Assuming that the VW plant unionized, the makeup of that union wouldn't be determined by Germany but the union negotiators of the UAW and further through contract negotiations. Those union contracts can be structured in any way the negotiators want, i.e. to look like Germany's work councils OR in whatever way the UAW wants them.
Let's also not forget that the ability to unionize is protected in U.S. law and that law requires that the the workers decide for themselves to unionize. My understanding is that the German union members of VW's board directed VW's managers NOT to oppose a union vote and not to advertise against the union vote. That isn't the same thing as forcing TN to unionize at the German union's behest.
Posts
Yes. When has there ever been a structurally rotten organization that doesn't jump to throw the lowest guys on the totem pole under the bus(rightly in this case), when they screw up publicly and the heat gets too hot?
"look we may have created a culture where ________[murder/rape/fraud/racism/ etc] was permissible in our ______________[Police Department/Sports Program/Banking Division/News Organization/etc], but we fired the guy who exposed that culture too egregiously to the public, and _______[We are reviewing policies/further training our staff/ blowing sunshine up your ass] to make sure that this(getting caught) doesn't happen again." Is basically a standard press release at this point.
Or unjustified. It's hard to tell what they did until an investigation is done. Guilty cops aren't going to put their hands in the air and say "You got me!" They'll be covering it up and thinking up a reasonable explanation. They don't need to be fired, but they don't need to be handled with kid gloves either. The union needs limits, and if a cop is doing illegal shit they need to find a good method so they don't end up protecting criminals with badges from all consequences. That makes the government look like they're unable or unwilling to protect the public, the organizations appear corrupt and the cops who are guilty continue working.
I'm not saying this isn't a reasonable situation, it works well on paper. In practice, not so much.
That is one way of dealing with corruption, yes. The other is constant denial. Cover up everything and hope it goes away. It's bred from a fear that any corruption will taint the entire organization, even if you're actively rooting it out. You usually see it in organizations that are supposed to have moral/legal authority, and they're worried they will lose that respect.
Like the whole catholic church sex thing.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Shouldercams for all cops, that's my solution.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Whose saying anything about charging officers for doing their job? I'm not. Its been a dangerous precedent to let reckless, incompetent and corrupt cops slide because the Thin Blue Line mustn't be crossed. When innocent people are hurt there needs to be accountability. If it was accident they should be disciplined correctly and when bad shit goes down their asses need to be fired and thrown in prison.
Then the cops need to come up with new procedures to account for this. Being in a very dangerous atmosphere isn't an excuse to cover up corruption, crooked behavior, criminal activity or incompetence.
True. Unfortunately that's one piece in the equation, police corruption is a thing. As is being poorly trained with the public, like that officer who angered the black community a few years back that got Obama's personal attention. Despite being his force's resident expert on racial relations he was terrible interacting with minorities.
So today U.S. Senator Bob Corker (TN-R) dropped this bombshell:
VW's official response delivered by the CEO and Chairman of the Chattanooga plant:
Reuters articles on the initial announcement and response.
And some expert reactions. First from Professor of Labor Dau-Schmidt, University of Indiana-Bloomington, and an National Labor Relations Board expert:
And from another labor expert (according to Reuters), Harley Shaiken, from UC Berkeley:
Unless the position of using force to defend arbitrary and often classicist and racist laws is inherently crooked. The issue is not with a generic aspect of American culture or with the unions, it's with the policies the police have been taking over the last thirty to forty years (or honestly to the beginning of police forces in this country). It's a policy that leads to needless deaths, which the lower levels get blame for. And it's the unions job to represent its constituents regardless of managerial policy.
Now, I do think that police unions are rather problematic (for the reasons I've stated), but we have a tendency to deal with issues like police violence on a case by case basis which leads us to ignore policy and systemic causes for those cases.
My state makes me so sad.
It is understandable if the state's legislators were making it known that any vote would come with retaliation. What is interesting to me is that I read early on that VW's push to create the workers' council was brought on by threats of legal action from the German union, but I never saw any reporting on this after the GOP waded into the fray.
If that true, there's a non-zero possibility that this could end with VW pulling out of Tennessee. It would take a lot to make them walk away from the infrastructure investment, but companies have done worse in the face of massive legal challenges.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I know it wont happen, and if it does I'll also feel really really really sad for the employees who got screwed, but it would serve those cowardly republicans right
Chattanooga all but sold its soul to get them, and when you average in benefits the workers there are making about 20 dollars less an hour than they would outside the southeast and the plant is still known for really great pay (relatively) in town.
The original motivation for all of this was that the German unions were heavily pressuring VW to standardize unionization across their plants, with threats of lawsuits. It's less a question about whether VW will pull out because of this vote, and more a longterm question of what happens if German labor wants to make a legal issue of it.
Standardize across any plants in Germany sure, but I don't think what a German Union wants should have anything to do with the workers at an American plant.
This. I know it wont happen, but if it does it will be because the plant isn't unionized, and I want VW to make it very super extra clear that it is this reason it is leaving. It's the "laborer who always loses to the Boss Man" in me when I voice that desire, which means it wont ever come to pass.
Edit: and as you said Viskod, the plant cost them nothing to set up so it will only cost them the set up of another plant, which could very easily be covered by another foollocal government, if they decide to move. I want to believe that the Tennessee GOP is on much thinner ice than they could imagine
Its the same company, so why not?
As opposed to German Executives?
There isn't a way around the union having influence. The only question is how much, and that depends on German law and the agreements they have. (eg the union could have negotiated to be sure no overseas plant would have it worse- making VW in violation of a German legal agreement)
Well they didn't because then they wouldn't have been able set up a plant in a right to work state.
Give them time, they're working on it.
Fun fact: the world is interconnected!
If VW wants to have a presence in Germany, they are subject to German interest groups and legal challenges. If VW decides that relationship is more important to them than some plant in a anti-union shithole, then thats VW decision. International companies make these sorts of choices all the time.
It's not about making them illegal it's about forcing membership, which is what this entire vote was about. The workers had to choose to be part of a union or works council, and they did not.
Fun Fact: You don't get to ignore the laws of a country, just because you build a plant there.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Yep.
VW options are (Stay in TN + Comply with TN Law + piss off German Union) vs (Leave TN + Don't piss off German Union).
How they choose to go is up to them, but the I was objecting to the idea that the interests and rules for American VW workers are unconnected to the interests and rules for German VW workers. Both are factors a company considers
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I certainly don't think they should be able to. That seems like complete nonsense.
American workers working for a German company. Globalization means that what happens in Germany can have an impact in Tennessee.
American workers should be able to join the German Union if they want, nobody's forcing them to. Think of all the good that will come for the American work forces had this new system of unions been allowed to spread through the nation in different industries. No wonder the GOP was shitting it pants about this development. It'd put wind in the sails of unions again.
I completely agree and never said otherwise.
No one is talking about 'legal forcing' it is the German union using their influence to negotiate with management - "leave A because we don't like it, and we will do B for you". You know, like unions are meant too.
Also remember that German unions get to sit on the board so have a direct voice in company policy, they already control the american workers to some extent!
So American workers should not be able to negotiate a deal with, say, Nike including a clause that Nike not use child labour or non-unionised sweatshops in the developing world? Of COURSE American workers should be able to negotiate that, it's part of protecting their own jobs, the same way the MANY more German VW workers should be able to extract a promise that VW not use non-unionized workers out of country, to prevent destructive outsourcing. It has nothing to do with the German workers controlling American workers and everything to do with the German workers protecting their livelihoods.
Legal forcing is the exact thing that started the discussion.
That apple is not this orange, this isn't child labor and sweatshops.
I also never aside anything against mutual negotiation.
The news I have read has said that the Germans would likely vote "no" on opening another plant in the South it if we're not likely to be integrated into the council. Not that there is some hilarious legal threat.
Let's also not forget that the ability to unionize is protected in U.S. law and that law requires that the the workers decide for themselves to unionize. My understanding is that the German union members of VW's board directed VW's managers NOT to oppose a union vote and not to advertise against the union vote. That isn't the same thing as forcing TN to unionize at the German union's behest.