Utopia Talk / Politics / Workers at Tennessee Factory Reject UAW

Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 05:12:24 Workers at Tennessee Volkswagen factory reject United Auto Workers union Published February 15, 2014 FoxNews.com CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. – Workers at a Volkswagen factory in Tennessee have voted against union representation in a devastating defeat for the United Auto Workers union's effort to make inroads in the South. The 712-626 vote released late Friday was surprising for many labor experts and union supporters who expected a UAW win because Volkswagen tacitly endorsed the union and even allowed organizers into the Chattanooga factory to make sales pitches. "This is like an alternate universe where everything is turned upside down," Cliff Hammond, a labor lawyer at in Detroit, told The Wall Street Journal, noting that companies usually fight union drives. "This vote was essentially gift-wrapped for the union by Volkswagen," said Hammond, who previously worked at the Service Employees International Union. The setback is a major defeat for the UAW's effort to expand in the growing South, where foreign automakers have 14 assembly plants, eight built in the past decade, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the labor and industry group at the Center for Automotive Research, an industry think tank in Michigan. "If this was going to work anywhere, this is where it was going to work," she said of Chattanooga. Organizing a Southern plant is so crucial to the union that UAW President Bob King told workers in a speech that the union has no long-term future without it. "If the union can't win [in Chattanooga], it can't win anywhere," Steve Silvia, a economics and trade professor at American University who has studied labor unions, told the Journal. But the loss likely means the union will remain quarantined with the Detroit Three, largely in the Midwest and Northeast. Many viewed VW as the union's only chance to gain a crucial foothold in the South because other automakers have not been as welcoming as Volkswagen. Labor interests make up half of the supervisory board at VW in Germany, and they questioned why the Chattanooga plant is the only one without formal worker representation. VW wanted a German-style "works council" in Chattanooga to give employees a say over working conditions. The company says U.S. law won't allow it without an independent union. In Chattanooga, the union faced stern opposition from Republican politicians who warned that a UAW victory would chase away other automakers who might come to the region. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee was the most vocal opponent, saying that he was told that VW would build a new midsized SUV in Chattanooga if workers rejected the union. That was later denied by a VW executive. Other politicians threatened to cut off state incentives for the plant to expand if the union was approved. “I’m thrilled for the employees and thrilled for our community,” Corker said in a telephone interview with The Wall Street Journal. “I’m sincerely overwhelmed.” "The UAW had all the advantages," the Republican senator told the newspaper. "Everybody but the UAW had both hands tied behind their backs. I’m just thankful the employees made the decision they made." After 53 percent of the workers voted against his union, King said he was outraged at what he called "outside interference" in the election. He wouldn't rule out challenging the outcome with the National Labor Relations Board. "It's never happened in this country before that the U.S. senator, the governor, the leader of the House, the legislature here, threatened the company with no incentives, threatened workers with a loss of product," King said. "We'll look at all our options in the next few days." The union could contend that Corker and other local politicians were in collusion with VW and tried to frighten workers into thinking the SUV would be built in Mexico if they voted for the union, said Gary Chaison, a labor relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. But Chaison said it will be difficult to tie the politicians to the company, which remained neutral throughout the voting process. "It's the employer that has real power," he said. The loss put a spotlight on the union's major difficulty in the South: signing up people who have no history with organized labor and are fearful of being the first in the area to join, Chaison said. Dziczek said the union may have to change its tactics in future organizing efforts, because King's strategy of the union and company working together to help each other did not work. But she does not expect the well-funded union to give up on organizing Southern factories. "I think they will continue to push everywhere they were pushing and see if they get more traction," she said. Republican Gov. Bill Haslam said through a spokesman that he was pleased with the vote and "looks forward to working with the company on future growth in Tennessee." The Associated Press contributed to this report. http://www...ect-united-auto-workers-union/
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 05:14:46 "Organizing a Southern plant is so crucial to the union that UAW President Bob King told workers in a speech that the union has no long-term future without it." Looks like the end of the UAW is near.
Camaban The Overseer	Sat Feb 15 05:19:39 Sweet. Australian union reps went and blocked a worker's vote on changing their workplace agreement. The factory (either Toyota or Holden) is shutting down now.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 15 05:38:45 "Volkswagen tacitly endorsed the union and even allowed organizers into the Chattanooga factory to make sales pitches. " Not a big story, considering that private sector union membership is in single digits, in US. And, if the workers don't want the union, well, godspeed. Democracy, ftw. What's notable is the fact that VW actually wanted their workers to unionize and republican freakout. If the choice was unemployment or unions, GOP most definitely would have picked unemployment, that is pretty clear by now. Republican arguments about 'right to work' were always laughable, but at least their pro-business stance made some sense. Well, this time they screwed the business. Remember this next time there is an argument about unions.
McKobb Member	Sat Feb 15 06:09:26 UAW harassed me a few years back when they built a couple plants near by. For some reason they thought I was working at the plant and kept calling and even showed up at my house. I gave them them the 'get off my goddamned property' bit and they finally left me alone.
patom Member	Sat Feb 15 06:11:57 If employers treat their employees fairly there is no need for a union. That takes effort or their part. Working with a union is easier in some ways because everyone knows what the limits are once the contract is written. I highly doubt that VW or any other manufacturer today that becomes a union shop will sign the contracts that the UAW got 50 years ago. For one thing life time 100% health insurance after retirement will never be seen again. People aren't sitting in their rockers in front of the boob tube and dying within 3 years of retiring.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 08:03:45 There are some good reasons that foreign countries are building their plants in right to work states. This is one of the main ones.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Feb 15 08:35:15 "Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee was the most vocal opponent, saying that he was told that VW would build a new midsized SUV in Chattanooga if workers rejected the union." sleazeball... i hope he's killed if it doesn't happen
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 15 08:50:56 "There are some good reasons that foreign countries are building their plants in right to work states. This is one of the main ones. " Exactly. VW wanted their workers to unionize, like all their German employees because they ... wait, what? My senile bud is extra sharp today.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 08:56:05 I'm not talking about the plant, I'm talking about the people. I imagine the plant was bending over backwards to not look like the anti-union Oger, but the people gave the union the middle finger. My guess is VW breathed a sigh of relief. All of that is just my humble opinion.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 15 09:05:07 "My guess is VW breathed a sigh of relief. " Yes, good guess. Especially considering how VW successfully operates in tact with unions at home and this line from your OP. "Volkswagen tacitly endorsed the union and even allowed organizers into the Chattanooga factory to make sales pitches. "
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 09:15:40 Jesus! There is just no talking to you. Go away and come back when you can understand simple English.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 15 09:23:20 "I imagine the plant was bending over backwards to not look like the anti-union Oger" Pro-union entities do *NOT* need to bend over backwards to not look anti-union. Truth
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 09:26:15 If VW wanted to be unionized they would have built their plant in Detroit. -30-
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 15 09:31:41 "If VW wanted to be unionized " If? VW are on record they do. The totally love the work councils back at home. You should read up on that, pal
TJ Member	Sat Feb 15 09:35:29 The article can't be any clearer about who wanted what. There is no guessing and the only thing remaining is greasing the squeaky wheel.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 09:37:23 First of all, look up the word 'tacitly'. Secondly, since when does the UAW operate in Germany? Read up on that, "pal". I'm outa here.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 15 09:40:47 tacitly - not to piss off republitards in charge "Secondly, since when does the UAW operate in Germany? " UAW is not the only union on earth, pal. VW is pretty successful, operating their unionized plants "I'm outa here. " You are not. Get the fuck back here.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 15 09:41:27 I order you!
TJ Member	Sat Feb 15 09:41:40 You might want to look up complacent.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 15 10:13:35 I did. You give the most boring "you might want to look up" advise. Just mind numbing
TJ Member	Sat Feb 15 10:18:31 Head explodes! chuckle
TJ Member	Sat Feb 15 10:32:39 I agree, this is no big story. VW was respecting the right of employees to organize. Personally I don't believe there was any fear of unionization. At the slightest mention HR takes his union Viagra. Commence with the stiffness.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 12:43:28 You have to be stiff when dealing with a moron.
TJ Member	Sat Feb 15 12:53:14 CR is protecting his investment and I'm trying to take it away. He and I are in positions of partisanship and he is prevailing. You are his number one willing and valuable asset.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 15 14:55:48 Rod s not "outa here", as ordered. I'd say "good boy", but it is inappropriate.
patom Member	Sat Feb 15 15:31:14 Actually the closeness of the vote surprised the hell out of me. Most people in the south associate unions with communism. Everyone in the south is sure that communism and unionism is as close to the devil as you can get.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 17:19:40 I went to the store earlier. Unfortunately the store is not in my apartment.
McKobb Member	Sat Feb 15 17:26:20 I don't have anything against unions when they are needed and don't strangle buisiness. Unfortunately we lost a manufacturer here due to unionization.The union made it clear they would rather have the plant shut down then renegotiate. The plant shut down.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 17:30:29 That is what happened to Hostess. I guess the union workers decided it would be better to live off the government. That way they did not have to get out of bed.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 15 19:44:32 Its sort of how its supposed to work. Union certification should never be a sure thing. And no, that is not what happened at hostess. But liars lie.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 20:05:46 I always thought the workers would not budge from Hostess' final offer so the company shut down. So how did it happen at Hostess?
kargen Member	Sat Feb 15 20:47:48 "Hostess' nearly 18,500 workers will lose their jobs as the company shuts 33 bakeries and 565 distribution centers nationwide, as well as 570 outlet stores. The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union represents about 5,000 Hostess employees. "We deeply regret the necessity of today's decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike," said CEO Gregory Rayburn in a statement."
jergul large member	Sat Feb 15 22:08:06 Do you have to be brain dead to be conservative? We had the discussion at length in this forum not terribly long ago. Both of you were invoved in that discussion, and both of you were suitably schooled. Try to remember the lessons you were taught if you please. Pleading ignorance just makes you seem ignorant. Short of it: The company wanted the pension fund. The workers refused to give it up.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Feb 15 22:15:42 So, as usual you have no link and you are counting on what you pulled out of your ass to convince us. Another dead end with jergul.
kargen Member	Sat Feb 15 22:44:37 "We had the discussion at length in this forum not terribly long ago. Both of you were invoved in that discussion, and both of you were suitably schooled." Your memory is simply fucked. Below are my two statements in the Twinkie debate. "A judge stepped in and is making the two sides talk again. If these talks fail there is a decent chance that Twinkies and other products will be made by a company based in Mexico. Grupo Bimbo is one company looking to buy the rights to Hostess products. So in the future we might have Bimbo Twinkies and Bimbo Ding Dongs." ------------------------------ "One thing these bakers have to remember is we are becoming a much more automated society with machines taking over jobs more and more. If the bakers wages go up to much it would be much more feasible to just replace them with machines and hire a couple of quality control people to monitor the machines." The first statement came to be mostly. Grupo Bimbo did buy part of Hostess but not the Twinkie. So alas no Bimbo Twinkies on market. The other has a real possibility of happening. I will tell you now the company didn't want the pension fund. They wanted some relief from the debt they owed to the fund and wanted lower payments into that fund. The Teamsters seeing the Hostess books agreed and tried to convince the bakers union to also agree. The bakers union refused and those 5000 members cost another 13,500 people their jobs. That is what happened.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Feb 16 00:53:28 "Do you have to be brain dead to be conservative? " http://www...vatives-are-generally-stupid-i
kargen Member	Sun Feb 16 01:45:00 “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” ― Winston Churchill
patom Member	Sun Feb 16 02:32:51 Jergul is absolutely correct. I recall the thread on Hostess very well. The financiers that took over the management got several concessions from the employees but were running the company like a slash and burn farmer. The employees did the right thing because management wanted that pension fund and then they would have shut it down anyway.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Feb 18 05:39:55 http://www...d-by-Chrysler-Corporation.html Joe The Plumber joins UAW. Well, his name is not Joe, and he is not a plumber, but good union job is good union job.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 18 05:44:15 right on! He actually phrased it the way it should be.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Feb 18 07:27:44 Some idiot is blaming race for the union loss. Not enough black people working there.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 18 08:37:56 VW corporate organization sort of depends on unions to function properly. Its a German thing. There will be a rematch later if for no other reason than the company wanting a union shop.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Feb 18 08:41:17 Maybe Joe The Plumber could lead the UAW to the next round.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 18 08:42:52 Or maybe Hot Rod could. That would teach them.
Dakyron Member	Tue Feb 18 09:02:12 I've softened my anti-union stance a little bit, but nevertheless, I am still against large multi-state unions. A smaller, local union sounds like a good idea, but these large national unions are corrupt and self-serving.
MrPresident07 Member	Tue Feb 18 10:07:34 Indeed. All big things are corrupt and self-serving. Big government, big business, big unions...see a pattern? The more local the more accountable.
Dakyron Member	Tue Feb 18 10:10:10 ^ wants big government to take over your savings account/retirement plan.
Dakyron Member	Tue Feb 18 10:16:51 http://www...hread=66649&time=1392440804204 For reference and so Mr P cant claim Im putting words in his mouth.
TJ Member	Tue Feb 18 10:27:35 That company started in the dump in the 80's. Its failure was horrible management failing to restructure their company in ways that could have kept them solvent. They should have automated in the early 90's from the economical pressures they experienced in the 80's, but they remained on the same path until 2/3 of the company had been put into hock. At that point is wasn't going anywhere other than out no matter what the total union membership wanted or didn't want.
MrPresident07 Member	Tue Feb 18 10:38:40 "^ wants big government to take over your savings account/retirement plan." Come again? That is not true at all. I want the people to have control over their own savings/retirement, which is why social security needs to be phased out. Why are you always wrong Dak?
Dakyron Member	Tue Feb 18 11:39:13 "I want the people to have control over their own savings/retirement" You want this so bad you advocated that the government forcibly confiscate a portion of your paycheck and place it into a government run savings account you can only access for specific reasons. "Why are you always wrong Dak? " Im not wrong. I even posted the link back to you spouting off your nonsense.
MrPresident07 Member	Tue Feb 18 11:43:25 "You want this so bad you advocated that the government forcibly confiscate a portion of your paycheck and place it into a government run savings account you can only access for specific reasons." Technically they're babies...so it wouldn't be their paycheck. But whatever. It is a good idea on paper and a great SS replacement. You are always wrong, about everything. Get your facts straight before posting. How many times must you be told?
Dakyron Member	Tue Feb 18 11:49:06 " It is a good idea on paper and a great SS replacement. " LOL, I thought this was not a "retirment plan". "Technically they're babies...so it wouldn't be their paycheck." The money comes out of the payroll tax, so unless they win the lottery, it will be coming out of their paycheck eventually.
MrPresident07 Member	Tue Feb 18 11:55:34 "LOL, I thought this was not a "retirment plan"." You really struggle with comprehension and memory. I'll make note of it in our future entanglements. To save you the trouble of going back and actually reading or doing any thinking whatsoever...here is my quote: "Did you read the article Dak? This isn't just a retirement plan..." Good game and move along.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Feb 18 12:55:37 Dak - ^ wants big government to take over your savings account/retirement plan. There was talk in the Obama administration five years ago about confiscating the 401K's and replacing them with government bonds that paid 3%.
Forwyn Member	Tue Feb 18 16:44:52 "Exactly. VW wanted their workers to unionize, like all their German employees because they ... wait, what?" Without checking, I can almost guarantee you VW America and VW Europe are partially separate entities.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Feb 18 17:00:16 VW has 62 plants around the world, all are unionized, except for three. Tennessee and two chink plants.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Feb 18 17:05:25 cr, get your ass down to the barricades at Independence Square you lily-livered cowardly chickenshit.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Feb 18 17:07:19 No, you do!
Forwyn Member	Tue Feb 18 18:02:00 Didn't you know? We're in a race to the bottom with Chinks. Keep it local!
roland Member	Fri Feb 21 09:51:47 "Australian union reps went and blocked a worker's vote on changing their workplace agreement. The factory (either Toyota or Holden) is shutting down now." More like the PM is too happy to let them go
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 09:54:16 >>More like the PM is too happy to let them go<< In 2012, Holden was given $200m, which should have kept it in the country for the next decade. This is not 2022.
roland Member	Fri Feb 21 10:33:36 "In 2012, Holden was given $200m, which should have kept it in the country for the next decade. " Nope, they have announced they will cease to produce car there in 2017. The entire car industry was wipe out leaving in droves in less than 6 months.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 10:39:03 >>Nope, they have announced they will cease to produce car there in 2017. The entire car industry was wipe out leaving in droves in less than 6 months. << Exactly. That $200M was MEANT to have kept them in the country for the next decade. It didn't. You're conveniently ignoring Ford announcing it would leave in May of last year and Mitsubishi leaving in 2008. As two examples.
roland Member	Fri Feb 21 10:43:44 "Exactly" Exactly indeed. As I said, PM is too happy to let them go
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 10:46:13 >>Exactly indeed. As I said, PM is too happy to let them go<< No reason he shouldn't be. It's a dying industry and has been for a very long time. But that doesn't change that the Unions figured it was better to have the company collapse than it was to allow its employees to even vote on changing their conditions to something more feasible.
roland Member	Fri Feb 21 10:57:23 Treasurer Joe Hockey is standing by his claim that Toyota nominated costly workplace conditions at its Altona plant as ''the key impediment'' to remaining in Australia as the blame-game over its withdrawal focused on union power. Responding to a Fairfax Media report that Toyota's Australian boss Max Yasuda had met Mr Hockey on December 3, at which time he had made the comments, Mr Hockey used a morning radio appearance to declare the report accurate. ''Toyota Australia has never blamed the union for its decision to close its manufacturing operations by the end of 2017, neither publicly or in private discussions with any stakeholder,'' the statement said. ''As stated at the time of the announcement, there is no single reason that led to this decision.'' The embarrassing argument opened the way for a full-throated political attack by the opposition claiming Mr Hockey was verballing Toyota, just as he had been caught over-egging the role of unions in rendering SPC Ardmona's Shepparton factory unprofitable. It came as a senior car industry source told Fairfax Media that all three car makers were deeply concerned at calls to ditch the existing 5 per cent import tariff, now Ford, Holden and Toyota had decided to leave the country within the next three years. The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said nothing was set in concrete when it came to departure, predicting that Ford was likely to pull out of Australia by the end of this year in any event, more than a year earlier than its announced 2016 closure date. He said car companies were concerned at the possibility of the Abbott government scrapping the tariff on the grounds of there being no longer any local industry to protect, and were worried that tens of millions in federal assistance via the Automotive Transformation Scheme may now be wound back, to save money for a cash-strapped budget. On top of Ford's 2016 deadline, Holden and Toyota have since set 2017 as their last year of manufacture here, but jobs could well be cut before then.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 10:58:53 Does this change what I said?
roland Member	Fri Feb 21 11:06:16 Sure, it does. It shows the anticipating increase in cheaper export following their government's plan to reduce tariff has more to do with these car companies' decision. If the change would not have saved the company, why go through with it?
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 11:08:54 >>Sure, it does. It shows the anticipating increase in cheaper export following their government's plan to reduce tariff has more to do with these car companies' decision. << What have the tarrifs given Australia? More expensive cars with local car industries that still need to be propped up. >>If the change would not have saved the company, why go through with it?<< You don't seem to understand. The unions prevented their members from even voting on any changes. That the company was likely to shut down was irrelevant to them. The members - the employees they were supposed to represent - were barred from even voting on whether any changes could be made.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 11:12:02 Whether the changes might or might not have helped is irrelevant. They weren't even allowed to vote on something which could possibly (however unlikely) have saved their jobs. As the motor industry analyst Joshua Dowling observed after reading Bromberg's judgment: ''The fate of Toyota Australia's manufacturing operations has effectively been sealed by a decision in the Federal Court today. The court's decision to block Toyota from asking its factory workers to vote tomorrow on changes to shift flexibility and overtime bonuses means … the entire Australian car industry is likely to grind to a halt after Ford's factory shutdowns in 2016, Holden's closures in 2017 and a likely end to Toyota's operations in 2018, when the current Camry ends its run.'' http://www...31218-2zlca.html#ixzz2tyfmWKDj
roland Member	Fri Feb 21 11:19:19 "More expensive cars with local car industries that still need to be propped up. " So? That happens to a lot of countries too. "The unions prevented their members from even voting on any changes. " It is just part of the negotiation tactics, they are using the content of their exterprise to bolster their position in the talk, I dont see any problem in that. Apparently, there is a "no extra claims" clause in their enterprise agreement, the Union has every right to use that in their talk. In order of get rid of the clause, Toyota can get the workers to vote on removing the clause first. Then, they can get the workers to vote on the changes. The total of these changes you brought up is only 17 million dollar. In the overall scheme of things, this is not the reason they decided to pack up and go.
roland Member	Fri Feb 21 11:24:03 It should be sad for you that a voice recorder can replace your PM's job. Whenever there is a crisis and you wonder why, just press play, and you will hear either "Union" or "Carbon tax".
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 11:25:36 >>So? That happens to a lot of countries too. << And? >>It is just part of the negotiation tactics, they are using the content of their exterprise to bolster their position in the talk, I dont see any problem in that. << So you've got no problem with forbidding people from having any say on their own working conditions? >>Apparently, there is a "no extra claims" clause in their enterprise agreement, the Union has every right to use that in their talk. In order of get rid of the clause, Toyota can get the workers to vote on removing the clause first. Then, they can get the workers to vote on the changes. << I'd have thought that something like that would be the first thing they'd have done. But, unions got the courts to say no. >>The total of these changes you brought up is only 17 million dollar. In the overall scheme of things, this is not the reason they decided to pack up and go.<< Probably not. However. The. Unions. Prevented. The. Employees. They. Were. Supposed. To. Be. Representing. From. Even. Having. A. Say. In. Their. Own. Future. There are other reasons, obviously. The long story short that car manufacturing simply isn't a viable industry in Australia (I haven't heard any of my NZ relatives mourn the absence of that industry) If the industry isn't viable, it's dead. The question is when. It happens now, or more money is poured into it and it happens later anyway.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 11:27:15 >>It should be sad for you that a voice recorder can replace your PM's job. Whenever there is a crisis and you wonder why, just press play, and you will hear either "Union" or "Carbon tax".<< It's interesting that you believe so. A recorder did a better job of dealing with boat people than six years of Labor did though. Also interesting that you've forgotten the last government's catch cry of "Abbott Abbott Abbott" on every issue. Double standards much?
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 11:29:12 Well... I'll be fair, Labor did have other unforgettable lines. "We will have a budget surplus by 2013." "I have full confidence in Craig Thomson." To name a couple.
roland Member	Fri Feb 21 11:53:55 " So you've got no problem with forbidding people from having any say on their own working conditions? " It doesnt stop them having a say. If Toyota has followed through with the procedure, and the workers voted in favour of removing the clause, then they can have their vote. " But, unions got the courts to say no. " No, the court said exactly what I told you. The judgement only block the vote for 17 million change in entitlement. "If the industry isn't viable, it's dead. The question is when. It happens now, or more money is poured into it and it happens later anyway." This applies to the many car manufacturers around the world, even our GM and Chylser which got bailed out just after the GFC. Somehow these dead companies still employing people and still producing cars. I think in Australia, there is a decision to make whether you want them to stay dead. But if they have made that decision, they shouldnt try to blame someone else for it. "Also interesting that you've forgotten the last government's catch cry of "Abbott Abbott Abbott" on every issue. Double standards much?" Slight difference, Abbott was the opposition leader, and they were competing with each other, so what they said may actually be relevant. But even Toyota came out and said their decision wasnt because of the entitlement dispute. So, there isn't any double standard there.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 12:25:25 >>It doesnt stop them having a say. If Toyota has followed through with the procedure, and the workers voted in favour of removing the clause, then they can have their vote. << Mind if I read your source for the clause? Including where it outlines that they couldn't have voted on that at the same time. >>This applies to the many car manufacturers around the world, even our GM and Chylser which got bailed out just after the GFC. Somehow these dead companies still employing people and still producing cars. I think in Australia, there is a decision to make whether you want them to stay dead. But if they have made that decision, they shouldnt try to blame someone else for it. << GM is Holden. And this is dead as in "Dead man walking" The end is coming. It's being kept away unnaturally. It will happen. In Australia's case, it's been going on since long before the GFC. They couldn't survive in good times and won't survive in bad. Which then brings you to wondering why a company that isn't producing enough money is paying more than the bare minimum for workers. Every extra union demand is purely taxpayer funded. I'll also note that Labor and the Unions haven't had a problem with blaming Abbott et al for not providing taxpayer funds to a clearly unprofitable industry. It's not like he destroyed it, he merely let it die a (delayed) natural death. >>Slight difference, Abbott was the opposition leader, and they were competing with each other, so what they said may actually be relevant. But even Toyota came out and said their decision wasnt because of the entitlement dispute. So, there isn't any double standard there.<< This is in response to a blanket statement that you had made. So yeah, there's a double standard there.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Feb 21 12:26:23 Jut realise you don't think that Abbott is competing with the political arm of the Union movement. Or that the Carbon tax is somehow unrelated to Labor.
roland Member	Sat Feb 22 01:10:39 "Mind if I read your source for the clause? Including where it outlines that they couldn't have voted on that at the same time. " Justice Mordy Bromberg ruled that Toyota could not force workers to vote on its plan tomorrow.... Under the agreement, which expires in March 2015, neither Toyota nor the unions could make any further claims in relation to wages or other terms and conditions before 2015. But last month Toyota wrote to its employees explaining the need to make changes to cover the cost of pay increases next year: among them a reduction in the minimum Christmas shutdown period from 21 days to eight days. And instead of employees being required to be available to work a maximum of 20 hours' overtime each month, they must be available to work a minimum of 20 hours' overtime each month. Toyota also wanted to do away with payments including respiratory allowances, dirty money allowances and new competency skill payments. Four employees took Toyota to court. Their unions claimed Toyota was trying to renegotiate the agreement with new claims, something banned by the workplace agreement. Today the Federal Court ruled the variations sought by Toyota are significant. Justice Mordy Bromberg ruled Toyota was trying to make further claims and that, in doing so, Toyota breached the workplace agreement and contravened the Fair Work Act. He didn't grant the unions an injunction restraining Toyota from making claims in relation to wages and conditions until March 2015. Justice Bromberg said the only way new wages and conditions can be introduced is if both parties choose to do so...." http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3910547.htm "GM is Holden. And this is dead as in "Dead man walking" The end is coming. It's being kept away unnaturally. It will happen." Hate to break it to you, but GM has made a profit for the last 3 years. "why a company that isn't producing enough money is paying more than the bare minimum for workers." My guess is paying the bare minimum will only get you a bunch of untrained zoo monkeys that do not have the skills to build cars? "I'll also note that Labor and the Unions haven't had a problem with blaming Abbott et al for not providing taxpayer funds to a clearly unprofitable industry. It's not like he destroyed it, he merely let it die a (delayed) natural death. " I dont know, Abbott supports providing taxpayer funds to clearly unprofitable farmers. And now he committed to provide taxpayer fund to bail out Qantas too. "This is in response to a blanket statement that you had made. So yeah, there's a double standard there." How is it a blanket statement? not only did he said that to the Toyota workers, he also laid blame on the SPC workers too suggesting their "over-generous" allowances and working condition is responsible for the financial problem in their company. Just about everything he and his government claimed regarding the SPC workers' condition turn out to be lies. If this is a one off, then perhaps I shouldnt generalise, but he is making a habit of doing that whenever a problem pops up. He is just like the Mitt Romney of Australia.
Camaban The Overseer	Sat Feb 22 09:35:02 >>Justice Mordy Bromberg ruled that Toyota could not force workers to vote on its plan tomorrow.... Under the agreement, which expires in March 2015, neither Toyota nor the unions could make any further claims in relation to wages or other terms and conditions before 2015. But last month Toyota wrote to its employees explaining the need to make changes to cover the cost of pay increases next year: among them a reduction in the minimum Christmas shutdown period from 21 days to eight days. And instead of employees being required to be available to work a maximum of 20 hours' overtime each month, they must be available to work a minimum of 20 hours' overtime each month. Toyota also wanted to do away with payments including respiratory allowances, dirty money allowances and new competency skill payments. Four employees took Toyota to court. Their unions claimed Toyota was trying to renegotiate the agreement with new claims, something banned by the workplace agreement. Today the Federal Court ruled the variations sought by Toyota are significant. Justice Mordy Bromberg ruled Toyota was trying to make further claims and that, in doing so, Toyota breached the workplace agreement and contravened the Fair Work Act. He didn't grant the unions an injunction restraining Toyota from making claims in relation to wages and conditions until March 2015. Justice Bromberg said the only way new wages and conditions can be introduced is if both parties choose to do so...." << "Including where it outlines that they couldn't have voted on that at the same time. " Interesting though, that we've got a union-dominated company agreeing conditions that effectively hobble it in the case of changing situations. Both sides must have assumed that this would allow them to blackmail future governments for future funding, with the threat of job losses. Bugger when bluffs don't work. >>Hate to break it to you, but GM has made a profit for the last 3 years. << Ah! So no taxpayer bailouts were needed, then. >>My guess is paying the bare minimum will only get you a bunch of untrained zoo monkeys that do not have the skills to build cars? << You realise that since Ford, assembly line work hasn't been rocket science? Although if they're that endowed with useful skills, then they can apply their skills to get the highest possible pay on a free market, without union protection. The factories closing down shouldn't mean more than a redundancy package to them. If there's no other work that fits their skill sets, on the other hand... Why are they worthy more than the bare minimum? At the very least, why are they worthy of more than their market value? >>I dont know, Abbott supports providing taxpayer funds to clearly unprofitable farmers. And now he committed to provide taxpayer fund to bail out Qantas too. << Farmers are heavily affected by poor weather, and being a major food producer is actually useful. Particularly given it's one of AUstralia's strengths (which car manufacturing was not. Witness the closure of car companies that have been going on for years) And he's committed to bailing out Qantas? When did this happen? Closest I'd seen was considering guaranteeing their debt, and trying to convince the senate to remove the foreign ownership limit. >>How is it a blanket statement?<< "Also interesting that you've forgotten the last government's catch cry of "Abbott Abbott Abbott" on every issue. Double standards much?" "every issue" isn't a blanket statement? >>Toyota workers, he also laid blame on the SPC workers too suggesting their "over-generous" allowances and working condition is responsible for the financial problem in their company. Just about everything he and his government claimed regarding the SPC workers' condition turn out to be lies<< Not quite... For a start, what was said was that they changed the conditions in 2012 (for new starters) neglecting to mention that the majority of their workers had been there for up to decades. http://www.../story-fn59niix-1226819084181# And an interesting read on it here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/truth-buried-deep-in-tin/story-fnkdypbm-1226818976952# >>If this is a one off, then perhaps I shouldnt generalise, but he is making a habit of doing that whenever a problem pops up. He is just like the Mitt Romney of Australia.<< So, you claim you hadn't made a blanket statement, then you admit that you had? He is gearing up for an attack on the unions though. After things like the Craig Thomson affair, who can blame him?
roland Member	Sun Feb 23 08:36:38 "Ah! So no taxpayer bailouts were needed, then." Yea, past tense. " Farmers are heavily affected by poor weather" Err... every other industries will face different type of uncertainties, this is not an excuse. "Being a major food producer is actually useful." I let you argue with yourself. " If the industry isn't viable, it's dead. The question is when. It happens now, or more money is poured into it and it happens later anyway. " " And he's committed to bailing out Qantas? When did this happen? Closest I'd seen was considering guaranteeing their debt, and trying to convince the senate to remove the foreign ownership limit." You said it yourself. Guaranteeing their debt = Bailing them out. The whole point of that is they can get a loan at a particular interest rate they otherwise would not get. " For a start, what was said was that they changed the conditions in 2012 (for new starters) neglecting to mention that the majority of their workers had been there for up to decades. " How surprising to see more cherry picking. "...Mr Abbott said: "There are extensive provisions to cash out sick leave." The SPC Ardmona enterprise bargaining agreement says permanent employees get 10 days sick leave each year. This is in line with the award. While employees were previously able to cash out sick leave at the end of each year, the rules changed on December 31, 2012. The current agreement says unused sick leave will be held as an "accrual balance" until used. However, employees can have up to 20 days sick leave paid out upon termination of employment. This right is waived if the dismissal is for gross misconduct. In a subsequent interview, Senator Abetz said: "You can cash out sick leave in the situation of redundancy". The agreement says it will pay out up to 20 days unused sick leave upon redundancy. Fact Check concludes SPC Ardmona's permanent employees can no longer cash out their sick leave each year. However, it is still possible to cash out up to 20 days unused sick leave upon termination and redundancy. Redundancy pay Mr Abbott said: "There are extremely generous redundancy provisions well in excess of the award." The agreement says employees who have completed one year's continuous service will be paid four weeks redundancy for each continuous year worked. Again, changes were made in 2012 and caps were placed on redundancy payments. The current agreement says employees who started working at SPC after July 1, 2012 will have redundancy payments capped at 52 weeks. However, employees who "had an entitlement greater than 104 weeks before 1st July, 2001" will retain the previous redundancy payout. Age loadings of between 10 and 20 per cent apply to base redundancy payments. As described above, the company will also pay out up to 20 days of unused sick leave upon redundancy. Fact Check compared these provisions to the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010. In terms of redundancy payments, the award defers to the NES. The NES, prepared by the Fair Work Ombudsman, says from January 1 2010, all employees who have at least 12 months continuous service are entitled to the minimum requirements for redundancy pay. This includes up to four weeks notice of termination and up to 16 weeks redundancy pay. An extra week of termination pay applies if the worker is over 45 and has been in the job for at least two years. Fact Check concludes SPC Ardmona has a generous redundancy regime which was significantly reduced in 2012. It does, however, still appear generous when compared with the NES entitlements which require only four weeks notice and up to 16 weeks redundancy pay. There are also provisions to cash out sick leave in the situation of redundancy which do not appear in the award. Entitlements and allowances In terms of entitlements, Senator Abetz said: "The shiny tin allowance has crept back into the enterprise bargaining agreement". Mr Abbott said: "There are wet allowances" and "there are loadings". The shiny tin allowance is referred to in the agreement as the "the bright can stacking allowance", and is paid to forklift drivers. The agreement says workers who are doing this job receive an extra 50 cents per hour. In terms of wet allowances the agreement says an employee working in any place where the employee's clothing becomes wet is entitled to be paid an extra 58 cents an hour. SPC Ardmona said the total of all allowances paid to production staff in 2013 was $116,467, which represented less than 0.1 per cent of the business's cost of goods for the year. It said zero was paid in wet allowances to cleaners last year. The company said loadings "are the same as industry standards and common to many Australian EBAs. Afternoon shift is at 20 per cent and night shift at 30 per cent". Fact Check asked SPC Ardmona what it used as an "industry standard" but the company did not respond. Fact Check concludes some allowances and entitlements are peculiar to a food processing plant, but based on SPC Ardmona's figures, the cost to the company is minimal. Mr Abbott's claim that the company pays loadings is correct, however loadings are commonly paid to shift workers in many industries across the country. Wages not the problem John Buchanan from the Workplace Research Centre at the University of Sydney says the wage scales at SPC Ardmona do not appear to be high. Last year workers received a 2.5 per cent increase, which he said was less than the going rate. But he says it's difficult to know what a "cannery worker" should be paid in entitlements and provisions because there are no similar businesses operating in the country. Paul Houlihan from First IR, an industrial relations consultant and adviser to the former Howard government, says the problem with the agreement isn't that workers are being grossly overpaid. He says it is that the complexity of the 99-page agreement could stop SPC Ardmona management from having the flexibility to make the tough business decisions needed. The Productivity Commission report also cited rising costs of production as a source of the company's problems. However, it concluded that labour costs appeared to be a relatively minor contributor to total costs. It said the cost increases occurred in large part because lower demand locally and in export markets meant fewer economies of scale were available to SPC Ardmona. On the subject of labour costs, the commission "accepts that other cost components may have made a larger contribution to the overall increase," the report said. Fact Check concludes employees are not being significantly overpaid, and labour costs are not the largest problem facing SPC Ardmona." " So, you claim you hadn't made a blanket statement, then you admit that you had? " You forgot to change your nick as TC lol.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Feb 24 04:43:28 >>Yea, past tense. << Looks like GM as a whole is still profitable. If you're talking about Holden Australia, well... I recall in 2012, $200M was given to them on the condition that they stay until 2022. That worked. >>Err... every other industries will face different type of uncertainties, this is not an excuse. << And it appears that Hockey agrees with you. http://www...oyce_no_X6nnOLhqtxl2QZkPRGQkxO "Ahead of lobbying by Mr Joyce to increase the eligibility criteria for drought assistance in the immediate and longer term, Mr Hockey signalled a hardline response. He rejected a call from farmers in Queensland to establish a rural reconstruction bank to help with debt restructuring. He suggested some farmers were in the wrong business. “The answer to the problem of debt is not to have more debt,’’ he said. “Interest rates are historically now are at all-time lows. If people are having problems coping with interest rates now, then there is a bigger systemic issue at play.’’" >>You said it yourself. Guaranteeing their debt = Bailing them out. The whole point of that is they can get a loan at a particular interest rate they otherwise would not get. << Between this and the thread on net censorship I get the feeling you have problems differentiating vaguely similar things. Guaranteeing their debt = being responsible for it IF they end up going out of business. Qantas is asking for the foreign ownership restrictions to be removed, and the LNP is in favour of this. Waiting for the new Senate to come in before anything can be done. A bailout, particularly in the context of the automotive industry = giving them a large wad of cash and waving it goodbye. Also, considering != done. It means considering. Thinking about. Weighing up the pro's and cons. Things you do before making a decision, which is what you'd require to have an argument at this point. I'd noticed similar behaviour in the thread about internet censorship you ran away from recently. >>How surprising to see more cherry picking. << Yeah, but when the SPC boss said it, while trying to get taxpayer funds for his poorly managed business, it probably sounded good. Can't blame him for trying. I still can't see why taxpayers should be responsible for anything above the bare minimum in an unprofitable company (or really, anything at all. But getting a two-year taxpayer funded retirement payout if a bit rich) Speaking of cherry picking, I can't help but notice that you ignored this: >>My guess is paying the bare minimum will only get you a bunch of untrained zoo monkeys that do not have the skills to build cars? << You realise that since Ford, assembly line work hasn't been rocket science? Although if they're that endowed with useful skills, then they can apply their skills to get the highest possible pay on a free market, without union protection. The factories closing down shouldn't mean more than a redundancy package to them. If there's no other work that fits their skill sets, on the other hand... Why are they worthy more than the bare minimum? At the very least, why are they worthy of more than their market value? It's interesting to note where that report feels the real problem is (although why the reluctance to release anonymised group certificates - statements that show exactly how much a particulary person earnt each year?) Interestingly enough in the article you mentioned: "Paul Houlihan from First IR, an industrial relations consultant and adviser to the former Howard government, says the problem with the agreement isn't that workers are being grossly overpaid. He says it is that the complexity of the 99-page agreement could stop SPC Ardmona management from having the flexibility to make the tough business decisions needed. " There's more to benefits than just pay. That lovely bit of union negotiation (that couldn't be renegotiated, even if the employees wanted the chance) seems to have crippled the company in the event of changing circumstances. >>You forgot to change your nick as TC lol.<< Are you saying what I said was incorrect? Or are you attempting to follow Jergul's practices in a losing argument?
roland Member	Tue Feb 25 07:43:52 "Between this and the thread on net censorship I get the feeling you have problems differentiating vaguely similar things. Guaranteeing their debt = being responsible for it IF they end up going out of business. Qantas is asking for the foreign ownership restrictions to be removed, and the LNP is in favour of this. Waiting for the new Senate to come in before anything can be done. " A bit short of time today, I will be brief. A debt guarantee is a bailout, although they did not provide them with a loan or direct injection of money to the company, but the government would have provided the security for Qantas to borrow money to turn the company around. If they do not provide them with the guarantee, because Joyce ran his company to the ground, and with his company's credit rating, it is going to be hard for them to get affordable finance to turn the company around. Who provided the cash at the end is academic, but a government's guarantee would no doubt allow Qantas to get the necessary finance they otherwise could not get. And bailout really isnt a technical term, so there isnt anything wrong to define a debt guarantee as a bail out.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Feb 27 02:37:28 >>A bit short of time today, I will be brief. A debt guarantee is a bailout, although they did not provide them with a loan or direct injection of money to the company, but the government would have provided the security for Qantas to borrow money to turn the company around. If they do not provide them with the guarantee, because Joyce ran his company to the ground, and with his company's credit rating, it is going to be hard for them to get affordable finance to turn the company around. Who provided the cash at the end is academic, but a government's guarantee would no doubt allow Qantas to get the necessary finance they otherwise could not get. And bailout really isnt a technical term, so there isnt anything wrong to define a debt guarantee as a bail out. << If you're going to go to the extent of the definition, then even removing the foreign ownership provisions is a bailout. However, to point out a difference (again) guaranteeing debt only costs if the company goes belly-up. Unlike the $200M to Holden in 2012 that was meant to keep the company here until 2022... Until they started asking for more money a couple of years later. Also, you seem to insist on ignoring the word "considering". Any argument you make on it skips over that word as if it doesn't exist. From the looks of things, Abbott's considering of a debt guarantee has gone further against providing one than nearer. It's Labor that's in favour of it.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: