Archive

ShareThis Page
History, good jobs hurt union organizing drive at Volkswagen plant in South | TribLIVE.com
News

History, good jobs hurt union organizing drive at Volkswagen plant in South

The Associated Press
20140215T043727Z01CHA111RTRIDSP3AUTOSVWELECTION
Reuters
Gary Casteel, United Auto Workers Region 8 director, explains the union’s next moves on Friday, Feb. 14, 2014, after the announcement that the UAW lost its bid to represent the 1,550 blue-collar workers in the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn.
20140213T221711Z01TOR908RTRIDSP3AUTOSVWTENNESSEECORKER
REUTERS
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., speaks to the media in Chattanooga on Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014. Corker, who has been among the United Auto Workers' most vocal critics, said that Volkswagen would become a “laughingstock” in the business world if it welcomed the union to its plant.
VolkswagenUnionJPEG009bf
Workers use robotic arms to weld the interior of a Volkswagen Passat sedan on July 31, 2012, in the German automaker's plant in Chattanooga, Tenn.

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — The United Auto Workers has been dealt a stinging defeat, with a majority of employees at a Volkswagen plant in Tennessee voting against joining the union.

The failure of the UAW underscores a cultural disconnect between a labor-friendly German company and anti-union sentiment in the South.

The multiyear effort to organize Volkswagen’s only American plant was defeated on a 712-626 vote on Friday night amid heavy campaigning on both sides.

Workers voting against the union said that while they remain open to forming a German-style “works council” at the plant, they were unwilling to risk the Volkswagen factory that opened to great fanfare on the site of a former Army ammunition plant in 2011.

“Come on, this is Chattanooga, Tennessee,” said worker Mike Jarvis, who was among the group in the plant that organized to fight the UAW. “It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to us.”

Jarvis, who hangs doors, trunk lids and hoods on cars, said workers were worried about the union’s historical impact on Detroit automakers and the many plants that have closed in the North, he said.

“Look at every company that’s went bankrupt or shut down or had an issue,” he said. “What is the one common denominator with all those companies? UAW. We don’t need it.”

Pocketbook issues were on opponents’ minds, Jarvis said. Workers were suspicious that Volkswagen and the union might have reached “cost containment” agreements that could have led to a cut in their hourly pay rate to that made by entry-level employees with the Detroit Three automakers, he said.

The concern, he said, was that the UAW “was going to take the salaries in a backward motion, not in a forward motion,” said Jarvis, who makes about $20 per hour as he approaches his three-year anniversary at the plant.

Southern Republicans were horrified when Volkswagen announced it was engaging in talks with the UAW last year. Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who has been among the UAW’s most vocal critics, said at the time that Volkswagen would become a “laughingstock” in the business world if it welcomed the union to its plant.

Volkswagen wants to form a works council at the plant to represent blue-collar and salaried workers. But to do so under U.S. law requires the establishment of an independent union.

Several workers who cast votes against the union said they support the idea of a works council — they just don’t want to have to work through the UAW.

Volkswagen’s German management is accustomed to unions and works councils, which have been ingrained in its operations since the end of World War II.

And labor interests that make up half of the company’s supervisory board have raised concerns that the Chattanooga plant is alone among the automaker’s major factories worldwide without formal worker representation.

But in Tennessee, there’s little recent history of prominent manufacturing unions, and people are suspicious of them.

“This is an area of the country where union density is low,” said Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who specializes in labor issues.

Still, because of the close margin, Shaiken believes the union would have won without statements from Corker and other Republican politicians that played to anti-union sentiment and cast doubt on the plant’s future with union representation. Those statements, he said, influenced spouses, relatives and neighbors as well as workers at the plant.

“You’ve got wives, husbands, family members. They hear these threats, and they say, ‘What are you doing here? This is a risk,’ ” Shaiken said.

UAW opponent Sean Moss, who works in the plant’s assembly shop as a quality inspector, said he began hearing more from colleagues with concerns about the union in the last days before the vote.

“I’m sure they probably had influence at home, from other members of the family that work, other people that have been through unions who did not have a good experience,” he said.

Moss said the UAW’s negative reputation resonated with workers at the plant.

“I think their history was probably the biggest part,” he said. “People sat back and looked at what they’ve done with regard to the last 30 years.”

“The thought was: ‘We’re doing fine without the unions here, so why start now?’ ” he said.

As for the UAW’s next step, leaders said they are evaluating their options. Bob King, the union president, was not prepared to say after the vote whether the union would try to take legal action because of what he called unprecedented outside interference.

Devin Gore, an assembly line worker who favored the union, said he was too upset to talk about the loss Saturday. He’s not giving up on one day being represented by the UAW.

“I’m going to be walking into the plant with a UAW shirt on come Monday,” Gore said. “I don’t think we’ll stop trying until we get it.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.