What do you do when a union vote doesn’t go your way? Well, if you are the United Auto Workers union, you ask for a “re-do”. The UAW has asked the National Labor Relations Board to reconsider their failed attempt to unionize Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, because… Well because they think it was unfair that anti-union voices were allowed to make their case on TV, highway billboards, and newspaper columns. In other words: the UAW feels they were unfairly outgunned by free-speech.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
The UAW has filed an election objection with the labor board alleging that Republican politicians conducted “a coordinated and widely-publicized coercive campaign” to deprive “workers of their federally-protected right” to “support and select the UAW as their exclusive representative.”
Um… What about the “federally protected right” to free speech? Or does that pesky First Amendment not really apply to Republicans? The union feels as if the anti-unionization case made by outside parties (without the authorization, or endorsement of Volkswagen) constitutes an interference in the vote… It’s a pretty audacious claim, when one considers that the “victim” in this case is one of the nation’s most powerful lobbying and fundraising instrument for progressive causes.
Apparently, the UAW is under the impression that folks like Grover Norquist, Senator Bob Corker, and Republican backed activist groups used intimidation to compel workers to vote against the unionization of VW’s Chattanooga plant. The claim is pretty rich, coming from an organization that has showed strong solidarity with unions that post the names of Michigan workers who opted out of union contracts. It’s kinda like Al Capone complaining that Elliot Ness is “too intimidating”; then appealing for a re-trial on tax evasion.
Union President Bob King said that “it’s an outrage that politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that that would grow jobs in Tennessee.” (Right… Because Motor City’s bankrupt auto manufacturers are such “successful operating models”.) Well, Bob, that’s one interpretation of what happened. Other people, like the 712 workers who voted against the union, might say that such opposition forces were expressing legitimate concerns over unionization.
I mean, heck, only 7 percent of the private workforce is currently unionized… Couldn’t it just be that workers in Tennessee didn’t feel like paying union dues to a Democrat fundraising outfit (cleverly disguised as a labor union)?
Of course, the request for an election re-do is only the latest episode in the union’s temper-tantrum. The eerily Marxist website, workers.org (seriously… their motto is “workers of the world unite”, and their logo is a big red star... Joe McCarthy would have a heart attack...), immediately claimed that the vote to remain union-free was inspired mostly by southern racism. Their reasoning was built on the foundation that southerners generally oppose abortion-rights, gun control, and other “liberal” causes. Apparently, concern over your union dues being used to promote “liberal” causes is racist… Congratulations Tennessee: You all cling to guns, religion, and antipathy toward people who are not like you. (Have we heard that line before?)
The real reason people in Chattanooga didn’t seem thrilled about unionizing: Detroit. Oh, and maybe workers don’t like the idea of compulsory donations to the Democrat Party.
Apparently calling “scabs” and non-union workers a bunch of racist morons is not intimidation… But going on public television and expressing concern over the effects that unionization might have on the state’s ability to attract more manufacturing jobs is grounds for voiding inconvenient outcomes… I think we’re starting to get the picture. (Conservatives are racist, and non-union workers are brainwashed subjects of massive voter intimidation… But, yeah: I’m the type of guy that wears a tin-foil hat.)
Basically, the UAW is upset because opposition voices were allowed to express their opinions (Gasp!). Heaven forbid workers be exposed to both sides of an argument!!!
By the way, VW stayed definitively neutral – even pro-union at times. In fact, according to Forbes:
Although politicians were outspoken, Volkswagen remained neutral during the organizing campaign. It hopes to establish a European-style “works council” in Chattanooga, as it has at other plants around the world. Under U.S. labor law, however, that model of labor-management relations requires the existence of a union.
So… Even though VW did it’s best to remain neutral – despite it’s clear bias toward establishing a union presence – the mere existence of anti-union commentary made the election “unfair” in the eyes of the union. (Maybe the UAW would like to adopt Harvard style censorship in lieu of the First Amendment?)
The UAW’s tantrum, and subsequent request for a second vote, is yet another example of the Left’s intolerance for dissent. They call the opposition “racist”, and immediately request a rematch because their political opponents were allowed the opportunity to exercise freedom of speech.
The new slogan of the collectivist Left: “Workers of the world unite!” (So long as they unite in support of Democrat fundraising machines like the UAW.)
Join the conversation as a VIP Member