Volkswagen workers in Tennessee vote to join UAW

[Sumner 1868]

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

56% of Americans want unions to have the same or less influence than they do now.

Talk about cherry picking and spin. The poll from last year you sight shows only 26% of the public shares your view, while the number who want labor power increased is the highest since they began the question in 1999.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

56% of Americans want unions to have the same or less influence than they do now.

Talk about cherry picking and spin. The poll from last year you sight shows only 26% of the public shares your view, while the number who want labor power increased is the highest since they began the question in 1999.

How is this a spin? Someone said that anyone who wanted to fail in their mission of expanding unionization was a bad person. I pointed out that 56% of Americans don't want unions to expand. Sure, some want to shrink unions, others want to keep the influence constant, but that's a relatively minor difference.

[Yoda]

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

56% of Americans want unions to have the same or less influence than they do now.

Ok and? 56% of respondents are bad people.

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

56% of Americans want unions to have the same or less influence than they do now.

I said what I said, do I need to say it again slower?

Increasingly, our friends on the left are realizing their views are fringe, and rely primarily on coercing people into accepting institutions such as unions that they do not want. My hope is that this will lead them to reject the idea that, say, workers at a car plant have an obligation to join unions, and to embrace the ideals of personal liberty and government non-interference in private affairs, but I worry that it will instead lead them to anti-democratic extremism.

How is the UAW, a private organization whose bargaining members voted to join (overwhelmingly), negotiating with VW, a private corporation having anything to do with “government interference?”

Great question. As I mentioned above, our federal government has passed dozens of laws favoring unions in the workplace. While ideally, there would be total freedom for employer and employee to transact, these laws force employers to negotiate with unions, create special pathways for unions to force workers to join them (unless states pass right to work laws), and even require that employers not fire striking workers (people who literally aren't doing their jobs). As a result, it has become so onerous for employers to resist unions that many are essentially forced to give in. The federal government is putting a thumb on the scales for the UAW etc, so to speak. If the UAW was really a private organization that VW could choose to negotiate with, not negotiate with, etc as it pleased (and vice versa) I would have no problem with it. But it's not -- it is an extension of the state, and proudly so.

This is so beyond stupid I stopped reading there. Can't even imagine how uninformed one has to be to believe that US employment law actually favors unions over the shareholder/corporate board class lmao.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

[Nyvin]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

[Ancestral Republican]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Until he finds employment and has to support himself, he will not appreciate the impact unions had on creating many of the benefits for workers we take for granted today, such as the 40 hour work week, holidays, injury compensation, etc. There's a reason right wing pundits and paid corporate shills have been pushing the anti-union narrative for the last few decades (they always were, but not as effectively.) Fortunately it looks like the anti-union environment in the United States (which is why we have one of the worst income inequality situations in the entire world) is finally starting to turn.

[Gass3268]

This is just the start of UAW's efforts in the South.

[Devout Centrist]

Also, note your own goalpost shifting -- from "these are private organizations" to "who cares that the government is putting a thumb on the scale for the UAW?"

Proud to say I have always endorsed the latter idea.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Weird. Here in North Carolina we have never had large unions, but we've also never had worker uprisings or mass starvation. We have had poverty, and mass shootings, but I'm not particularly sure unions are connected to avoiding those things, either. And the Gilded Age was a time of great economic prosperity and growth.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Until he finds employment and has to support himself, he will not appreciate the impact unions had on creating many of the benefits for workers we take for granted today, such as the 40 hour work week, holidays, injury compensation, etc. There's a reason right wing pundits and paid corporate shills have been pushing the anti-union narrative for the last few decades (they always were, but not as effectively.) Fortunately it looks like the anti-union environment in the United States (which is why we have one of the worst income inequality situations in the entire world) is finally starting to turn.

Unions didn't create any of those things. And unions are still declining, so no.

[Ferguson97]

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

56% of Americans want unions to have the same or less influence than they do now.

Just so everyone knows, Haley/Ryan is being a bit uncharitable with this data. Per the article:



There's no good reason to automatically group in the "same amount" respondents with the "less influence" respondents, and there's especially no good reason to not even tell us that you did that.
 
I've mentioned this before, but this is why I hate it when polls include a status quo option - you can use it to frame the data however you like!

"56% want unions to have the same or less influence" and "73% want unions to have the same or more influence" are statements that paint extremely difference pictures, even though both are technically correct!

[Libertas Vel Mors]

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

56% of Americans want unions to have the same or less influence than they do now.

Just so everyone knows, Haley/Ryan is being a bit uncharitable with this data. Per the article:



There's no good reason to automatically group in the "same amount" respondents with the "less influence" respondents, and there's especially no good reason to not even tell us that you did that.
 
I've mentioned this before, but this is why I hate it when polls include a status quo option - you can use it to frame the data however you like!

"56% want unions to have the same or less influence" and "73% want unions to have the same or more influence" are statements that paint extremely difference pictures, even though both are technically correct!

I had this same conversation earlier in the thread. I posted that data in response to someone saying anyone who wanted unions to fail in expanding was a bad person. If the relevant question is what % agree with union expansion than summing together the less unions/same unions numbers makes sense.

[Ferguson97]

I posted that data in response to someone saying anyone who wanted unions to fail in expanding was a bad person. If the relevant question is what % agree with union expansion than summing together the less unions/same unions numbers makes sense.

That's not true.

They said:

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

"People who cheer for unions to fail" and "anyone who wanted unions to fail in expanding" is not the same thing lmao. You added two words to the end of the sentence that weren't even there, and completely change the meaning of the sentence!

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I posted that data in response to someone saying anyone who wanted unions to fail in expanding was a bad person. If the relevant question is what % agree with union expansion than summing together the less unions/same unions numbers makes sense.

That's not true.

They said:

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

Wanting unions to continue to have the same amount of influence they have now is not "cheering for unions to fail" lmao.

This is a thread about unions expanding lol. I made a comment about not wanting unions to spread into the South and that was the next comment. So the "cheer for unions to fail" bit was clearly in response to the opposing expansion in the South thing, which would include both people wanting less union influence and the same amount of union influence.

[Nyvin]

I posted that data in response to someone saying anyone who wanted unions to fail in expanding was a bad person. If the relevant question is what % agree with union expansion than summing together the less unions/same unions numbers makes sense.

That's not true.

They said:

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

Wanting unions to continue to have the same amount of influence they have now is not "cheering for unions to fail" lmao.

This is a thread about unions expanding lol. I made a comment about not wanting unions to spread into the South and that was the next comment. So the "cheer for unions to fail" bit was clearly in response to the opposing expansion in the South thing, which would include both people wanting less union influence and the same amount of union influence.

No, it wouldn't.   The question had no geographic basis to it, you're just making stuff up now.   "Same influence as they do now" doesn't mean the people don't want higher union rates in the South.  That's some twisted logic to come to that conclusion.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I posted that data in response to someone saying anyone who wanted unions to fail in expanding was a bad person. If the relevant question is what % agree with union expansion than summing together the less unions/same unions numbers makes sense.

That's not true.

They said:

People who cheer for unions to fail are bad people

Wanting unions to continue to have the same amount of influence they have now is not "cheering for unions to fail" lmao.

This is a thread about unions expanding lol. I made a comment about not wanting unions to spread into the South and that was the next comment. So the "cheer for unions to fail" bit was clearly in response to the opposing expansion in the South thing, which would include both people wanting less union influence and the same amount of union influence.

No, it wouldn't.   The question had no geographic basis to it, you're just making stuff up now.   "Same influence as they do now" doesn't mean the people don't want higher union rates in the South.  That's some twisted logic to come to that conclusion.

"I made a comment about not wanting unions to spread into the South"

What a disaster. Still, a great reminder that we need to eliminate subsidies for unions once and for all by repealing Davis-Bacon, Norris–La Guardia, the National Industrial Recovery Act, Wagner, etc. Unions are extortionary and profoundly harmful institutions in practically all modern cases. We've seen some of the harms they created in the Rust Belt, and it is imperative that they do not reemerge in the South. Luckily, 70% of Tennesseans voted to constitutionally adopt right-to-work just 2 years ago, which should help check their expansion.

Also, the title specified "In Tennessee" from the get-go, because that was the important part of the vote -- this is part of a broader push by the UAW into the South. If this was Michigan at some kind of yet ununionized new plant it would be unsurprising.

[Ancestral Republican]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Until he finds employment and has to support himself, he will not appreciate the impact unions had on creating many of the benefits for workers we take for granted today, such as the 40 hour work week, holidays, injury compensation, etc. There's a reason right wing pundits and paid corporate shills have been pushing the anti-union narrative for the last few decades (they always were, but not as effectively.) Fortunately it looks like the anti-union environment in the United States (which is why we have one of the worst income inequality situations in the entire world) is finally starting to turn.

Unions didn't create any of those things. And unions are still declining, so no.

Well this sure did assuage my previous perception of you as a historically illiterate, low-effort troll.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Until he finds employment and has to support himself, he will not appreciate the impact unions had on creating many of the benefits for workers we take for granted today, such as the 40 hour work week, holidays, injury compensation, etc. There's a reason right wing pundits and paid corporate shills have been pushing the anti-union narrative for the last few decades (they always were, but not as effectively.) Fortunately it looks like the anti-union environment in the United States (which is why we have one of the worst income inequality situations in the entire world) is finally starting to turn.

Unions didn't create any of those things. And unions are still declining, so no.

Well this sure did assuage my previous perception of you as a historically illiterate, low-effort troll.

You made a factless assertion contradicted by easily available evidence on both points. For example:

"In 2023, the unionization rate for women was little changed over the year at 9.5 percent, while
the rate for men was unchanged at 10.5 percent. Both the number of women, at 6.6 million, and
the number of men, at 7.8 million, who were union members changed little over the year. (See
table 1.)"

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

Unions are not growing.

If you want to make an argument, make one. Otherwise, don't expect detailed replies.

[wnwnwn]

This is just the start of UAW's efforts in the South.

They should reach NC.

[AlterEgo]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Weird. Here in North Carolina we have never had large unions, but we've also never had worker uprisings or mass starvation. We have had poverty, and mass shootings, but I'm not particularly sure unions are connected to avoiding those things, either. And the Gilded Age was a time of great economic prosperity and growth.

Yep. That's why NC is repeatedly ranked near the bottom of worker protections, frequently dead last, although they did pass MS last year.

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/north-carolina-is-worst-in-nation-for-workers-new-report-says/#:~:text=state-mandated%20wage.-,Best%20and%20Worst%20States%20to,Rankings%20according%20to%20Oxfam%20America.&text=Lack%20of%20protections%20for%20workers,protections%2C%20only%20ahead%20of%20Mississippi.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Weird. Here in North Carolina we have never had large unions, but we've also never had worker uprisings or mass starvation. We have had poverty, and mass shootings, but I'm not particularly sure unions are connected to avoiding those things, either. And the Gilded Age was a time of great economic prosperity and growth.

Yep. That's why NC is repeatedly ranked near the bottom of worker protections, frequently dead last, although they did pass MS last year.

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/north-carolina-is-worst-in-nation-for-workers-new-report-says/#:~:text=state-mandated%20wage.-,Best%20and%20Worst%20States%20to,Rankings%20according%20to%20Oxfam%20America.&text=Lack%20of%20protections%20for%20workers,protections%2C%20only%20ahead%20of%20Mississippi.

That's bad logic. You're arguing that unions are good because they produce worker protections, but almost everyone who dislikes unions dislikes laws mandating working conditions too, so your argument only appeals to those who already agree with you.

[AlterEgo]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Weird. Here in North Carolina we have never had large unions, but we've also never had worker uprisings or mass starvation. We have had poverty, and mass shootings, but I'm not particularly sure unions are connected to avoiding those things, either. And the Gilded Age was a time of great economic prosperity and growth.

Yep. That's why NC is repeatedly ranked near the bottom of worker protections, frequently dead last, although they did pass MS last year.

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/north-carolina-is-worst-in-nation-for-workers-new-report-says/#:~:text=state-mandated%20wage.-,Best%20and%20Worst%20States%20to,Rankings%20according%20to%20Oxfam%20America.&text=Lack%20of%20protections%20for%20workers,protections%2C%20only%20ahead%20of%20Mississippi.

That's bad logic. You're arguing that unions are good because they produce worker protections, but almost everyone who dislikes unions dislikes laws mandating working conditions too, so your argument only appeals to those who already agree with you.

Hmm. And you don't think "disliking unions" and "disliking laws mandating working conditions" have any correlation whatsoever in those states noted for bad worker protections?

Nice try, though.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Weird. Here in North Carolina we have never had large unions, but we've also never had worker uprisings or mass starvation. We have had poverty, and mass shootings, but I'm not particularly sure unions are connected to avoiding those things, either. And the Gilded Age was a time of great economic prosperity and growth.

Yep. That's why NC is repeatedly ranked near the bottom of worker protections, frequently dead last, although they did pass MS last year.

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/north-carolina-is-worst-in-nation-for-workers-new-report-says/#:~:text=state-mandated%20wage.-,Best%20and%20Worst%20States%20to,Rankings%20according%20to%20Oxfam%20America.&text=Lack%20of%20protections%20for%20workers,protections%2C%20only%20ahead%20of%20Mississippi.

That's bad logic. You're arguing that unions are good because they produce worker protections, but almost everyone who dislikes unions dislikes laws mandating working conditions too, so your argument only appeals to those who already agree with you.

Hmm. And you don't think "disliking unions" and "disliking laws mandating working conditions" have any correlation whatsoever in those states noted for bad worker protections?

Nice try, though.

You're still missing the point. Laws mandating worker conditions and legal worker protections are the same thing, lol. I don't care that North Carolina has a bad ranking on that list: if anything I cherish it, as a symbol of economic freedom. And that would similarly be the response of almost all opponents of unions, so your point isn't responsive to the core argument.

[AlterEgo]

Just for reference only 10% of Americans are apart of a union, but sure they’re the ones with all the power in economic policy…

I never said the unions had all the power in economic policy. I said they had undue power created by government rules and laws deliberately favoring them.

That's to prevent worker uprisings, starvation, poverty, and mass shootings.

Corporations actually are not all that humane and giving if left to their own devices as seen in the late 19th century.

Weird. Here in North Carolina we have never had large unions, but we've also never had worker uprisings or mass starvation. We have had poverty, and mass shootings, but I'm not particularly sure unions are connected to avoiding those things, either. And the Gilded Age was a time of great economic prosperity and growth.

Yep. That's why NC is repeatedly ranked near the bottom of worker protections, frequently dead last, although they did pass MS last year.

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/north-carolina-is-worst-in-nation-for-workers-new-report-says/#:~:text=state-mandated%20wage.-,Best%20and%20Worst%20States%20to,Rankings%20according%20to%20Oxfam%20America.&text=Lack%20of%20protections%20for%20workers,protections%2C%20only%20ahead%20of%20Mississippi.

That's bad logic. You're arguing that unions are good because they produce worker protections, but almost everyone who dislikes unions dislikes laws mandating working conditions too, so your argument only appeals to those who already agree with you.

Hmm. And you don't think "disliking unions" and "disliking laws mandating working conditions" have any correlation whatsoever in those states noted for bad worker protections?

Nice try, though.

You're still missing the point. Laws mandating worker conditions and legal worker protections are the same thing, lol. I don't care that North Carolina has a bad ranking on that list: if anything I cherish it, as a symbol of economic freedom. And that would similarly be the response of almost all opponents of unions, so your point isn't responsive to the core argument.

Not missing the point. I understand you think that. Although even most rank-and-file Republican voters who work would not agree with wanting NO worker protections. They just happen to take the basic ones for granted these days.

Additionally, another poster said you don't work/don't support yourself. If true, you're working from a theoretical framework, and I'm going to take your thoughts on the matter with a grain of salt.