Chattanooga difference: The card-check factor
All who value workers' right to free choice owe gratitude to eight courageous Volkswagen employees. Their complaints alleging United Auto Workers coercion kept VW's Chattanooga, Tenn., plant from being unionized without the secret ballot that rejected UAW representation.
VW has union representation on its board in Germany. It welcomed the UAW, suggested unionization was a “must” to produce a new SUV platform in Chattanooga — even signed a “neutrality agreement.” The UAW claimed a majority of workers had signed pro-unionization cards, enough to unionize without a secret ballot — if VW consented.
But those eight workers, assisted by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed charges alleging the UAW unlawfully forced signatures through “misrepresentations, coercion, threats and promises,” according to National Review Online. And that prompted VW to require the secret ballot that the UAW lost — an outcome that reinforces the necessity of secret unionization ballots and of Congress never passing card-check legislation advocated by Big Labor's Democrat puppets.
Passage of the latter would enable card-check unionization without employer consent — a change that U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, Confused-Upper St. Clair, voted for in 2007 before opposing it in his 2012 re-election campaign. It would allow union pressure to trample workers' right to free choice nationwide — and would have allowed the UAW to trample those eight VW workers who made the difference in Chattanooga.
Show commenting policy
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.
- The Obamanet: An Internet threat
- U.N. Watch: Russian buffing
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run
- Taxing consequences: The Shell effect
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The silent treatment in Ford City: Forgotten words
- Saturday essay: Deer of fools
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The BNY Mellon deal: Cheating & shaming
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances