A new report on the United Auto Workers' attempt to organize Volkswagen's plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., makes clear the need to better protect workers' right to secret-ballot unionization elections.
Competitive Enterprise Institute policy analyst Trey Kovacs writes that the UAW, having failed at other foreign automakers' U.S. plants, had its reasons for targeting VW in Chattanooga. It wanted a labor-management “works council” like those at VW's other plants and contended U.S. labor law required union representation to form one. And VW pledged neutrality — but coordinated with the UAW behind closed doors, gave it plant access and prohibited anti-union campaigning.
The union deceptively said “card check” signatures just signaled desire for more information, though a majority of signed cards would have organized the plant without a secret ballot. The National Labor Relations Board dismissed workers' charges that the UAW was trying to subvert a secret ballot, but a petition drive forced such a vote. U.S. Sen. Bob Corker said the plant would build a new SUV if workers rejected the UAW. They did, 712-626. The union wants a re-vote, claiming coercion by Mr. Corker. A regional NLRB hearing is set for Monday.
Kovacs urges making secret ballots the sole method for unionization elections — no more “card check.” Such reform, which U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch's Employee Rights Act would accomplish, is a “must” to protect all workers' secret-ballot right.
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.