Will Volkswagon Recognize UAW WITHOUT A Vote?

[DaGoose]

Looks like there is at least one company with a little integrity. They aren't running scared from the big, bad unions.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/anti-union-groups-worries-vw-214021723.html

.

 

[WinterBorn]

Looks like there is at least one company with a little integrity. They aren't running scared from the big, bad unions.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/anti-union-groups-worries-vw-214021723.html

.

I find it odd that the company would bring in the union when the workers voted against it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Looks like there is at least one company with a little integrity. They aren't running scared from the big, bad unions.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/anti-union-groups-worries-vw-214021723.html

.

I find it odd that the company would bring in the union when the workers voted against it.

i read they said it federal law that they have to

work with an independent union to represent the blue collar employees

 

[zeke]

The management does not want to spend the time and resources to negotiate pay with every single worker in the plant. As well as managing grievances, work place injury and safety standards.

For some reason, the VW management WANTS to work with their workforce to improve quality, improve production and save money in the manufacturing process.

A few representatives of the workers is much easier to deal with than trying to listen to the hundreds of workers that they have.

The VW management is used to having all these benefits (union representation) in German plants and things work great.

I am sure they can't figure out why in the **** the politicians had to intervene in the UAW vote.
Finding that they still want to accomplish all the above, and finding that the politicians opposed were offering nothing of benefit, they (management) decides to see if they can bring in the UAW on their own.

Damn Germans. Who they think they are.

 

[WinterBorn]

The management does not want to spend the time and resources to negotiate pay with every single worker in the plant. As well as managing grievances, work place injury and safety standards.

For some reason, the VW management WANTS to work with their workforce to improve quality, improve production and save money in the manufacturing process.

A few representatives of the workers is much easier to deal with than trying to listen to the hundreds of workers that they have.

The VW management is used to having all these benefits (union representation) in German plants and things work great.

I am sure they can't figure out why in the **** the politicians had to intervene in the UAW vote.
Finding that they still want to accomplish all the above, and finding that the politicians opposed were offering nothing of benefit, they (management) decides to see if they can bring in the UAW on their own.

Damn Germans. Who they think they are.

Why would there need to be a committee to handle workplace safety and/or work place injuries? If the employee was injured on the job, it is handled by Workman's Comp. And the safety regulations are written in the OSHA manuals. Necessary training and employee involvement could be helped by a safety committee. But that isn't a union thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The company believes that it will help the company profit line, or it would not voluntarily do it.

 

[zeke]

The management does not want to spend the time and resources to negotiate pay with every single worker in the plant. As well as managing grievances, work place injury and safety standards.

For some reason, the VW management WANTS to work with their workforce to improve quality, improve production and save money in the manufacturing process.

A few representatives of the workers is much easier to deal with than trying to listen to the hundreds of workers that they have.

The VW management is used to having all these benefits (union representation) in German plants and things work great.

I am sure they can't figure out why in the **** the politicians had to intervene in the UAW vote.
Finding that they still want to accomplish all the above, and finding that the politicians opposed were offering nothing of benefit, they (management) decides to see if they can bring in the UAW on their own.

Damn Germans. Who they think they are.

Why would there need to be a committee to handle workplace safety and/or work place injuries? If the employee was injured on the job, it is handled by Workman's Comp. And the safety regulations are written in the OSHA manuals. Necessary training and employee involvement could be helped by a safety committee. But that isn't a union thing.

You ever worked in a factory? So you think that the management wants to leave itself open to outside intervention on the issues you mentioned? You know, just follow all the regs and safety guidelines written by someone who isn't even an employee? That they want to have OHSA on their case? That they want to have Workman's Comp claims? And safety is a union thing.

Like I said; you have never worked in a factory have you?

If the management of a private company chooses to want to work with union representation, what business is it of anyone else's. Including politicians.

 

[DaGoose]

The management does not want to spend the time and resources to negotiate pay with every single worker in the plant. As well as managing grievances, work place injury and safety standards.

For some reason, the VW management WANTS to work with their workforce to improve quality, improve production and save money in the manufacturing process.

A few representatives of the workers is much easier to deal with than trying to listen to the hundreds of workers that they have.

The VW management is used to having all these benefits (union representation) in German plants and things work great.

I am sure they can't figure out why in the **** the politicians had to intervene in the UAW vote.
Finding that they still want to accomplish all the above, and finding that the politicians opposed were offering nothing of benefit, they (management) decides to see if they can bring in the UAW on their own.

Damn Germans. Who they think they are.

Why would there need to be a committee to handle workplace safety and/or work place injuries? If the employee was injured on the job, it is handled by Workman's Comp. And the safety regulations are written in the OSHA manuals. Necessary training and employee involvement could be helped by a safety committee. But that isn't a union thing.

Actually OSHA mandates Safety Committees. And properly trained Safety Committees can perform a detailed accident investigation and learn from it to take a proactive approach to accident prevention. And a combined union/management Safety Committee where everyone is on equal footing make the best committees.

And worker safety rules are indeed a union thing.

.

 

[Moonglow]

Yes,, I miss the old days of management when all it took was a cat-o-nine tails to motivate workers...

 

[WinterBorn]

The management does not want to spend the time and resources to negotiate pay with every single worker in the plant. As well as managing grievances, work place injury and safety standards.

For some reason, the VW management WANTS to work with their workforce to improve quality, improve production and save money in the manufacturing process.

A few representatives of the workers is much easier to deal with than trying to listen to the hundreds of workers that they have.

The VW management is used to having all these benefits (union representation) in German plants and things work great.

I am sure they can't figure out why in the **** the politicians had to intervene in the UAW vote.
Finding that they still want to accomplish all the above, and finding that the politicians opposed were offering nothing of benefit, they (management) decides to see if they can bring in the UAW on their own.

Damn Germans. Who they think they are.

Why would there need to be a committee to handle workplace safety and/or work place injuries? If the employee was injured on the job, it is handled by Workman's Comp. And the safety regulations are written in the OSHA manuals. Necessary training and employee involvement could be helped by a safety committee. But that isn't a union thing.

You ever worked in a factory? So you think that the management wants to leave itself open to outside intervention on the issues you mentioned? You know, just follow all the regs and safety guidelines written by someone who isn't even an employee? That they want to have OHSA on their case? That they want to have Workman's Comp claims? And safety is a union thing.

Like I said; you have never worked in a factory have you?

If the management of a private company chooses to want to work with union representation, what business is it of anyone else's. Including politicians.

Yes, I have worked in a factory. I worked on a line and then as a safety supervisor.

The regs and safety guidelines are written in someone's blood. Yes, there are areas that the employee safety committees can help with. But a union will also not be interested in workers and mgmt. getting along. In my experience, they will always try to blame mgmt.

I'll give you a perfect example. In power work the workers have gloves to protect them. It is a double set of gloves. An outside leather glove and a rubber glove liner. The rubber liner must be sent off for testing every 90 days. They also must be inspected before every single use. This involves a very close visual inspection and an inflation to check for any leaks. One company I worked for had replaced the safety supervisors. Someone dropped the ball and did not call for the rubber liners to be replaced until almost 110 days had passed. The union filed numerous grievances (one for each out of date pair of liners). The problem is that the date they are due for testing is stamped on the cuff of each glove. If the gloves were being inspected prior to each use, why did not one single worker call their supervisor about the gloves being out of date? They should have seen that date stamp every single day.

And I am not saying it is anyone's business but the company. I am simply trying to have a discussion on why they would choose to have such an antagonistic entity involved in the process, when the workers voted not to unionize.

So how about we avoid assumptions about my work history and stick with the topic, ok? I have worked in a factory and I have worked as a safety professional for many years.

 

[WinterBorn]

The management does not want to spend the time and resources to negotiate pay with every single worker in the plant. As well as managing grievances, work place injury and safety standards.

For some reason, the VW management WANTS to work with their workforce to improve quality, improve production and save money in the manufacturing process.

A few representatives of the workers is much easier to deal with than trying to listen to the hundreds of workers that they have.

The VW management is used to having all these benefits (union representation) in German plants and things work great.

I am sure they can't figure out why in the **** the politicians had to intervene in the UAW vote.
Finding that they still want to accomplish all the above, and finding that the politicians opposed were offering nothing of benefit, they (management) decides to see if they can bring in the UAW on their own.

Damn Germans. Who they think they are.

Why would there need to be a committee to handle workplace safety and/or work place injuries? If the employee was injured on the job, it is handled by Workman's Comp. And the safety regulations are written in the OSHA manuals. Necessary training and employee involvement could be helped by a safety committee. But that isn't a union thing.

Actually OSHA mandates Safety Committees. And properly trained Safety Committees can perform a detailed accident investigation and learn from it to take a proactive approach to accident prevention. And a combined union/management Safety Committee where everyone is on equal footing make the best committees.

And worker safety rules are indeed a union thing.

.

Worker safety CAN be a union thing, and well it should be. But in my experience, unions are not interested in equitable sharing of power or in solving problems. They are more interested in maintaining their own power and in creating friction between mgmt. and the workers.

 

[DaGoose]

Why would there need to be a committee to handle workplace safety and/or work place injuries? If the employee was injured on the job, it is handled by Workman's Comp. And the safety regulations are written in the OSHA manuals. Necessary training and employee involvement could be helped by a safety committee. But that isn't a union thing.

You ever worked in a factory? So you think that the management wants to leave itself open to outside intervention on the issues you mentioned? You know, just follow all the regs and safety guidelines written by someone who isn't even an employee? That they want to have OHSA on their case? That they want to have Workman's Comp claims? And safety is a union thing.

Like I said; you have never worked in a factory have you?

If the management of a private company chooses to want to work with union representation, what business is it of anyone else's. Including politicians.

Yes, I have worked in a factory. I worked on a line and then as a safety supervisor.

The regs and safety guidelines are written in someone's blood. Yes, there are areas that the employee safety committees can help with. But a union will also not be interested in workers and mgmt. getting along. In my experience, they will always try to blame mgmt.

I'll give you a perfect example. In power work the workers have gloves to protect them. It is a double set of gloves. An outside leather glove and a rubber glove liner. The rubber liner must be sent off for testing every 90 days. They also must be inspected before every single use. This involves a very close visual inspection and an inflation to check for any leaks. One company I worked for had replaced the safety supervisors. Someone dropped the ball and did not call for the rubber liners to be replaced until almost 110 days had passed. The union filed numerous grievances (one for each out of date pair of liners). The problem is that the date they are due for testing is stamped on the cuff of each glove. If the gloves were being inspected prior to each use, why did not one single worker call their supervisor about the gloves being out of date? They should have seen that date stamp every single day.

And I am not saying it is anyone's business but the company. I am simply trying to have a discussion on why they would choose to have such an antagonistic entity involved in the process, when the workers voted not to unionize.

So how about we avoid assumptions about my work history and stick with the topic, ok? I have worked in a factory and I have worked as a safety professional for many years.

I would think that as a safety you would have known that those inner gloves you spoke of need to be electrically tested every 6 months, not 90 days.

And "numerous grievances" should never have been filed. A simple call to OSHA would suffice. Electrical glove testing is an OSHA mandate and if they were trying to force employees to use out of date gloves then they were in violation, period. I would simply have advised the employees to refuse to do the electrical work until the company provided them the proper PPE to perform the task.

 

[DaGoose]

Why would there need to be a committee to handle workplace safety and/or work place injuries? If the employee was injured on the job, it is handled by Workman's Comp. And the safety regulations are written in the OSHA manuals. Necessary training and employee involvement could be helped by a safety committee. But that isn't a union thing.

Actually OSHA mandates Safety Committees. And properly trained Safety Committees can perform a detailed accident investigation and learn from it to take a proactive approach to accident prevention. And a combined union/management Safety Committee where everyone is on equal footing make the best committees.

And worker safety rules are indeed a union thing.

.

Worker safety CAN be a union thing, and well it should be. But in my experience, unions are not interested in equitable sharing of power or in solving problems. They are more interested in maintaining their own power and in creating friction between mgmt. and the workers.

Speaking as an IBEW Steward (8 years) and Union Safety Rep (10 years) you couldn't be more wrong.

.

.

 

[WinterBorn]

You ever worked in a factory? So you think that the management wants to leave itself open to outside intervention on the issues you mentioned? You know, just follow all the regs and safety guidelines written by someone who isn't even an employee? That they want to have OHSA on their case? That they want to have Workman's Comp claims? And safety is a union thing.

Like I said; you have never worked in a factory have you?

If the management of a private company chooses to want to work with union representation, what business is it of anyone else's. Including politicians.

Yes, I have worked in a factory. I worked on a line and then as a safety supervisor.

The regs and safety guidelines are written in someone's blood. Yes, there are areas that the employee safety committees can help with. But a union will also not be interested in workers and mgmt. getting along. In my experience, they will always try to blame mgmt.

I'll give you a perfect example. In power work the workers have gloves to protect them. It is a double set of gloves. An outside leather glove and a rubber glove liner. The rubber liner must be sent off for testing every 90 days. They also must be inspected before every single use. This involves a very close visual inspection and an inflation to check for any leaks. One company I worked for had replaced the safety supervisors. Someone dropped the ball and did not call for the rubber liners to be replaced until almost 110 days had passed. The union filed numerous grievances (one for each out of date pair of liners). The problem is that the date they are due for testing is stamped on the cuff of each glove. If the gloves were being inspected prior to each use, why did not one single worker call their supervisor about the gloves being out of date? They should have seen that date stamp every single day.

And I am not saying it is anyone's business but the company. I am simply trying to have a discussion on why they would choose to have such an antagonistic entity involved in the process, when the workers voted not to unionize.

So how about we avoid assumptions about my work history and stick with the topic, ok? I have worked in a factory and I have worked as a safety professional for many years.

I would think that as a safety you would have known that those inner gloves you spoke of need to be electrically tested every 6 months, not 90 days.

And "numerous grievances" should never have been filed. A simple call to OSHA would suffice. Electrical glove testing is an OSHA mandate and if they were trying to force employees to use out of date gloves then they were in violation, period. I would simply have advised the employees to refuse to do the electrical work until the company provided them the proper PPE to perform the task.

As a safety professional I know that the OSHA standard is 6 months. But in the power construction industry, 90 days is the standard. OSHA is a required minimum. Most companies exceed the minimum.

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually OSHA mandates Safety Committees. And properly trained Safety Committees can perform a detailed accident investigation and learn from it to take a proactive approach to accident prevention. And a combined union/management Safety Committee where everyone is on equal footing make the best committees.

And worker safety rules are indeed a union thing.

.

Worker safety CAN be a union thing, and well it should be. But in my experience, unions are not interested in equitable sharing of power or in solving problems. They are more interested in maintaining their own power and in creating friction between mgmt. and the workers.

Speaking as an IBEW Steward (8 years) and Union Safety Rep (10 years) you couldn't be more wrong.

.

.

Having worked with two different electrical construction contractors (2 years and 5 years), I can only base my views on my own experiences.

 

[DaGoose]

Yes, I have worked in a factory. I worked on a line and then as a safety supervisor.

The regs and safety guidelines are written in someone's blood. Yes, there are areas that the employee safety committees can help with. But a union will also not be interested in workers and mgmt. getting along. In my experience, they will always try to blame mgmt.

I'll give you a perfect example. In power work the workers have gloves to protect them. It is a double set of gloves. An outside leather glove and a rubber glove liner. The rubber liner must be sent off for testing every 90 days. They also must be inspected before every single use. This involves a very close visual inspection and an inflation to check for any leaks. One company I worked for had replaced the safety supervisors. Someone dropped the ball and did not call for the rubber liners to be replaced until almost 110 days had passed. The union filed numerous grievances (one for each out of date pair of liners). The problem is that the date they are due for testing is stamped on the cuff of each glove. If the gloves were being inspected prior to each use, why did not one single worker call their supervisor about the gloves being out of date? They should have seen that date stamp every single day.

And I am not saying it is anyone's business but the company. I am simply trying to have a discussion on why they would choose to have such an antagonistic entity involved in the process, when the workers voted not to unionize.

So how about we avoid assumptions about my work history and stick with the topic, ok? I have worked in a factory and I have worked as a safety professional for many years.

I would think that as a safety you would have known that those inner gloves you spoke of need to be electrically tested every 6 months, not 90 days.

And "numerous grievances" should never have been filed. A simple call to OSHA would suffice. Electrical glove testing is an OSHA mandate and if they were trying to force employees to use out of date gloves then they were in violation, period. I would simply have advised the employees to refuse to do the electrical work until the company provided them the proper PPE to perform the task.

As a safety professional I know that the OSHA standard is 6 months. But in the power construction industry, 90 days is the standard. OSHA is a required minimum. Most companies exceed the minimum.

Since I've never heard of the 90 day testing I tried to look it up but failed to find it. Do you have a link that shows an OSHA mandate on 90 day testing? I'd really be interested in seeing that.

And do you agree that workers should not be using out of date gloves and that their complaints (grievances) were valid? And that they would have been justified to refuse to perform the task?

.

 

[WinterBorn]

I would think that as a safety you would have known that those inner gloves you spoke of need to be electrically tested every 6 months, not 90 days.

And "numerous grievances" should never have been filed. A simple call to OSHA would suffice. Electrical glove testing is an OSHA mandate and if they were trying to force employees to use out of date gloves then they were in violation, period. I would simply have advised the employees to refuse to do the electrical work until the company provided them the proper PPE to perform the task.

As a safety professional I know that the OSHA standard is 6 months. But in the power construction industry, 90 days is the standard. OSHA is a required minimum. Most companies exceed the minimum.

Since I've never heard of the 90 day testing I tried to look it up but failed to find it. Do you have a link that shows an OSHA mandate on 90 day testing? I'd really be interested in seeing that.

And do you agree that workers should not be using out of date gloves and that their complaints (grievances) were valid? And that they would have been justified to refuse to perform the task?

.

The standard is not OSHA, but one originating with Quanta Services Safety. It adds an extra margin of safety.

I agree that they should not be using out of date gloves. And if they had requested them and were not given them, they would have grounds for a grievance. I also agree that they should not perform any task with a risk of electrical contact with out of date PPE.

Do you agree that the date stamp should have been seen by each worker as they did their daily pre-work inspection? And that they should have made someone aware that the gloves were out of date?

 

[DaGoose]

As a safety professional I know that the OSHA standard is 6 months. But in the power construction industry, 90 days is the standard. OSHA is a required minimum. Most companies exceed the minimum.

Since I've never heard of the 90 day testing I tried to look it up but failed to find it. Do you have a link that shows an OSHA mandate on 90 day testing? I'd really be interested in seeing that.

And do you agree that workers should not be using out of date gloves and that their complaints (grievances) were valid? And that they would have been justified to refuse to perform the task?

.

The standard is not OSHA, but one originating with Quanta Services Safety. It adds an extra margin of safety.

I agree that they should not be using out of date gloves. And if they had requested them and were not given them, they would have grounds for a grievance. I also agree that they should not perform any task with a risk of electrical contact with out of date PPE.

Do you agree that the date stamp should have been seen by each worker as they did their daily pre-work inspection? And that they should have made someone aware that the gloves were out of date?

By filing grievances it sounds like they did. LOUDLY

They should have not had to file more than one yet you said they kept filing them. Why is that?

.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since I've never heard of the 90 day testing I tried to look it up but failed to find it. Do you have a link that shows an OSHA mandate on 90 day testing? I'd really be interested in seeing that.

And do you agree that workers should not be using out of date gloves and that their complaints (grievances) were valid? And that they would have been justified to refuse to perform the task?

.

The standard is not OSHA, but one originating with Quanta Services Safety. It adds an extra margin of safety.

I agree that they should not be using out of date gloves. And if they had requested them and were not given them, they would have grounds for a grievance. I also agree that they should not perform any task with a risk of electrical contact with out of date PPE.

Do you agree that the date stamp should have been seen by each worker as they did their daily pre-work inspection? And that they should have made someone aware that the gloves were out of date?

By filing grievances it sounds like they did. LOUDLY

They should have not had to file more than one yet you said they kept filing them. Why is that?

.

Filing grievances should not be a first step. A simple word to someone up the ladder would have done the trick.

I fixed the problem when I got there, but I was hired for my expertise in excavation work more than power side. But the field safety guy I replaced had been slack.