Volkswagen Union Vote Wasn't a Defeat for Labor
In all the comment on the vote against the United Automobile Workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, something has been missed. Rejecting the union needn't mean rejecting the idea of effective worker representation. The decision is an opportunity for labor and management to show the auto industry in particular, and corporate America in general, that they can work more productively together.
By a vote of 712-626, workers at the Volkswagen AG plant said no to the UAW despite Volkswagen's tacit support for the union campaign. The UAW complained of outside political interference, but the main problem was its reputation as an adversary of management, implicated in the long decline of the U.S. automobile industry. There are better models for industrial relations, tried and proved elsewhere, based on cooperation over confrontation. The vote may advance those prospects in the U.S.
In Germany, works councils take a more collaborative view of a company's future, and VW is well suited to export this approach to the U.S. Its deputy chairman is the former head of IG Metall, Germany's UAW, and labor representatives make up half its supervisory board. The company says it will propose a council for the Chattanooga plant.
Works councils on the German model cooperate with management over safety standards, scheduling matters, dispute resolution, improving production-line efficiency and other shop-floor conditions. Separately, IG Metall negotiates over wages and benefits. In Chattanooga, workers could continue to negotiate individually over pay and benefits, and the works council could handle plantwide issues such as training employees on new equipment.
Some labor-law experts say VW can't form a works council without a union first gaining recognition. They say that the National Labor Relations Act deems any such committee a "labor organization" that must be put to a worker vote. Actually, the law isn't clear on the point. But if the courts rule that it does forbid councils without a union's involvement, the law should be changed.
It can't be right for U.S. labor law to prevent managers and workers from collaborating to make a production line more efficient. Or to resolve disputes without strikes. Or to keep an assembly line running around the clock. More flexibility and less confrontation, with workers' views being heard and respected, would help companies succeed in the global marketplace -- and their workers could then seek higher wages without putting their jobs at risk.
This hasn't been the UAW's approach. In Detroit, it negotiated hourly wages, benefits and everlasting job security that priced the Big Three automakers out of the market. Far from seeking higher productivity, the union resisted it. A generation of managers grew reluctant to push big ideas or make labor-saving changes for fear of provoking the UAW.
The workers in Chattanooga were right to say no to all that. There's a better way worth trying.
To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.
If you believe that you may have received this message in error please let us know.
- Jared Kushner's Dreams of Mideast Peace Are Alive
- Elon Musk Is the Henry Ford of His Age. That's Bad.
- Mark Zuckerberg Has No Way Out of Facebook's Quagmire
- Leaking Is Just a Symptom. Trump Himself Is the Cause.
- Don't Count On Jeff Sessions Protecting Mueller
- Cambridge Analytica's Real Business Isn't Data
- A Pro-Putin Town Explodes in Anger