Union Ain’t Wanted: Pro-union Workers Want UAW To Leave Mercedes

UAW - Mercedes

Question: When do you know a union trying to unionize a group of workers has worn out its welcome?

Answer: When the union’s supporters tell the union to go away.

A mere four months after the United Auto Workers’ devastating defeat at Volkswagen’s plant in Chattanooga, pro-union workers at Mercedes-Benz’s plant in Alabama want the UAW to go away.

While the UAW had had more than the minimum amount of signed union authorization cards to file for an NLRB election, according to the union supporters, the union refused to file for an election—wanting a super majority (65%) of signed cards before filing.

Now, reports AL.com, many of the union’s cards have expired. This means that the UAW’s supporters must begin re-signing employees whose signatures have gone stale.

This seems to have the now-ex UAW supporters abandoning the UAW’s effort and ready to opt for a different union, including the International Association of Machinists.

“This has gone on for two-and-half years, and people are burnt out,” said Kirk Garner, a 13-year Mercedes employee and union supporter. “It’s over.”

Garner and Jim Spitzley, another longtime employee, have been key spokesmen for pro-union employees, and they have worked closely with the UAW on the campaign.

But they have grown increasingly frustrated with the UAW’s failure to file for an election.

At one point, the men say, the campaign had enough union authorization cards to legally file for an election, as more than 30 percent of the plant’s hourly production and maintenance workers had signed one.

But the UAW was pushing for a much higher percentage, 65 percent, because it wanted a sure win, they said.

“It’s all about the image with the UAW, and it’s not about the workers,” Spitzley said.

….

“We’re dedicated to the cause of furthering workers’ rights,” Garner said. “We just don’t want to do it with the UAW.”

Although the AFL-CIO—the federation comprised of 56 unions—has given the UAW jurisdiction over the auto industry (which makes the Machinists’ union an unlikely replacement), there are multiple unaffiliated unions that are not bound by the AFL-CIO’s jurisdictional standards.

However, much like its efforts at VW in Chattanooga, the UAW has used the bait and switch tactic of selling Mercedes’ workers on a Works Council in Alabama.

This is despite the fact that a third-party union (be it the UAW or another third-party union) cannot delegate its statutory responsibilities to another entity under Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act.

This means that, prior to exploring a different union, Mercedes’ workers who are now opposed to the UAW, could explore self-organization as a legal alternative to unionization.
_______________________
“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com

The post Union Ain’t Wanted: Pro-union Workers Want UAW To Leave Mercedes appeared first on RedState.

…read more

Via: Red State Labor Union Report

    

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource/onca/xml is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

Tech at Night: FCC is still a problem. GOP vs UN-run Internet. Snowden complains ironically.

Tech at Night

I know, I’m late again. Turns out after being sick my body’s just been exhausted recovering. We’ll be better off next week.

Ajit Pai came to RedState on Friday to tell us about the Zapple Doctrine was being used by the FCC to stifle freedom of speech, specifically to try to hinder Scott Walker. The Zapple Doctrine is now dead, but we need to check the FCC to keep it from returning.

Broadcasters also want to check the FCC but they’re going to the courts, the same way ISPs had to over Net Neutrality.

And House Republicans are hard at work to shut Net Neutrality down again, after the courts already had to slap it down twice before.

By the way, the extreme Net Neutrality alternative pushed by the far left, Title II Reclassification? It’s even worse, and runs directly counter to the deregulatory purpose of the Telecommunications Act.

Speaking of House Republicans, they also want to protect the Internet and freedom of speech on the Internet by keeping the UN, Russia, and China from hijacking ICANN, the organization that runs a lot of the Internet’s basic rules of the road, and keeps different networks compatible with each other. Naturally the surrendercrats and their industry donors think differently, showing how ridiculous people are when they say Republicans and Democrats are all the same.

The traitor Edward Snowden may have gotten an infomercial on NBC, but a href=”http://thehill.com/policy/technology/207622-snowden-email-fell-short-of-nsa-criticism”>NSA refuted his claims in that interview. It’s amusing though to see that he’s actually claiming that the document release made by NSA was incomplete and misleading. The guy who fled to China and Russia wants us to believe his documents are full and genuine, but NSA’s are cherrypicked and lying. Heh.

Senate Democrats caved to the lawyer lobby on patent troll reform, but House Republicans continue to fight for something. Even better: the GOP idea currently isn’t a big comprehensive bill!

If you or I distributed a song from 1971 on the Internet without paying for a license, we’d be breaking the law. When radio does it, it’s perfectly legal. It’s time we fixed that, don’t you think?

The post Tech at Night: FCC is still a problem. GOP vs UN-run Internet. Snowden complains ironically. appeared first on RedState.

…read more

Via: Red State Tech

    

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource/onca/xml is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

Our Collective Hatred of Ignorance

There has never been a time in human history when knowledge was so readily available to the average person. The vast annals of the Internet beckon to each person with infinite possibility. But this limitless compendium, despite its many good qualities, has its dangers as well. Karl Taro Greenfeld explained some of these drawbacks in a New York Times article last Saturday:

What we all feel now is the constant pressure to know enough, at all times, lest we be revealed as culturally illiterate. So that we can survive an elevator pitch, a business meeting, a visit to the office kitchenette, a cocktail party, so that we can post, tweet, chat, comment, text as if we have seen, read, watched, listened. What matters to us, awash in petabytes of data, is not necessarily having actually consumed this content firsthand but simply knowing that it exists — and having a position on it, being able to engage in the chatter about it. We come perilously close to performing a pastiche of knowledgeability that is really a new model of know-nothingness.

He is right to point out that our knowledge is often of a shallow sort: the kind that’s gleaned from a swift perusal of headlines, or a lunchtime browsing of 140-character tweets. But even if our knowledge is elementary, it is necessary that we have it. Ignorance—or at least, a humble acknowledgment of ignorance—is largely taboo. If we are ignorant about something, it’s usually best to hide it.

Leah Libresco noted in a recent TAC article that the satiating of curiosity via Google has encouraged a pervasive ignorance-guilt in our culture. Libresco notes that the website “Let Me Google That For You” (LMGTFY.com) “exists to rebuke those who ask a friend something that they should have googled … The unstated premise is that asking for help is a rude imposition, one that reveals incompetence or laziness.”

Outside the realm of friendship, this fear of “incompetence” seems to run very deep. In the career world, it’s almost dangerous to be ignorant. When writing resumes, going to job interviews, talking to colleagues, or chatting at happy hours, we must be—above all else—knowledgeable. It seems imperative that we know the code words, the vague cultural or technical references. And in the larger cultural conversation, a minute awareness of the literary, musical, and artistic world is paramount to proper participation. “Whenever anyone, anywhere, mentions anything, we must pretend to know about it,” Greenfeld writes. “Data has become our currency.”

This cultural tendency is dangerous for a couple reasons. First, it encourages a deemphasis on “longhand” knowledge. But while a miniature collection of various facts and curiosities is a useful toolbox to have at one’s disposal, the best knowledge—the sort that guides our souls and enlightens our minds—ought to run a bit deeper. As Greenfeld notes, we must allow ourselves to be “lost in the actual cultural document itself,” whatever it might be, rather than the more popular alternative: “to mine [the document] for any valuable ore …read more

Via: American Conservative

    

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource/onca/xml is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

VA hospital hides Jesus behind curtain

I may have figured out why the Department of Veterans Affairs had such difficulty finding time to treat patients. It’s because it was working overtime to give its chapels a religiously neutral makeover.

…read more

Via: Fox Opines

    

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource/onca/xml is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

Maya Angelou and me

Three years ago I hosted an “Evening with Maya Angelou” at Christ Church in Greenwich, Connecticut.

…read more

Via: Fox Opines

    

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource/onca/xml is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

Bob Dylan at graduation

Bob Dylan’s 1974 “Forever Young,” originally written as a benedictory prayer, could also be considered the world’s shortest graduation speech.

…read more

Via: Fox Opines

    

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource/onca/xml is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

What every business can learn from the Marines

In serving many exceptional clients during my career, I’ve seen firsthand what sets these organizations apart. Every day, they live a unique culture of purpose beyond making a profit.

…read more

Via: Fox Opines

    

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource/onca/xml is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

Colorado Makes an End Run Around the FDA

Kianna Karnes was a 41-year-old mother of four children diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2002. Her doctors prescribed interleukin-2, the only medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the time to treat the disease, but it proved insufficient to stop the cancer’s spread. Kianna’s family petitioned the FDA to allow their mother to try an investigational new drug (IND) still stuck in the agency’s approval process. After all, she had nothing to lose. Despite gaining powerful allies including Congressman Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, it was too late. The FDA approved Kianna’s IND request the very same day she died.

Kianna’s story is just one of countless patients whose lives have remained in jeopardy because of the FDA’s dangerously inefficient drug approval process. Now some states are taking it upon themselves to make the necessary reforms. Last week, Colorado became the first to sign a so-called “Right to Try” bill into law, empowering patients with the ability to petition pharmaceutical companies to provide them with INDs if they’ve exhausted all other options. While the push for Right to Try reform is compelling, its fate still remains uncertain due to the FDA’s reluctant history of allowing patients access to INDs.

While Kianna’s case was critical in drawing attention to the FDA’s bureaucratic approval process, it is by no means the first time the problem has gained national attention. In the 1980s, Milton Friedman wrote and spoke about the FDA’s perverse incentives in his book and television series, Free to Choose. Friedman explained that it is much riskier for the FDA to approve a drug than disapprove it, since the agency can be publicly blamed if a bad drug goes to market, but nobody would know if a good drug is rejected. As a result, “we all know of people who have benefited from modern drugs,” yet “we don’t hear much about … the beneficial drugs that the FDA has prohibited.”

Granted, the approval process has marginally improved since the era of Free to Choose. In the late 1980s, the FDA introduced Expanded Access Programs (EAPs) in response to the AIDS crisis, allowing patients access to potentially life-saving INDs. However, the federal agency’s bloated bureaucracy has unsurprisingly crept into this compassionate use program. As Christina Corieri of the Goldwater Institute explains, “[F]rom 1987 until 2002, the FDA approved only 44 treatment IND applications for conditions ranging from AIDS to chronic pain – an average of less than three per year.”

While the FDA also grants individual IND applications for specific drugs, the approval process to do so is also backed up. Patients must appear before an institutional review board (IRB) at a regional medical facility. However, many IRBs only meet once a month and can be located hundreds of miles from a patient’s home. Consequently, countless lives may have been lost navigating the FDA’s bureaucracy.

Right to Try may soon allow America’s sickest to cut through the red tape. …read more

Via: American Conservative

    

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource/onca/xml is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

A Foreign Policy to Match Our National Ambivalence

With his address at West Point, President Obama succeeded where all his previous efforts had failed. He brought us together. Nobody seems to have liked the speech. A glance shows that the New York Times and Washington Times, the Financial Times and Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal were all disappointed with it. As was said of one of Harding’s addresses, it was “an army of pompous phrases marching across the landscape in search of an idea.” What Obama has is less a foreign policy doctrine than a foreign policy disposition. He is a reluctant interventionist.

He got us out of Iraq and is taking us out of Afghanistan. Yet he was pushed into a war on Libya that turned out disastrously and is now dipping his toe into what he has called “somebody else’s civil war” in Syria. Still, Obama’s foreign policy is not going to be judged on what he said, but what he did and failed to do. The same holds for the Beltway hawks, now so harsh on Obama, who once whooped it up for George W. Bush.Perhaps it is time to review the respective records.

After America backed him in going after al-Qaeda after 9/11, Bush, on a triumphal high, invaded Iraq. Soon we were mired in the two longest wars in our history. America responded by evicting Bush’s party from leadership of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2008. And what did we miss out on by not electing John McCain?

McCain would have put us into the Russo-Georgian war over South Ossetia. He would have bombed Iran’s nuclear sites. We would still have troops in Iraq. He would have bombed Syria. He would have sent weapons to Kiev to oust the Russians from Crimea and crush the pro-Russian militias in the Donbass. He would be pushing for membership in NATO for Ukraine and Georgia, so the next time there was a dust-up with Putin’s Russia, we could be right in the thick of it.

As for Obama’s foreign policy, while the think tanks and media elite regard it as vacillating and weak, the people who gave him two electoral victories seem generally to approve. Broadly speaking, Americans are delighted our soldiers are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They were passionately opposed last August to U.S. action in Syria. They dislike Iran, but like that the president is negotiating with Iran. Thus, whoever persuaded Obama to send TOW antitank missiles to the Syrian rebels and train and arm them may end up responsible for his worst foreign policy blunder. For we are now extending and broadening a Syrian war that has left 150,000 dead. And we have become de facto allies of both the al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra Front and the more extreme Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which is carving out a caliphate from Aleppo to Anbar.

President Obama declared years ago that Assad must go. But has he thought through who rises when Assad falls?

A civil war for power between our rebels and …read more

Via: American Conservative

    

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource/onca/xml is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.