Republicans Thwart Union in Tennesse

[chucky2]

Local unions good (or can be good)...UAW/IUAW hopelessly corrupt and likely beyond saving.

Good for the TN workers, they'll be far better served this way.

 

[Incorruptible]

BMW management wanted a UNION and Republican politicians objected. Republicans threatened, lied and intimidated auto workers into voting no. Republicans would rather have NO jobs than UNION jobs, friggin Republicans....

BIZARRO.....



http://theweek.com/article/index/256496/the-tennessee-gops-union-thwarting-push-has-backfired

So OP is an idiot who can't even read the article.

The republicans shouldn't have got involved since this is a decision that isn't up to big government but to the employees. If the employees want a union then let them have one and if they say no then that's alright as well.

Government has no right to get involved with this decision.

Not only that but VW and the UAW signed a memorandum of understanding that if unionized, VW workers would earn the same wages as UAW employees up north. That was on the local news. From the employees' standpoint, that would be a pay cut, being less than they earn now, on top of the pay cut to pay their union dues.

A smart man with a good job paying a good wage with a good company does not go looking to pay someone to cut his pay and negotiate for him. In the south anyway. Up north, YMMV. If your life's goal is to be unfirable, I can see how you'd feel this would be a good deal, eliminating your need to actually perform in exchange for a pay cut.

If this is true then it's understandable why they voted against unionizing. Also love how leftist idiots use this to attack the free market, just pure scum.

 

[boomerang]

The UAW is from out-of-state, it's from Detroit. And many people think of the unions as mafia.

As a former member of the UAW for thirty years, I will attest that mafia is the exact analogy to use. I may have told a story or two here I don't recall. I have a number of them from my personal experience. My interactions were not unique. They are a bunch of wholly corrupt bastards who are first and foremost out to feather their own nests and they do a very fine job of it. Their system has been honed and refined through many decades.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...5c018c-967c-11e3-9616-d367fa6ea99b_story.html

The winning argument? Jarvis said people on the fence were persuaded by a clause in a Neutrality Agreement negotiated between Volkswagen and the UAW before the election, establishing a principle of “maintaining and where possible enhancing the cost advantages and other competitive advantages” that Volkswagen enjoys over its competitors. In other words, keeping wages and benefits from getting too high relative to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler — which Jarvis calculated would take $3 per hour off his current pay.

http://www.no2uaw.com/uaws-secret-sellout-at-vw.html
http://www.no2uaw.com/uploads/2/2/0/0/22009070/09-neutrality_agreement.pdf

As to Senator Corker's claim, it's against federal law to state that an expansion (or a closing) depends on rejecting unionization, as it should be. I doubt they outright told Corker this, although they may have strongly hinted at it, or it may just be Corker hearing what he wants to hear. Either way they HAVE to say it is not true, whether or not it is true. Considering that VW is not anti-union, I suspect it's Corker hearing what he wanted to hear or just a typical politician lying. Although full disclosure, I have had some business dealings with Corker (not to the point that he would have any clue who I am, but enough that I knew who he was before he became Chattanooga's mayor) and in my experience he's been 100% honest, so when he says something I believe him even though he's a politician. As for our state GOP politicians, what Fern said about unions pressuring manufacturers to close southern plants to protect strongly pro-union northern plants has not escaped most people's notice, and I can't see offering any further concessions for a plant that may well be sacrificed to bring a few more years to northern (or Mexican!) plants.

Now Tennessee's state politicians need to get to work changing our law to allow VW management to have a works council without a union. Or in accordance with our state's tradition, VW workers could start a local, all-volunteer union to satisfy the law without ceding power to the UAW.

 

[berzerker60]

Why would a Repub state like TN want to be invaded by a Democratic mafia machine? Who needs them?

While my state has historically voted strongly for Democratic state govt, I don't believe people here like unions at all. Somehow when there's a big fight with unions the plants located down here, and not in the North, are the ones that end up getting sacrificed and closed by the union.

It seems we're made an example of to scare northern management.

Fern

Because 1) "mafia machine" is ridiculous, there's nothing more inherently mafia-producing about unions than there is about garbage companies, canoli stands, or bars that sell craft liquor. 2) Someone voting for your opponent is a good reason to reconsider your views in a democracy, not to exclude that person from voting/existing, and 3) the workers need them, because there's a huge asymmetry of power between management and individual employees and a union can be a great force in pushing back towards balance. If all you care about is the company's profits, sure, unions are probably bad; but if you give a shit about the human beings who compose the company and the company's impact on the community, unions can be hugely beneficial for the vast majority.

But hey, there are a lot of mobster movies that involve unions, so let's just ignore the incredibly important role unions have played in earning rights for workers and preventing abuses throughout American history and focus on that. Meanwhile, there's never been a corrupt or self-serving management, bad unions have a monopoly on that, so if we can find 1-2 anecdotes of corrupt union officials we should just write off the whole enterprise.

 

[werepossum]

Because 1) "mafia machine" is ridiculous, there's nothing more inherently mafia-producing about unions than there is about garbage companies, canoli stands, or bars that sell craft liquor. 2) Someone voting for your opponent is a good reason to reconsider your views in a democracy, not to exclude that person from voting/existing, and 3) the workers need them, because there's a huge asymmetry of power between management and individual employees and a union can be a great force in pushing back towards balance. If all you care about is the company's profits, sure, unions are probably bad; but if you give a shit about the human beings who compose the company and the company's impact on the community, unions can be hugely beneficial for the vast majority.

But hey, there are a lot of mobster movies that involve unions, so let's just ignore the incredibly important role unions have played in earning rights for workers and preventing abuses throughout American history and focus on that. Meanwhile, there's never been a corrupt or self-serving management, bad unions have a monopoly on that, so if we can find 1-2 anecdotes of corrupt union officials we should just write off the whole enterprise.

There seems to be some weird concept that Tennessee doesn't have unions. We do. All our largest trade companies (electrical contractors, mechanical contractors, plumbers and steam fitters) are union, and except for TVA they work quite well. I've personally been impressed enough that I've gone from anti-union philosophically to pro-union by preference, to the point that if allowed I'd allow only union contractors on my jobs. UPS drivers are unionized here. Many large corporations here are unionized due to parent company agreements. But to adopt a union, some basic things need to be in place. The union needs to be needed - no such need at VW. The union needs to bring something for both sides to the table, such as the trade unions' apprenticeship and accreditation programs. No such ability with the UAW. And the union needs to be very trustworthy - at which the UAW utterly fails, especially for southern workers. Three strikes.

 

[Fern]

Because 1) "mafia machine" is ridiculous, there's nothing more inherently mafia-producing about unions than there is about garbage companies, canoli stands, or bars that sell craft liquor. 2) Someone voting for your opponent is a good reason to reconsider your views in a democracy, not to exclude that person from voting/existing, and 3) the workers need them, because there's a huge asymmetry of power between management and individual employees and a union can be a great force in pushing back towards balance. If all you care about is the company's profits, sure, unions are probably bad; but if you give a shit about the human beings who compose the company and the company's impact on the community, unions can be hugely beneficial for the vast majority.

But hey, there are a lot of mobster movies that involve unions, so let's just ignore the incredibly important role unions have played in earning rights for workers and preventing abuses throughout American history and focus on that. Meanwhile, there's never been a corrupt or self-serving management, bad unions have a monopoly on that, so if we can find 1-2 anecdotes of corrupt union officials we should just write off the whole enterprise.

Might want to check out freely available info like this:

'Donnie Brasco' says Mob controls construction via unions

The former FBI agent who infiltrated the New York Mafia and helped convict more than 200 gangsters told Quebec's Charbonneau commission on Monday that the Mob would manipulate the construction industry and rake in large payoffs by infiltrating unions and controlling the supply of raw materials.

Joseph Pistone, who spent five years undercover as a Mafia henchman and whose story was made famous in the movie Donnie Brasco, testified at the inquiry about his experience in "deep cover," mostly inside New York's Bonanno crime family in the late 1970s and early '80s.

"Organized crime cannot operate without corrupting someone," Pistone said in response to questions about how New York's five Mafia families insinuated themselves into business and government.

And in the construction sector, that meant gaining control of labour unions — generally by having a Mafia man get elected president or business manager of a local, Pistone said.

"They'll start their own union, or there will be an existing union where they'll have their man, a Mafia guy within the union, become the representative of the union, become the president of the union," he testified.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ob-controls-construction-via-unions-1.1265332

The paper below was authored by two attorneys specializing in organized crime etc. The report was prepared for the White House under the direction of the U.S. Department of Justice.

ORGANIZED CRIME AND THE LABOR UNIONS

This is a preliminary report on the organized crime influence in the labor unions today in the United States. The picture that it presents is thoroughly frightening. At least four international unions are completely dominated by men who either have strong ties to or are members of the organized crime syndicate. A majority of the locals in most major cities of the United States in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union (HRE), Laborers International Union of North America (Laborers), and International Longshoreman's Association (ILA) unions are completely dominated by organized crime.

http://www.laborers.org/VAIRA_MEMO.html

What's inherently "mafia producing" is the power, money and corruption one gains by controlling unions. Much of this is made possible by legislation very favorable to unions. This is in stark contrast, to say, "canoli stands".

Fern

 

[boomerang]

trade unions' apprenticeship and accreditation programs

Umm, they do bring that to the table. Every apprenticable trade requires 7,328 hours of on the job training as well as schooling at the college level that gives enough credits to be just shy of an associate's degree. As a Die Maker, I also received a certificate registering me with the U.S. Department of Labor. I always assumed that was a carryover from the war years so the .gov would know who had the skills that would be needed in wartime for armaments, etc. I'm not certain which if any other trades have that requirement, the registering that is.

If someone has prior experience and can prove it, the above requirements can be adjusted. They are not inflexible.

I grew to hate a lot of aspects of being a UAW member and my opinions were formed from bad experiences within my first few months on the job and carried through right until the end. But they should not be beat up where they don't deserve it.

I should write a book to be published upon my death. They know where to find me now.

 

[Zaap]

Good for TN. The same swarm of locusts (corrupt leftist political assholes and their Union cronies) that has left places like Detroit a rotted empty shell are now seeking to infect other states until they suck the lifeblood out of them too. All the states that are still sane should hang the equivalent of giant bug-zappers at their borders and toast these vermin before they can establish a stranglehold.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you're going to just accept his obviously ridiculous BS claim with zero proof? Ok then guess you'll accept my claim that you drug and then intentionally infect small children with HIV using drug needles.

I don't know whether or not Corker's claim is BS or not. It may be obvious to you that he's lying...but please realize that one must assume this based on zero proof. You may think I'm incredibly naive, but I take both men at their word up until I find reasonable evidence they're lying.

 

[poofyhairguy]

This story is a real shame. No one denies that unions can go too far, but only a fool believes that unions can't be a force for real good in workers' lives. The reflexive, ideological hate for unions throughout the South is one of the few times it really does seem to me like the bosses have just plain tricked the masses into working against their own interests. Obviously they have every right to decide not to unionize, but I really think they're going to be substantially worse off in the long term because of that decision.

Welcome to the global economy of 2014. It is a race to the bottom. Not only are states competing with other states for these jobs, but if they go too far they compete with relocation in another nation.

The disliking of unions in the south, and right to work labor laws, put southern states at a clear advantage for gaining new jobs. The question is not "why avoid national unions" but "how can we afford to not avoid large unions?"

 

[berzerker60]

There seems to be some weird concept that Tennessee doesn't have unions. We do. All our largest trade companies (electrical contractors, mechanical contractors, plumbers and steam fitters) are union, and except for TVA they work quite well. I've personally been impressed enough that I've gone from anti-union philosophically to pro-union by preference, to the point that if allowed I'd allow only union contractors on my jobs. UPS drivers are unionized here. Many large corporations here are unionized due to parent company agreements. But to adopt a union, some basic things need to be in place. The union needs to be needed - no such need at VW. The union needs to bring something for both sides to the table, such as the trade unions' apprenticeship and accreditation programs. No such ability with the UAW. And the union needs to be very trustworthy - at which the UAW utterly fails, especially for southern workers. Three strikes.

What do you mean unions "need to be needed"? In what sense? I would argue that unions are at their best when relations with management are amicable, like they probably would be at VW because they're used to working with unions. The unions can't get too excessive because workers aren't going to back the union and strike if they don't feel particularly put-upon by management, and management can't get too excessive because the union's there. What makes UPS, or professional football, or Safeway "need" a union but the VW plant doesn't? I'm not following the logic.

I would be very surprised if the UAW actually had any significant demands about how much the new union worked with the national office. They'll organize anyone who wants organizing, even if they get basically nothing out of it, because they see it as in their interests to promote unions in general. They organized the grad students of the University of California system 10-20 years ago, and they're hardly going on sympathy strikes with the actual auto workers or feeding huge money up the line. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd bet a UAW-organized local union could be as local as you want, with no real importance how corrupt the national office is unless you decide to just phone it in.

 

[alzan]

Not only that but VW and the UAW signed a memorandum of understanding that if unionized, VW workers would earn the same wages as UAW employees up north. That was on the local news. From the employees' standpoint, that would be a pay cut, being less than they earn now, on top of the pay cut to pay their union dues.

A smart man with a good job paying a good wage with a good company does not go looking to pay someone to cut his pay and negotiate for him. In the south anyway. Up north, YMMV. If your life's goal is to be unfirable, I can see how you'd feel this would be a good deal, eliminating your need to actually perform in exchange for a pay cut.

Not unfireable: I would say that with the loyalty most companies demand of their salaried and hourly workers that well-performing workers should expect and get some kind of guarantee with or w/o union representation.

I think there's a significant portion of this country's workforce (myself included) that want to work and grow within the same company; ~70% of my working career (so far) is split between two companies; 1@16 years, 1@12.

Admittedly there's the other equally significant portion of the workforce that expect the same pay at less performance in the same position(s); screwing it up for the rest of us.

 

[theeedude]

That seemed to be state politicians. Obviously they don't like unions and don't want them in TN. TN has a pretty darn good manufacturing base and I'd think they'd like it to get even better. It seems rather clear that they don't think that'll happen if the state unionizes.

The UAW is from out-of-state, it's from Detroit. And many people think of the unions as mafia. I doubt many in TN, politicians or otherwise, want to see the unions invade TN.

The unions donate to Dems, anyone surprised Repub politicians don't like them and don't want them around? Maybe the unions would be better off by staying out of politics, unless it related directly to workers, which I think would be rather rare.

Finally, the threat about incentives could have only been directed at the company, not the employees who were voting. The employees don't get any of those incentives.

Fern

But why should TN taxpayer money be used as a bribe for companies to keep unions out in the first place?

 

[werepossum]

Umm, they do bring that to the table. Every apprenticable trade requires 7,328 hours of on the job training as well as schooling at the college level that gives enough credits to be just shy of an associate's degree. As a Die Maker, I also received a certificate registering me with the U.S. Department of Labor. I always assumed that was a carryover from the war years so the .gov would know who had the skills that would be needed in wartime for armaments, etc. I'm not certain which if any other trades have that requirement, the registering that is.

If someone has prior experience and can prove it, the above requirements can be adjusted. They are not inflexible.

I grew to hate a lot of aspects of being a UAW member and my opinions were formed from bad experiences within my first few months on the job and carried through right until the end. But they should not be beat up where they don't deserve it.

I should write a book to be published upon my death. They know where to find me now.

Ah, did not know that. Strike down one objection. Although in VW's case, I assume they can train their employees to their own satisfaction. I think UAW training would be of more use in a place like Detroit where there is competition among car manufacturers than in a place like Chattanooga where there is only one car manufacturer and the VW way is the only game in town. In Detroit, I can see that in theory allowing the UAW to take over training (and thus providing a measure of uniformity beyond employers) makes more sense.

What do you mean unions "need to be needed"? In what sense? I would argue that unions are at their best when relations with management are amicable, like they probably would be at VW because they're used to working with unions. The unions can't get too excessive because workers aren't going to back the union and strike if they don't feel particularly put-upon by management, and management can't get too excessive because the union's there. What makes UPS, or professional football, or Safeway "need" a union but the VW plant doesn't? I'm not following the logic.

I would be very surprised if the UAW actually had any significant demands about how much the new union worked with the national office. They'll organize anyone who wants organizing, even if they get basically nothing out of it, because they see it as in their interests to promote unions in general. They organized the grad students of the University of California system 10-20 years ago, and they're hardly going on sympathy strikes with the actual auto workers or feeding huge money up the line. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd bet a UAW-organized local union could be as local as you want, with no real importance how corrupt the national office is unless you decide to just phone it in.

The UAW is asking for control of the VW workers' wage and working conditions negotiations. In return, they take a significant portion of the employees' wages. In order to cede your money and freedom to another entity, you should have an actual need which you expect this entity to meet which you cannot meet. Otherwise you're just ceding money and freedom to someone else for no good reason. The VW workers decided they did not have such a need. Indeed, at least some of them stood to lose even more money to boost VW's "competitiveness" (or more properly, so that the UAW could state that all UAW members earn the highest wages by driving down the highest wages) so they had an actual need to not have the UAW take control, regardless of whether the UAW would be at its best or if that best is something less than we've come to expect from it.

Again: Give up some control, lose some income to do it, and pay dues from those reduced wages. Unless one is among the very worst employees, eliminating all three would be required to make this even a break-even proposal, let alone solve any need. Promising to not exercise any control, even coupled with removing the offending "competitiveness" clause to avoid the immediate loss of income, still leaves the employee poorer. Unless one is a bottom rung employee, why go union at an employer who has always dealt with you fairly and benevolently? The only real carrot I see is the work council, which clearly benefits both sides. Surely that can be accommodated without becoming subservient to the corrupt UAW.

 

[werepossum]

Not unfireable: I would say that with the loyalty most companies demand of their salaried and hourly workers that well-performing workers should expect and get some kind of guarantee with or w/o union representation.

I think there's a significant portion of this country's workforce (myself included) that want to work and grow within the same company; ~70% of my working career (so far) is split between two companies; 1@16 years, 1@12.

Admittedly there's the other equally significant portion of the workforce that expect the same pay at less performance in the same position(s); screwing it up for the rest of us.

Agreed. There's an expression when dealing with the trade unions: Don't forget that your contract and wage agreements are made for the benefit of your very worst employee. Employers have a vested interest in keeping the better employees, which often includes paying them more than union scale. The higher the union drives the negotiated wage schedule, the less well the employer can afford to reward better employees and the more competitive are non-union shops. Trade unions have started to get that.

 

[Fern]

But why should TN taxpayer money be used as a bribe for companies to keep unions out in the first place?

Seems to me it was a 'bribe' to get companies to locate there.

The threat was to take away the subsidies (which I highly doubt possible for companies already located there) and/or cease offering new ones.

I suppose they can incentivize who they choose. It is their (TN) money after all.

Plus, I don't know that they actually pay money to the companies. The incentives I'm familiar with are reductions in expenses (such as reduced real estate taxes on the factory you build). I.e., nobody was getting that money before they moved in. So there's no real reduction, just not the usual increase in govt fees.

But I'm not familiar with TN's incentive deals.

Fern

 

[boomerang]

Ah, did not know that. Strike down one objection. Although in VW's case, I assume they can train their employees to their own satisfaction. I think UAW training would be of more use in a place like Detroit where there is competition among car manufacturers than in a place like Chattanooga where there is only one car manufacturer and the VW way is the only game in town. In Detroit, I can see that in theory allowing the UAW to take over training (and thus providing a measure of uniformity beyond employers) makes more sense.

It was never clear to me whether the union took on a 'burden' the company didn't want to deal with or if the union dictated that they handle the task. Whether an apprentice program is something the UAW would allow to be an issue to bargain over at the plant level or not I don't know. A UAW run apprentice program necessitates full time UAW members to manage it as part of their agreement. They (the UAW) like taking people off the working floor for that because it's a way to reward faithful members and their argument for it is that it creates more jobs. From the company perspective it just creates more costs. Funny how that shakes out along those lines, eh? And allow is the correct word. On the plant level, the union has far more power than anyone in management. And I have stories to back that up.

 

[theeedude]

Seems to me it was a 'bribe' to get companies to locate there.

The threat was to take away the subsidies (which I highly doubt possible for companies already located there) and/or cease offering new ones.

I suppose they can incentivize who they choose. It is their (TN) money after all.

Plus, I don't know that they actually pay money to the companies. The incentives I'm familiar with are reductions in expenses (such as reduced real estate taxes on the factory you build). I.e., nobody was getting that money before they moved in. So there's no real reduction, just not the usual increase in govt fees.

But I'm not familiar with TN's incentive deals.

Fern

It's not the Republican politicians' money, it's the TN taxpayer's money.
GOP should not be using it to further its own political goals.

 

[boomerang]

What do you mean unions "need to be needed"? In what sense? I would argue that unions are at their best when relations with management are amicable, like they probably would be at VW because they're used to working with unions. The unions can't get too excessive because workers aren't going to back the union and strike if they don't feel particularly put-upon by management, and management can't get too excessive because the union's there. What makes UPS, or professional football, or Safeway "need" a union but the VW plant doesn't? I'm not following the logic.

I would be very surprised if the UAW actually had any significant demands about how much the new union worked with the national office. They'll organize anyone who wants organizing, even if they get basically nothing out of it, because they see it as in their interests to promote unions in general. They organized the grad students of the University of California system 10-20 years ago, and they're hardly going on sympathy strikes with the actual auto workers or feeding huge money up the line. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd bet a UAW-organized local union could be as local as you want, with no real importance how corrupt the national office is unless you decide to just phone it in.

I'm sorry, but your thoughts regarding the UAW are very naïve. The UAW is not a democracy, it's run like a dictatorship. If the International offices of the UAW based in Detroit want a plant to strike, that plant will strike. A vote will be held, but the workforce will be wound up by the guys from Detroit until they're convinced they want to strike. And guess who counts the votes? If the vote count doesn't come out the way they want it, they'll make it come out the way they want it. (And I have a story to back this up too.) The head of the UAW is appointed in a sham election process. Delegates to the convention that elect the top dog are separated when they arrive into groups, are taken into closed rooms and are told for whom to cast their vote. They are told the consequence of not complying.

A strike can be used to affect an operation hundreds or thousands of miles away and even in another country. You've got a key plant that supplies a component that keeps four other plants running and you're trying to get concessions from the company, you put out the plant that makes that component. Those people walk the picket line, taking it in the ass to get something for another group of people that might not even work for the same company.

A portion of the dues paid go to UAW HQ in Detroit. How would those people get paid? How would they afford the costs of the building they operate from? A portion of union dues go to support candidates that the poor schmuck at the bottom of the ladder might not support. Every election we would get the list of 'endorsed' candidates we should vote for.

I could go on and on with this.

 

[Fern]

It's not the Republican politicians' money, it's the TN taxpayer's money.
GOP should not be using it to further its own political goals.

Using to attract businesses, and jobs, is a state goal not just a Repub goal.

And you've got it completely backwards, to keep out unions the Repubs would have collected MORE money for TN taxpayers.

I.e., they weren't paying to keep unions out, they were threatening to charge money if they came in.

Fern

 

[boomerang]

Agreed. There's an expression when dealing with the trade unions: Don't forget that your contract and wage agreements are made for the benefit of your very worst employee. Employers have a vested interest in keeping the better employees, which often includes paying them more than union scale. The higher the union drives the negotiated wage schedule, the less well the employer can afford to reward better employees and the more competitive are non-union shops. Trade unions have started to get that.

Yup and it kills the incentive to work for those that get the big picture and are willing to give an honest day's work. There is no sliding scale in a UAW shop. They will allow a starting wage for low seniority workers but the raises are automatic and across the board. In other words, everybody gets it. What happens is that the slackers figure out quickly just how to walk that line between doing as little as possible and getting disciplined. And here's how discipline typically works out. After umpteen times up to labor relations, the bad employee gets some time off. The amount builds over time until the end result is termination. Then, next contract negotiations, the UAW 'gives' something to the company in trade for getting the bad employee back to work and more often than not it's with back pay too.

The slacker is back on the job leaving everyone else wondering why they're still towing the line. After decades of this shit, they roll over and play dead. The company has a workforce that is burned out and doesn't care.

 

[theeedude]

Using to attract businesses, and jobs, is a state goal not just a Repub goal.

And you've got it completely backwards, to keep out unions the Repubs would have collected MORE money for TN taxpayers.

I.e., they weren't paying to keep unions out, they were threatening to charge money if they came in.

Fern

Distinction without a difference in economic terms.

 

[MagickMan]

Again, I'd bet cold, hard cash that there will be a local union there, it's the UAW the public (predominantly Republican area) and workers wanted to keep out. They don't want them to gain a foothold in the state and see them as nosy bastards who don't share their values or politics, and they're pretty much spot-on.

 

[Svnla]

Union membership numbers are on the decline since its heyday and membership dues could go up (first since 1967) = http://www.cnbc.com/id/101241747