I don't get this whole thing anyway. I thought VW wanted the union. Couldn't they have shone the light on the Republican Bogeyman?

Within a couple of hours of his statement. However, what was it Twain said? A lie can travel twice around the world while the truth is still putting on his shoes. Or something like that.

It does however, give the UAW a reason to go to the NLRB with a complaint. There were also several other Republican officials in Tennessee who made public statements about this election. We'll see what happens.

Anyone else in the TN government that made these threats should be included with Corker. He's such an asshat!

I don't know who the director of NLRB is these days, but if he/she
is an honest arbitrator, then there should be some blow-back for
interference and coercion.

I am hoping VW employees will be given another chance to vote
(monitored by NLRB attorneys) and Corker will be fined and censured.

Is it a law if it's not enforced?

What are the possible consequences? Does the law have teeth? Might this cost him his Senate seat? Because it should.

There are ambitious Tea Party creeps in Tennessee salivating to take his place. Cretins like Joe Carr (gag! spit!) or Van Hilleary (puke!).

If so, he needs to be brought up on charges and (pipe dream warning) expelled!

Yea, pipe dream. I wonder if Sen. Barbara Boxer will have anything to say about this. Somehow I doubt it.

They are the only ones who could be charged by the NLRB. If Corker could be charged with interfering with the vote, the leaders of the legislature and the governor could be charged as well. And likely a number of advertisers, radio stations, billboard companies and television stations who ran commericals against the UAW. None of what was done was illegal.

It's improper to us, but it is within the range of political speech granted politicians. The only ones who can hold Corker to account are the state's voters. And they find him and his actions to be good and fine every time he's re-elected. Nothing will come of this as you cannot fine, bring to court or arrest the jerk for winning a propaganda war.

I'm surprised at the lack of civic education here at times, although I suspect it is less that, hopefully, than a strong expression of disgust. Corker has the right to say anything he wants, his judge and jury are the voters and they find him innocent of everything and agree with his aristocratic air and dirty connivances.

There is nothing to stop the UAW from trying to get another vote, though.

..."why doesn't this generate an automatic NLRB charge?" Deliberate intimidation is an unfair labor practice.

representation that they would be rewarded with the SUV line. He didn't claim if they voted "YES" for the union they would lose it. The point being, Corker probably learned they were getting the SUV line either way and made political use of the knowledge to IMPLY that if they voted for a union they would lose the line.

Here's the quote from Reuters:
"I've had conversations today and based on those am assured that should the workers vote against the UAW, Volkswagen will announce in the coming weeks that it will manufacture its new mid-size SUV here in Chattanooga," said Corker, without saying with whom he had the conversations.

About VW's position:
In the past few weeks, Volkswagen officials have made several statements that the vote will have no bearing on whether the SUV will be made at the Chattanooga plant or at a plant in Puebla, Mexico.

The important thing for the public to know is that, THEY WOULD GET THE SUV LINE EITHER WAY. When the line is announced, we don't want anyone think it was a reward for voting non-union. Believe me, this claim will be made for years to come in every union vote. That is why VW's response was only that the SUV line wasn't contingent on the vote, rather than Corker is lying, no such conversation took place.

Also, it wasn't VW who pushed the union vote, it was the other workers/unions of VW. The national works council said in June that they would resist/protest any effort to bring the SUV to Chattanooga without the plant implementing a works council. When the media refers to VW headquarters, they are often referring to the works council at the headquarters. It's important to note the difference.

your post:
"the vote will have no bearing on whether the SUV will be made at the Chattanooga plant or at a plant in Puebla, Mexico."

summer that said the Works Council at HQ would protest if there wasn't a union vote and the plant started making the SUV. I tried to locate the article because it was from before Corker made his statement but now there are a thousand new articles and I can't find it.
Also, VW didn't come out and say what Corker said was untrue. When asked the question, is it true that if they vote for a union they won't get the SUV line, they replied "the SUV line isn't contingent on a vote either way".
I also don't think Corker would have come out and said such a whopping lie. To make up the entire conversation doesn't make sense. He also wouldn't agree to the negative of what he did say. He wouldn't affirm that if they voted for a union they would lose the SUV line. He would only affirm that if they voted no to the union they would get the SUV line. Why wouldn't he agree to the statement that they wouldn't get the SUV but would agree that they would get it? It's the same statement if VW truly were granting the SUV line based on the union vote. The only way his statement is correct in the positive and incorrect in the negative is if the plant was already getting the SUV.
Plus, Corker knows the guys from VW well. He worked with them when the plant was opening so it's probable that they would have told him of the decision to locate the SUV line in Chattanooga.
I doubt the SUV line will be announced any time soon because VW said they wanted to have the union issue worked out before they made a decision. It may be why the UAW hasn't announced filing a complaint with the NLRB over Corker's statement. If the UAW files a complaint and delays certification of the vote, VW may decide to move the SUV to Mexico. I don't know how quickly the need to have the SUV line up and running, or if the process with the NLRB is lengthy, but i'm sure the UAW doesn't want the plant to lose the SUV over the process.

Inducements are just as illegal as threats.

Is corker and his ilk just being paid to do the job that VW can't do legally?

know. I was questioning if there could be a finding of quid pro quo if Corker did receive campaign funds from any of the execs at VW.

Many of the statements made by Coker would be enjoined if he was part of management

pay attention to the details.

It'd be convenient if they could list a statute or something.

Otherwise it just sounds like rambling sour grapes.

Sounds like you support Corker.

... To just say "surely a law has been broken."

I don't think it's a step too far to ask which law that is.

Second post was the Barney response that you invited.

The National Labor Relations Act requires "laboratory conditions" for union elections in which workers are free to make decisions about organizing without being coerced or unduly influenced.

Regardless of whether Corker, pictured below, can be held personally liable, his statements could potentially invalidate the results of the unionization vote, which should be released Friday evening.....

Many observers pointed out that if the assurances Corker spoke of came directly from VW, it would make the Senator a conduit for the company in attempting to influence the vote outcome, which would be a clear violation of federal labor law.

The law in question is the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which codified an employer's First Amendment right to oppose a union, so long as the company does not attempt to influence workers' decisions by threatening reprisals or offering incentives if they vote one way or the other....

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2014/2/14/did-sen-bob-corkerviolatefederallaborlaw.html

... But thanks for the specificity.

for breaking the law.

Not how easy it would be to prosecute.

I then proceeded to make an observation based on that information.

What's your point?

Otherwise, you are determined to denigrate the offense, no matter what information is presented to you.

What is YOUR real point?

It's about putting out an effective message instead if hoping that everyone in your audience does your work for you.

I can google and see what I think he might be talking about but why doesn't he just say it and why does your underwear get all twisty when someone has the audacity to ask for specifics?

of course.

... To have a strong effective message.

So, yes I am.

If they had one they might not have lost the recent vote.

Looks like you don't like unions from this vantage point.

I'm sure if you look at it just right, you'll find what you've already determined is there.

require Corker to be acting for VW for his statement to be illegal. Has someone claimed that he was?

Democrats are generally pro-labor.

Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2014, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)

... Like to have facts to back up their opinions.

Are you suggesting that when someone says " so and so broke the law" that it is a step too far to ask "Which law?"

There is a serious passive aggressive vibe around here. I'll bet Thanksgiving is a hoot at y'all's houses.

Bcause, you know...freedom, small government, guns, anti abortion, religion, and stuff.

Hoping someone with influence reads this.

I would like you to be wrong, unfortunately my historical memory correlates almost exactly to your wording of Rule #1.

Federal labor law has no jurisdiction over third parties.

The UAW can take it to the NLRB, but since Corker is a "third party" and not a part of VW, then it might not be considered "intimidation" in the NLRB sense.

fraud or honest services fraud whatever it's called. It's how they got Seigelman. You have to prove quid pro quo. It would be interesting to see if Corker using his political position to benefit someone in exchange for the donation could be proven here. While we're hearing a lot about VW supporting the union, the previous CEO didn't support the plant unionizing and the support from VW for the current vote was due to pressure from the national headquarter union.

line there regardless of the vote. I've thought Corker was manipulating the truth for political gain. He said they would get the line if they voted non-union, omitting that he knew they would get the line if they voted pro-union too. Since Corker used the word "rewarded", as in, the workers would be rewarded for voting no to the union, there might be some liability for his statement. It's sickening what the third party interest groups did and even worse what the politicians did.

relevant excerpts under the "fair use" policy, but I felt this needed more exposure. Knowledge is power!

Peace,

Ghost

Corporations can donate to state candidates in most states. Corker is a federal candidate. It has been illegal for corporations to directly donate to federal candidates for over a 100 years so I don't think you will find that.

You could try to argue that this was the VW executives trying to influence the election via Corker's statements, in an attempt to work around labor law.

Seems a bit tenuous though.

If you are trying to go after Corker, you'd argue that they really didn't want the union and were using Corker to thwart it.

I guess the UAW doesn't know how many zombie knuckle walkers there are in Tennessee just waiting to get all self-righteous over socialist union agitators from up North, trying to impose a Gay agenda on them, take their guns, make them marry non-whites, turn their churches into mosques. Make them pray to Allah and generally destroy their cultural heritage. Grifters like Corker will play victim to these fears and prejudices. He'll become a folk hero, have them eating out of his hand and sending money to his reelection campaign before you can say Do-dah Day.

the sorry assholes of Chattanooga who elected him lay down and cower to his every whim, then I would

suppose he should be applauded for a job well done.

Let's make union busting a punishable offense.

If the Koch brothers are behind this, nail them to the wall, too.

That's what I was taught in the public schools in Illinois.

In reality, not so much. Our new masters have shown us time and time again that putting a pot smoking minority in prison for life benefits us the most.

and he probably doesn't care.

he's got that typical right-wing, my shit doesn't stink smirk on his face

Our system is broken. Not even the President will call him out.

bosses know that unions can be partners.

Ancient history....but still....

No, he DEFINITELY broke the law.
Unfortunately, nothing will come of it, because IOKIYAR!

er...a republican.

Same thing really.

and who would press them?

Put me on the jury!

Since, if they had done it, it would have been illegal.

Clever. Technically immoral, but not illegal - sort of like having a meeting to plan a crime in your lawyer's office, because it is "confidential" between you and your lawyer.

I wonder if this type of thing could be attacked with a RICO action?