Vehicle Profiling, Vehicle Discrimination?
I took this picture this afternoon about a mile from my office, at the parking lot of UAW Local 599 in Flint, on the edge of Buick City, which employed 28,000 GM workers in the 1980s and was demolished in 2002.1. First of all, is that really legal in the U.S. to engage in such blatant "vehicle discrimination/vehicle profiling" based on a car's national origin? Is there really much difference between a sign that says "No Mexicans allowed on our property" and the sign above that essentially says "No cars built by Mexicans allowed on our property"?
2. Second, what about cars built by the Canadian UAW brothers and sisters 60 miles away in Windsor, Ontario, and at other locations in Canada? Those wouldn't technically qualify as "American-Union Made Automobiles," would they?
Below is a list of vehicles from the UAW website ("Support union jobs in the U.S. and Canada") that are built by the CAW (Canadian Auto Workers); would Local 599 really tow these union-made vehicles from Canada?
Buick Lacrosse
Chevrolet Camaro
Chevrolet Impala
Chrysler 300
Dodge Challenger
Dodge Charger
Dodge Charger
Ford Crown Victoria
Lincoln Town Car
Mercury Grand Marquis
Chevrolet Equinox
Chevrolet Equinox
Ford Edge
Ford Flex
Lincoln MKT
Lincoln MKX
Lincoln MKX
Pontiac Torrent
3. Also listed on the UAW website are these 2009 model vehicles built in the U.S. for foreign automakers by UAW workers, would they be "American-Union Made Automobiles" or not?
3. Also listed on the UAW website are these 2009 model vehicles built in the U.S. for foreign automakers by UAW workers, would they be "American-Union Made Automobiles" or not?
Mazda6
Mitsubishi Eclipse
Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
Mitsubishi Galant
Toyota Corolla
Mazda B-Series
Toyota Tacoma
Mitsubishi Endeavor
4. For the Ford F-Series Pickup Truck, some 2009 models are assembled in Venezuela and Brazil, so some of those can't qualify as "American-Union Made" can they?
5. Some of the GMC Sierras and Chevy Silverados are assembled in Canada and some in the U.S. Are only those assembled in the U.S. allowed in the Local 599 parking lot?
6. What about the Volkswagen Routan, a rebadged variant of the Chrysler RT platform, built by the CAW?
7. What about the Chevrolet Aveo (built in S. Korea) or a Cadillac Catera (built in Germany from 1997-2001)? Would Local 599 really tow a Chevy or Cadillac out of its parking lot?
23 Comments:
I don’t agree with the sign, I think it’s just a scapegoat mentality that ignores the real problems, but I strongly agree with the concept of private property rights. If the union only wants to allow white 1995 Chevys in the lot, that is their business. The parking lot is not public property, and the union has as much right to tell you not to park a “foreign” car in their lot as you would have to tell me not to park my fifth-wheel trailer in your driveway. I’m pretty sure both non-parking requests would be perfectly legal. Let’s hope so—I have a leaking holding tank plug.
It's more amazing when this is done to an entire city. I was in Detroit for business a number of years ago and it was like leaving Earth for some alternate reality that had no Japan. I did not see one Japanese car the entire time I was there.
The unreality of that raises denial to a whole new level. Japanese competition a problem? Nope, no Japanese competition here.
If the first value of the VIN seen through the windshield on the dashboard is 1, 4 or 5 then your chances of seeing this in Japan or China is about zero. This is the U.S. made code and somehow our warriors against protectionism havn't deemed this battle worthy of their efforts -- they could not be bothered with fighting the non-tariff barriers on goods produced by U.S. workers.
I diverge from the UAW in Canada and Mexico because our trade with these countries is favorable.
Yes, they would tow those false domestics out.
It's more amazing when this is done to an entire city. I was in Detroit for business a number of years ago and it was like leaving Earth for some alternate reality that had no Japan. I did not see one Japanese car the entire time I was there.
Paradise in my book, a city with a lack of underpowered (for the dollar) cars. Fix the crime and jobs(without looking like a worker hostile Southern state) situation and things would be nearly perfect in Detroit.
Even 2 hours south in Dayton, you're more likely to not find a foreign make. Marysville does not make an appreciable dent in our locality.
My only complaint is that I see a ton of riced 4-bangers when I travel anywhere outside the Midwest.
If the first value of the VIN seen through the windshield on the dashboard is 1, 4 or 5 then your chances of seeing this in Japan or China is about zero.
If they want to make that distinction, it would be hard to get around w/o serious legal issues.
The problem is when you have Chinese knockoff parts that get put in cars.
I diverge from the UAW in Canada and Mexico because our trade with these countries is favorable.
In the case of Mexico, only if you count junk and the periodic drug cartel visits.
I think its absolutely ridiculous. I went to the website and emailed my own complaint. Here is the email for those of you who want to do that as well (as posted on the website):
dwilcox@uaw599.com
I have a Mazda 6, so I was wondering that as well. It was made in Flat Rock, MI. Does it count?
Walt G. Said...
"but I strongly agree with the concept of private property rights. If the union only wants to allow white 1995 Chevys in the lot, that is their business."
How about a business owner who doesn't want a union on his property?
Extending Paul's comment. What about the owner who doesn't want to serve people of selected races or sexual orientations? A comment like that cuts many ways.
How about a business owner who doesn't want a union on his property?
You can start that argument when there's no high powered labor relations lawyers. They're nothing more than hitmen with law degrees and deep pockets.
Paul.
Union organizers usually are barred from private property by the business owners. As for not wanting their employees to organize, that's usually up to the business owners, too. It's very difficult to pass a union certification election where the workers feel they are treated well by their employers.
Most people think employees join or elect unions for pay and benefits; however, most workers say they join for dignity, respect, and security.
"As for not wanting their employees to organize, that's usually up to the business owners, too."
Perhaps, I don't know, but in some labor friendly states the business owner can be restricted from certain jobs without unionized employees.
"It's very difficult to pass a union certification election where the workers feel they are treated well by their employers."
So I guess private property is not sacrosanct if the business owner happens to be an a-hole in the eyes of the employees.
Paul,
I guess that depends on how many rights a person has when they decide to spend their money (property) a certain way. Of course, they could just leave it in the bank and draw interest.
Instead of leaving my money in the bank, I could decide to buy fireworks with my money and charge for a fireworks’ show. I would then be responsible for the safety of the people who attend the show along with their sanitary and health needs (portable bathrooms and such). It’s the same with the business owners complying with all applicable laws—including labor laws. Property rights come with responsibilities, so business owners that don’t want to obey the laws should invest their capital in other ways.
Back to the post: Can anyone cite a law that a private property owner cannot bar a certain make of car or any cars whatsoever from their parking lots? I think we can safely say there is a huge difference between a human born in Mexico and a car assembled in Mexico.
Walt,
You say, "Most people think employees join or elect unions for pay and benefits; however, most workers say they join for dignity, respect, and security."
My dad was forced to join a union if he wanted a job at his place of employment. If he wanted dignity and RESPECT he sure as hell would not equate those qualities with unions.
Although workers can be assessed fees for representation in some states, no one can be forced to join a union in any state. If your dad did not want to sign out, that was his personal choice.
The "dignity and respect" quotation I mentioned came from exit surveys conducted at union representation elections where the union both won and lost. I am sure some people don't feel that way; however, the majority polled by that researcher did. (Source: Michael Yates, Why Unions Matter, Monthly Review, 1998)
"It’s the same with the business owners complying with all applicable laws—including labor laws. Property rights come with responsibilities, so business owners that don’t want to obey the laws should invest their capital in other ways."
No doubt business owners have to submit to laws enacted via union thuggery, but all I see here is someone with an extremely situational belief in private property rights.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Most people think employees join or elect unions for pay and benefits; however, most workers say they join for dignity, respect, and security.
The problems of General Motors and the State of California were not caused by a lack of dignity, respect, and job security! They were caused by too much pay and benefits to too many people for too little productivity.
With all due respect to what you and other people say or think about unions, actions speak louder than words.
Rob and I are part of a company with a union bargaining unit which we have not joined. The first and last words out of the union representatives' mouths in every conversation, every Town Hall, and every contract negotiation are:
- More pay
- More benefits
- Lower out-of-pocket costs
- Less work
All that "dignity" and "respect" stuff is just filler they add around all the pay and benefits complaints.
All their contract negotiations regarding performance evaluations relate primarily to pay raises and bonuses. Poor workers must be put on a lengthy Performance Improvement Plan which puts a huge burden on supervisors to monitor and quantify the unquantifiable.
They've even gotten involved in who gets to pick offices first when we reorganize our office space.
Unions only ever want one thing: MORE!
I believe in the freedom to form private sector local unions to represent workers in workplace disputes, health, safety, and protection against discrimination or unfair treatment. National unions only coordinate locals to consolidate political power to pass union-friendly, business and consumer unfriendly legislation.
I oppose public sector unions which place the principals (taxpayers) far removed from the decision process. There is almost no request of a public sector union which is denied because politicians have little to lose from assent and much to lose from standing firm.
Our Governator was severely weakened by trying to take on the unions several years ago. When his ballot proposals failed (due to millions spent by unions on television commercials), he became a lame duck. Now, we are suffering from a tremendous budget crisis and he's saying, "See, I told you so!"
This comment has been removed by the author.
"..most workers say they join for dignity, respect, and security."
I guess Walt will happily dump his professed love for the "concept of private property" if one of his union brothers feels he's being disrespected by The Man.
Paul,
I think that's where we differ. I see capital and labor as equally important inputs to the manufacturing process. One cannot do without the other. Some people think capital/money overrules all other considerations. Labor is private property, too.
So, sure, if the "Man" was violating a mutually agreed upon practice, I would side with the union brother or my co-worker if the business was non-union. I don’t believe either side should break agreements: Do you?
As far as protecting poor workers, I can tell you from experience that usually happens because management does not uphold or document their own procedures or applies the procedures unequally and sporadically. You know, there are just as many bad managers as there are poor employees, maybe more, but many places do not want to fire the boss’s son or brother
"One cannot do without the other."
Irrelevant.That doesn't mean the capitalist has to be chained to a particular set of employees, or the employees have a gun to their head forcing them to work for someone they despise.
"Labor is private property, too."
Again, irrelevant. The laborer can take their "private property" down the road if he doesn't like how he's being treated.
"You know, there are just as many bad managers as there are poor employees, maybe more, but many places do not want to fire the boss’s son or brother.."
So what? I worked in a situation like you described. I got a new job. Problem solved. No crybaby tears on my pillow about "dignity" and other nonsense.
Mark:
I'm trying to reach you about this issue. Call me if your there at (810) 766-6317.
Ron Fonger/Flint Journal
Post a Comment
<< Home