Better in their words…

If I’m missing part of the story, please leave a comment and input.
==========

Bob Corker WSJ_March 3, 2014 6:59 p.m. ET

Picture an election where an entity is given nearly unfettered access to voters for two years and then is allowed to call for a surprise vote with only a few days’ notice. Then imagine that the entity loses the vote and complains that “outside forces”—who happen to be community leaders—should not have been allowed to speak or share their point of view. While most Americans can contemplate such a scenario playing out in another country, this is what has been happening in Tennessee.

Just over two weeks ago, an election was held at the Volkswagen VOW3.XE +2.16% plant in my hometown of Chattanooga to determine whether the United Auto Workers would represent the workers there. UAW operatives spent two years inside the plant working to organize it. Initially, the UAW tried to take away the workers’ right to vote and force its way in through “card check,” an attempt to entrench the union without a democratic election. Fortunately, the company insisted on a secret ballot for its employees. They voted on Feb. 14 not to organize, although in the week leading up to the vote, only the UAW was allowed inside the plant, where the union was given an audience with the workers on company time.

The future success of the plant is an issue of great importance to me and our community, and I have been involved with it in various capacities for many years. As mayor of Chattanooga, I worked with others to build the industrial park where Volkswagen now sits. As a U.S. senator, I made the first call to Volkswagen to ask that they consider Tennessee, and key discussions around VW’s recruitment took place at my home in Chattanooga.

In 2008, when the “Detroit Three” auto makers came to Congress looking for financial assistance, I became deeply involved in negotiations, trying to protect taxpayers before any federal funds were expended. During those intense talks, it became quickly apparent through direct negotiations with the UAW’s top leadership that its main interest was its own survival. The employees they represent and their affiliated companies were way down the list.

It was with this perspective—and my belief that part of my job is to speak out on issues important to my state—that I joined community leaders and a number of employees in Chattanooga this winter to ensure that VW workers who would be making this important decision had a broader point of view than they were getting inside the plant from UAW operatives.

It was critical that workers knew the potential long-term economic consequences of this decision on the state. If the UAW came into our community, attracting suppliers and other prospective companies would be far more difficult. Additionally, there was a misconception about the future of a second Volkswagen line coming to Chattanooga. Since last June and through the election, the UAW tried to press the narrative that any future expansion of the plant would be contingent upon the UAW organizing the employees. To counter those purposefully inaccurate assertions, and based on years of experience and relationships with the company, I sought to assure the workers that Chattanooga would be Volkswagen’s first choice for the new SUV line even if they did not choose to have the UAW represent them.

On Feb. 14, the workers made their voices heard, with 53% voting against allowing the UAW to represent them. I believe that the workers understood that they were nothing more than dollar signs for the UAW. Obviously, I could not have been happier for the Volkswagen employees, for the community and for Tennessee.

Unfortunately, the UAW has chosen to ignore the employees’ decision and has filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board, charging that elected officials like me should not be allowed to make public comments expressing our opinion and sharing information with our constituents. It is telling that the UAW complaint does not mention President Obama’s public statement urging the employees to vote for the union.

If the National Labor Relations Board upholds these objections, it would be an unprecedented assault on free speech. In every similar case where a company has remained neutral in a union-election drive, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have voiced their opinions. The NLRB has ruled repeatedly that public officials have the right to make statements taking sides in a union election, and that those statements do not justify overturning the outcome of that election.

The stakes are high. The UAW has publicly stated that its very survival depends on organizing foreign auto manufacturers. Mr. Obama raised the ante when he weighed in on behalf of the union during the voting period. The National Labor Relations Board soon will have to decide whether to follow years of precedent and let the vote of the workers stand—or whether it will try to muzzle elected officials and prevent them from weighing in on issues of critical importance to the communities they represent, possibly because the members of the NLRB did not like the outcome of a vote by workers.

The nation will be watching this ruling closely.

Mr. Corker is a Republican senator from Tennessee.

Bob Corker: Now the Auto Union Wants to Muzzle Public Officials – WSJ.com.