Portside

Chattanooga, Tenn. --At the Volkswagen plant nestled in Tennessee's rolling hills, a unionization drive has drawn national attention as business groups worry about organized labor’s efforts to gain its first foothold at a foreign-owned automobile plant in the South. In a region known as anti-union, many view VW’s response as unusual, if not topsy-turvy.

Unlike most companies that confront unionization efforts, Volkswagen — facing a drive by the United Automobile Workers — has not mounted a vigorous campaign to beat back the union; instead VW officials have hinted they might even prefer having a union. And while unions that seek to organize factories often complain that the playing field is tilted because they do not have access to workers in the plant, here the union opponents are the ones protesting what they say is an uneven field.

The anti-U.A.W. forces are making themselves heard, warning that if the U.A.W. succeeds here, that will lend momentum to unionize two other prestigious German-owned plants: the Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama and the BMW plant in South Carolina.

Matt Patterson, who heads the Center for Worker Freedom, which is an arm of Americans for Tax Reform, has mounted an anti-union campaign. Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times
Two of Tennessee’s most prominent Republicans, Gov. Bill Haslam and Senator Bob Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga, have repeatedly voiced concerns that a U.A.W. victory would hurt the plant’s competitiveness and the state’s business climate.

A business-backed group put up a billboard declaring, “Auto Unions Ate Detroit. Next Meal: Chattanooga,” while a prominent anti-union group, the National Right to Work Committee, has brought legal challenges against the U.A.W.’s effort, asserting that VW officials improperly pressured workers to back a union.

In addition, Grover Norquist, the anti-tax crusader, has set up a group, the Center for Worker Freedom, that has fought the U.A.W. on several fronts, partly to prevent the election of labor’s Democratic allies who might increase government spending.

“It’s unusual how national groups have really gotten interested in this,” said Daniel B. Cornfield, a labor expert at Vanderbilt University. “It seems that both the business community and labor are seeing what’s happening at VW as a pivotal moment in the Southern automotive business and labor history.”

The billion-dollar Volkswagen assembly plant opened in 2011, aided by $577 million in state subsidies, there to great fanfare. It was expected to buoy Chattanooga’s image as a place to do business. There was no whiff of unionization.

But Chattanooga’s business community grew alarmed last September when the U.A.W. asked VW for union recognition, saying a majority of the plant’s 1,600 assembly workers had signed cards seeking union representation.

The business community reacted with further dismay when several Volkswagen officials from Germany visited the plant and hinted that it would be good to have a labor union because that would help establish a German-style works council. Such councils, comprising managers and representatives of white-collar and blue-collar workers, seek to foster collaboration within a factory as they forge policies on plant rules, work hours, vacations and other matters.

Michael Cantrell, 56, an assembly line worker, said it would be great to have a works council because it would give the workers more of a voice and help VW by fostering a smoother-running plant.

“It gives them a great competitive advantage if they do this,” said Mr. Cantrell, who has an M.B.A. and ran a tax preparation company before joining Volkswagen. “They have this standardized across the world. We feel we’re not as competitive if we don’t have this collaboration. This would be a paradigm shift.”

The U.A.W. and many legal experts say it would be illegal for an American company to set up a works council without first having a union, asserting that otherwise the works council might be an illegal, employer-dominated workers group.

Scott Wilson, a VW spokesman, said: “Volkswagen values the rights of its employees in all locations to representation of their interests.  In the United States, it is only possible to realize this in conjunction with a union.  This is a decision that ultimately lies in the hands of the employees. For this reason, we have begun a dialogue with the U.A.W.” Last Thursday, National Labor Relations Board officials said VW had not improperly pressured workers to support the union.

In another twist, Mr. Cantrell and many workers want a union even though they say Volkswagen treats them well. In their view, a union would give them a greater voice and job security and help ensure that management communicated better and was more sensitive on scheduling. Mr. Cantrell said his pay, $19.50 an hour, is fine, but “it’s not anything exorbitant.”

Don Jackson, who was Volkswagen of America’s president of manufacturing before retiring in 2012, has become an outspoken opponent of unionization and a works council. Last year, he laid into the U.A.W. at a public forum with 150 attendees.

“Volkswagen wants the works council so badly they don’t care how they get it,” Mr. Jackson said in an interview. “Quite frankly I don’t see why we need a works council.”

Mr. Jackson said he did not think the U.A.W. had majority backing. “If they truly had the support they would have already asked for a vote,” he said.

Gary Casteel, the U.A.W.’s Southern director, voiced confidence that the union would win an election. “I don’t know how Don Jackson does his math.” he said. “Volkswagen knows we have a majority, and we know we have a majority.”

Governor Haslam and Senator Corker have argued that VW should not recognize the U.A.W. based on card signings, but rather on a secret-ballot election. Senator Corker said he had been told that VW would insist on an election. “While I care about Volkswagen, what I care most about is our community and about our households being able to progress and have a great standard of living,” he said. “I’m concerned about the impact of the U.A.W. on the future efforts to recruit business to our community.”

He added, “The work rules and other things that typically come with the UA.W. would drive up costs. It would make the facility less competitive.”

Mike Burton, 56, a quality assurance worker who has set up an elaborate anti-union website, no2uaw.com, said he thought the union would lose an election. He said that in two weeks he persuaded 30 percent of the plant’s workers to sign an anti-U.A.W. petition. “When you see what the U.A.W. did in Detroit, you have to worry about what it will do here,” he said.

Matt Patterson, who heads the new Center for Worker Freedom, an arm of Mr. Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, has promoted an anti-union agenda here, writing opinion articles and forming an anti-union coalition. “When the cost of government goes up, Americans for Tax Reform isn’t happy about it,” he said. “Unions are a big driver of government. Unions are very political, the U.A.W. is one of the most political. If they help elect politicians who pass huge government programs, that requires taxes.”

Like many pro-union workers, Mr. Cantrell objects to Mr. Patterson’s presence. “He’s making money by coming into our community from Washington and telling me and my co-workers what’s best for us,” he said. “What does he know about the auto industry?”

Eric DeLacy, 33, works in the plant’s paint shop and backs the U.A.W. “The union will do everything to make this succeed,” he said. “They want this plant to succeed. The union wants this to be the first domino falling that will create a chain reaction.”

Mr. Corker predicted the U.A.W. would be “on its best behavior for three to five years,” before reverting to its traditional militancy. “They will do that to get their nose under the tent of other auto manufacturers in the South,” he said.