Rick Webster, an employee at the plant and member of the union's organizing committee, said workers had been pulled into meetings leading up to the vote to hear talking points against the union.

"It's been nonstop anti-union. We've had to go to meetings every day to watch videos or have them read off a piece of paper," he said. "They've spent all this money on all these commercials and everything else. ... They're just blowing all kinds of money on this thing, and it just hasn't fazed us."

Mercedes was not supposed to take a position on the Vance election under the "Principles of Social Responsibility and Human Rights" agreement the company had signed alongside IndustriALL, the global union federation based in Europe that has come out in support of the UAW. The group says the Vance plant is Mercedes' only non-union plant in the world.

The agreement states: "In the event of organization campaigns, the company and its executives shall remain neutral."

IndustriALL general secretary Atle Hoie sent a letter to Mercedes-Benz CEO Ola Kallenius , "I expect you to intervene immediately to ensure that neutrality prevails at least for the remaining four days of the vote."

Well, the MB tactics worked. The union lost the election 2045 for unionization versus 2642 against.

Alabama is what it always has been and forever will be by its own choice.

The 2045 needs to quit.

Naw, this was just the first attempt.

And a reminder for those who know and don't know the details: This election ONLY happened because the organizers were able to get over 50% of the workforce to sign cards asking for such an election. And reports were that the union collected over 60% of the workforce's cards - if I read correctly, so the fact that only 44% ended up voting for the union, the company's efforts and expenditures to forcibly change minds was successful.

That is why there are companies being paid millions to come into workplaces and stop workers from unionizing after an election has been called.

I guess the workers who voted against union representation must be blindly ignorant to the fact that their employer will spend millions of dollars to stop them from having a collective voice while at the same time not spending that same amount of money (or any at all) providing them better pay and benefits, if they really want to make the case their workers don't need a union.

I think most of you know exactly why and I wish workers in these situations would stop and think about it themselves and then respond accordingly.