UAW Makes Sizable Demands of GM, Ford, Stellantis

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

There has been loads of speculation about what the United Automobile Workers would be asking for during this year’s contract negotiations, with the assumption being that demands would be fairly lofty. Much of this was fueled by statements made by UAW leadership, especially those coming from President Shawn Fain.

Following its massive corruption scandal, union members sought a change in management and Fain is eager to prove himself as on the side of workers. He’s taken a more-adversarial approach to the industry than his predecessors and has promised to make up for ground lost over the last few decades. While demands were initially left vague, the UAW has since shared a series of specific proposals to be brought forward during contract negotiations with Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis. Compared to the standards we’ve become accustomed to, they are indeed lofty.


Earlier in the week, the union conducted a live stream outlining a list of 10 core demands slated to be presented this week. They include eliminating tier-based wages and benefits, double-digit wage increases, clearly defined pensions for all employees, the return of cost-of-living adjustments, and for companies to reintroduce medical benefits for retirees.


The union also said it would be seeking significant increases to retirement pay, stopping automakers from using “temporary workers” as a way to circumvent offering higher pay and benefits, additional paid time off for employees, and new programs that would help retain workers in the event of a plant closure or economic downturn — all while retaining its own right to strike whenever an automaker elects to close or stall production at any of its factories.


Those will be the specific demands. However, the UAW has said it would also like to see additional benefits and worker protections that go beyond the above.


Automotive News reported that Fain had also suggested pushing companies to move to a shortened 32-hour work week. This comes after numerous automakers have been mulling over ways to reduce overtime. A few have even dabbled in 10-hour work days that result in a third day off per week to maximize productivity without having to spend more on labor. The concept of a 32-hour week has been floated to help cope with recessions and ease workers into a future where more aspects of their jobs will be automated.


While previous experimentation with four-day work weeks has yielded mixed results in terms of productivity, the average employee seems to enjoy lessened burnout and higher job satisfaction overall. But it’s highly contingent on the kind of jobs that are being done. Many project-based workers simply found that they were taking more of their work home with them and ended up being pressured into laboring for free on their days off.


Either way, there may actually be some wiggle room here for automakers if there’s a chance of avoiding having to pay for overtime. But the UAW is still making some sizable requests, including numerous items manufacturers were probably happy not to have to deal with anymore. It’s unlikely that the industry is interested in meeting all of the union’s demands.


From Automotive News:


Fain on Tuesday also reiterated past comments that the union would not pick a traditional lead company to bargain with but would instead negotiate with all three simultaneously.
The union could face an uphill battle on many of its demands.
The automakers are likely open to wage increases but are expected to balk at reinstituting cost-of-living adjustments and pensions, according to sources.
Fain has insisted the automakers can afford the union's demands, pointing to their collective $250 billion in profits over the past 10 years. The newly-elected president has made a point of interacting with members on social media, like on Tuesday's Facebook stream, to get them on the same page heading into the potentially-contentious talks.
"This isn't a time for fighting amongst ourselves or division," Fain said. "This is a time to be united for a common cause. We have to do it, and we're going to deliver."


Fain has said striking remains an option and has warned the industry not to confuse today’s UAW with unions of the past. He says he’s committed to restoring ground lost since 2007 and will not settle for less than a major victory.


"If the companies want to brag about record profits, then it's time for record contracts," suggested the union head. "It's time for them to deliver for our members, and we're going to deliver for our members, come hell or high water."


[Image: Daniel J. Macy/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 54 comments
  • Dartdude Dartdude on Aug 04, 2023

    UAW should focus on the real problems with wages. Until inflation is under control all workers will be hurt. UAW should be putting pressure on Biden to ramp up energy production and back off green fantasies. UAW leaders need to understand that one company Stellantis could choose to shut down Chrysler and Dodge brands and do their manufacturing in Canada and Mexico with the Ram and Jeep brands.

    • SC5door SC5door on Aug 04, 2023

      You're not going to get the volume out of FCA's 2 plants in Canada that's required for the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee---plus tossing in the Ram 1500 on top of that? LOL


  • Olddavid Olddavid on Aug 09, 2023

    I don't understand the vitriol toward unions. I also do not understand how Germany (VW BMW Merc) - with higher wages than the UAW - manages to remain profitable? I guess the population needs to revisit conditions of 1900-era living. The anti-vaxxers will have to decide which two of their children will go to whooping cough or polio or TB while the anti unionists will be able to relive being shot at by Carnegies Pinkertons in Colorado while being forced out or the glory days of locked fire escapes at Triangle Shirtwaist Co. Only a few dead. I guess they may have a point since profit is the true shrine of America. Those nasty union people should know their place.

  • Stan Reither Jr. Part throttle efficiency was mentioned earlier in a postThis type of reciprocating engine opens the door to achieve(slightly) variable stroke which would provide variable mechanical compression ratio adjustments for high vacuum (light load) or boost(power) conditions IMO
  • Joe65688619 Keep in mind some of these suppliers are not just supplying parts, but assembled components (easy example is transmissions). But there are far more, and the more they are electronically connected and integrated with rest of the platform the more complex to design, engineer, and manufacture. Most contract manufacturers don't make a lot of money in the design and engineering space because their customers to that. Commodity components can be sourced anywhere, but there are only a handful of contract manufacturers (usually diversified companies that build all kinds of stuff for other brands) can engineer and build the more complex components, especially with electronics. Every single new car I've purchased in the last few years has had some sort of electronic component issue: Infinti (battery drain caused by software bug and poorly grounded wires), Acura (radio hiss, pops, burps, dash and infotainment screens occasionally throw errors and the ignition must be killed to reboot them, voice nav, whether using the car's system or CarPlay can't seem to make up its mind as to which speakers to use and how loud, even using the same app on the same trip - I almost jumped in my seat once), GMC drivetrain EMF causing a whine in the speakers that even when "off" that phased with engine RPM), Nissan (didn't have issues until 120K miles, but occassionally blew fuses for interior components - likely not a manufacturing defect other than a short developed somewhere, but on a high-mileage car that was mechanically sound was too expensive to fix (a lot of trial and error and tracing connections = labor costs). What I suspect will happen is that only the largest commodity suppliers that can really leverage their supply chain will remain, and for the more complex components (think bumper assemblies or the electronics for them supporting all kinds of sensors) will likley consolidate to a handful of manufacturers who may eventually specialize in what they produce. This is part of the reason why seemingly minor crashes cost so much - an auto brand does nst have the parts on hand to replace an integrated sensor , nor the expertice as they never built them, but bought them). And their suppliers, in attempt to cut costs, build them in way that is cheap to manufacture (not necessarily poorly bulit) but difficult to replace without swapping entire assemblies or units).I've love to see an article on repair costs and how those are impacting insurance rates. You almost need gap insurance now because of how quickly cars depreciate yet remain expensive to fix (orders more to originally build, in some cases). No way I would buy a CyberTruck - don't want one, but if I did, this would stop me. And it's not just EVs.
  • Joe65688619 I agree there should be more sedans, but recognize the trend. There's still a market for performance oriented-drivers. IMHO a low budget sedan will always be outsold by a low budget SUV. But a sports sedan, or a well executed mid-level sedan (the Accord and Camry) work. Smaller market for large sedans except I think for an older population. What I'm hoping to see is some consolidation across brands - the TLX for example is not selling well, but if it was offered only in the up-level configurations it would not be competing with it's Honda sibling. I know that makes the market smaller and niche, but that was the original purpose of the "luxury" brands - badge-engineering an existing platform at a relatively lower cost than a different car and sell it with a higher margin for buyers willing and able to pay for them. Also creates some "brand cachet." But smart buyers know that simple badging and slightly better interiors are usually not worth the cost. Put the innovative tech in the higher-end brands first, differentiate they drivetrain so it's "better" (the RDX sells well for Acura, same motor and tranmission, added turbo which makes a notable difference compared to the CRV). The sedan in many Western European countries is the "family car" as opposed to micro and compact crossovers (which still sell big, but can usually seat no more than a compact sedan).
  • Jonathan IMO the hatchback sedans like the Audi A5 Sportback, the Kia Stinger, and the already gone Buick Sportback are the answer to SUVs. The A5 and the AWD version of the Stinger being the better overall option IMO. I drive the A5, and love the depth and size of the trunk space as well as the low lift over. I've yet to find anything I need to carry that I can't, although I admit I don't carry things like drywall, building materials, etc. However, add in the fun to drive handling characteristics, there's almost no SUV that compares.
  • C-b65792653 I'm starting to wonder about Elon....again!!I see a parallel with Henry Ford who was the wealthiest industrialist at one time. Henry went off on a tangent with the peace ship for WWI, Ford TriMotor, invasive social engineering, etc. Once the economy went bad, the focus fell back to cars. Elon became one of the wealthiest industrialist in the 21st century. Then he went off with the space venture, boring holes in the ground venture, "X" (formerly Twitter), etc, etc, etc. Once Tesla hit a plateau and he realized his EVs were a commodity, he too is focused on his primary money making machine. Yet, I feel Elon is over reacting. Down sizing is the nature of the beast in the auto industry; you can't get around that. But hacking the Super Charger division is like cutting off your own leg. IIRC, GM and Ford were scheduled to sign on to the exclusive Tesla charging format. That would have doubled or tripled his charging opportunity. I wonder what those at the Renaissance Center and the Glass House are thinking now. As alluded to, there's blood in the water and other charging companies will fill the void. I believe other nations have standardized EV charging (EU & China). Elon had the chance to have his charging system as the default in North America. Now, he's dropped the ball. He's lost considerable influence on what the standardized format will eventually be. Tremendous opportunity lost. 🚗🚗🚗
Next