Talk:United Auto Workers

First President
The first president was Francis J. Williams, not Frances. https://uaw.org/presidents-day/ John Paul Parks (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Apply Lock Up for this Article
The criticism part is very bias to UAW now, and has a lot of undo/do history show fighting in the past 2 monthes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynxlea (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Huge bias now to UAW, which is funny as it is a criticism section. I will tag it with POV template and agree that it should be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanstandrd (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * note failure in one year to provide any precise complaints of POV. Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section badly POV
I had just looked at the criticism section and have found it to be terribly POV in terms of its orientation in language. I wonder why this hasn't been caught before, but it is quite obvious that someone is effectively making that section ideologically oriented to the auto-industry with subtle language - for example "Some blame the UAW for the automotive industry crisis of 2008-2009 and they would be correct," "Others conclude that the costs imposed by labor had little to do with the problems in the auto industry but this unrealistic," "The UAW wants you to believe that the primary cause of the automotive sector's weakness was substantially more expensive fuel costs."

I have edited these sentence to obviously take out the ideological orientation of the section. I would ask an admin to watch for any such attempts to undermine the neutrality of this article.--Riot Fred (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest changing the section title from "Criticism" to something like "Labor Costs Debate". There are lengthy discussion about these issues on the wikipedia pages Effects_of_the_2008-2009_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States and/or Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008-2009.  Although the issues are important for the current economic situation, they don't need to take up so much space in the general article on the UAW, which has to cover everything from the 1930s on. 149.142.112.2 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)  (this comment was posted by user Toby Higbie  Toby Higbie (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).


 * I noticed that this is now the opposite case. The criticism section is now talking about the good things that teh UAW is doing for the automakers.  I'm removing that information because it DOES NOT belong in the 'criticism' section. Bill Heller (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What's with the phrase "overly generous"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.93.23 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

SUV makers
The article says that the reason that the Big 3 failed was because they made SUV's and larger vehicles. It fails to mention that the choice of making larger vehicles is driven primarily by labour: margins on larger vehicles (such as SUVs) are much higher which allows more expensive unionised labour to be used.

One Party State?
This phrasing, near the end of the History section, is unsourced and seems to violate NPOV:

The union is essentially a 'one party state' controlled from top to bottom by the Administative Caucus which chooses International officers seven months prior to their actual election at a quadrennial election held in June.

Unless sourcing can be found for this, I would suggest it be stricken from the article. Robert cruickshank 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed that text. If someone can find sourcing for the statement and shows how it does not violate NPOV, then we can consider returning it. Robert cruickshank 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any PBS or BBC documentary vidoes about UAW?
They have bankrupted 3 companies, wasted more than 300 billions tax payers money, at least we could know some history about this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.82.128 (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What about foreign owned plants in USA?
The article sort of peters out in the 1970s...there's nothing in here about the UAW's drives to unionize plants owned by Japanese and German automakers. Is that information elsewhere? If so it should be linked from here, otherwise it should be compiled. It seems to me that the Big 3 are making good cars (ranked best in class by various sources), and yet they're spiraling into bankruptcy while complaining of massive pension liabilities (Damlier sold Chrysler for 1/4 of what it paid for it 9 years ago--US$8 vs. YS$36 billion--and along with that comes US$19 billion in underfunded pension debt), while everyone else is moving auto production to the US because it's cheaper to make the cars here. It looks to me like the UAW is a parasite that's nearly killed off its host. Yes, that's POV, and that's why I'm not jumping to edit the article. On the other hand, maybe that's the truth, and if so, it should be in there... scot 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see this article expanded because I, too, have heard many people expressing a sentiment that the UAW is killing US car makers through the overwrought compensation they've garnered for their members. True or not, it ought to be mentioned in the article. RobertM525 11:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Union or no union, the cost of living is still too high in this country for the automaker's tastes. The jobs would've gone anyway, but foreign companies are NOT manufacturing here because its cheaper (Japan artifically keeps its currency down), but for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.15.101 (talk • contribs)


 * Then why haven't any of these plants unionized? If it were politically motivated, then having the Unions on their side would be a plus, as they are a significant lobbying force.  And unions really do add to the cost:  But with benefits, one industry researcher estimates Toyota’s total labor costs to be about $35/hour, versus $81/hour for GM, including its legacy retirement and healthcare costs. That means that if Toyota did no better than match GM’s Arlington levels of productivity, it would still have a $1000 per car cost advantage in labor alone. (from here) scot 16:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Plants in the south are difficult to organized because many southern states are so-called "right to work" states in which 1) the union is required to provide contract enforcement for all workers in the unit regardless of their membership status and 2) those who choose not to join contribute nothing toward the union. Law varies from state to state, but this would be contrasted to, say, California in which non-members still pay a proportion (a "fair-share fee") of what members do proportionate to the amount of money the local spends on contract enforcement (as opposed to political activities which only members pay for) as determined annually by a lawyer. The upshot of the right to work system is that those members within a workplace who choose to unionize wind up dissipating their resources on those who choose not to but file grievances against the employer which the union then has to spend money on. (A single labor arbitration typically costs in the thousands of dollars.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.167.234.126 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Current Strike
Perhaps something should be said about the current strike going on in GM plants? Mcflytrap 19:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo uaw.png
Image:Logo uaw.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up Jobs Bank Section
A union thug added several POV statements. Since there were no sources cited, I removed them. If you want to prove that UAW workers actually work when in a job bank, site a source.

--- First, the job banks section is clearly not cleaned up. It's highly incomplete and now, one sided.

I'm drawn to ask you how you ascertain that so called POV material was added by a "union thug." Did you ask them? That statement sounds at least possibly errant, at least to me.

More importantly, there is a history and context to job banks that is not being addressed here at all and is rarely if at all addressed unfortunately in the Web-based editorial world we see today. Instead, "job bank" on the Web is used as a lightning rod to direct hate toward unions and toward the U.S. auto industry as a whole.

I saw what was deleted. I suggest it be reinserted and references provided. I suggest you read these and do some (possibly off-web) historical research as well. -- RK

http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/local/local_story_338224208.html

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=52924 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.209.83 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Added in better statistics about UAW/nonunionized pay gap
I removed the misleading claim of UAW workers being paid $74 an hour and the outsourced comment about this making Detroit less competitive, and instead synthesized/inserted NYT's better analysis of the pay gap at the end of the article (whereas the previous figure, referring to the current situation of UAW workers, was for some reason placed between one sentence dealing with 1979 and another dealing with 1985). That's still probably not the best spot for it, but I don't have time at the moment to do much more to the article. Perhaps a "current situation" section, or at least something dealing with current controversies over the UAW, Detroit, and the would-be auto bailout? Michael Slana (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there not a criticism section on the UAW? as part of NPOV there should be a criticism section. Also, although only one person is listed, he represents a general view on the situation. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just had a problem with the way the section was originally written. It seemed one sided an relied on the misleading number that workers get paid 70$ dollars an hour. It seemed like a convservative hit piece blaming the unions for all of detroits problems


 * However, you have since added more sources an information which clarifies the issue and makes it more balanced. I am fine with the way it is now and won't try to revert it any longer.annoynmous 02:49, 25 December (UTC)


 * I still find the criticism section making judgments that, while correct, are inappropriate for a NPOV. Travis Garris (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. the first part was written rapidly and with one source. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

a small edit
I removed the "somewhat" from front of the misleading in the criticism section. I think it's weasel-wordish to call it "somewhat misleading" when it's simply misleading to say that Autoworkers are pampered with 70 dollars hour wages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.194.29 (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

United Auto Workers Outside The U.S.
As a point of reference the United Auto Workers union is not chartered to operate outside of the United States of America, As I referenced in my edit summary in Canada auto workers and other certain unionized labor are represented by the Canadian Auto Workers union a distinct and separately chartered organization unreleated to the UAW. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some workers in Ontario voted not to join the CAW and remain with the UAW. Both are members of the CLC. Now 99.9% of UAW members are in the US and nearly all unionized autoworkers in Canada are CAW but those are generalities.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct Grammar?
Is the name in correct English Grammar? The international union, is a noun. The name simply doesn't make sense with the wrod 'union' at the beginnin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.36.108 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested removal or rewrite.
Under: Criticism 4th paragraph

"Korean manufacturer Hyundai is offering to allow customers to return their new cars if they lose their jobs."

This action by Hyundai is a marketing gimmick designed to sell cars to people nervous about job losses or their nation's economy in general. It does not support the earlier statement "...that the automotive crisis extends across national boundaries, affecting car companies in Asia, Europe."99.154.104.98 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Labor costs per car
"Nor is it clear that labor costs, which are approximately 10%[18] of a car's total cost, were the decisive factor in the decline of American automakers." This is absolutely false. The VAST majority of the costs of producing a new car are either labor (as in wages) or attributed to labor (as in pension cost, health insurance, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.244.143 (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparent bias
The intro paragraph uses terms like "left wing" and "liberal wing" (and without citation), which indicates the contribution to be done with bias, I find, as if to typecast the subject with negative image.

For some of the odd claims, a questionable source is used (The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism). I say questionable because, according to reviews of this book, "it challenges the prevailing view among labor historians(.)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Boyle_(historian)  Thus, a minor opinion that contrasts with all others should not be included.

This also attempts to make regular connotation between the union and communists, but only through that one source.

Looking at the editing history, I see that the claim has been removed before, only to have it re-entered by one contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regroce (talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This entire page is right wing union busting propaganda.
It's as if fox news bought Wikipedia. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.150.40 (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tool and Die Strike of 1939
Can someone try link to this orphaned article please? Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United Automobile Workers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090402161023/http://www.financialpost.com:80/scripts/story.html?id=1343240 to http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1343240

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on United Automobile Workers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090216154211/http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=562830 to http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=562830
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317160749/http://www.caw.ca/whoweare/ourhistory/cawhistory/index.html to http://www.caw.ca/whoweare/ourhistory/cawhistory/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Automobile Workers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008175850/http://www.uaw.org/node/39 to http://www.uaw.org/node/39

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

United Automobile Workers → United Auto Workers – This is the bigtime WP:COMMONNAME but which also happens to be WP:CONCISE. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per ngram. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support common name. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Right to strike in contact
My local UAW 3063 in Hopkinsville, Kentucky owned by Metalsa has never had the right to strike in any contract since the UAW came in. Without this bargaining tool we have nothing to use if the company is doing something wrong. With that being said, tell me why you would even allow this to take place? We pay dues and work very hard and expect the representatives to inform the members of this Union the importance of the right to strike in our contract. I am not a lone wolf in this question. Many of my fellow members wonder the same thing. So I would love an explanation why you continue to let this happen!! Please feel free to contact me with your explanation. (270) 206-5989 107.77.232.176 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)