UAW Reaches Tentative Deal With All Detroit Automakers, Striking Ends

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

The United Auto Workers have reached a tentative agreement with all three Detroit automakers. Ford was the first to strike a deal, followed by Stellantis. But General Motors wasn’t far behind and managed to settle things with the union early Monday morning. Based on comments from select UAW members in the know, the final issue reportedly revolved around EV battery plants.


The issue came up relatively early in the union’s “stand-up strike” that began on September 15th. By early October, there were concerns that employees working at the automotive sector’s new battery facilities (many of which are jointly operated with foreign suppliers) likewise needed to be covered by labor agreements.


The deal with Stellantis was announced on Saturday and is said to mimic the terms the union already had negotiated with Ford. While we’ve covered the topic, specifics on the deal are still forthcoming and likely won’t be fully known to the public until after it’s been ratified by voting union members. The UAW effectively turned up the pressure on all automakers in recent weeks, targeting their most lucrative facilities for expanding labor strikes.


GM’s last facility to see a walkout was the incredibly important Spring Hill Manufacturing located in Tennessee. The site is responsible for several Cadillac and GMC-branded crossover vehicles. But its most important role is putting together powertrains and body panels for some of the automakers’ highest-volume models. Workers were told to abandon their posts on Saturday, not long after striking wrapped for Stellantis.


It was apparently too much for the company to endure and news broke early on Monday that General Motors (now standing alone against the UAW) had likewise reached a tentative contract agreement with the union. The last hurdle was rumored to be the inclusion of Ultium Cells LLC (a joint venture between GM and South Korea’s LG Energy Solution) in the UAW’s master contract. This would effectively set the stage to make unionization easier at subsequent battery plants.


As with the Stellantis agreement, we’re expecting the union contract with General Motors to be based closely on the deal made with Ford. That includes a 25-percent wage increase over the duration of a contract that won’t expire until 2028, the reinstatement of cost-of-living adjustments that were dumped in 2009, improved profit-sharing with workers, faster employee progression to the top wage tier, and eventual abolishment of tier wage scales over the next four years.


There will also be an immediate pay bump for all unionized employees. For GM, that equates to an 11 percent increase in wages within the first year. That should put the average employee just north of $35 per hour by 2024 and set the stage for that number to reach $45 per hour by 2028.


The union also won improved job guarantees. However, these will vary between automakers. GM seems to be offering ways of transitioning employees over to EV facilities as it gradually abandons combustion vehicles. Though there’s a lot of room to speculate how that will work at this stage.


There will also be investment guarantees that will be made known as more details are shared ahead of the ratification votes. Thus far, we’re only aware of Ford’s plan — which includes $2.1 billion for Ohio Assembly (with some of that going toward electric vans); $1.2 billion for Louisville Assembly (with some slated for new EVs and hybrid models of existing cars); $1 billion in Kansas City Assembly; and $900 million set aside to maintain localized F-Series production.


A UAW national council vote is anticipated for later this week regarding GM, with voting likely to take place beforehand on the other tentative agreements. If approved, the terms will be handed off to local union leaders who will present it to general members that will ultimately decide whether or not the deals are ratified. Ratification bonuses are included in all three deals, encouraging union members to take the deal and net themselves a few thousand dollars instantly.


While striking will undoubtedly resume if any of the above deals fall through, it seems as though union actions are probably over for 2023. UAW President Shawn Fain has been bragging about how the current contract proposals have broken union records and represent a restoration of ground lost over the last few decades. Granted, there is a contingency of union members who seem confident sweeter deals could be negotiated. But they look to be in the minority. Regardless, it’s undoubtedly wiser for all members to wait until they’ve seen the proposals in full before taking any formal stance.


Considering automakers were claiming to be losing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue per week due to strike conditions before the UAW began targeting their most important factories, it’s unlikely they’re interested in seeing any more factory downtime either. That same is true for auto parts suppliers, which have had to endure layoffs and some production stops of their own while things were sorted out with the UAW.


Expect formal announcements to be made by the union and each of the three automakers involved over the coming days.


[Image: UAW]

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
2 of 117 comments
  • Crown Crown on Nov 02, 2023

    EBFlex, can you not read yourself and discern what each poster is saying. I shouldn't have to run a name roster for you. Do your own work.

  • Crown Crown on Nov 02, 2023

    Daniel J, It is the CEO's job to show those stockholders what they can do to maximize profits: Look we cut our employee compensation; Look we substituted this cheap fifty cent part for that high quality part was costing us $3.

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next