Talk:United Auto Workers

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

message: 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)
replies: text: note failure in one year to provide any precise complaints of POV. Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apply Lock Up for this Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism Section badly POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: One Party State?

message: 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)
thread_title: Are there any PBS or BBC documentary vidoes about UAW?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: What about foreign owned plants in USA?

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

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logo uaw.png

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleaned up Jobs Bank Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  a small edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  United Auto Workers Outside The U.S. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correct Grammar?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requested removal or rewrite. 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Labor costs per car 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apparent bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This entire page is right wing union busting propaganda. 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Right to strike in contact