A Raise for Auto Workers May Imperil Biden's Electric Vehicle Ambitions
The president voiced support for the union's goals on the picket line but companies are already struggling to build fuel-efficient cars that Biden wants to prioritize.

On September 25, Joe Biden made history as the first sitting president to walk a picket line when he joined striking members of the United Auto Workers (UAW) in Van Buren Township, Michigan.
Standing with UAW President Shawn Fain, Biden told the strikers through a bullhorn, "You deserve the significant raise you need and other benefits." But a big raise for the UAW could very well come at the expense of one of Biden's core campaign promises.
The strike began on September 15 when talks broke down between the UAW and the Big Three automakers (Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis). Among its demands, the union wants a 36-percent raise over four years, a 32-hour work week, and the reinstatement of pension and cost-of-living benefits that it gave up during the 2008 recession.
It also seeks protections as the industry transitions to a greater focus on electric vehicles (E.V.s), a central priority of Biden's presidency. This year the Environmental Protection Administration adopted rules that would require 67 percent of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. by 2032 to be electric. "The UAW supports and is ready for the transition to a clean auto industry," Fain noted in August. "But the EV transition must be a just transition that ensures auto workers have a place in the new economy." Tied to that transition, the UAW's demands include the right to strike over plant closures and additional job protections in the event that plants shut down.
Autoworkers are right to be worried: According to a 2019 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), traditional vehicles "have as many as 2,000 components in their powertrains," and "of the nearly 590,000 U.S. employees engaged in motor vehicle parts manufacturing, about one-quarter—nearly 150,000—make components for internal combustion powertrains."
On the other hand, "an electric vehicle powertrain has only a few" components. "For example, Tesla has said its drivetrain has 17 moving parts, including two in the motor." As a result, E.V.s require significantly fewer parts and therefore fewer man-hours to build: "Electric vehicle powertrains, if built domestically and not imported, would generate production employment," the report noted, "but fewer employees may be needed than at present because vehicle battery packs have relatively few components and are less complicated to assemble than internal combustion engine powertrains."
A July 2023 report from the America First Policy Institute, a think tank founded by former members of Donald Trump's presidential administration, estimated that the Biden administration's E.V. mandate would cost 117,000 auto industry jobs, nearly half of them from Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana.
But the union's demands may not be feasible at the industry's current trajectory. The union is asking for more money and fewer hours as the industry transitions to E.V.s, but established companies are hemorrhaging money on the transition. After previously predicting that it may lose $3 billion this year on its E.V. division, Ford now anticipates a loss of as much as $4.5 billion. Last year, General Motors CEO Mary Barra told investors that the company didn't expect to make a profit on E.V.s until 2025.
Notably, the companies are struggling even after receiving billions of dollars in government subsidies. Most recently, at the end of August, the Biden administration authorized an additional $12 billion in grants and loans for companies to upgrade and retrofit their facilities.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said the UAW's proposals could send the automaker into bankruptcy, while Barra said they were not "realistic." Dan Ives, research analyst for Wedbush Securities, said in a note to investors that the UAW's demands, if fully accepted, could cause automakers "to pass these costs onto the consumer" by increasing E.V. prices by as much as $5,000 each.
By visiting an active picket line, Biden made his preference clear in the fight between unions and management. But depending on how the negotiations go, he may not be able to have it both ways: Either UAW members can get a big raise, or automakers can push forward in the transition to electric vehicles.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How many moving parts in an ICE powertrain? How many total parts is a Tesla drivetrain?
Sheesh. Apples and oranges, ever heard of that?
You didn't get the irony?
Biden is backing up a union representing the 150,000 people making those 2000 parts needed for machines he's trying to outlaw in favor of ones with 17 parts, which won't require 150,000 people to make.
One of the few times I agree with you sarcasmic. The Union is pushing a Liberal agenda which could very well end up in massive layoffs for it's members. This is just like the UMW telling it's members to vote for Hilary in 2016 even though she was running on putting coal miners out of work. Another example is the SEIU pushing for a $15 an hour minimum wage and then wanting their members exempted from it.
This is why I said a few days ago that the UAW would actually get more mass support if they framed the strike as blue-collar workers wanting to make internal combustion vehicles that people will actually buy, versus Woke-captured CEOs trying to shoehorn niche-market EVs through to fluff up their ESG scores and put a lot of people out of work. Unfortunately, the union leaders are DNC pimps and are still going by the 20th century IWW playbook that frames these fights as economic instead of social.
the UAW would actually get more mass support if they framed the strike as blue-collar workers wanting to make internal combustion vehicles that people will actually buy, versus Woke-captured CEOs
Wouldn't that conflict with the overarching climate narrative? You can protect the workers, but you can't protect what they are making.
I think that’s Red’s point, the union shouldn’t be adhering to the climate narrative. But ultimately the union leaders don’t actually care about the workers or their jobs, the leaders themselves will be on to cushy DNC and government roles long before they have to face a reckoning with the workers.
And the problem is that buying even a used car is fucking expensive as hell now. I'm not taking out a loan for $50K for a vehicle that would probably need an 8-year term just to keep the payments affordable. Fuck that shit. I'll drive my F-150 into the ground and then run it like Fred Flintstone first.
Cash for Clunkers permafucked the used car market.
Biden wants 67 percent of cars sold to be EVs in nine years. If people buy up the 33 percent of ICE cars by let's say May, will the manufacturers be forced to close those plants. Will president Harris call in the national guard and force people to buy EVs at gunpoint? I think it's safe to predict that as long as gasoline is available people will hold on to their old cars for as long as possible. The streets will look like Havana.
No, Biden wants some ice cream before he gets tucked in to bed. The rabid Marxists puppeteering him want all this climate change bullshit.
Aw come on. You agree more than that. You just don't want to say it.
At least I'm being honest. I've agreed with you before, but, not too many times.
Nope! They’re backing a liberal agenda that will cost the union membership by eliminating some of the union members’ jobs and possibly bankrupt the employers while expecting the liberal government to cover the loss by operating the printing presses so they can stay alive without working for a living except that running the printing presses even faster will increase inflation and make it even harder to make ends meet while on welfare.
The Union is pushing a Liberal agenda which could very well end up in massive layoffs for it’s members
Nuclear power plant union workers went door to door to get Obama elected, and once in office his administration shut down the Yucca Mountain project immediately, effectively ending any new nuclear power plants in this country.
Union leadership has shit for brains, or just exists to keep democrats in office. Or both.
Just saw an analysis (don't remember where) talking about the amount of labor required to build an ICE versus the batteries and motors for an EV. Surprisingly, the EV lost.
Yes, the motor itself is simple and there's no transmission. But apparently there's a ton of labor in refining the lithium and making the batteries.
If only we had a system to aggregate all these costs into a single, easy to use number, a number we could use to compare how much one vehicle's inputs and labor costs compared to another. Oh wait...
Yes, the motor itself is simple and there’s no transmission. But apparently there’s a ton of labor in refining the lithium and making the batteries.
Like a lot of modern "green" shit, the west just outsources its pollution to the third world now and says they're cleaning up the environment at home.
True, but UAW workers aren't refining lithium or making batteries.
That "ton of labor in refining the lithium and making the batteries" does not (and cannot) happen in the US. It certainly won't be happening in Michigan. Which means the UAW members will lose out.
The electric is still going to win out for simplicity as the powertrain has 1 moving part in a brushless motor. But as someone else points out, the batteries and magnets take a lot of labor input and create a lot of pollution.
Electric autos certainly have a reasonable place in the future, especially in large congested cities and for short local commutes. The only limitation as far as I can see is that the power grid is likely to get shut down more frequently at unpredictable times as US infrastructure continues to deteriorate. If only government would stop trying to mandate the process as a form of virtue signaling it would evolve naturally. For the ICE infrastructure already in place, the possibility of increasing fuel prices and natural competition from alternative technologies the evolution would be much preferable to artificially trying to discourage ICE engines and petroleum based fuels.
Good luck getting a job slicing oranges with a union that insists you have to be paid as an apple corer...
Maybe Silicon valley will embrace a programmer's union when those tens of thousands of former autoworkers (even assuming the trumpy people exaggerated the number by a factor of 2) "learn to code"?
Google paid $95 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $51005 by working at home for 10 hours a day….. Everybody must try this job now by just use this:-
http://Www.Smartwork1.com
While legacy (gas car) makers struggle worldwide to sell the ICEV or make a competitive BEV Tesla has been building, month after month, year after year, the best, most popular car in the world.
By the end of this decade, nothing governments, Tesla competitors, or the unions do will save them. The ICEV, the unions, and many governments will be dead. Debating details of their death is a waste of time. Focus on the future, e.g., which BEV you want, what kind of govt. you want. You control the first, the latter control will require a paradigm shift in politics for most because they worship "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose.
On September 25, Joe Biden made history as the first sitting president to walk a picket line when he joined striking members of the United Auto Workers (UAW) in Van Buren Township, Michigan.
But everyone means well here, so at least there's that.
I wonder if he had been pushed in a wheelchair along the picket line while mumbling incoherently about ice cream if that would have made the headlines?
"You deserve the significant raise you need and other benefits."
Really? Why do they?
Because they are a key demographic of the Democratic National Committee of course!
Really? Why do they?
Exactly. The CEOs deserve their increases in compensation for their labor because they increased corporate profits. The people actually building the cars, nah.
"A Raise for Auto Workers May Imperil Biden's Electric Vehicle Ambitions"
May? You mean if the Crap 3 go out of business would hinder his ambitions?
Why is that the assumption? The leader of the federal government is showing up to support paying them more. His party and the bureaucracy are feeding subsidies already and it is assumed they will ramp those up. If these labor negotiations drive the companies into the ground then why wouldn't we expect the government to bail them out again and not eject the asinine contract?
It's like the present conditions and history aren't factored in here
I was just thinking about the 32-hour work week thing.
I wonder if the UAW thinks workers are actually going to work fewer hours or get more overtime. $5 says the latter. Perhaps we should start calling it the "more overtime hours provision."
Oh for sure, its just another 10% pay increase on top of the 36% they are also asking for. I guess even the union felt 46% would seem unreasonable so they split it up to make it look like they were asking for two different things.
And how is it not scandalously inappropriate for a President to get involved in a labor dispute?
Because apparently norms only matter when the Rs are in charge.
They're fighting The Man, man!
Our decision makers are the survivors the 60s. Soon it will be Gen X. Or not. We seek to shun responsibility.
companies are already struggling to build fuel-efficient cars
No they aren't. They aren't even trying to manufacture cars any more much less make them more fuel-efficient. There's only two Big3 cars that sell a reasonable volume - the Ford Mustang (sales down 90% since 1980 - and the car weighs 0.5 ton more than then) and the Chevy Corvette (always a near irrelevant sales volume and again weighs 0.5 ton more than 1980). Neither of those has EVER sold a single car on the basis of 'fuel-efficiency'. The two best-selling Big3 'cars' are not cars at all. They are compact SUV's - the Chevy Equinox and the Ford Escape - both of which are less fuel-efficient than a dozen or more Big-3 cars produced in say 1985 (to pick a somewhat random year from way back then).
Now it is I suppose possible that no American ever wants to buy a 'fuel-efficient car' that is no more fuel-efficient than a car made 35 years ago. Except of course that they do - but not from Big3 who only want to build trucks/SUV's.
I think you are just being disingenuous, obviously "cars" is referring to all types of vehicles, not just literal cars. After all Ford's best selling vehicle has been the F-150 for about as long as I can remember, and thats neither a "car" nor an "SUV" (compact or otherwise).
But I do think we can more accurately state companies are already struggling to build fuel-efficient cars that people actually want to buy.
What's disingenuous is to pretend that cars and trucks are the same thing. The Big3 quite deliberately upsized their vehicles from car chassis to the bigger light-truck chassis in the mid-1980's. Not because there was some consumer demand for bigger heavier (inherently less fuel-efficient) vehicles but because there was a loophole in CAFE standards. That loophole allowed the automakers to make LESS fuel-efficient vehicles over time as long as they made the vehicles bigger.
And they then marketed that change and made sure it 'stuck' with consumers so that consumers simply lost their then-available choices. Planned obsolescence means a consumer doesn't have the same choices they once had even a few years ago. And in this case, all the choices are bigger, heavier than they once used to be. More trucks/SUV's (on the light truck chassis) - fewer cars. And even the foreign nameplate producers could follow the trend of increasing weight once they moved to the US to produce because the only market comparison was current year vehicles. Which by the mid-1990's actually drove the smaller vehicles off the road (replaced with larger vehicles) because by then they were seen as unsafe when surrounded by much larger vehicles who couldn't see them.
So now an author can simply use the word 'cars' for everything and a commenter can pretend anyone who points out reality is just the grammar police. And both can drink the koolaid and pretend that automakers have been honestly trying to improve fuel-efficiency or safety or anything.
So regulations caused this problem.
A Raise for Auto Workers May Imperil Biden's Electric Vehicle Ambitions
Phbbbt! Who wrote this crap? "May"? Like there's a question? It will not imperil the ESG movement. The play is so obvious even Trump figured it out. Best Case Scenario: Big 3 wind up making subsidized expensive EVs at Union wages. Worst Case Scenario: Big 3 wind up bankrupt and ESG continues making the money printer go 'brrr...' in order to pave over the corpses, executives and Union workers alike, and put up charging stations.
Bwahaha! They support the transition to all electric vehicles even though it will cost them a quarter of their membership and they want to get paid more to do less and keep their jobs after they disappear. And if the employer goes bankrupt because of the government mandates do you think they will hold the government officials accountable? Don't make me laugh! Big government screws them but they still support big government no matter what.
Hmm. So are more "bailouts" for American vehicle manufacturers in our near future?
Let's see: both Chrysler and GM filed for bankruptcy/reorganization in 2009. Perhaps the gubmint should have let them go under?
Or...... fast forward twenty years, when GM, Chrysler, and, by that time, Ford are (virtually) government-owned and operated entities, totally dependent on federal subsidies for their existence.
I don't think anyone here wants to wonder what kind of "quality product" the feds would be producing..... maybe the next Yugo?
hypocrisy is feature.
Vehicle price-tags are more expensive than ever. Taxpayers around the world are being STOLEN more than ever to shovel even MORE money into automobiles. Yet; The EV dream just can't balance its budget even with *ALL* of that.
And that's just making the P.O.S. to begin with. That doesn't even take into consideration the electrical energy infrastructure that'll have to exist.
G.D. Democrats have got to be the dumbest retards on the planet.
They want it to fail. They want you poor. They want you to starve to death.
I’m sorry, but the big three deserved to go belly up.. you get in bed with the devil the government nothing good will come from it. They should’ve said no we’re not taking your money. Try to force us to build EV because if you hurt us, you hurt your constituents and you’ll be voted out of office. We need to start to stand up against this out of control dangerous government.
Puppets don't have ambitions.
So to improve their lives, the UAW members need to vote for Trump?
whodathunkit?
One of my longtime Usent allies made this point.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=379970&p=4515785#post4515785
“Trump was the leader we had. Instead now, we've got an undead, retarded pedophile. Big improvement, huh?”- Christopher Charles Morton, dba Deanimator
So to improve their lives, the UAW members need to vote for Trump?
How'd that work out for the coal miners?
Bankrupting US auto makers doesn't hurt Biden's plans. To the contrary, it will make cars more expensive and more difficult to get, forcing people into public transportation. The laid off workers will be government dependent, which serves Biden's purposes. And in the short term, Biden can pretend to care about and support those workers.
To be clear here: Biden's "electrical vehicle plan" is to ensure that only the wealthy can have electric vehicles, and everybody else lives in 15 minute cities without parking, rarely venturing outside their confined neighborhood, and when they do, only on government-sanctioned public transportation, with government permission, provided your social score is high enough.
You don’t even live in a city and clear don’t know what a ’15 minute city’ means. Paris is already, roughly, a 5 minute city (even if they think it’s a more-than-15 minute city because that’s where 15 minute city was created as an aspiration) and it’s hardly an unliveable shithole
What's a National Government doing making big-city plans for the entire nation? Does he think the entire USA is nothing but a packed urban metro-city. I'll tell you from personal experience as a farmer; You dumb*ss city-slickers are killing your own food supply chain as well as our living. Ever since Obama's environmental BS the water rights are regulated away. The equipment doesn't run and getting wildly more expensive. The land is getting hoarded and Biden has just made it all worse and worse. Are you people trying to kill yourselves because if so; just get a gun and get it over with instead of trying to take everyone else down with you.
So now , stupid and lazy Biden is destroying two markets.
We have subsidies in production and in buying of EV's and now we will distort the auto labor market by buying them off so they won't complain that future auto workers will be ultimately decimated
We have now $20 an hour MacDonald's workers..."Fast food restaurant employees in California will be entitled to earn at least $20 per hour, beginning on April 1, 2024. "
You will be eating horsemeat and whatever cuts costs but your boy next door will have enough money from his burger-flippinig to destroy all amibition to better himself. Great idea.