Prices for most goods and services have risen substantially since 1967, but apparently monthly dues for the United Auto Workers union have stayed exactly the same. All that might change, however, as Reuters reports that UAW members could soon pay a little more for their union representation.

Though still in the discussion phase, the union is faced with dwindling membership and cash, so a rise in dues could help the latter. Presently, union dues are equivalent to 2 hours of wages per month, but officials are considering raising the rate to the equivalent of 2.5 hours. Reuters says that for an auto worker making an entry-level $15.78 an hour, dues would climb from the current $31.56 per month up to $39.45. A veteran worker making $28.125 per hour would get a bigger hike from $56.25 to $70.32.

In 1979, UAW members totaled close to 1.5 million, but recent numbers show that America's largest union is comprised of only about 382,500 members – a 30 percent decrease since 2005 alone. According to the report, union membership across America's workforce is down to just 13.1 percent overall – lower than it's been in over three-quarters of a century.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 57 Comments
      Will
      • 1 Year Ago
      The absolute worst thing about Americans is that many of us have strong feelings about stuff that has no impact on ourselves personally. I am sure that is true about everyone making the anti-union comments. Hopefully everyone making abti-union comments will lose their jobs and have to work part-time for minimum wage. They deserve worse.
        mylexicon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Will
        If it doesn't concern us, why did the UAW dip into the US Treasury to cover their unfunded legacy costs? The UAW should have killed itself off by now, and been replaced by a component organization or by competent laborers acting in their own self-interest.
      kagroyalo
      • 1 Year Ago
      The worst state Nation right now is Illinois (which is very Union driven), even Michigan went right to work. Looking at benefits, yes the are very good by most standards, but when compared to non-Union plants from the foreign caremakers there is not a significant advantage. Work ethic and integrity come from within, but I agree Unions do protect those who probably would have been fired anywhere else. I am not sure this this the best course of action right now as Union sentiment is falling as fast as the membership.
        Zoom
        • 1 Year Ago
        @kagroyalo
        What metrics do you have to show that IL is the worst state in the nation?
          caddy-v
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Zoom
          Illinois has: the lowest credit rating of all states, the lowest bond rating of all states, second highest unemployment rate, 635,355 net jobs lost since 2000 with 81% of those jobs gone forevever in 2009 til now, highest number of state and local politicians either doing time or did time, $100 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, highest corporate tax rate with 2nd highest income tax rate and will be going up in 2014, 3rd highest property tax rate, 2nd highes number of people collecting unemployment, food assistance, and welfare, highest number of manufacturing closings or exodus and I'm only 1/4 of the way through the list. All brought to you from decades of democrat control. Move over Detroit.
        axiomatik
        • 1 Year Ago
        @kagroyalo
        @kagroyalo "but when compared to non-Union plants from the foreign caremakers there is not a significant advantage" The question is, if UAW workers didn't have those benefits, would the foreign automakers offer those benefits? Or do they only offer competitive benefits because they are afraid that if they don't, the plant will unionize?
      Cool Disco Dan
      • 1 Year Ago
      If the unions cared about the workers they wouldn't be taking more money from them. But political bribes and lavish resorts for the union leaders don't come cheap.
        OptimusPrimeRib
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Cool Disco Dan
        That statement has more merits with no union companies. Like Walmart telling their workers that need more money to live to apply for welfare or have employees donate to others. Greed runs deep in this country and only the rich benefit.
          Cool Disco Dan
          • 1 Year Ago
          @OptimusPrimeRib
          Walmart is mostly entry level pay for entry level work. If you are trying to live on entry level pay you have failed your self. The ones who benefit in this country are the driven and industrious. The current president of Walmart started out as a part time summer sales associate. Now he is worth millions because he worked his way top the top. But please regurgitate some more of your leftist class warfare talking points.
          Cool Disco Dan
          • 1 Year Ago
          @OptimusPrimeRib
          No zoom he isn't. Your ignorance of economics isn't surprising though.
          Mack
          • 1 Year Ago
          @OptimusPrimeRib
          If you don't want crappy pay, don't work at Walmart. And yes, greed does run deep. But what make you think that greed only benefits the rich? And are only rich people greedy? Greed doesn't always benefit someone, it can also make the poor even poorer. Greed is usually self-destructive, not beneficial. I have several family members that I consider to be very selfish and greedy, but they're not rich. Many can fail because of their own greed.
          rtttack
          • 1 Year Ago
          @OptimusPrimeRib
          Gees, It's obvious that some people can't live on Walmart's pay. If you don't like Walmart pay, FIND A BETTER EFFING JOB!!! Companies can't just pay you more than what the company earns from your labor. The truth is that some workers are worth less than the pay they'll need. But working at walmart is a paying job! They may not pay much, but it's better than not making anything or being a lazy slob that does nothing. You learn to better yourself, you become productive. If you want a better paying job, something like working at walmart helps you step up to it. It's really insulting someone like me. I didn't start out with much pay, but learned how to make steps that made my life better. It's all honest, hard work. Why the hell are you socialist pigs so opposed to these things??? You're all such scum. You're what's failing our country.
      William
      • 1 Year Ago
      Union workers should demand they pay less. Remind which auto companies are unionized. I'll be less likely to buy from them.
      JACK
      • 1 Year Ago
      go ahead, then you will have even les members
      Kabayo
      • 1 Year Ago
      How misleading can you get? No increase since 1967? And then you disprove your own statement, revealing that dues are directly tied to the ever higher hourly rates? Stop ******* up to the unions.
        broccoli_cheese_soup
        @Kabayo
        UAW dues are two hours pay per month. This has been the same since 1967. It isn't that hard to understand.
          m_2012
          • 1 Year Ago
          @broccoli_cheese_soup
          So the amount you pay has: 1. Gone up. 2. Stayed the same. 3. Went down. Unless you have not gotten a raise since 1967, it has gone up. Simple math.
          scraejtp
          • 1 Year Ago
          @broccoli_cheese_soup
          That is a stupid way to look at things. The dues are a percentage basis, so they have gone up with every pay increase.
          broccoli_cheese_soup
          @broccoli_cheese_soup
          What's stupid is your inability to understand the difference between a percentage, which would change every month depending upon hours worked, and two hours pay, which is the same every month.
          axiomatik
          • 1 Year Ago
          @broccoli_cheese_soup
          It's basically a percentage of "baseline" salary (calculated assuming a standard 40 hours/week). Now, if a worker happens to work more or less than 40 hours, then they may earn more or less money that week, but the percentage of their baseline salary doesn't change.
      Zoom
      • 1 Year Ago
      Correlate: huge disparity between rich and poor, and lowest level in unionization. The pattern is clear. Everyone should make at least a living wage ($12-18/hr depending on location) so they can afford to feed and cloth themselves and their children. That's the quickest way to reducing the number of people collecting gov't walmart subsidies.
        Cool Disco Dan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Zoom
        And its ignorant thinking like this that the left thrives on. Economic illiterates like this are what ruin economies.
      michaelmcgrath
      • 1 Year Ago
      It's all kind of tragic. What the UAW once stood for was a mighty proposition; An employment cushion for the willing and able. A pension reward for the loyal. But it became overrun with greed and ineptitude. Hubris stiffled modernization. To this day, it still fails to see that. And protecting deadbeats remains the status quo.
      NY EVO X MR GUY
      • 1 Year Ago
      An increase? I'm thinking less members maybe? Unions have lost their relevancy over the years. Now a union is just a middle-man corporation to exploit employment security.
      IfIWereObama
      • 1 Year Ago
      LOL!!
      Jason Kellner
      • 1 Year Ago
      The math's not right here. They're paying the same percentage of their wage now as they were in 1967. It's not like they were paying $10 a month in 1967 and they're still only paying $10 a month.
        Greg
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Jason Kellner
        Autoblog must not want to agitate the unions.
        broccoli_cheese_soup
        @Jason Kellner
        It isn't a percentage. It's two hours pay per month. That's the same as it has been since 1967.
          broccoli_cheese_soup
          @broccoli_cheese_soup
          "UAW members pay monthly dues equal to two hours pay or, for salaried workers, 1.15% of their monthly salary." http://www.uaw.org/page/dues There is a reason why it reads this way. It's because no matter how much a UAW hourly worker works in a month, the dues are still two hours pay. Again, it is not a percentage.
          colin.shark
          • 1 Year Ago
          @broccoli_cheese_soup
          "It isn't a percentage" ...
      Derek L. Washington
      • 1 Year Ago
      I am huge backer of organized labor. However, while a lot of the decline in membership can be attributed to the 1% convincing Joe Sixpack that they somehow have his (and her) best interests at heart (by shipping off jobs etc..), a whole lot can be laid at the door of unions leadership. The fact that the leadership allowed itself to get punked by corporate America says that they missed a storm that was clearly on their radar screens and got flattened. When the Koch brothers can convince the Tea Party types that they, rather than the unions, have America's best interest at heart in the face of massive evidence otherwise, then maybe the unions need to die in order to be reborn. I can name at least 20 heroes to the anti union movement and not one leader of a major USA union. I am VERY politically active so that means they are no good at messaging and until they fix that problem and create a clear vision for the future of the American worker and get out there and sell it, how do they figure they deserve more $$ from their members? Do a better job. Compete with a more compelling vision than the 1% and you will get more members. Win the hearts and minds and minds of the American people again. Until then......
        Cool Disco Dan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Derek L. Washington
        So people who lie and tell you that with out the union you will get nothing all the while taking more and more dues are better than the people who tell you to work hard and want you to keep more of what you earn? Your leftist class warfare rhetoric is getting tiresome.
    • Load More Comments