In an article published on August 14th, the Detroit Free Press reported that the International UAW, or more specifically, the International Executive Board (IEB), is attempting to amend the consent decree agreed to by both the UAW and the US government. According to the article, the UAW and the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) are currently “at an impasse” in regards to whether or not the IEB should be allowed to utilize union resources to advocate their position on the referendum vote that will take place this fall.
If the government agrees to amend the consent decree, the IEB would be allowed to use “limited and monitored union resources.” If that happens, it would be up to court-appointed Monitor Neal Barofsky to decide what he considers “limited and monitored ” union resources to be. Which means it is possible that dues money paid into our treasury by the membership of our union could be used by the IEB to advocate against One Member One Vote.
OLMS has stated it does not believe any union resources should be allowed to be used to advocate for either position regarding the referendum. UAWD has also been adamant that if the goal of the government and the Monitor is to create a level playing field for both sides of the issue, union resources should be off limits.
Apparently, the IEB feels differently.
While supporters of One Member One Vote have been organizing with UAW members across the country, raising money for their campaign one member at a time, it appears the IEB wants to be able to dip into our union’s treasury to advocate for the continuation of the delegate system of electing our International Officers. This would create an even greater imbalance between the two sides of the issue.
The IEB already has wildly significant advantages over One Member One Vote supporters. The IEB — all members of the Administration Caucus — controls every aspect of our union. From Solidarity House, to the Regional Offices, to the appointed jobs at joint training centers and even some appointed jobs within our Local unions. We shouldn’t minimize just how much of a built-in advantage this is in regards to getting their message out versus the rank-and-file members advocating for One Member One Vote.
Evidently, the IEB felt like all of these built-in advantages still weren’t enough. Their attempt to give themselves an even bigger leg up over supporters of One Member One Vote is just another example of the immense disconnect between the International leadership of our union and the rank-and-file membership that is the heart and soul of the UAW. The IEB is essentially saying they do not care about creating a level playing field for the referendum vote, or even giving the appearance of wanting to create one.
The Administration Caucus is used to getting absolutely everything it wants. It has for decades and decades. This lack of accountability was the main factor in creating the environment that allowed the corruption to happen in the first place. So this attempt to amend the consent decree in order to use union resources to push their position really shouldn’t be much of a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. However, in my opinion, it only reinforces the critical need to further democratize our union in order to help create a more accountable leadership and a reinvigorated rank-and-file.
One Member One Vote would be a big step in accomplishing that.
