[[{“value”:”
This is an updated version of the article published on April 10.
By Henry De Groot
UAWD Votes 160 to 137 to Dissolve
Tensions within the Unite All Workers For Democracy (UAWD) reform caucus within the United Autoworkers Union have boiled over as the majority group on the caucus’s Steering Committee (henceforth, SC majority) pushed to dissolve the caucus.
In a national meeting of the caucus held online on April 27, members voted 52 percent to 46 percent to dissolve the reform caucus, although the vote was immediately challenged by some with allegations of members excluded from the vote and circumvention of the bylaws.
On May 6, the minority tendency on UAWD Steering Committee (SC minority) released a statement which rejected the outcome of the meeting and declared the UAWD had not been dissolved.
Dueling Visions
The initial statement from the SC majority proposing dissolution asserted that internal divisions within the caucus had hardened, blocking productive work from continuing. The SC majority statement also seemed to question the validity of a caucus which is largely composed of non-autoworkers within UAW Region 9A (covering the Northeast), in a union largely composed of midwestern blue-collar manufacturing workers.
We believe in the need for a reform caucus, but not in one that is constantly engaged in insular debate that distracts from the work of building the union.
Following the vote, the SC majority launched a new group, UAW Member Action.
The earlier SC majority statement announced the launch of the new network within the UAW as focused on “developing the future generation of shop-floor organizers and leaders in the UAW, helping members stand up to bosses and win strong contracts, and building stronger local unions, including by running for office.”
Prior to the vote, a counter-statement was released by the minority tendency on UAWD Steering Committee (SC minority) criticizing the effort to dissolve.
The SC minority statement, signed also by a number of rank-and-file members, explored how, from their perspective, the effort to dissolve the caucus was the result of a slow drift away from the original principles of the caucus, and the alleged opportunism of certain UAWD leaders elected to the union’s International Executive Board (IEB). In contrast to this alleged opportunism, the SC minority, instead, asserts a vision of what they call “class struggle.”
The statement from the SC minority also asserted that the effort by the SC majority to dissolve the caucus at the next meeting would violate the caucus’s by-laws and responds to the allegations of dysfunction that are raised in the majority group statement.
The SC minority also punched back at the SC majority, questioning the relationship between the majority group and Teamsters For A Democratic Union and Labor Notes, including financial contributions from leading figures in those organizations which were made to UAWD.
An April 29, 2025 Labor Notes article covering the dispute, “UAW Reformers Close Caucus, Launch New Organization,” covered both perspectives to some extent, but quoted overwhelmingly from the pro-dissolution side.
An SC minority sympathizer told Working Mass that they declined to be interviewed by Labor Notes after the Labor Notes journalist stated they would not disclose their own financial ties to UAWD.
“I did not trust the legitimacy of the journalism, considering the political and financial ties of the authors in the situation,” the UAWD member told Working Mass.
Dissolution Disputed
A May 6 communication from the SC minority reads that
Despite the declaration of the seven pro-dissolution SC members, we are writing to all UAWD members to let you know that UAWD has not been dissolved and will continue on as a democratic membership organization composed of rank-and-file UAW members
The statement calls out the need for class struggle unionism, independence from top leadership, and to speak openly against the genocide in Palestine.
The communication then summarizes a longer list of alleged undemocratic tactics used by the SC majority to carry through the vote. Allegations by the SC minority include claims that members with voting rights were not allowed in the meeting or removed mid-meeting, that the vote itself violated the by-laws, that Robert’s Rules were unduly suspended during the meeting, that the chair “cherry picked” favorable motions and ignored opposing motions, that debate was improperly limited, and that 50 of the 356 participants did not vote in the poll, which – according to the SC minority – only lasted 90 seconds.
Additionally, the SC minority alleges that members of the SC majority incorporated UAWD (or, as they put it, a UAWD-like entity) in the state of Michigan on April 10 “in an illegitimate attempt to claim simple-majority threshold for dissolution according to Michigan law,” that is, incorporated the entity just to dissolve it less than three weeks later.
Most concretely, the SC minority alleges that at least 25 voters can be proven to have been unduly denied a vote, greater than the margin of 23 votes.
Working Mass cannot independently verify any of these claims.
Working Mass also viewed an April 24 cease and desist letter directed to the SC minority calling on them to stop the distribution of member contact information after the SC minority moved to make UAWD member information available to all UAWD members.
Deeper Tensions
The dispute between the majority and minority groups largely replayed the campaigns for the internal leadership which was elected in the fall of 2024, between the UAWD Strong slate winning a majority with two thirds of the vote, and the UAWD Call To Action slate securing only a minority of seats.
However, the close margins of the more recent vote may suggest that the majority group lost some support in the interim, or at least there was a base of UAWD members who were sympathetic to the majority but not willing to follow it in moving to dissolve the caucus.
The UAWD website UAWD.org now hosts a statement announcing the dissolution of the caucus, and relaying that “Our remaining funds will be donated across organizations proposed in the resolution to dissolve. These include other young reform caucuses (Federal Unionists Network, Essential Workers for Democracy, IATSE Caucus of Rank-and-file Entertainment Workers, IBEW Caucus of Rank-and-file Electrical Workers), immigrant legal aid, and the Mexican independent union movement.”
The website also includes a link to UAW Member Action.
The UAWD caucus took power in the country’s sixth-largest union, covering almost one million auto-workers, higher education workers, and other manufacturing and white-collar workers, following the successful UAWD election effort which saw UAWD member Shawn Fain take the union’s top job.
Fain also faced criticism, especially from the Palestinian movement, for his endorsement of Kamala Harris, and more recently for his apparent approval of Trump’s tariffs.
The division also seems to have split members of the DSA active within the caucus, with members currently or previously active in the Boston DSA Labor Working Group (which founded Working Mass), Worcester DSA, Detroit DSA, and other DSA chapters represented in both camps. This echoes an earlier dispute in the University of California UAW local which saw DSA members on both sides of a contract vote.
Forum For DSA Members
Boston DSA and Working Mass are jointly hosting a forum, planned tentatively for the evening of Wednesday, May 21st, to provide a space for DSA members to discuss and debate the political significance of the UAWD dissolution and how DSA should understand and relate to the ongoing reform-caucus movement. You can RSVP here.
“}]]