September 2026

After covering our UAW International Officer elections in a couple of my articles over the past two years, I hoped to start checking off my list of other labor-pertinent issues.  While I am confident few will be upset by the lack of another politics-focused article in this issue, a more pressing topic would have certainly been Michigan's hyper-partisan, big-money-fueled midterm.  Unfortunately, with ballots actively being mailed, a handful of conversations with members and some of the rhetoric on the socials have compelled me to clarify some truths as I see them. 

While it’s not surprising to see allegations of ineptitude made by candidates and their supporters during a hotly contested election, it is concerning to see some of the shade thrown at the local level.  While a local and its financial secretary do have a role to play in the membership data behind the ballot mailings, they do not have direct influence over the UAW Monitor or the various vendors used to conduct the International Officer Elections.  To place an undue amount of blame on the local leadership not only ignores historical events, but also the intricacies of maintaining membership data. 

The first piece of the accurate membership information puzzle begins with us, the members.  As a new member, we must properly fill out a membership application card with current data.  From there, the local adjusts the information based on direct communication from members, contact lists shared by the employer, and returned mail, to name a few.  Again, this is member-driven.  If a member moves or passes away and that information is not given to the union, their data will be inaccurate.  This situation is more challenging with our retired members because their data is no longer updated via the employer-provided lists.       

The next piece is how this data is conveyed to the International.  Currently, the process depends on the local uploading membership data through the International's IT system, LUIS.  The UAW’s locals vary in size and also differ in capabilities.  Some use pen and paper, while others have their own database software.  Inherent in this kind of variation, the process of data conveyance doesn’t always go off without a hitch.  Compounding the issue is LUIS itself; it is notoriously cumbersome and in need of an overhaul.

With both the local and the International now maintaining a membership list, all parties become stewards of this data.  In addition to keeping the list secure, they are now charged with maintaining its accuracy.  This actually brings us back to the first step: direct communication with our members and their families.  In addition to tools such as death registry service, returned mail communications, and member outreach, accurate data is everyone's responsibility.

While it’s not likely we’ll have a solution to election-time slander and conspiracies, we can continue to improve membership data and lessen the financial burden of these direct elections.  If we want fewer stories of deceased members receiving ballots, we must communicate deaths directly to the union.  Additionally, we should invest in technology that can help identify deaths and other inaccurate data.  We mustn’t normalize another Constitutional Convention where we increase the potential number of retired members without a plan to communicate with them.  To do this and more, we must act collectively. 

Please vote, and have a great fall season.

In Solidarity,

Matt