Whereas, in our UAWD Member Platform, in sections on “Political Independence” and “Membership solidarity, not “unity” imposed by union leadership,” UAWD commits to critically evaluating UAW leadership’s approach from a class struggle unionist perspective to engage in “a rich debate about the tactics and strategy … so that the broadest group of workers possible is brought into a collective strategy, fighting from the bottom up.”
Whereas, our Daily Struggle Charter allows for the adoption of “Membership-approved positions,” stating that “The UAWD membership may pass a motion that directly calls for publication of a piece, either with complete language, partial language, or by calling on the EB to write a piece communicating a position.”
Whereas, in August 2025, UAWD adopted a Membership-approved Position, “An Assessment of Fain’s Three Major Campaigns, Their Successes, Failures, and Top-down Nature,” which assessed that Fain’s key campaigns “have had a top-down nature and generally lacked a bottom-up approach,” but held off on evaluating the broader political character and strategy of the Fain administration, as UAWD continued to develop our own class struggle approach.
Whereas, President Shawn Fain recently announced the Stand Up Slate, composed of Fain, two other former UAWD members from UAWD’s Members United slate, and 10 members of the old guard Administration Caucus (AC), including two of its most senior, repressive enforcers.
Whereas, in February 2026, we adopted an endorsement strategy that lays out a basis for evaluating IEB candidates according to a “UAWD IEB Endorsee Program for Building a Class Struggle UAW;”
Whereas, at the UAWD IEB Election Town Hall earlier this month, there was broad consensus that the announcement of the Stand Up Slate is the culmination of a political process in which Fain, despite being the most militant UAW president in decades, has become the leader of the AC and been pulled into the AC’s repressive, top-down, and concessionary approach.
Be it resolved:
- The UAWD membership adopts the assessment below as a membership-approved position.
- The UAWD membership tasks Judy Wraight, Nolan Tabb, Jeremy Bunyaner, and Andrew Bergman—four members of the Steering Committee who have been UAWD leaders since 2022 when the Members United slate was first assembled—to work with the Daily Struggle Editorial Board (EB) to write an editorial presenting this position to the UAW membership in Daily Struggle.
- While the title, examples, specific language, and style of the editorial shall be determined by the authors through the EB’s regular editorial process, the article shall be reflective of the membership-approved position below and present an honest assessment of the Fain administration’s progressive bureaucratic approach, both its improved militancy and its failures and shortcomings from a class struggle unionist perspective.
- The EB shall engage UAWD members from across sectors and Regions to develop editorials presenting honest, critical assessments of other candidates for the UAW IEB that are in line with the membership-approved position below.
- In making this assessment and future political education about Fain, his allies, and the IEB election, UAWD is not endorsing or allying with campaigns that undermine UAW militancy, especially those of a counterproductive or right-wing character.
A Critical Assessment of the Fain Administration: A Progressive Bureaucratic Approach, not Class Struggle Unionism
- Top-down bureaucratic militancy: Despite Fain being the most militant UAW president in decades, Fain’s key campaigns “have had a top-down nature and generally lacked a bottom-up approach.” Besides not meeting the commitments Fain campaigned on to implementing democratic reforms, his top-down approach also meant that there often hasn’t been membership control over and buy-in for his militant approach, leading to diminished capacity for collective action and weaker campaign outcomes.
- An emerging concessionary approach: Despite winning significantly improved Big 3 contracts, the Fain administration’s failure to build membership engagement through a top-down approach has ultimately resulted in significant concessions in key campaigns, such as: 1) conceding to an inferior attendance policy at Stellantis that has harmed many UAW members and 2) the failure to build militancy to enforce the contractual provision that Stellantis bring new product to Belvedere, instead cheerleading a Canadian plant closure to bring jobs.
- Failure of rhetoric to match action: While Fain’s rhetoric has also been more reflective of a class struggle approach than any UAW president in decades, featuring slogans like “Eat the rich” and demonizing the “Billionaire class,” he and his administration have often failed to back that up with action. Despite occasional statements in support of the planks of the UAWD IEB Endorsee Program for Building a Class Struggle UAW, Fain has failed to take any meaningful action to advance militant strategies regarding mid-contract strikes, fighting for company-wide wage floors, and building capacity for general strikes. Key examples include: 1) failing to back up the call for a general strike on May Day 2028, with no resources or educational material sent out to Locals, including major assembly plants, and not attempting to align significant UAW manufacturing contracts and 2) failing to back up the call for for organizing southern auto plants with the resources needed and undermining the autonomy of rank-and-file organizers.
- Political positions that cater to the ruling class: Instead of promoting political independence, organizing to build a working class party, and engaging UAW members in deliberation over political endorsements on a working class basis, the Fain administration has sought cozy relationships with political elites in the Democratic and Republican parties. This can be seen through Fain’s key role in the Harris campaign, his support for Trump’s tariff policy, and the Fain administration’s conciliatory business unionist approach for engaging with Ford and the Trump administration after a UAW member criticized Trump. Just like UAW top leadership has done for decades, Fain has overseen the disbursement of over $1 million per year to the Democrats, funding which could have gone to new organizing, political education, and other working class priorities.
- Allying with the AC instead of engaging the rank-and-file: Many of the failures above, undermining democracy and failing to commit resources, build militancy, and take risks that might benefit UAW members and the broader working class, are spurred on by structural causes: pressure from existing bureaucracy, both International staff and Local elected, and state pressure from the Monitor and labor law. Instead of building support from the rank-and-file to take risks, Fain mitigated these pressures by allying with the repressive AC, ultimately being subsumed as its new leader. Conflicts with other UAW leaders, over austerity and mismanagement, were kept siloed within the bureaucracy instead of being brought publicly to the rank-and-file.