UAW Includes Language in Newest Contract About Gender Identity

Aaron Cole
by Aaron Cole
We’re committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using links in our articles. Learn more here

Included in the United Auto Workers latest round of negotiations was language that protected workers at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles from discrimination based on gender identity.

“During this round of bargaining the union expressed the importance of the parties both maintaining and strengthening policies that ensure the equal treatment of all employees,” the union wrote in its white paper to members.

Michigan and Ohio do not protect workers from discrimination based on gender identity, according to the ACLU. Only Illinois, where FCA currently builds the Dodge Dart, Jeep Compass and Patriot at its Belvidere plant, has a law that protects workers from gender-identity discrimination.

The equal protection language was included in more than 400 pages of contract changes for the UAW that was agreed upon and proposed to its membership last week.

FCA is offering a $3,000 bonus for UAW workers to ratify the contract within the coming days. The basis for the negotiations for the UAW, which was to close the hourly wage gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 workers was largely met. In return, FCA said it would send car production to Mexico and move Ram 1500 production back to America.

Aaron Cole
Aaron Cole

More by Aaron Cole

Join the conversation
48 of 104 comments
  • 1998S90 1998S90 on Sep 20, 2015

    I really don't understand this gender identity stuff. You either have a penis or a vagina. If you have a penis but wish to wear a dress, who am I to judge? But when start entering the women's restroom because you feel like you're a women or demand special treatment, that's when I draw the line. I suppose a small percentage of the population has both organs but that tie can be broken by your XY or XX chromosomes. Am I off base here?

    • See 33 previous
    • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Sep 21, 2015

      @highdesertcat I do find it repugnant to see those who proclaim to be Cristian but seem to only quote the "Old Testament" when it comes to sexuality and/or orientation. Christian or believing in Christianity means believing in Jesus Christ. I don't recall him saying anything against gays. The only time he really got angry/violent was when he chased the money lenders out of the temple. He also commented that a rich man stands about as much chance getting into heaven as a camel through the eye of a needle. Strangely odd that those right wing Christians never mention that when defending capitalism. I get sick and tired of the self-titled "moral majority", the self titled "religious right" misusing and abusing Christ's teachings. If you don't want to study Christ and prefer to quote the old Testament then you might as well go out and get your foreskin trimmed and move to Israel. brenschluss did a very good job of pointing out that blind adherence to a belief exists on the Muslim right and the Christian right. How are atrocities committed under a Muslim banner any worse than those perpetrated under a Christian banner? Citing rape as an outcome of homosexuality is preposterous. Rape is an assault upon a victim. It has no bearing on sexual orientation. Human beings have an intrinsic dignity that needs to be protected. That is irrelevant of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. Too many place extrinsic conditions on human dignity. Sexuality for most isn't extrinsic. I posted this in response to a different comment which applies to this tread: “common sense” just gets people into trouble. It was once common to use slaves, wipe out aboriginal cultures, stone to death adulteresses, and to persecute gays. What is “common” among a tribe, group, population, country etc. has very little to do with what is fair, just, and morally right. Case in point, those in ISIL think it is “common sense” to execute heretics, and any religion that is not theirs."

  • 50merc 50merc on Sep 21, 2015

    Everybody is missing the real problem: just the contract CHANGES ran more than 400 pages. Is there nothing in the auto industry that can be decided by good will and common sense? That is, where the UAW is in control?

    • See 1 previous
    • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Sep 21, 2015

      dal20402 - you raise a valid point. We have seen VW cheat emissions, Ford cheat MPG and safety ratings, GM bury an unsafe ignition switch, Toyota waffle on unintended acceleration, FCA on sluggish recalls and on and on and on. Companies, especially large ones base decisions upon what they are legally allowed to do and based upon the lowest common denominator that makes them money. They push the envelop and frequently cross the line. Large Unions in some cases do fall into similar behaviours exhibited by large companies. Both follow what lawyers and other advisor's tell them what they can get away with legally. Morality does not enter the picture as that has little to do with what is determined to be legal.

  • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Sep 21, 2015

    Wow, do you guys really need a union to enact basic rights?? Why do you pay taxes?? Why do you pay another tax to the union to do what should be commonsense.

    • See 2 previous
    • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Sep 22, 2015

      Drzhivago138, The info below should help. We have a much more liberal society. This liberalism doesn't translate into "left wing" ideals, as some would like to make out. The US is a much more socialist society, with more government intervention in all aspect of life, industry, welfare, etc. I do travel to the US very often for long periods of time as I'm an American. What I have noticed is the US is very "old fashion" and people are just to politically correct. We complain about the minorities controlling public opinions and lobby power. At the end of the day we don't have a greater separation of religion and politics. The American view on freedom does differ from others. I do feel many Americans consider it their right to do what they want, even if it has an adverse affect on others. Just being polite and politically correct doesn't give you those rights to offend and affect others. Do we really have freedom when our freedom removes others' freedom? .............................................................................. We can help you if you have been: ◾refused a job ◾dismissed from a job ◾refused a promotion, transfer or other benefit associated with employment ◾given unfair terms or conditions of employment ◾refused training opportunities ◾refused flexible work arrangements ◾harassed or bullied and you believe this has happened because of your: ◾sex (this includes pregnancy, marital status or relationship (including same-sex de facto couples) status, breastfeeding, family responsibilities, sexual harassment, gender identity, intersex status and sexual orientation) ◾disability (this includes intellectual, sensory and psychiatric disabilities; diseases or illnesses; medical conditions; work related injuries; past, present and future disabilities; and association with a person with a disability) ◾race (this includes colour, descent, national or ethnic origin and immigrant status) ◾age (this includes young people and older people) ◾sexual preference ◾religion ◾criminal record ◾trade union activity ◾political opinion The Commission can also help if you have been sexually harassed at work. Who can complain to the Australian Human Rights Commission? We cover all types of workers including if you are: •an apprentice or trainee •on probation •a part-time or full-time worker •a casual or permanent worker •a labour hire worker •a contract worker •working on commission •on a work visa. We cover all types of employers, no matter how big or small, including: ◾the Commonwealth Government ◾the State Government (except for sex discrimination) ◾private companies ◾small businesses ◾charities ◾partnerships ◾faith based organisations We also cover recruitment and employment agencies.

  • Mfgreen40 Mfgreen40 on Sep 21, 2015

    Volandobajo---- excellent -- well said

    • See 4 previous
    • Xeranar Xeranar on Sep 22, 2015

      @VolandoBajo I think whether it's 5 or 10% is really irrelevant as well, any visible minority like that deserves respect and a place at the table like the rest of us. The trans community really is tiny, a fraction of a percent, but obviously there shouldn't be an acceptance of violence against them. As for what else you wrote, I think we can stop calling it a 'lifestyle' since like being black or having a third nipple it isn't a choice. In fact, I think that's the problem with your worldview/argument here. People don't go out and decide 'you know what? I want to be ostracized by people I love because I think same-sex relationships are just fun!' If your friends hate bowling and you love to bowl you stop bowling. If you're gay and your family hates you for it, you don't stop being gay. That's the fundamental difference. I also feel like this false dichotomy of anti-homosexual freedoms and pro-homosexual freedoms is unfair. The problem with the anti-crowd is that they're fundamentally unaffected by the acceptance under legal standards. Nobody is forcing anybody to get a SSM. The fear of changing social mores is complex and always challenging but that's up to society to decide and not the government to prohibit when a clear minority needs to be given equal rights. You're welcome to think what you want about the LGBT community but you don't have a privilege to seek government recourse on their rights which is really all anybody on the pro-side is asking.