ABSTRACT
The wave of reports and criminal convictions resulting from the misconduct has generated several efforts to reform the UAW. These efforts fall into three categories. First, three successive International UAW Presidents, including two implicated in the scandal, have promulgated various reforms, focusing mainly on improvements in financial practices, auditing, and the independent investigation of charges of ethical violations. Second, a group of dissident UAW members organized into the Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD) has initiated an effort to call a special convention to consider other reforms, including the direct election of IEB members rather than via by convention delegates, which is a process dominated by the Administrative Caucus. Last, the US Attorney and others have suggested the possibility of a government takeover, for which there is precedent in the federal government’s consent decree obtained in the case of the Teamsters in 1989. We compare these alternative reforms on selected criteria. We also examine in more detail the merits a proposed government takeover. We note that neither a government takeover nor the direct election of the IEB is a panacea. In addition, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to government control. We argue that perhaps the best long-term solution is a carefully planned and independently monitored constitutional convention to consider multi-faceted reforms. The situation involving the UAW is quite different in nature and scope from that which plagued the Teamsters.
