The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
On September 15, 2023, workers represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW) entered into a strike against the Big 3 auto manufacturers – Ford, GM and Stellantis – that ended in the most lucrative agreements for autoworkers since the 1950s. They won more wage increases than over the last 22 years combined, regained lost benefits like cost of living adjustments (COLA), a commitment to reopen a shuttered plant, and much more. The UAW’s success did not happen in a vacuum – it was a strategic campaign waged across mainstream media outlets and social media to shift public opinion in workers’ favor by exposing corporate greed and the dire conditions of workers while growing class consciousness and solidarity.
Compare mainstream coverage of the UAW/Big 3 labor strike by The New York Times (NYT) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) with coverage by left alternative news sources like TruthOut (TO) and More Perfect Union (MPU) and you will get two distinctly different stories over the same timeline. Despite the dangerous myth that journalism is neutral and fact-based, language is political and acts within a political structure. Mainstream journalism is one of the mediums the ruling class uses to maintain its power. Coverage of labor disputes is rife with anti-worker and anti-union bias that has become so normalized we do not even bat an eye.
So, what did the media’s coverage of the biggest strike of 2023 look like? To investigate this question for my master’s thesis, I analyzed 74 news items – articles from NYT, WSJ, and TO and online posts from MPU – over the course of 12 key events to determine whether news frames differ for mainstream and left alternative news media and whether the coverage was reflective of the political leanings of that media source. Based on the literature, I identified nine different news frames that compete with each other.
Five of these frames used in mainstream media are unfavorable towards unions:
-
A healthy business sector means a healthy economy
-
Americans are consumers not workers
-
Corporate family
-
Class-based anti-union rhetoric
-
Strikes and collective worker economic action are un-American
Three of the other four news frames are pro-labor “collective action” frames typically used by social movement actors. “Workers deserve their fair share” is the exception as it does not primarily focus on collective action:
-
This is class war
-
Union family
-
Workers deserve their fair share
-
Strikes and collective worker economic action are powerful
Anti-labor: A healthy business sector means a healthy economy
Much of the coverage by the NYT and the WSJ used economic consequence and conflict frames infused with a nationalist ideology where the interests of Ford, GM and Stellantis became proxies for the nation’s interests. The opening paragraph of the NYT article “U.A.W. Starts Strike Small, but Repercussions Could Prove Far-Reaching” reads “autoworkers walked off the job on Friday…the opening salvos in what could become a protracted strike that hurts the U.S. economy.” The article directly drew a connection between striking auto workers and negatively impacting the economy.
The Big 3 became a stand-in for the U.S. economy and therefore the U.S. itself. The WSJ article “UAW’s Strike Strategy: Start Small and Keep ’Em Guessing” was one among many that cited the concerns of some economists to warn readers a prolonged strike could lead to disastrous consequences for the economy.
Anti-labor: Americans are consumers not workers
When the public and their concerns were directly acknowledged in mainstream coverage, it was their interests as consumers and auto buyers and not as fellow workers. For example, journalists interviewed car dealership owners about how they would be affected by the strike. Those articles warned readers of the threat of rising car prices, scarcity on dealer lots, and the cost and difficulty of obtaining car parts. Instead of examining how executive pay and stock buybacks could be the reason for already elevated auto prices, higher auto worker pay became synonymous with higher car prices despite these workers’ stagnant wages.
Pro-labor: This is class war
Shawn Fain and the UAW named the reasons why the working class and the poor are struggling: the billionaire class that cares only about squeezing as much profit as they can from workers. Fain united UAW members by reminding them that their struggles are not unique to each individual, but are shared among their entire class. He also used the terms “working class”and “the poor,” not the “middle class.” Using “the middle class” as a term would have bought into the ethic of achieving the American dream and a life of suburban comfort, which is not a reality for UAW members who cannot even afford to buy the car they build.
Compared to WSJ, TO chose to quote a pro-labor researcher who affirmed the union’s demand for better pay made economic sense. This subverted the nationalist frame of “a healthy business sector makes a healthy economy” by replacing the definition of a “healthy business” from one that maximizes profits for executives and shareholders to one that prioritizes the well-being of the workers. While the Big 3 complained about higher wages, the companies made a combined $23 billion in profits in the first half of 2023, which was 80% more than the same time period in 2022.
Anti-labor: Corporate Family
Mainstream media also employed the classic “us vs. them” construction with management described as negotiating rationally and in good faith, but the union negotiating inflexibly and unrealistically about the outcome. When the Big 3 had their new proposals rejected by the UAW, the companies used that development as an opportunity to position themselves as the caring parental figures and depict the union as not putting their members’ best interests first.
Shawn Fain, the UAW President, was particularly singled out and portrayed as a harsh figure both in text and in visual representation in the NYT article “New U.A.W. Chief Has A Nonnegotiable Demand: Eat The Rich.” The unflattering images of Fain showed him looking drab and uncomfortable answering questions from reporters, implying untrustworthiness and an external threat.
Shawn Fain, president of the United Automobile Workers, is leading a labor battle with implications for the auto industry. Credit. Sarah Rice for The New York Times (Top). Since UAW members began targeted walkouts over their contract demands, Mr. Fain has made himself the face of the strike. Brittany Greeson for The New York Times (Bottom)
Pro-labor: Union Family
Pro-worker media employed a different “us vs. them” frame that challenged the corporate family narrative. Framing the strike as “working class vs. the capitalists” emphasized how little companies value their workers when CEOs are making millions in compensation and the companies generate billions off their labor. While mainstream media often quoted Big 3 representatives and economists, TO and MPU told the story of the lived reality of workers, the toxic workplace environment and the precariousness of their job security living under an expired contract.
After the infamous NYT article was published, Fain wore a white t-shirt with the words “Eat the Rich” and the union logo the very next day to deliver his weekly address to UAW members. The full phrase, commonly attributed to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is “[w]hen the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” Fain made it clear that capitalists look down on workers and invoked Americans’ sense of injustice and anger for being mistreated and underpaid.
A frame capture of UAW President Shawn Fain as he went live on Facebook to give an update of the union's strike and negotiations on Friday, Oct. 6, 2023. (LaReau, Detroit Free Press, The story behind UAW Shawn Fain's 'Eat the rich' T-shirt and what it means, 10 October 2023)
This frame also posited another type of family based on class-based worker solidarity. TO coverage included outside union support from the Teamsters. In none of the mainstream articles in the sample was there mention of other unions pledging their support and refusing to cross the UAW’s picket lines. There also was no mention of the gains made by other unions taking collective action in the same time period.
Anti-labor: Class-based anti-union rhetoric
Class-based anti-union rhetoric (CAR) is a distinct anti-union frame that erodes public support for organized labor by characterizing union workers as unfairly wealthy and non-union workers as “ordinary.” CAR pits workers against each other and weakens class-identity-based solidarity. Both mainstream papers emphasized the difference in hourly wages between UAW workers at the Big 3 and non-unionized workers who work for Toyota, Mercedes-Benz and Tesla among others. What this implies is that union workers are already making more than non-union workers, so why are they asking for even more? Why do they deserve higher wages?
In the WSJ article “Auto CEOs Make 300 Times What Workers Make. How That Stacks Up”, the reporters presented another type of CAR. Union workers were portrayed as undeserving of a 40% pay raise, which was the average increase in compensation received by the Big 3 executives over the preceding four years. While the article acknowledged that the CEOs of the three companies earned "around 300 times what the median or average employee earned," it downplayed this disparity in pay by explaining that CEOs of large companies simply get paid more. The coverage emphasized that pay ratios are lower in industries with “highly skilled” workforces like utilities or pharmaceuticals, suggesting by contrast that auto workers are less skilled and thus less entitled to higher wages. In doing so, the article minimized the imbalance between CEO and worker pay while reinforcing the idea that UAW members’ demands for higher pay were unreasonable.
Pro-labor: Workers deserve their fair share
Workers want a fair share of the profits produced by their labor. This frame is less radical than “this is class war” because it is less overtly political. Instead of stoking feelings of injustice, this frame strived to create mass sympathy among readers while addressing them as fellow workers. There was only one mainstream article, A Spirited Start to the Strike at a Ford Plant Near Detroit, that exclusively focused on UAW workers and their demands.
The piece profiled a team leader and union member who had worked at Ford for 28 years and earned $32 per hour. The worker shared that pay raises had been slow, especially since he had been trying to save to send his son to college amid rising costs. While most mainstream articles referred to workers’ wages using an hourly rate, this article showed the worker’s rate as a yearly salary of about $67,000 a year. This is a more digestible number that readers can understand. Contextualizing earnings in this way is important at a time when some argue that a $15 per hour minimum wage is too high, even though it amounts to about $30,000 a year.
The visual imagery also differed in this article by showing workers up close or looking directly into the camera. There was only one other NYT article with these types of photos and there are no medium-full, medium-close up or closer shots in the WSJ articles.
(Left) Dottie Lenard, center, with her sister Gail Spring, left, and daughter Rebeccah Lenard. They were on strike on Friday in Wayne. (Right) Shantell Johnson works at the Ford plant. Photographs by Brittany Greeson New York Times
Anti-labor: Strikes and collective worker economic action are un-American
A common theme in the mainstream coverage was that the strike hurt businesses and consumers, but also UAW workers themselves. This framing implied that those who were pro-strike did not understand the gravity of the conflict while being pro-employer was synonymous with being American. Jim Farley, CEO of Ford, explicitly made this argument in the WSJ article UAW Talks Turn To Key Battleground: Jobs At Future Battery Plants: “Ford’s ability to invest in the future is not just a talking point. It’s the absolute lifeblood of our company…And if we lose it, we will lose to the competition. America loses. Many jobs will be lost.”
The company CEOs shared talking points about the union’s demands threatening the ability of the Detroit automakers to remain competitive in the market, especially with foreign non-union rivals. “Toyota, Honda, Tesla and the others are loving the strike, because they know the longer it goes on, the better it is for them,” Ford’s executive chairman, William C. Ford Jr. said in NYT’s U.A.W. And Ford Reach Tentative Contract Agreement.
Pro-labor: Strikes and collective worker economic action are powerful
This frame was the union’s call to action. It emphasized the power of the working class by centering workers who were supportive of taking collective action. It argued that companies are nothing without their labor. It emphasized and illustrated what workers stand to gain if they believe that they can win and band together.
Unlike the mainstream papers, TO reported that workers’ contracts with the Big 3 are set to expire on April 30, 2028. This is part of a larger strategy to enable other unions to align their contracts with the UAW’s and strike together on May 1, 2028 – International Workers Day. May 1 is not a federally recognized holiday; the U.S. instead observes Labor Day in September, which sets it apart from the rest of the world. As a result, May Day and its history are unknown to many people in the U.S. The effort to set May 1 as a common contract expiration date is a strategic move: it chooses a newsworthy event that will provide a strong historical and emotional context as the UAW, and hopefully many other unions, negotiate for new contracts and it reintroduces May Day and international worker solidarity to the U.S.
What are the takeaways?
The competing frames described in this post demonstrate how worker power is contested not just at the bargaining table, but also in the stories told about workers. Fain and the UAW team were successful in countering the use of at least four anti-union frames found in mainstream coverage of past labor strikes. They broke with tradition to respond. Instead of closed door negotiations, they shared updates on Fain's weekly Facebook livestreams. They had powerful and focused talking points about workers deserving their fair share. They created media spectacles like Fain’s “Eat the Rich” shirt that fueled interest in the union’s fight for a just contract and tapped into Americans’ hostility to billionaires and big business.
The struggle of UAW workers resonated with people across the U.S. because alternative media like More Perfect Union and TruthOut reported on the experiences and narratives of regular working class people and not just the elite. The media are the authors of our social structures and at a time in which mainstream media has become more corporatized and consolidated, we need to support outlets that share pro-worker perspectives like Labor Notes, Common Dreams, and Workday Magazine.
For a deeper analysis, see “News framing of the 2023 United Auto Workers (UAW) – Big 3 labor strike - A Critical Discourse Analysis,” available through Gothenburg University Library.
