Raphael Stevens

Paramount Global controlling shareholder Shari Redstone is open to doing a transformative deal, but she hasn’t been able to figure out the right one yet, sources say.
Large media companies need to consolidate, but market conditions make it tough.

Shari Redstone, president of National Amusements and controlling shareholder of Paramount Global, walks to a morning session at the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, July 12, 2023.
David A. Grogan | CNBC

Shari Redstone may have missed her window.
Paramount Global’s controlling shareholder is open to a merger or selling the company at the right price, according to people familiar with her thinking. And she has been open to it for several years, said the people, who asked not to speak publicly because the discussions have been private.

Spokespeople for Redstone and Paramount Global declined to comment.
The problem has been finding the right deal for shareholders. Market conditions have made a transformative transaction difficult at best and highly unlikely at worst.
“The market is crying out for reshaping media company portfolios and consolidation,” said Jon Miller, chief executive at Integrated Media and a senior advisor at venture firm Advancit Capital, which Redstone co-founded. “But the deck is stacked against large-scale transactions now because of both immediate concerns in terms of ad sales, subscription video numbers and the cost of debt. No one wants to transact at the current market valuations that these companies are given.”
Paramount Global is an archetype for the media industry’s consolidation conundrum. The company consists of Paramount Pictures, the CBS broadcast network, 28 owned-and-operated local CBS stations, the streaming service Paramount+, free advertising-supported Pluto TV, “Star Trek,” “SpongeBob SquarePants,” MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, BET and Showtime. It also owns the physical Paramount studio lot in Los Angeles, California.
From a sum-of-the-parts perspective, the company holds a strong hand. Many of Paramount Global’s assets would fit nicely within larger media companies.

“Paramount has a tremendous amount of assets in its content library and they own some pretty powerful sports rights in the form of the NFL contract, Champions League soccer and March Madness,” Guggenheim analyst Michael Morris told CNBC last week.
“But, they are still losing money on their streaming service,” Morris said. “They need to pull these things together, right-size the content, super charge that topline through pricing and penetration, and then we can see investors get excited about this idea again.”
Declining revenue from the acceleration of pay-TV cord-cutting, continued streaming losses and rising interest rates have put Redstone in a bind. The company’s market capitalization has slumped to $7.7 billion, nearly the company’s lowest valuation since Redstone merged CBS and Viacom in 2019. At the time, that transaction gave the combined company a market valuation of about $30 billion.
It’s unclear whether staying the course will help turn investor sentiment. Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, one of Paramount Global’s biggest shareholders, told CNBC in April that streaming “is not really a very good business.” He also noted that shareholders in entertainment companies “really haven’t done that great over time.”

Paramount Global’s direct-to-consumer businesses lost $424 million in the second quarter and $511 million in the first quarter. The company reports third-quarter earnings Nov. 2.
CEO Bob Bakish said 2023 will be the peak loss year for streaming. Paramount Global cut its dividend to 5 cents per share from 24 cents per share to “further enhance our ability to deliver long-term value for our shareholders as we move toward streaming profitability,” Bakish said in May.
Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall suggested earlier this year that Bakish should shut down the company’s streaming business entirely, despite the fact that Paramount+ has accumulated more than 60 million subscribers.
“We believe Paramount Global is worth a lot more either as a content arms dealer or as a break-up for sale story,” Cahall wrote in a note to clients in May. “Great content, misguided strategy.”

Big Tech lifeline

Bob Bakish, CEO of Paramount, speaks with CNBC’s David Faber on Sept. 6, 2023.

Executives at Paramount Global continue to hold out hope that a large technology company, such as Apple, Amazon or Alphabet, will view the collection of assets as a way to bolster their content aspirations, according to people familiar with the matter.
Paramount+’s 61 million subscribers could help supersize an existing streaming service such as Apple TV+ or Amazon’s Prime Video, or give Alphabet’s YouTube a bigger foothold into subscription streaming beyond the National Football League’s Sunday Ticket and YouTube TV.
While Federal Trade Commission Chairman Lina Khan has been particularly focused on limiting the power of Big Tech companies, Apple, Amazon and Alphabet may actually be better buyers than legacy media companies from a regulatory standpoint. They don’t own a broadcast TV network, unlike Comcast (NBC), Fox or Disney (ABC). It’s highly unlikely U.S. regulators would allow one company to own two broadcast networks. Divesting CBS is possible, but it’s so intertwined with Paramount+ that separating the network from the streaming service would be messy.
“We believe Paramount Global is too small to win the streaming wars, but it is bite-size enough to be acquired by a larger streaming competitor for its deep library of film and TV content, as well as its sports rights and news assets,” Laura Martin, an analyst at Needham & Co., wrote in an Oct. 9 research note to clients.
Acquiring Paramount Global would be a relative drop in the bucket for a Big Tech company. Paramount Global’s market value was below $8 billion as of Friday. It also has about $16 billion in long-term debt.
Still, even with huge balance sheets and trillion-dollar valuations, there’s no evidence technology companies want to own declining legacy media assets such as cable and broadcast networks. Netflix has built its business specifically on the premise that these assets will ultimately die. Paramount’s lot and studio may be appealing for content creation and library programming, but that would leave Redstone holding a less desirable basket of legacy media assets.

Breakup difficulties

It’s possible Redstone could break up the company and sell off legacy media assets to a private equity firm that could milk them for cash. But Paramount Global’s diminished market valuation, relative to its debt, likely makes a leveraged buyout less appealing for a potential private equity firm.
Moreover, rising interest rates have generally slowed down take-private deals in all industries, as the cost of paying debt interest has soared. Globally, buyout fund deal volume in the first half of 2023 is down 58% from the same period a year ago, according to a Bain & Co. study.
If a full sale to Big Tech and a partial sale to private equity won’t happen, another option for Redstone is to merge or sell to another legacy media company. Warner Bros. Discovery could merge with Paramount Global, though putting together Warner Bros. and Paramount Pictures may hold up deal approval with U.S. regulators.
Beyond regulatory issues, recent history suggests big media mergers haven’t worked well for shareholders. Tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value have been lost in recent media mergers, including WarnerMedia and Discovery, Disney and the majority of Fox, Comcast/NBCUniversal and Sky, Viacom and CBS, and Scripps and Discovery.
Merger partners such as Warner Bros. Discovery also may prefer to sell or merge with a different company, such as Comcast’s NBCUniversal, if regulators allow a big media combination.
Redstone has recently dabbled around the edges, shedding some assets, such as book publisher Simon & Schuster, and engaging in talks to sell a majority stake in cable network BET.
But Paramount Global shelved the idea of selling a stake in BET in August after deciding sale offers were too low to outweigh the value of keeping the network in its cable network portfolio. With the total company’s market valuation below $8 billion, it’s difficult to convince buyers to pay big prices for parts. A change in broader investment sentiment that pushes the company’s valuation higher may help Redstone and other Paramount Global executives get more comfortable with divesting assets.

Selling National Amusements

If Redstone can’t find a deal to her liking, she could also sell National Amusements, the holding company founded by her father, Sumner Redstone, that owns the bulk of the company’s voting shares. National Amusements owns 77.3% of Paramount Global’s Class A (voting) common stock and 5.2% of the Class B common stock, constituting about 10% of the overall equity of the company.
Redstone took a $125 million strategic investment from merchant bank BDT & MSD Partners earlier this year to pay down debt, reiterating her belief in Paramount Global’s inherent value.
“Paramount has the best assets in the media industry, with an incredible content library and IP spanning all genres and demographics, as well as the No. 1 broadcast network, the leading free ad-supported streaming television service and the fastest-growing pay streaming platform in the U.S.,” Redstone said in a statement in May. “NAI has conviction in Paramount’s strategy and execution, and we remain committed to supporting Paramount as it takes the necessary steps to build on its success and capitalize on the strategic opportunities in our industry.”
Selling National Amusements wouldn’t alter Paramount Global’s long-term future. But it is a way out for Redstone if she can’t find a deal beneficial to shareholders.
Paramount Global isn’t actively working with an investment bank on a sale, according to people familiar with the matter. The company is content to wait for a shift in market conditions or regulatory officials before getting more aggressive on a transformational deal, said the people.
Still, Redstone’s predicament aptly sums up legacy media’s current problems. The industry is counting on a turn in market sentiment, while executives privately grumble that in the near term there’s little they can do about it.
WATCH: Mad Money host Jim Cramer weighs in on Paramount Global

Disclosure: Comcast’s NBCUniversal is the parent company of CNBC. More

General Motors and Ford Motor report third-quarter earnings and future guidance this week amid ongoing strikes and contract negotiations with the United Auto Workers union.
If the automakers are bullish and exceed Wall Street’s expectations, it could fuel the union’s main argument that the companies can afford more concessions amid healthy profits.
But if the companies are too bearish on guidance or the impact of UAW efforts, they risk scaring Wall Street and denting their already discounted stock prices.

Jim Farley, CEO, Ford, left, and Mary Barra, CEO, General Motors
Reuters; General Motors

DETROIT — Ready for a tightrope walk?
General Motors and Ford Motor report third-quarter earnings and future guidance this week amid ongoing strikes and contract negotiations with the United Auto Workers union. And it’s a difficult balance.

If the automakers are bullish and exceed Wall Street’s expectations, it could fuel the union’s main argument that the companies can afford more concessions amid healthy profits — potentially prolonging the work stoppages and contentious talks.
But if the companies, which will likely include many caveats in any future comments, are too bearish on guidance or the impact of UAW efforts, they risk scaring Wall Street and denting their already discounted stock prices.
GM is expected to report third-quarter earnings of $1.88 per share before the bell Tuesday, while Ford is estimated to report earnings of 45 cents per share after markets close Thursday, according to average estimates compiled by LSEG, formerly known as Refinitiv.
While investors will surely note the third-quarter results, the real watcher is expected to be the effects of the UAW strike and negotiations on near-term earnings and longer-term plans of Ford and GM, as well as automaker Stellantis, which the union is also striking.
The union will be watching, too.

Members of the United Auto Workers, or UAW, Local 230 and their supporters walk the picket line in front of the Chrysler Corporate Parts Division in Ontario, California, on Sept. 26, 2023.
Patrick T. Fallon | AFP | Getty Images

The UAW has consistently used earnings reports and commentary from executives, including GM CEO Mary Barra and Ford CEO Jim Farley, to promote its efforts and collective bargaining.
“When you’re in bargaining you want to use every piece of news that’s in your favor and bring it up and bring it to the public and to the table,” said Art Wheaton, a labor professor at the Worker Institute at Cornell University. “If GM, Ford and Stellantis are still very profitable for the third quarter, [UAW’s] going to claim that, ‘They’re being too cheap in bargaining, and they should give us more.'”
The union on Friday said there was “more to be won” despite record contracts from the automakers. It declined, however, to expand work stoppages.
Still, its targeted strikes against the three major automakers, which started Sept. 15, are expected to have more impact during the fourth quarter than the prior three months. The UAW has slowly been expanding the work stoppages to include additional assembly plants and distribution centers.
GM has said the work stoppage cost it roughly $200 million in lost production in September. Ford and Stellantis, which reports its quarterly results on Oct. 31, have not disclosed their estimates of the impact of the strikes.

UAW impact

JPMorgan estimates strike costs amounted to $145 million at Ford and $191 million at GM in terms of earnings before interest and taxes during the third quarter.
Those losses are expected to have ballooned in the fourth quarter to $517 million for Ford — after the union initiated a work stoppage at its most profitable U.S. truck plant in Kentucky — and $507 million for GM.
The Kentucky plant — responsible for $25 billion in revenue annually — was by far the most crucial strike initiated by the union. It produces F-Series Super Duty pickup trucks as well as Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator SUVs.
While many analysts continue to view the UAW strike as a short-term problem, some are acknowledging that the hefty costs of an eventual concessionary deal could affect automakers’ electric vehicle plans and long-term competitiveness compared with other, non-union, automakers.

United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain during an online broadcast updating union members on negotiations with the Detroit automakers on Oct. 6, 2023.
Screenshot

Wolfe Research analyst Rod Lache said Monday that labor costs for the Detroit automakers, based on recent proposals, are expected to increase to $3,000 to $4,000 per vehicle, compared with competitors’ costs of $2,500 to $3,000.
“This could compound other challenges that the OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] face (e.g. competitiveness in batteries, distribution, design). And we also worry that the OEMs may still not fully appreciate the long-term risks associated with UAW’s new tack — including bargaining in public, social media, and populism,” Lache said in an investor note. “The Automakers appear to be struggling to adjust to this reality.”
The most recent offers from GM and Ford have included 23% wage increases over the life of the deal, reinstatement of cost-of-living adjustments, additional vacation days and other enhancements compared with the 2019 contracts.

EVs

The negotiations have also had an impact on electric vehicles, which were already selling more slowly than expected amid inflation, high interest rates and lack of infrastructure.
Ford last month said it was pausing construction of a new $3.5 billion battery plant in Michigan until the company is “confident” in its ability to competitively run the plant amid the UAW talks.
And GM this week said it would delay production of all-electric trucks at a Michigan plant by at least a year to “better manage capital investments” and implement improvements in an effort to make the new EVs more profitable.
A GM spokesman said the change in plans was not connected to the company’s contract negotiations with the UAW. However, the contentious talks do involve EVs, and current contract proposals by the company are expected to be more expensive than those in years past.
Wall Street will be watching for updates on EV progress and demand.
Even Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose company leads EV sales, was cautious regarding demand for electric vehicles when Tesla reported earnings last week.
“I’m worried about the high interest rate environment we’re in,” Musk said. “If interest rates remain high or if they go even higher, it’s that much harder for people to buy the car.”
— CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed to this report. More

Housing prices are high, supply is tight and rates are surging.
The housing market is scaring off both buyers and sellers.
“A lot of people just want to sit tight and see what happens,” said one real estate agent.

Today’s housing market is a toxic mix of high mortgage rates, high prices, tight supply and strangely strong pent-up demand — and it’s scaring off buyers and sellers alike.
Prices were already high, driven by supercharged demand during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Now the popular 30-year fixed mortgage rate is at 8%, the highest in decades, making things even tougher. Mortgage demand is at its lowest point in nearly 30 years.

“I think it’s painful. I think it’s ugly,” Matthew Graham, chief operating officer at Mortgage News Daily, said on CNBC’s “The Exchange” on Thursday.
During the first two years of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve dropped its benchmark rate to zero and poured money into mortgage-backed securities. The result was record-low mortgage rates for two solid years. That drove a buying frenzy, which was also fueled by a sudden urban exodus and the new work-from-home culture. Home prices jumped 40% higher from pre-pandemic levels.
Then, as inflation surged, the Fed hiked rates. That, ironically, made the housing market even more expensive. Usually when rates go up, home prices go down.
But this market is unlike historical ones because it also has a severe lack of supply. The Great Recession of 2008 and the ensuing foreclosure crisis hit homebuilders especially hard, causing them to underbuild for over a decade. They have still not made up the difference.

Who’s hurt by the current housing market?

Would-be sellers, meanwhile, are trapped. They have little desire to trade the 3% rate they currently have for an 8% mortgage rate on a new purchase.

“I don’t think anybody in my community of mortgage originators would disagree that in many ways, this is worse than the great financial crisis in terms of volume and activity,” MND’s Graham said.
He’s also unsure when the market will see a decline in rates. “But we do hear a chorus of Fed speakers, especially last week, in a very notable way, saying that they are restrictive and that they can wait and see what happens with the policy filtering through to the economy,” he said.
Sales of previously owned homes in September dropped to the slowest pace since October 2010, according to the National Association of Realtors. There are stark differences between today’s market and the foreclosure crisis era, however. Foreclosures today are extremely low, and most current homeowners are sitting on historically high home equity. The fact that so many refinanced to record-low interest rates between 2020 and 2022 also means that current homeowners have very affordable housing costs.
So, that leaves potential buyers stuck, too.
“I think people are anxious, and there’s a lot of buyer mentality of, ‘We’re going to wait and see.’ So a lot of people just want to sit tight and see what happens,” said Lisa Resch, a real estate agent with Compass in Washington, D.C.
The NAR is now lowering its 2023 sales forecast to a decline of as much as 20%, from a previous forecast of a 13% drop.

What’s next for housing prices?

Prices are a different story.
“Prices look to be flat from this point onwards at an 8% rate, despite the housing shortage,” added Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the NAR.
Yun noted that metropolitan markets with faster job growth and relatively affordable prices, however, will see an upswing in sales. He points to Florida markets such as Tampa, Jacksonville and Orlando, as well as Houston, Texas, and Memphis, Tennessee.
Buyers today will likely get the best deals from homebuilders, especially the large production builders such as Lennar and D.R. Horton. The builders are helping with affordability by buying down interest rates for their customers. This is something they have not typically done in the past — at least not at this scale.
“Although our mortgage company has been offering slightly below market rate loans most of this cycle (just to be competitive), the full point buydown for the 30-year life of the loan we’ve been referring to recently as a builder incentive is not something we had done in previous cycles, at least not on the broad, majority basis we are doing so today,” said a spokesperson from D.R. Horton. “You might have found it on select homes in the past on an extremely limited basis.”

What about the housing supply problem?

Construction of single-family homes is rising slowly, but it is still nowhere near meeting demand. Builder sentiment is dropping further into negative territory, due to higher rates, but the new home market is still more active than the market for existing homes.
On the bright side of housing, apartment rents are finally cooling off, thanks to a record amount of new supply hitting the market. This gives renters less incentive to jump into buying. Demand for rentals, however, is rising.
“It appears slowing inflation and a still-strong job market are boosting consumer confidence and, in turn, spurring household formation among young adults most likely to rent apartments,” said Jay Parsons, chief economist at RealPage.
For those still wanting to upgrade to a bigger home or downsize to a smaller one, they are caught in a conundrum.
Prices are still rising due to the supply and demand imbalance, but sellers are being more flexible. So a buyer could purchase now at the higher rates and hope to get a break on the price, or they can wait until rates drop.
But when they do, there is likely going to be a flood of demand, resulting in bidding wars. More

Travelers are flocking to airport lounges in search of complimentary food, drinks and perhaps most importantly, a chance to relax away from the hordes of travelers at the gate. The problem: plenty of other travelers are too.
Armed with high-end rewards credit cards and fresh from years of big spending, more and more travelers are gaining access to airport lounges, turning what were once small, exclusive spaces for an elite few into a must-have stop for millions of passengers.

The trend has posed both an opportunity and a challenge for airlines and credit card companies as they market luxury to the masses. The spaces have to be both exclusive and attainable for enough people.
For top frequent flyers and certain credit card holders, standard airline lounge access is complimentary or discounted. Individual annual lounge memberships run between $650 and $850 for the major U.S. carriers, which have raised prices in recent years.

Delta’s new Sky Club at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport
Benji Stawski / CNBC

Delta Air Lines Sky Club lounges — and the credit cards that grant entry to them — became so popular that customers complained about the long lines and crowds at many locations. The airline in response curbed access for employees, instituted time limits and in its most controversial move yet, announced annual limits on visits for many credit card holders — even stripping some credit cards of access altogether.
But many customers complained about those changes, too, saying they were too strict. This week, Delta walked back some of the changes, highlighting how hard it has become to strike the right balance between exclusivity and access.
“Any wait is too long, and we are doing everything we can to minimize that,” Delta’s chief customer experience officer, Allison Ausband, told CNBC last summer at the opening of a new, larger Sky Club at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.

She said the lounges are “not a profit center for Delta by any means” but are an “investment that we’re making in the premium experience for our customers.”
Delta executives have said that revenue growth for its premium products like business class has outpaced that of main cabin economy.

More space

Delta, United Airlines and American Airlines are racing to build more lounges and spaces and larger ones to fit high demand.
They have also divided, or are planning to divide their lounges into different tiers. United, for example, opened a grab-and-go express club at its hub at Denver International Airport last year, for travelers making tight connections, which the carrier said could free up space in more full-service lounges.
The carrier separately operates a network of Polaris lounges for travelers booked in its highest cabin class, usually on long-haul international routes.

United Airlines Polaris lounge at Newark Liberty International Airport.
Leslie Josephs | CNBC

Delta is in the process of building a network of highest-tier lounges aimed at travelers in its Delta One suites and other top customers. Those spaces are slated to begin opening next year, starting with one at Kennedy Airport, followed by Los Angeles and Boston.
Credit card issuers such as JPMorgan Chase, Capital One and American Express are also opening new spaces in airports, eager to attract and retain high-spending customers.
“Customers reward companies that take care of them and that are on their side and and that create amazing experiences,” said Jenn Scheurich, head of travel at Capital One.
The company has opened clubs at Washington Dulles International Airport and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and plans to open one at Denver International Airport early next month, with other projects at New York’s LaGuardia Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Capital One Venture X cardholders pay a $395 annual fee for that card, which comes with unlimited access to the company’s lounges, as well as access for two guests. The general public can get in for $65 a visit.
Chase opened its first Chase Sapphire lounge in Hong Kong in 2022 and its first in the U.S., at Boston Logan International Airport, in May, featuring a tap room and massage chairs. It’s planning to open other lounges at LaGuardia Airport, Washington Dulles, Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and San Diego.
Those lounges are open to customers with Chase Sapphire Reserve cards, which have a $550 annual fee, along with two guests. More

The United Auto Workers union believes there is “more to be won” in ongoing contract negotiations with the Detroit automakers, UAW President Shawn Fain said Friday.
Fain’s remarks come despite record contract offers from General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis that now include 23% hourly pay increases during the terms of the four and a half-year deal.
The UAW has been gradually increasing the strikes since the work stoppages began after the sides failed to reach tentative agreements by Sept 14.

Striking United Auto Workers (UAW) members from the General Motors Lansing Delta Plant picket in Delta Township, Michigan September 29, 2023.
Rebecca Cook | Reuters

DETROIT – The United Auto Workers union believes there is “more to be won” in ongoing contract negotiations with the Detroit automakers following five weeks of labor strikes against the companies, UAW President Shawn Fain said Friday.
His comments come despite record contract offers from General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis that now include 23% hourly pay increases and other significantly enhanced benefits during the terms of the four and a half-year deal.

“There is more to be won,” Fain said during an online broadcast. “These are already record contracts, but they come at the end of decades of record decline. So it’s not enough to be the best ever, when auto workers have gone backwards over the last two decades. That’s a very low bar.”
Despite Fain’s comments, the union did not announce additional strikes Friday against any of the companies. He said the “bottom line is we’ve got cards left to play, and they’ve got money left to spend.”
Fain did not address a Friday report by Bloomberg that the union has asked for a 25% increase in general wages.
The union has not announced any additional strikes since initiating an unexpected walkout on Oct. 11 at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant that produces highly profitable pickup trucks and SUVs. That’s despite Ford having the best proposal regarding economics, as outlined Friday by Fain.
Fain spent quite a notable amount of time during the online broadcast discussing how the union plans to use these talks to assist in organizing non-union plans. He also heavily criticized the Monday comments of Ford Chair Bill Ford to bring an end to the negotiations.

“Bill Ford said it shouldn’t be Ford versus the UAW. He said it should be the UAW and Ford against foreign automakers,” Fain said. “I want to be crystal clear on one thing: The days of the UAW and Ford being a team to fight other companies are over … Non-union autoworkers are not the enemy. Those are our future union family.”
Ford said it remains “eager to conclude these negotiations with a contract” that benefits its workers, citing it’s “good that Mr. Fain acknowledged Ford’s contract offer ‘already’ is a record and remains the best one on the table.”
Stellantis said the sides “continue to be productive, building on the momentum from the past several weeks,” but declined to discuss specific details. GM declined to comment regarding Fain’s comments, citing details it released of its most recent offer earlier Friday.
The UAW hasn’t expanded strikes at GM since Sept. 29 or at Stellantis since Sept. 22, despite offers made this week not meeting details of Ford’s proposal from last week and Fain last week saying the union was initiating a “new phase” of strikes and contract negotiations.
“Right before a deal is when there’s the most aggressive push for that last mile. They just want to wait us out,” Fain said. “They want division. They want fear. They want uncertainty. And what we have is our solidarity.”
The strike at Ford’s Kentucky plant — responsible for $25 billion in revenue annually — marked a major escalation in the UAW’s targeted, or “stand-up,” strikes. It also represents a shift in strategy, as Fain had previously publicly announced the targets before the work stoppages occurred.
The UAW has been gradually increasing the strikes since the work stoppages began after the sides failed to reach tentative agreements by Sept 14.
About 34,000 U.S. automakers with the companies, or roughly 23% of UAW members covered by the expired contracts with the Detroit automakers, were on strike.
Here are details of current proposals by the companies to UAW:

Wages: All three automakers have offered a 23% pay increase over four and a half years.
Wage tiers: All three automakers have agreed to eliminate wage tiers at parts facilities where workers have historically been paid less than production-line workers.
Wage progression: Ford has offered a three-year progression to the top wage rate, a system that was in place from the mid-1990s until the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis. GM has also offered a three-year progression, but only for current workers. GM wants a more gradual four-year progression for future hires. Stellantis has offered only a four-year progression.
Cost of living adjustments (COLA): Ford has offered to restore its COLA formula to the level last used in 2009, meeting the UAW’s demand. Fain said that GM is “approaching restoration but not fully there,” while Stellantis wants to delay cost-of-living adjustments by a year.
Job security: Ford and Stellantis have agreed to give the union the right to strike over plant closures, a key UAW demand. GM has so far rejected that demand.
Temporary workers: Ford has offered to convert current temp workers with 90 days of service to full-time employees, with a raise to $21 per hour for remaining and future temps. Whether those future temps will be converted to full-time employees automatically is still being negotiated, Fain said. GM has proposed to convert current and future temps with one year of service to full time employees, and has matched Ford with a $21 per hour wage for remaining and future temps. Stellantis agreed to convert “thousands” of current temps to full-time status, with a wage increase to $20 per hour for remaining and future temps. As with Ford, the automatic conversion of future temps is “still being negotiated,” Fain said.
Retirement plans: All three automakers have offered a $3 increase to pension benefits. Ford and Stellantis have offered to increase their 401(k) contributions to 9.5% plus $1 per hour. GM offered an increase to 8% plus $1.25 per hour.
Payments to retired workers: Ford offered annual lump sum payments of $250 to retired workers, with surviving spouses eligible to continue to receive the payments. GM offered a one-time lump sump payment of $1,000, with surviving spouses not eligible. Stellantis rejected all increases to retiree pay. Fain said all three offers were “deeply inadequate.”
Profit sharing: Ford offered to improve its existing profit-sharing formula by including profits from Ford Credit, its financing subsidiary, and to make temp workers eligible to receive profit-sharing payments. Stellantis and GM both want to maintain their current profit-sharing formulas, but GM has offered to make temp workers with 1,000 hours of service eligible to receive payments. Stellantis has not offered to make its temporary workers eligible to receive profit-sharing payments.
Work-life balance: All three automakers have offered to make Juneteenth an official paid holiday and have offered two weeks of paid parental leave. More