John Deere proposed a two-year extension of its current labor agreement with the United Auto Workers (UAW) in early July that would keep the contract in place through 2029. However, the sides remain far apart after the UAW responded with a counteroffer that Deere said exceeded its proposal by “roughly half a billion dollars.”
Deere cited weaker equipment demand as a reason for extending the existing collective bargaining agreement, which expires in fall 2027. The company told the UAW it did not want to “engage in early negotiations” and said on July 31 that it would “remain firm” on its offer.
UAW Vice President and Agricultural Implement Department Director Laura Dickerson criticized the extension offer, stating, “John Deere cannot ask workers to surrender the benefit of a signed agreement while treating the request as anything less than bargaining.”
Dickerson added, “If Deere wants to change the deal, then Deere needs to respect the bargaining process. We will not surrender it because the company wants an answer on its timeline.”
According to Deere, the extension would provide employees with an average of approximately $21,000 in additional value. Proposed benefits include a $3,000 bonus for eligible employees, 4% general wage increases in 2026 and 2027, an additional 3% lump sum payment in 2028 and lifetime job security for workers hired before Oct. 1, 2009.
The company also said it would not seek concessions on any current benefits, including healthcare coverage, cost of living adjustments and pension benefits.
A vote on the extension offer is scheduled for Aug. 23, three days after Deere plans to announce its third-quarter financial results. The company reported a second-quarter net income of $1.773 billion, down from $1.804 billion a year ago, and forecasted a fiscal 2026 net income of between $4.5 billion and $5 billion.
Deere workers approved the current deal in November 2021, securing immediate 10% raises and ending a monthlong strike involving over 10,000 workers.
John Deere and the UAW have not responded to Manufacturing.net’s request for comment.
