International Union-uaw Lu 600

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
380549175
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Dearborn, MI, USA
Phone
3138425350
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,323,360
Expenses
$14,421,978
Assets
$8,354,157
Liabilities
$1,453,611

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HAROLD BYRD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARK DEPAOLI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANTHONY RICHARDS (PRESIDENT)
  • FRANK ENGEL (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMAL MAKLED (FINANCIAL SECRETARY): $233,244 total reported compensation
  • HAROLD BYRD (VICE PRESIDENT): $224,639 total reported compensation
  • AJ FREER (RECORDING SECRETARY): $218,282 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Collective bargaining, meetings, education, communication, organizing new bargaining units, community action,, administration of the organization, maintenance of its assets and properties, delivery of benefits to members, fraternal and social activities, and related activities

What it reported doing in 2025

Which further the common intersts of the membership. Collective bargaining, meetings, education, communication, organizing new bargaining units, community action, administration of the organization, maintenance of its properties and assets, delivery of benefits to members, fraternal and social activities and related activities which further the common interests of the membership.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $233K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $370K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 27 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.