The American auto industry has always moved in cycles. Boom years bring overtime and hiring sprees. Lean years bring layoffs and idled lines. But the current moment feels different to workers and managers alike. The shifts happening now aren’t just about selling more or fewer cars. They reflect deeper uncertainty about what kinds of vehicles Americans want to buy and how quickly that answer is changing.
Across the country, automakers have begun adjusting shift schedules at assembly plants in response to uneven demand. Some facilities are cutting back from three shifts to two or from two to one. Others are eliminating weekend overtime that workers had come to rely on. A handful of plants building electric vehicles have scaled back production targets that now seem optimistic. The adjustments are incremental, but they add up.
“We’re not seeing a collapse,” said Michelle Krebs, executive analyst at Cox Automotive. “What we’re seeing is recalibration. Automakers overbuilt in some segments and underbuilt in others. Now they’re trying to match production to what’s actually moving off dealer lots.”
The demand picture is genuinely mixed. Trucks and SUVs continue selling briskly, particularly in the South and Midwest. Inventory levels for popular models like the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado remain tight. But sedans have fallen further out of favor, and the electric vehicle market has cooled from the frenzy of 2022 and 2023. Buyers who wanted EVs largely bought them. Convincing the next wave has proven harder.
General Motors announced in January that it would temporarily reduce shifts at its Orion Assembly plant in Michigan, which produces the Chevrolet Silverado EV and GMC Sierra EV. The company cited the need to align production with demand. Workers at the facility were offered transfers to other plants or temporary layoff packages. Union officials expressed frustration but acknowledged the reality of slower-than-expected sales.
Ford has made similar moves. The company cut a shift at its Rouge Electric Vehicle Center in Dearborn late last year and has not restored it. The F-150 Lightning, once positioned as a breakthrough product, has faced price cuts and softer demand than initial projections suggested. Ford executives have emphasized their commitment to electrification while quietly adjusting timelines and investment plans.
Stellantis, the parent company of Jeep, Ram, and Chrysler, has been more aggressive. The company idled its Belvidere Assembly plant in Illinois indefinitely, affecting roughly 1,200 workers. Stellantis cited market conditions and the need to restructure North American operations. The United Auto Workers union has filed grievances and accused the company of violating commitments made during the 2023 contract negotiations.
“These aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet,” said a UAW local president in Michigan who asked not to be named because of ongoing discussions with management. “Every shift cut means families figuring out how to pay mortgages. People who planned their lives around steady work are suddenly looking at uncertainty.”
The ripple effects extend beyond assembly workers. Supplier plants that provide seats, dashboards, wiring harnesses, and countless other components adjust their own schedules based on orders from the big automakers. A shift reduction at an assembly plant can mean layoffs at a dozen smaller facilities spread across multiple states. The automotive supply chain is deeply interconnected, and disruptions propagate quickly.
I talked to a production manager at a parts supplier in Ohio who has worked in the industry for over two decades. “We watch the assembly schedules like hawks,” he said. “When Ford or GM cuts a shift, we know it’s coming our way within weeks. We’ve already reduced overtime and let some temporary workers go. If it continues, permanent cuts are on the table.”
The economic geography of these changes matters. Automotive manufacturing remains concentrated in the industrial Midwest and parts of the South. Towns like Lordstown, Ohio, and Belvidere, Illinois, have already experienced what happens when a major plant closes or scales back. Tax revenues fall. Small businesses lose customers. Schools and hospitals feel the squeeze. The social fabric frays in ways that statistics struggle to capture.
State and local officials have limited tools to respond. Tax incentives can attract new investment, but they cannot force automakers to maintain production levels that don’t make business sense. Workforce development programs help displaced workers find new opportunities, but retraining takes time and doesn’t always lead to comparable wages. The gap between policy responses and economic reality remains wide.
The EV transition complicates everything. Building electric vehicles requires fewer labor hours than building internal combustion vehicles. Battery packs are simpler than engines and transmissions. Fewer moving parts mean fewer workers on the line. Even in a scenario where EV sales grow robustly, employment at auto plants may not keep pace. The math is unfavorable for workers regardless of which technology wins.
Some manufacturers have tried to soften the blow. Ford announced investments in battery plants and EV production facilities that would create new jobs, though many are located in southern states with weaker union presence. GM has emphasized retraining programs and partnerships with community colleges. Whether these initiatives fully offset job losses remains uncertain.
The timing of the current adjustments has sparked debate. Some analysts argue that automakers expanded too aggressively during the pandemic recovery, when pent-up demand and tight inventories made almost any vehicle easy to sell. Others point to macroeconomic factors like high interest rates, which have pushed monthly payments to record levels and priced some buyers out of the market. Still others blame inconsistent government policy on EVs, which has left manufacturers uncertain about where to place their bets.
“You can’t plan a multi-year production strategy when the rules keep changing,” said David Cole, director emeritus of the Center for Automotive Research. “One administration pushes EVs hard. The next one pulls back incentives. Automakers are trying to build flexibility into their operations because they don’t know what’s coming.”
Consumer preferences have proven stubbornly unpredictable. Surveys consistently show interest in electric vehicles, but purchase behavior tells a different story. Range anxiety persists despite improvements in battery technology. Charging infrastructure remains uneven, particularly in rural areas and apartment complexes. Sticker prices for EVs have come down but still exceed comparable gasoline models in most segments. The gap between intention and action remains wide.
Hybrid vehicles have emerged as an unexpected beneficiary. Models like the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid and Ford Maverick Hybrid have sold well, attracting buyers who want better fuel economy without committing fully to electric. Some automakers that had de-emphasized hybrids are now reconsidering. The transition to electrification may take longer and follow a less linear path than projections suggested just a few years ago.
For workers on the factory floor, the strategic debates matter less than the immediate reality of paychecks and schedules. A shift cut means less income. An idled plant means scrambling for alternatives. The promises of future investment and new technologies offer cold comfort to someone facing a layoff notice.
I spoke with a line worker at a Stellantis plant in Indiana who has been with the company for 15 years. “They tell us the industry is changing and we have to adapt,” she said. “Fine. But adapt to what? Nobody can tell me what this place looks like in five years. That’s what keeps me up at night.”
The adjustments happening now are unlikely to be the last. Automakers will continue calibrating production to demand, and demand will continue shifting in ways that are difficult to forecast. Electric vehicles will eventually claim a larger share of the market, but the timeline keeps stretching. Trucks and SUVs will remain profitable until fuel prices or regulations force a change. The industry is navigating between worlds, and workers are caught in the middle.
What happens next depends on decisions made in corporate boardrooms, congressional hearing rooms, and consumer living rooms. None of those decisions are fully predictable. The only certainty is that the American auto industry is changing, and the people who build cars are feeling it first.
